Cathead

Thanks for the input, Frankie. I'm working on putting together a new standing rigging plan and will post a draft when I do.

Hmm, lots to think about. Both those images are quite different from what the kit suggests (no surprise there). I'm going to have to digest this. Unfortunately, I'm far enough along to make serious redos an interesting proposition. I just didn't think to pre-consult the rigging plan when I was building the hull and attaching the channels. Another reference I should have mentioned is this drawing of USRC Louisiana, about the closest prototype to this kit, by Dr. John Tilley. It shows two shrouds forward and one aft, with ratlines forward. It also shows two stays running from the topmast down to blocks on the deck. This arrangement seems sensible to me. By the way, another question: in a vessel like this, are the two masts considered fore and main, or main and mizzen?

jwiley, this particular model has a square course and topsail on the mainmast along with a fore-and-aft mainsail; the mizzen has just the fore-and-aft sail although it also has a fore-and-aft topsail which I don't know the exact name for. See the image in the first post of my build log for the kit's intended sail plan. It makes sense that ratlines would be most necessary on masts with square sails; I still can't understand the purpose of the pseudo-stays run through blocks (the red and blue lines above).

I'm struggling with a rigging question for my current built, the Corel Ranger, which is a fictional version of a US Revenue Schooner from around 1820. The plans for the standing rigging show only one normal shroud per mast (per side), with no allowance for ratlines. Then it shows two other lines from the top of the mast, through the crosstrees, down to blocks along the rail and deck, which appear to serve as shrouds but are not listed as such and don't use deadeyes or blackened lines. My confusion is twofold: One, what are these other lines for, as they don't appear to be operational (don't attach to any sails, yards, gaffs, etc) but aren't treated as standing rigging either. Two, with only one shroud per mast and no ratlines, how would sailors reach the crosstrees and the upper yards/gaffs for handling the topsails and any other repairs? One respondent in my build log suggested a bosun's chair, which might make sense for occasional access, but the crew would have to get up there quickly and commonly in normal sailing operations. Below is my attempt to diagram the situation. Most of the contemporary images I can find show these schooners with two or three shrouds per mast (per side) with ratlines, as I would expect. So is the kit just full of guano when it comes to this rigging plan, or is there a reason to do it this way? I would greatly appreciate any advice.

It'd be most realistic, and unique, to present it unrigged and lashed down as it really would be on the deck, especially given the way you've built the stand. I like that idea as a creative approach to a common model. But of course presenting it fully or partially rigged has a lot of visual appeal, and few people will care that you have it displayed on a "deck" while still rigged.

Nicely done, it really captures the ambience of these vessels.

I had the same problem, not thinking I could drill into the brass strips. Using eyebolts is a great solution, wish I'd thought of it!

I'd say finish the base to match the wood in the model; otherwise the raw wood just looks unfinished and clashes a bit. The model looks very nice.

I think Brian's suggestion is good (sails on and oars drawn in). Besides, unless you're carving a full crew as well, it's clearly a display model rather than a "life-like pose", so you're allowed some leeway to display features as you see fit.

I think it's a Canadian conspiracy to make US boats look sloppy.

Thanks, Rob! I've been thinking about writing up a separate topic on step-by-step making these sails my way, maybe I should get in gear on that. I haven't seen much else about paper sails on MSW. I haven't dyed paper sails; I'd be worried about the dye dissolving the glue I use to assemble them. Was that not an issue for you, or did you only use one-piece sails?

Yeah, Mike, if you'd just done a regular sloppy job planking you'd have been fine!

That's the best-lit outhouse ever! Nice work, this will look fantastic when it's finished (not that it doesn't now).

One thing I didn't consider/notice until it was too late on my Corel Ranger, was that the kit doesn't allow for any drainage from the deck through the bulwarks (can't think of the right term). As built, it would swamp in no time. But it went over my head, and now I can't easily fix it. Oh well. Since you're not that far yet, sure seems worth considering how to add proper drainage. On the carronades, one thing I'd suggest it thinking through how long you want the elevation screw to be. The one Corel provides (shown in the plans) doesn't seem long enough to allow the full range of elevation/depression that you'd want. They also designed the carriage poorly, so that the screw can't be vertical while fitting into its socket on the slide and through the carronade itself. Sloppy.

The suggestions from Dicas make a lot of sense to me. I've used one-side files to great effect before.

Great photo, Len, certainly shows that you're right and Chaperon was laid out the way you showed. I was going to suggest that the doors on the corners were to avoid having to squeeze between the chimneys to get in, since the front cabin wall is so close there, but as the staircase from the main deck goes right there, and there appear to be two doors right in front as well (judging from the photos on M-E's site), I don't know.

Kurt would have the best idea of Chaperon's interior, however on earlier boats the "rooms" were actually quite narrow and small; much of the interior was taken up by a wider parlor, wide enough for dining tables and the like. So your proposed interior hallway would be quite a bit too narrow. But again I don't know how Chaperon was set up.

Len, that's not attached yet, right? Because it appears to be on backward at the moment. I really hope I haven't just ruined your day. It looks very nice otherwise!

No phone. I'm a holdout.

Dee Dee, I have photos I took while exploring the Yukon back in the late '90s, of several wrecks along the upper river. I climbed in, on, and around them and took some photos. Unfortunately they're print images and I don't have a scanner. Maybe I can try taking some new photos of the old photos! The climate up there has preserved the wood quite well, even though the boats themselves have mostly collapsed into piles of wood.The hulls were still solid enough to clamber into.

Bob, just imagine it before the poor river was mostly dammed up and had lots of the debris filtered out of her! Deperdussion, those are pretty unique, thanks for sharing. Where are those images from?

Although, any debris big enough to meaningfully swing the stern of a ~150-200' long steamboat is likely going to do some severe damage when it hits anyway...

Clarence, see my response to a similar question here. It's my understanding that anchors were rarely, if ever, used in riverboats. There really isn't a need for them, and it could often have been dangerous to do so as any anchor holding the boat against the river current would tend to make it heel, rather problematic when these often had only a few inches to a foot of freeboard. Boats were generally held in place against a bank or levee by running the boat up onto the bank itself, or by tying off a line to a tree or other onshore support. Keeping the paddle(s) turning slowly was another approach to holding position. I'd be happy to hear if anyone else has a different take.

Len, check out this photo from the Arabia Steamboat Museum in Kansas City. If you zoom in on it, you'll see that the paddles (often called buckets despite being flat) are held to the spokes by U-shaped bolts. This was a common practice in earlier eras, I don't specifically know about Chaperon's later era. There was also sometimes a separate squareish plank over the paddle/bucket where the bolts went through, to provide extra strength. That is roughly what Mike did, but without the bolts (which are awfully fiddly to add at these scales). You could do it by making a jig and bending lots of wire; wouldn't need to drill through the paddles if you could simulate the nuts on the other side.

After several weeks of work, the mainsail is rigged, and I have a confusing question about the standing rigging. First, the good stuff. Here's how she looks overall. I'm quite happy with my paper sail-making methods; the color and texture really seem to fit into the all-wood appearance. All the running rigging for the mainsail is in place, though no knots are glued down yet. I want the option to tighten and adjust for a little while longer, so there are lots of loose ends and a few lines look baggy. As I intend to display the port side, I'm planning to have both the main and fore sails trimmed to starboard, with the forecourse and foretopsail (the two square sails on the foremast) trimmed to starboard as well, as if she were on a broad reach. Here's a few closeup photos: I should have been taking progress photos this whole time, but haven't. I don't know if there's really anything to be learned from all this; the rigging is just a matter of thinking through steps carefully. The plans' rigging diagrams are good to follow once you understand their format, but their order of operations is terrible. Any given mast or sail's rigging is spread over multiple pages, and often something you'll want to do first is three pages later. I've spent so much time obsessively rereading the rigging plans to make sure I don't forget anything I'll regret later. So far, so good. My plan is to continue working from the inside-out: make and rig the foresail next, then the standing rigging on both masts, then the forecourse and foretopsail. Now for the question: looking ahead to the standing rigging, the plan of this model confuses me. It only calls for one lateral stay per mast, each leading down to a single set of deadeyes on a channel. Then there are two smaller lines that lead from the masthead, pass through the two arms of the crosstrees, and connect to blocks either on deck or on the channel. I can't understand this; here's a visual diagram that I hope makes sense: In this rigging setup, there can be no ratlines because there's only one stay. How would sailors get up to the crosstrees to handle the upper sails, effect repairs, or do anything else? And what's the point of the other two lines, which aren't listed as stays but don't do anything else? I've looked at a variety of images and plans for topsail schooners like this, and most show two stays and deadeyes on the foremast with ratlines, but even they only show one stay and deadeyes on the mainmast, which I don't understand. And none show the other two random lines. This is definitely an accurate rendition of the kit plans, but I don't understand how or why this would work in real life. I like to understand what I'm doing when I model, so I hope someone can either explain this to me, or offer advice for a more realistic setup. It seems to me that there should be two sets of deadeyes on each channel, with stays running up to the top of the lower mast at the crosstrees, so that each mast could have ratlines rigged. Anyone?