davyboy

Hi again Tom,

Sailmaking section :- page 153,left hand column last sentence, page 154 left hand column first sentence. 

Regards,

Dave 

Hi Tom,here's two bits from Lees,hope they are of help.

1:-  "After 1730 and up to 1745 on small ships and 1780 on large ships,the fore part of the sail was cut off and the luff laced to the mizzen mast".

2.-  "When gaffs were fitted,which was from 1745 on small ships and 1780 on large ships the mizzen sail was cut exactly as just described".  

He also states that "the mizzen sail was always loose footed,that is,no boom was ever fitted; it was only when the permanent driver replaced the mizzen that the boom became a permanent feature".

If it was my frigate model I'd fit the gaff.

Dave 

Hi Tom,the mizzen jeer did hang abaft the mast. As I understand it this allowed the mizzen yard to be moved to the other side of the mast when changing tack to prevent the mizzen sail wearing on the mast. The parrel/truss was slackened off,the mizzen yard bowlines disconnected and the yard physically hauled aft then passed to the other side. Must have been a real PITA for the crew as the jeer,brails,sheet and likely the lift would also need some slackening off. Still,Navy ships had large crews so manpower wouldn't have been a problem. I would imagine the sail would have had to be furled to do this but I'm no sailor,a large kite comes to mind 

Dave 

Thanks Kevin,

Thought that might be the case,poor design in my eyes. The Chilean Navy had the right idea. I worked offshore in the late 70's with a Sikorsky S 58t,similar to the Wessex but powered by a P&W PT6 T6 twinpac. Had to get a "dead one" cleared off the helideck to one side. It took a dozen of the rig workers to manhandle it over the helideck netting. That was on a production platform which didn't pitch and roll like a ship.

Regards,

Dave 

Hi Kevin,I too follow your build and a sterling job you are making of it too. One question if I may,was the Wessex kept out tied down and bagged on the helideck most of the time. If not,it must have been a real pain to get it in and out of that sideways hangar on a regular basis. Blade folding for sure and probably also the pylon. Keep up the good work 

Dave 

Doug,that is how it was done. Stbd 1&2,Port 1&2 then Stbd 3&4,Port 3&4 and so on. A good dodge for single shrouds is,if the ship had 2 Burton pendants (masthead tackles) to incorporate these with the single forward shroud. Alternatively a false cut splice can be made joining the 2 single shrouds,the serving will hide this. Just for info,the forward shroud on square rigged RN ships was always wormed and served for it's full length. Prevented the sails chafing on the fwd shrouds when close hauled Think this was standard in all navies. I believe on fore and aft rig the rearmost shroud has this done.

Dave 

An interesting idea but...What are the chances of not pulling the ratlines out of line when,after turning in the deadeyes reeving the lanyards then tensioning the shrouds? It's almost a guarantee you will pull them out of line,thread/rope can/will stretch after all. Could end up looking dreadful if you've glued the clove hitches. Just a thought  Also,I can't imagine the hastle of getting 4 or 5 pairs of shrouds linked together by ratlines over the masthead in sequence stbd 1&2 then port 1&2 etc. 

Dave 

Hi Maury,when I have to rig very small blocks I dip the end of the thread in cyano glue and cut diagonally through it. As sharp as a needle and goes through no problem,I do this for larger blocks too. No need for a needle threader at all.

regards,

Dave   

Hi Seren,can't help you with drawings but if you google HMS Victory the second item is 100's of photographs of her. You should be able to get a good idea of where the wale positions are from them. Surprised there's no info on the plan,nor any material provided for them.  Hope this may be of some help to you.

Dave 

Always cut outside the line,you can then sand/file the parts to obtain a good fit. 

Dave 

I've been using Swann-Morton #26 unsterilised blades for donkeys years,also use the #21 and #25's occasionally. Much prefer the larger size of these blades to small blades. Incidentally,I just use my fingers to change these blades and have never cut myself doing so. To remove,I hook a thumbnail under the end,lift then push forward a bit and slide blade off the handle by gripping the back. To replace,grip the back then slide new blade on 'til it clicks in place. That's how I've always done it without injury. 

Dave 

Hi Capn Morgan,

The tackle R11 is called the Lateen Mizzen Yard Bowline they were rigged on both Port and Stbd sides. The tackle at the aft end of the yard is called a vang,they were also rigged in pairs Pt and Stbd. A rope was clove hitched around the yard peak,a long tackle (fiddle) block was spliced in each end and connected to a single block hooked into an eyebolt in the quarter piece each side. Have to say this,that rigging plan is rubbish. Get the book JCF mentioned or get Andersons' 17th Century Rigging IMO a better book,with better line drawings etc. Also usually easily found on online booksellers lists.

Rigging really is fun,honest 

Dave 

Hi Ed,I just want to say how much I am enjoying following this build. Absolutely wonderful workmanship. I noticed in your close-up pic the futtock shroud hooks appear to be opened out somewhat. I had this problem using copper for hooks,I found that giving the hook a bit of a squeeze with a pair of smooth jawed pliers work hardened the copper somewhat. They then had less tendency to straighten. I can't remember where or when I read this but it worked for me even on 0.5 mm copper wire.

Regards,

Dave 

Daniel,Jason,

That item is called the Cap Shore. It was fitted to take the strain of the weight of the forward overhang of the Cap from the shoulders of the Mast Tenon. It was tenoned into both the Cap and the Top and was usually only fitted on 1st and 2nd rate ships.

Dave 

Hi Ron,

If you decide to order wood from Deutschland check out www.massiv-holtz-werkstatt.de also. Frank Horschig has no problem with orders in English. He has a very good selection of timber and is not expensive. I do all my ordering by email and pay by bank transfer. No connection with him,just a very satisfied customer.

Dave 

Hi Cal,

The Caldercraft Victory is 1/72 scale and they also manufacture Cannon in that scale and probably also gun carriages. I've just looked at Cornwall Model Boats website and they list Caldercraft Cannon at this scale. 

Dave 

Hi Chris,

Here is what Lees writes verbatim "usually the boomkins butted against the beakhead though sometimes they butted or were bolted against knightheads on either side of the bowsprit,this latter method being used mainly after 1800". He does not mention anything as to how high they would have been mounted. Unless some other forum member can give you better info,I guess "its up to you *. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Dave 

Hi Haliburton,

Sorry but I don't have any pics. So far I've made the gratings,gun carriages,pump bodies and milled mast/yard sheave slots for my Cheerful build. I intend to make all my own blocks and will fit sheaves in all but the smallest. I also made my mast coat using the mill. I've really enjoyed doing this plus it saves one money. My next buy (when I can afford it) will be a lathe. I could kick myself for selling my Unimat SL back in the 80's when I stopped modelling.

Regards,

Dave 

Hi there Haliburton,you should definitely buy the MF 70 mill. I bought one earlier this year and wouldn't be without it. There are only 2 extra accessories made for this tool AFAIK,a rotary table #24264 and a machinists vice #24260 and they're not very expensive. 

Dave  

Hi Gregory,

Thank you for posting that drawing. My plans were bought from Chuck back in 2015 and do not have the amendment you show which is of course a revision. I could not understand why no means of applying tension to the Topmast stay was shown on my plans. My problem is solved.

Once again thank you.

Kind regards,

Dave 

Hi Gregory,

Thank you for your reply. My Plan #2 (for the standing rigging) distinctly shows the topmast stay fitted to the Topmast as would be normal,no block nor tackle is shown. Yes,this plan shows the Topmast Backstays are attached to a tackle,perhaps you could be mixing the two up or you have a different plan to me. Plan #3 (for the running rigging) only shows 2 blocks on the Topmast ,these are for the Topsail yard lifts. The list on this plan also quotes only the rope size for the Topmast stay,no mention of blocks nor rope for a tackle for this stay. 

Kind regards,

Dave  

Hi all,

I am currently building Chucks' Cheerful and have a question about the rigging of this stay. The plans show it directly attached to the Bowsprit. It's well known that hemp rope was prone to stretching so it is my intention to run it through the centre sheave of a treble block (the other sheaves are for the Topsail braces) either to a tackle or thimbles and a lanyard. Also,the Bowsprit has 3 fid holes which tells me that it could/would be set at different lengths according to sailing requirements. I'm sure that the Bosun and Captain would not be happy with a Topmast stay flapping about in the breeze when the Bowsprit was "run in" so to speak. Just doesn't sound right to me.

I've never seen a rigging plan that does not show some means of tensioning stays whether it's with hearts,deadeyes,a tackle or thimbles/lanyard. I did mention this to Chuck but he just said that's how it's shown on the original model. It's possible of course that the builder of the original model got it wrong but that's just my thought on it.

Any comments will be gratefully received 

Dave 

Carronades at least initially were not as I have read somewhere classified in the R.N. ratings "system" as guns. Only Cannon were counted.

Dave 

Hi RussR,

Just a thought,but why not buy a couple of feet of 4mm x 4mm walnut from your local model shop and cut off the lengths you require,I'm sure you will be able to find a use for the remainder.

Dave 

Hi Steve, after 1743 a Royal Navy 3pdr cannon had a length of 4'6" according to Lavery in his Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War book. Can't help with your other questions but I suspect Carronades would have been more likely.

Regards,

Dave