CDR_Ret

You are correct about getting side tracked and doing things that aren't really necessary for the model. Since I had the (almost) full blueprint set I started out to create the entire internal structure for the OK City - I was impressed of a CAD model of the Yamato that had all the frames, longitudinals and bulkheads. After messing with that for about a month I realized that it really wasn't necessary.
 
And I am an expert at getting sidetracked. I started my USS Oklahoma City web page (www.okieboat.com) to post modeling pictures. I got carried away and now there are something like 88 pages, most of it the history of the ship and the Cleveland class, plus the history of the development of the Talos missile (including GMM manuals), detailed descriptions of the weapons systems, engineering plant, ship's crew, sea stories ...
 
It took 14 years to complete the web page and the CAD model. I just like learning about things!

Hello everyone, I am RMillet. I am 23 and from the USA. I am disabled, so I have much time to spend on model ship building. Though I haven't bought my first wooden model yet, I plan to purchase the 18th century longboat from Model Shipways soon. I have absolutely loved ships for most of my life, spending much time researching cargo ships. I also enjoy playing video games, 3D modeling, and cooking. I am excited to document my experience being a beginner modeler, and hope to learn from everyone here.

I’ve spent the past couple of weeks working on cabin interior details, including planking the cabin decks and walls, installing benches, the fireplace, and the little staircase from the upper deck.  I’m using a clear satin spar urethane to finish most surfaces, except for the staircase on which I used a Minwax golden oak stain.  The Statenjacht was used mostly for inland waterway transport in the Dutch Republic of VIP passengers, hence the luxury red padding on the benches and the fancy fireplace.  This has been very relaxing and enjoyable, and I’m happy with how it’s going at this early stage 😊🇳🇱

Hi again folks.  After closer inspection of the lithographs and photo I have of the Victoria, and using the belaying and rigging info in the CSS Alabama book, I have derived the following possible rigging arrangement for the bow.  Please see this in context with the attached annotated extract of one of the litho graphs.  Click on graphic for a larger view.
 
Please note:
a.  presence of vertical whiskers (2) at the bow
b.  presence of whiskers on the cat heads (for two lines) - very thin line denotes these (hard to see sorry)
c.  only one line (at the moment) identified as passing through the bulwark fairleads at the bow.
d.  the forestays (2) pass inboard of the vertical whiskers and I assume will terminate via tackle at deck eyebolts either side of the bowsprit (inboard)
e.  stays are terminated via deadeye and heart to eyebolts outboard (as shown in the Alabama belaying plans - not included here). 
f.  cathead whiskers have fairleads for two lines either side. One for Jib sheets?  other?
 
I have yet to identify a few of the lines, and some of the lines I have identified may be the wrong interpretation, so ALL comments and suggestions most welcomed.
 

 
The current interpretation (question marks denote some clarification or confirmation required; and, TBD = to be determined)
 
1.    Fore Royal Stay
2.    Fore Top Gallant Stay
3.    Outer Jib Stay
4.    Fore Topmast Stays (x 2)
5.    Fore Stays (x 2)
6.    Fore Royal Stay (starboard side of martingale)
7.    Fore Topgallant Stay (port side of martingale)
8.    Martingale Stay (chain)
9.    Outer Jib Stay (starboard side of martingale)?
10.  TBD
11.  Fore Topmast Staysail Downhaul (leads aft and through bulwark fairlead at bow)?
12.  TBD (x 2)
13.  Martingale backstays (x 2) - chain
14.  Fore Staysail  Downhaul - leads aft over vertical whiskers?  Why two??
15.  Jib Sheets (aft via cathead whiskers - outer fairlead)?
16.  Fore Topmast Staysail Sheets
17.  TBD
18.  Fore Staysail Sheets
19.  TBD (possibly guys  but nor extended forward?)
 
I would appreciate any feedback on these.
 
cheers
 
Pat

This topic pertains to the proper securing of bower anchors in latter 19th-century merchant ships.
 
I have several poor-quality photos of the foredeck of a brigantine merchant ship (the Galilee) taken sometime during 1905–1908, showing how her anchors were secured when underway. This is probably the best of the lot.

Photo showing the brigantine Galilee being fitted out as a geomagnetic research vessel in 1905, probably somewhere in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, California. The circled area is where the chains/lines securing the lower end of the anchor were tied off.
(This and following photos Courtesy of the Carnegie Science Library.)
 

Closeup of the area circled in the above photo.
 
I am in the process of adding the remaining deck furniture and fittings to my digital model of Galilee. My questions pertain to the size, shape, and orientation of the cleats evidently used to secure the lower end of the anchors.
What would be the size of the cleat? I've seen the rule of 1 inch of cleat length per 1/16 inch of line diameter. However, in many diagrams showing stowed anchors, it is small chain that was used for this purpose. So, what is the rule if chain is used? Galilee's anchors would have been a minimum of 600 lb. each, about half of which would have been borne by the anchor cleat. Would this have been a factor in selecting the cleat size? Determining the likely shape of the cleat is important for a historically-accurate model. I have found a source of so-called "antique" cleats here. The shapes are quite varied as one can see.  Would the type most likely be just a basic cleat such as this one? I have read about—and also experienced—the proper orientation of lines taken to mooring cleats. Typically, the line secured to a cleat should run horizontally perpendicular (or tangentially) to the cleat. Cleats are weakest when the tension pulls upward. So would a cleat securing an anchor likely be bolted to side of a rail or to the deck adjacent to the rail? The latter configuration would result in a more upward tension. However, Figure 430 in Plate 94 of the USNA's Text-book of Seamanship (Luce, 1884) suggests this could have  been the case.
Diagram of the method for securing a bower anchor in a mid-19th-century warship from the cited USNA reference. The circled cleat appears to be fastened to the deck or a waterway. (The image is found in Plate 94 located between pages 246 and 247.)
 
    Any comment or directions to other sources to resolve these questions would be very much appreciated.
 
Terry

@BANYAN, yes sir, any information will be appreciated.
 
I'll PM you with my email address, if that would be more convenient.
 
None of the DTM (Carnegie Institution Department of Terrestrial Magnetism) photos from their charter period are clear enough to discern the details of such devices. I am having trouble even figuring out from the photos what were the cat stoppers, cat falls (if used), and the other components involved in catting and letting go an anchor in this period. There appears to be only a single sheave in the cathead and no cat blocks. Just a bight of chain through the anchor shank ring.
 
I found this image at a Pinterest account online—no attribution—showing a detail of the mechanism @Jim Lad provided earlier:

This arrangement was supposedly representative of ground tackle gear around 1850. None of my photos reveal any cleats or eyebolts near either end of the cathead like this diagram shows.
 
Terry
 
 
 

As it turns out, one photo of the ship I have in my collection provides a suggestion that Galilee indeed had some sort of anchor release mechanism similar to that provided by @Jim Lad. This photo is the only one that shows the aft side of the cathead with sufficient resolution to make it out.

The arrow points to the probable anchor release gear installed in the brigantine Galilee. (Photo courtesy of Carnegie Science Library, c. 1906–7)
 
Another interesting detail to include in the plans.
 
Thanks Jim!
 
Terry

Right. I’m taking care to get all the polysurfaces closed and ready even for such undertaking as 3-D printing, although – to be honest – I would be much happier with a model of “noble” wood, which is actually planned. Also had the same idea of 3-D printing, but some parts, being long, thin and/or curved in all directions, could be very cumbersome to print, and even more so with filament flatbed printers.

The vessel  “Święty Jerzy” (eng. “Saint George”) was an admiral ship of the Polish fleet in the 3rd decade of the 17th century, so it can be said she was an indirect opponent of the Swedish “Vasa” of 1628 in the struggle between the two then belligerent nations.
 
She took a major part in the battle of Oliwa in 1627, capturing by boarding the opponent admiral ship “Tigern” (eng. “Tiger”). The following year, in a retaliatory land-borne attack on the fleet base, led personally by the Swedish king, she was smashed, set on fire and eventually sunk by heavy artillery – large calibre demi-cannons (24-pdrs). Perhaps rather short operational story, nevertheless quite intensive (detailed descriptions of both epic fights have survived).
 
Ultimately, the intention is to build wooden scale model, and a 3-D reconstruction in Rhinoceros is currently underway. The starting point is the two extant fleet’s inventories and contemporary iconography of the battle, mainly a painting made only a few years after the battle.
 
While many details are sourced – of necessity – from various depictions and written works, I have also tried to retain the general layout of the ship as depicted in the painting of the battle, such as the large counter with a bas-relief (or painting) associated with the ship’s name and the low-lying gunroom (entirely below the gun deck). Given the rather low sternpost, this implies that the rudder must have been operated from the level of the gun deck, and not (as usual?) in the steerage located one level higher.
 

 
Swedish, Polish and Dutch ships at the Battle of Oliwa 1627; painting by Adolf Boy, contemporary resident of the fleet base
 
 
Local documents of legal nature suggest that the ship was built using a skeleton technique (as opposed to the shell method), and I have made efforts to shape the underwater body of the hull so that it could be achieved by most of the known skeleton methods (as can be derived from contemporary Iberian, French and English works on shipbuilding). At the same time the assumption was made no scale drawings on paper in the construction process were made, only true-scale tracing on the shipyard platform/ground.
 
On the other hand, it is believed that ships built in the southern Baltic area had many features in common (structural, decorative, rigging) with other ships built in the north of the continent, as exemplified by the Dutch built Swedish “Vasa”, Dutch manuscript (mainly on rigging) of around 1650 or the Dutch monumental work on shipbuilding by Witsen, so masterfully interpreted by Ab Hoving. As a result, in contrast to the conceptual features of the ship (hull shape), these are the main sources used for the reconstruction of structural and rigging elements, besides the Scandinavian early 17th century contracts for building men-of-war and the French works containing data on timber scantlings (largely Atlantic-oriented “Construction des Vaisseaux du Roy” of 1691).
 
Some visualisations of the 3-D model in the present (unfinished) state:
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Cheers,
Waldemar

Normally beams rest on the deck clamps. These are ledges that run longitudinally inside the frames. Beams are placed where needed to frame deck openings etc., and are independent of the framing. I recommend you look at  either Londgridge's The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War 1650 -1850, or the series of books on the fully framed model by Antscherl.

Hey @Jim Lad.
 
Thanks for this information. This will be something else to look for in the ship photos, since I'm sure releasing a 600-pound anchor was not a trivial task!
 
I was mainly trying to nail down how the anchor was secured for sea, since I am finishing up modeling the various deck gear and fittings in the forecastle of my ship plan reconstruction. But the release mechanism is certainly something to ascertain as well. The USNA textbook had some diagrams of similar gear to consider, though I'm not sure how applicable the type would be to a merchant ship.
 
Terry

Hey @Jim Lad.
 
Thanks for this information. This will be something else to look for in the ship photos, since I'm sure releasing a 600-pound anchor was not a trivial task!
 
I was mainly trying to nail down how the anchor was secured for sea, since I am finishing up modeling the various deck gear and fittings in the forecastle of my ship plan reconstruction. But the release mechanism is certainly something to ascertain as well. The USNA textbook had some diagrams of similar gear to consider, though I'm not sure how applicable the type would be to a merchant ship.
 
Terry

This topic pertains to the proper securing of bower anchors in latter 19th-century merchant ships.
 
I have several poor-quality photos of the foredeck of a brigantine merchant ship (the Galilee) taken sometime during 1905–1908, showing how her anchors were secured when underway. This is probably the best of the lot.

Photo showing the brigantine Galilee being fitted out as a geomagnetic research vessel in 1905, probably somewhere in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, California. The circled area is where the chains/lines securing the lower end of the anchor were tied off.
(This and following photos Courtesy of the Carnegie Science Library.)
 

Closeup of the area circled in the above photo.
 
I am in the process of adding the remaining deck furniture and fittings to my digital model of Galilee. My questions pertain to the size, shape, and orientation of the cleats evidently used to secure the lower end of the anchors.
What would be the size of the cleat? I've seen the rule of 1 inch of cleat length per 1/16 inch of line diameter. However, in many diagrams showing stowed anchors, it is small chain that was used for this purpose. So, what is the rule if chain is used? Galilee's anchors would have been a minimum of 600 lb. each, about half of which would have been borne by the anchor cleat. Would this have been a factor in selecting the cleat size? Determining the likely shape of the cleat is important for a historically-accurate model. I have found a source of so-called "antique" cleats here. The shapes are quite varied as one can see.  Would the type most likely be just a basic cleat such as this one? I have read about—and also experienced—the proper orientation of lines taken to mooring cleats. Typically, the line secured to a cleat should run horizontally perpendicular (or tangentially) to the cleat. Cleats are weakest when the tension pulls upward. So would a cleat securing an anchor likely be bolted to side of a rail or to the deck adjacent to the rail? The latter configuration would result in a more upward tension. However, Figure 430 in Plate 94 of the USNA's Text-book of Seamanship (Luce, 1884) suggests this could have  been the case.
Diagram of the method for securing a bower anchor in a mid-19th-century warship from the cited USNA reference. The circled cleat appears to be fastened to the deck or a waterway. (The image is found in Plate 94 located between pages 246 and 247.)
 
    Any comment or directions to other sources to resolve these questions would be very much appreciated.
 
Terry

Ferrus, welcome to MSW!  I, along with many members here, built the Revell models at about your age. Fond memories. Good luck and looking forward to reading your build log!
 
Best Regards,
Ian

Thanks @wefalck and @popeye2sea.
 
I had already begun leaning toward blocks shackled to eyebolts on the deck under and inside of the fife rails. One belaying plan even showed the eyebolts. in that location.
 
Most of the iron/steel rigging elements aloft were all but eliminated by the second survey cruise (1907) to reduce the vessel's magnetic constants to the smallest magnitude possible. However, some items simply couldn't be removed because they were irreplaceable.
 
Terry

Not to make things more confusing, but chain was not used for the entire length of most lines. A topsail sheet, for example, would be chain for the portion that would see the heaviest wear from the clew of the sail through the sheave at the yardarm and then to a point below where it turned through the cloverleaf block at the center of the yard. From there it was shackled to wire rope to lead down to near the deck where a rope tackle was shackled in for purchase.
 
Regards,

On the sheaves vs. blocks question: I have the feeling that the sheaves went out of fashion in the later 19th and were replaced by blocks bolted to the deck. The idea is turn the run of the rope by 90°, so that more men could work on it. If you pull straight down on a rope you can use your whole weight, but you could have only two men working the rope.
 
Blocks were commercial items by then that would be mass-produced, while a bitt with sheaves would have to be made by the shipyard and would have been more expensive. Also, the sheave-holes weaken the bitts.

Hello new friends and comrades, I am new to forums but the Facebook group I joined wasn't cutting it. To post my own cautionary tale, you don't know what you've gotten yourselves into letting me join this group. I am like a five-year-old who just learned the words "why" and "how", luckily I am actually an adult.... and being the responsible adult I am trying to find the rules/restrictions page to save mods time but alas I am adrift. 
 
The first thing I read was "how to use forum" with a large "Absolutely No modeling posts" directly under it. Well shoot! Isn't this a modelers group? I had to recheck the group and read quite a bit until I understood you meant none of that content ON THAT THREAD. Lol I can learn... slowly.
Second thing I read, "start a build log" with no instructions on how to do that, I have looked it up and looked at my account page, and briefly through the forum and I'm blind- help meh! 😢
Also point me in the direction of what I can and cannot post or guaranteed I'll post it, it's the Murphy's law of my existence. Thanks!!! Nice to meet you 😄😄😇

Hi Everyone - thanks so much for your very kind remarks about my first few attempts!  You are overly kind but very encouraging!  I look forward to talking with all  of you and getting lots of advice.  The thing I miss most about having dad around is that I have no one to talk to for help and encouragement.     I am so happy to have found a group where I can share my success and failures.  Thanks again everyone.
 
Mary
 

Thanks to everyone for your warm welcome and condolences.  I miss my dad so much, having been a finishing carpenter he knew about how to handle wood, what you can and cant expect from it and how to make it do what you want.  I dont have either the experience or the innate ability so I need to read alot and look at what others have done.    Here are three little boats I completed Please dont look too closely!
 
Mary

Thanks for these inputs, everyone. And thank you Alan for the files you sent today.
 
I wasn't planning on getting into rigging at this point in the plans reconstruction process, but figuring out the fife rails sort of dragged me in. Even with this information, I'm afraid, as the good doctor said, it will be a coin toss as to what was actually the case.
 
The DTM photos show a lot of lines belayed to the bulwark pin rails; fewer lines leading to the foremast fife rail. So I will try to do my best and find a logical place for every line of running rigging when the time comes.
 
To make things even more difficult, this ship was originally rigged with wire standing rigging, and chains for a lot of the sheet and halyard pendants. All that was removed for the magnetic expeditions to reduce the magnetic constants of the ship. The crew even cobbled together some additional foremast back stays because the channels weren't positioned properly for rope stays.
 
Terry

HM is awake.
Here is the image from Wofram zu Mondfelds "Historic Ship Models page 310

I will post the one image showing the sheave in use later this morning when the noise of the scanner will not wake up Her Majesty.
Also, I just sent you a PM regarding the other information.
Alan

Harold Underhill's "Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier" (Brown, Son and Fergusin, Ltd., Galsgow, Scotland, 1946 to 1972) was mentioned above. It is the absolute best reference I have found for sailing ship rigging. The 11 page index has about 1500 entries - every term he uses is indexed. It is heavily illustrated and he shows how everything was rigged! Perhaps the only shortcoming is that is is for vessels of the late 1800s, making it less useful for people modelling earlier periods. But it sounds perfect for what you are looking for.
 
He talks about British sailing vessels of all sorts, not just clippers. By the late 1800s most ships were rigged in about the same way - the most efficient way.
 
I have been studying rigging for some time now, and when you do not have an authentic rigging plan for a ship you are left with guesswork. But there are a few general "rules" that were followed, because they worked.
 
First, most lines that led in to blocks on the mast or mast heads ran down to the deck at the foot of the mast. This was especially true of lines coming from lower points on the mast. Sometimes lines from the higher points were led down to the bulwarks.
 
Second, lines from lower points were belayed forward of lines from higher points.
 
Keeping these "rules" in mind, rigging was also positioned for the least chafing between lines and sails. Usually it is apparent how the lines lead down to the deck so they don't cross or foul each other. And when ships were rigged they started with the lower masts, spars and sails and worked upwards. So the upper rigging was worked around the already positioned lower lines.
 
Where they were belayed is another story! Fife rails, knightheads, pin rails, cleats and several other things were used. Just about anything you can tie a rope around. And sometimes lines were led through eyes on other lines, and even belayed to cleats tied to shrouds! If there were any "rules" for belaying points I haven't found them! I think individual Captains or mates just had their ways of doing things.
 
When a line led down to the deck it might have been belayed directly, or it might lead to a tackle of some sort. Lines that had to pull a load. like haliards that hauled up spars, or sheets that pulled against the force of the wind, often had tackles. But others likes like clews and brails that only lifted parts of sails that were being reefed just belayed directly to a pin or cleat. Often clews and brails for a sail were belayed to the same pin.

Terry, at the period you're interested in, a tye was shackled to the centre of the yard and led up through a sheave in the fore side of the mast at finished in an eye on the after side.  The halliard ran through the eye and ran down to the deck on each side.
 
John