popeye2sea

Mast tackle pendants were used for more than just setting up the shrouds.  They were also set up for lifting heavier items.  For the lower masts they were usually in pairs, two on each side.  They are the first to go over the mast.   On the fore mast the aftermost pendant is a little longer than the other, and on the mainmast the forward pendant will be a little longer.  The pendants thickness should be the same as the shrouds.  At the ends of the pendants was fitted either a fiddle block or a double block.  The pendant is secured through the strop of the block with a throat and a round seizing.  The fiddle block will be on the shorter of the two pendants and the tackle will run in 4 parts to a single block with a hook.  The double block will be on the other pendant and will run in 5 parts to a double block with a hook.

Topmasts may have one pendant per side.  Or they may have been omitted altogether.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

I think what I will do is cut the channels from the outside edge into the slots for the deadeyes so that I can swing the entire deadeye and chain assembly down away from the hull.  That will give about 3/4 of an inch clearance from the hull to do the soldering.  I'll put an alligator clamp heat sink on and slide something behind for a heat shield.  Then I can swing the whole assembly back up into the slot and re close the opening in the channel with styrene.

Regards,

I need to solder together the deadeye chains on my build, but unfortunately it has to be done in-situ.  Is there a good material to use to keep from melting the hull or scorching the pain work?  I plan to use silver solder and a mini torch.

I need some assistance.  Back when I started this build I basically just started following the kit instructions for assembling the hull and installed brass eyebolts where indicated on the upper wales.

Since then I had learned that these eyebolts were Hellers version of anchor points for the chains.  I have put off doing anything with them until now for several reasons, however it is now time to do something with them.

The plans want you to tie line between the deadeye strops and the anchor points to simulate the chains.  I do not wish to do this.  My plan is to make the chains out of blackened steel wire. But here is the problem.  I can not take those eyebolts out so my plan involves soldering the chains together while they are on the ship.

I am very afraid of putting a soldering torch that close to the hull.  Can anyone suggest a good material to use as a heat shield so that I do not scorch the paint work or melt the hull?

Regards,

Although it is a little before the time period for the Clara May, David Steels The Art of Rigging gives a table of rigging dimensions for fore and aft rigged schooners of about 100 tons.  It may be a good starting point in your research.

The clew lines are the easiest and most straightforward to answer.  The clew block, sheet block and tack block would all be hooked together (in practice the strops were actually passed through and around each other) and the clew block was hauled up almost to its leading block at the yard.

The buntlines, leechlines, and bowlines would either be unrigged completely or the ends would be hitched around the yard. Probably at the locations where they would end up if the sail were furled.

The evolution of the eventual connection of the forecastle and quarter decks is tied directly to the evolution of the cannon.  In the early days of fighting sail the ship was more like a floating castle full of infantry.  Combat was mostly coming alongside, firing off volleys of arrows, the occasional shot from relatively weak cannons, and then boarding the enemy for hand to hand combat.  Hence the need for towering fore castles and stern castles, just like on land, to give a height advantage and additional fire power.  As cannons became more powerful and accurate, they came to be more the primary weapon.  Take a look at the Sovereign of the Seas.  Initially she had cannons mounted in her fore and stern castle pointing in every direction, even inboard towards the waist.  That is because the fighting tactics had not caught up to the technology.  They were still focused on closing and boarding more than gunnery.  But she was also one of the first ships to be a true ship of the line.  During her day line of battle tactics were developed and ships began to focus all of there fire power to the sides.  In fact, during one of her later rebuilds all of the Sovereigns armament was shifted to fire outboard as broadside batteries. As the guns got bigger they needed to be carried lower in the ship.  This obviated the need for the towering castles fore and aft and eventually they disappear altogether in favor of gun decks.  The logical next step was even more cannons so the covering over of the waist provides more room for cannons.

Regards,

To marl something is to make a series of half hitches over it.  

The purpose in this case is to hold the ends of the tapered strands down before serving over.

The madness continues...

Working on getting the lower sail rigging set properly before the fo'c'sle is set into place.  The lines involved are the main sheet, main tack, fore sheet, and sprit sail sheet.  The basic idea I am following is to get the proper working length of line coiled on to the kevels so that the sail can be set or furled and the yards braced around as needed.  So looking at the rigging plan uncovers some problems.

The standing part of the main brace is made fast at the flag staff and the working end leads through a block on and eyebolt well aft then inboard over the rail to a belaying pin.  Meanwhile an unused kevel is on the round house deck just forward of the poop deck (kevels are designed to carry heavier lines like braces).

This lead is completely wrong.  No brace would ever be fixed to the flag staff.

My fix:  The standing part of the brace will be seized to the eyebolt that formerly held its leading block.  A new fairlead hole will be drilled through the side close by the un-used kevel on the round house deck and the main brace will belay on the kevel.

The plan has the main tack and the sprit sail sheet leading through the same fairlead hole and belaying on the same kevel.  There is not enough space in the fairlead or on the kevel for both lines.

My fix:  drill a new fairlead hole for the sprit sail sheet directly below the fairlead for the fore sheet.  The sprit sail sheet will belay either on the same kevel as the fore sheet or on the kevel just forward of that.  The only problem is (and this is probably the reason Heller did it that way) the forward kevel is well under the fo'c'sle deck and nearly inaccessible after the deck is placed.  So I have to make the decision where to belay this line now.

Not shown on the photo above:  The fore tacks both lead through a single hole on the stem below the figurehead.  I will drill an additional hole so that each tack has its own fairlead hole.

While we are on the subject of the tack lines.  For this ship the tacks run single and the end of the line was terminated in a tack knot which was put through the strops of the sheet and clew garnet blocks at the clew of the sail.  The knot was actually a double wall and crown knot.  Below is my attempt at the tack knots for the main sail.  The knot is tied and set up so that the ends lead down through the knot then they are tapered, marled down, and served over.  The line is 1.0 mm morope.

Until next time...

Laissez le bon temps rouler!

Remember, our concept of safety was vastly different from back in the day.

Is this kit back in production?  When my kit hull warped after many years of storage, I was forced to buy a replacement on e-bay.

Your looking at the rear of the forecastle.  They were quite high in those days.

Remember, 10 of those lines contribute no stress to the rail at all except when actually furling or reefing the sail.

Not sure how much stress those lines would have on them.  The clew, bunt, leech and reef lines would not be under strain when belayed.  The others would though.  But even these are for relatively light sails except for the mizzen tops'l bowlines.

Studding sail booms were not always mounted forward of and above their respective yards.  Some were mounted as you suggest and others were mounted above and behind the yard.  In the mid 17th century the Dutch and the French tended to carry their stuns'l booms abaft the yard where the English carried them before the yard.  The boom irons also changed around the beginning of the 18th century.

The proportion of the length of the yardarms also got larger when reefs started to be taken in the the sails.  The longer yard arms allowed a better lead for reef tackles.

Since the Prince de Neufchatel, I believe dates to 1812.  She probably carried her stuns'l booms above and before the yard.

I might add that the way the 'foot of the topsail is spread' is by having the sheet of the topsail go through a sheave in the mizzen cro'jack yard and then back to the mizzen mast. The same as all other sheets for square sails above.

 

In addition, having a course sail on the mizzen interferes with the spanker sail and spoils the wind going around the spanker when on a reach. I think that is more of a problem than stealing the wind from the main course. But I may be wrong, Henry.  
 

You are probably right on that account 

I think there are a couple of reasons.  The first goes back to when the lower sail on the mizzen was a lateen sail.  It acted more like a fore and aft sail and the lower forward part extended before the mast.  The lowest square sail on the mizzen was then the topmast.  Tradition then just carries on from there.

The second reason is that the gap between the main and mizzen is often smaller than that between the fore and main.  A full square sail for the mizzen course would 'steal the wind' or blanket the wind from the main course.  It would not add that much driving force.  The sails of the main and mizzen are considered after sails and balance the effort of the forward sails which are the foremast and jib sails.

I believe I am druxey.  I'm following the diagram in Peterson's rigging book.  But then again, I could be doing it perfectly; just backward.  I will give that a closer look.  If you picture the two deadeyes as facing you (like little smiley faces) and you are looking at their outboard face, I have the triangle of holes opposite each other -- the upper deadeye's top hole being up and the channel deadeye's being at the bottom.  So there is the maximum distance between these holes.  And the other two holes then line up straight up and down to their counterpart hole on the other channel.

 

Looking at it this way, I've started with a stopper knot on the inside of the upper deadeye's left hand hole, run the lanyard through it and through the lower deadeye's left hand hole from inside to out.  Then I've strung to the outside of the upper deadeye's center hole, back down to the lower center hole (coming in from the inside and out on the outside), then back up to the upper right hand hole (outside to in) and finally back to the lower right coming from inside to outside.  The rest of the lanyard is then strung back up and threaded through the stropping of the top deadeye, wrapped around the shroud two or three times and tied off. 

 

Like I said, I'm following Peterson's diagram but maybe its the inside outside sequence or the left to right sequence that is causing the twist cause maybe that's not in opposition to the lay of the shroud.  Or, as I've just realized while writing this, perhaps it comes down to which side of the boat you're looking at (or rigging).  What I've described here was facing the starboard side, with forward being on my right hand and aft being to the left.  So if I start by stringing the left hand holes first and finish with the right hand holes, I'm stringing aft most first and working the lanyard forward.  But if I do the same thing on port side, still starting with the left hand holes and finishing to my right, then I'm really stringing the lanyards different from the starboard side -- on port side this would mean I'm starting with the forward most holes and ending with the aft most holes.  Since the shroud's lay is the same whether port or starboard, this could mean something.  Or maybe it means nothing?

 

BTW, we talk a lot of the 'lay' of the rope (or thread) and I know its either right hand or left hand lay.  But how do you tell one from the other?  If you look at the rope it has lay lines running from the upper right to the lower left.  Is this right hand or left hand lay?  If you twist this same rope counter clockwise, it will open the strands.  If you twist it clockwise it tightens it.  Does this mean its right or left hand lay.  Is the vast majority of rope and thread now right hand lay? 

One thing I noticed about your method, and it shows in your picture below, is that you seem to cross over the laniard from inside to outside.  When you reeve the laniard you should always be passing from inboard out on the upper deadeye and from outboard in on the lower.  The laniard should not be crossing from inboard to outboard between the deadeyes.  That could be introducing some twist also.

Interesting side note:  there were two hammocks for each pair of hooks.  Every crewman had his own hammock but there were two men assigned to each "space".  So when one man got up he unhooked one side of his hammock to hang "folded" from a single hook while the man coming off watch "unfolded" his into the same spot.

Hope that makes sense.  Hard to describe, easier to show.

Regards,

I am sorry to derail this thread but can anyone tell me how to thread the sails to the yards? Thank you.

Sails are attached (bent) to the yards by robands.  Depending on the era of the ship they were either bent to the yards directly or to a jackstay above the yard.  There were usually two robands per sail cloth, sometimes both placed between the seams, and somtimes, one on the seam and one halfway between.  The photos below show the two methods.

https://youtu.be/n0Q-6TCY8qk

1812 Marines musket drill

It's kind of a sloppy drill.  We were loading musket balls and they were supplied to us separate from the cartridge so some of us had to pull the musket ball out from pockets or where ever we could stash them while firing.  Normally the ball is enclosed with the powder in a paper cartridge and the drill is much smoother with everyone in unison.

 

I think, that the barrels that Heller supplies are meant to be for that - even if they are way too small ...

 

 

I agree. The halyard tubs that are supplied with the kit are useless for the lengths of halyard involved here.  I am going to have to come up with a way to lash the halyard up in a coil against the mast

Regards,

The information that I have shows that the main yard tye should be the same thickness as the shrouds and the halyard 3/4 of the tye, so it is a pretty big rope.  Everyone is saying the line looks too thick, perhaps I have miscalculated the size?  

Main stay circumference = 1/2 the diameter of the main mast;  mast diameter 0.43" / 2 = 0.215   0.215/3.14 = 0.068" dia.

Main shrouds = 1/2 main stay ;  .068/2 = .03"

Main yard tye = 0.03" (0.76mm)

Halyard = 0.02" (0.5mm)

Scaled up that gives a 2" diameter rope.  Still workable by hand.

Please correct me now before I start rigging this whole thing incorrectly.

Regards,

Where is this block used and/or what is its purpose?  I have not heard of a triple sister block, and the description of a four legged stanchion for it is puzzling me.  

Still doing musket drills and demonstrations in the Navy yard.  The ships upper deck is open to the public.  I have the added benefit of  getting into the dry dock every once in a while to check whats going on with the refit.

Not much going on with my build at the moment. That pesky employment thing keeps getting in the way.

Regards,