Cathead

Lots of railings! I like the lighting effects.Interesting that the staircases are at different angles on different decks. Any idea why?

Okay, here's an updated sail plan taking your advice into account. I'm including the original one (traced from the kit plan) to make comparisons easier. This arrangement seems more like something I could sail, compared to the original that I just couldn't figure out. I labelled changes on the diagram, and included a few questions for clarification. Most stays are left out for clarity, except for the forestay (which I left off the first diagram but should have included; same for the bowsprit traveller). Original rigging plan: New plan: Other questions: Do the foresail shapes & sizes look right? Would there be any lines of reef points on the main sail, or telltales? If so, where? Many, many thanks to Roger and anyone else who wants to weigh in. I'm really enjoying thinking through this problem.

Roger, this all fits with what I had been thinking. I will draw up a new plan and see what you think, if you're willing.

The traveller/tiller arrangement is addressed in the instructions, assuming you're referring to what the instructions call the horse: "Up to the mid 18th century, the horse was positioned as shown on the model...during the second half of the century, they started making the horse so it actually spanned over the tiller. You may opt to do so as well. But since this model is inspired by several contemporary longboat models in the NMM, it was created as shown on those models." Along the same lines, much of what you say makes intuitive sense to me based on my own sailing experience growing up many years ago, but it's also the case (as quoted above) that this design is based on period models that were rigged as shown. So clearly there must have been a precedent and reason for having a large gaff sail, and the forward stay arrangements that are confusing me. Regarding the arrangement of the stay sail you describe, how would such a sail be raised or lowered? The model rigging has a forestay (I didn't include it in the drawing for simplification) to which the sail could in theory be connected, but then what's the purpose of the fore halyard as shown, because with one end bent to the masthead it can't be used to raise or lower the sail unless I'm missing something. And in the same way, even if the jib is set flying, how could it be raised or lowered without some kind of free-moving halyard? The jib halyard as shown in the kit doesn't really function as a stay, given the traveler on the bowsprit, but also not as a halyard, given that it's bent to the masthead and thus can't move. I think I'll try to create another drawing implementing what you're suggesting, to see if it makes sense. I appreciate your willingness to talk through this with me. It's a fun mental puzzle to figure out.

Roger, That's really interesting, thank you. Does using a shorter sail mean using a correspondingly short boom and gaff? Also, do you have any insight on the second question, about the stay sail and jib?

So I've been laying out possible sail plans for this model, and have found something I can't figure out regarding the stay sail and jib. I created a new topic under Sails & Rigging to ask this question, hoping it would reach a wider audience. Please tell me what you think, I'm stumped and hope I'm just being dumb. http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/13442-sail-design-for-18th-century-longboat/

So I've been experimenting with sail layout for this longboat, and a significant question arises right away. Here is a simplified rigging layout, traced directly from the plans, assuming a gaff sail (red), stay sail (green), and jib (blue) arranged within the dimensions of the rigging as shown in the plans. First question is, do these sail shapes and layout seem about right? I assume I need a line from the clew of both stay sail and jib, belayed to something (drawn in color)? Bigger question, am I missing something on the stay sail and jib rigging? The plans refer to the lines drawn in green and blue as the sail halyards, and I assume these are what the stay sail and jib are bent to. The plans say to seize one end of these to the mast, run them down through a block, back up to a sheave, then down to belaying pins. Yet this arrangement doesn't allow these lines to move, only to be tensioned like a stay; if you pull on the belayed end, nothing will happen because the other end is seized to the masthead. So how can the sails be bent to them if the lines can't move? Doesn't there have to be either another block, or another entire set of lines to raise and lower the sails? Are these lines actually stays, rather than halyards? The gaff sail arrangement makes sense, but the fore sails don't. Am I missing something?

I'm working on the Model Shipways 18th Century Longboat, and would like to model it with sails raised (no sails are included or discussed in the kit). I can find lots of references to sail patterns and structures for ship sails, but less for smaller boats of this period. Milton Roth's "Ship modelling from stem to stern" has a very nice diagram of a gaff sail and jib, but I assume from context that it's for a ship, not a small boat. For example, would a longboat gaff sail really need three different bands of reef points? And would the sails be attached to the boom/gaff/stays the same as on a ship? What would I need to do, or where should I look, to create a reasonably authentic sail design for this model? Is anyone aware of images that would help me get these sails right, including their proper attachment? I've tried searching various terms in this forum without success, so if this has already been addressed, I apologize for missing it and would appreciate direction to the existing guidance. Here's the model as she stands now, for context: The sort of sailplan I'm going for can be seen in the second image here: http://skipjacksnauticalliving.blogspot.com/2014/09/fort-mchenry-200-year-star-spangled.html Thanks!

The past few weeks, I've been slowly working on the mast and bowsprit. These have been challenging, particularly the metalwork. Most build logs I've read seem to just skip past the metal work ("The mast is done") or use an alternate method that I don't have the equipment for (creative soldering). Things started out well. I marked the location of the sheaves on the mast dowel, and pre-drilled the holes before shaping it, figuring this would be easier. It was. Once the holes were in, I hand-sanded the mast down to shape. The plans show a pretty clear "step" in the mast between the lowest sheave and the upper two, but the instructions don't say anything about why this is there. I followed the plans. Why is this there? Anyway, once the mast was shaped I used a small needle file to gouge/file the sheave slot. Result seen below, pre-staining. I think it came out ok. I found that I simply couldn't drill the tiny holes in brass strip necessary to form the mast rings. I tried, over and over. Doing it by hand, with a simple twist drill, just didn't work. My holes ended up off-center or otherwise screwy, and even when I did get one through, the strip was so thin that the drilled area became a massive weak point. I definitely tried the suggestion I'd seen elsewhere, to drill one side, form the hoop, then use that first hole as a pilot to drill through to the other side. Sensible, but just didn't work for me, just not skilled enough I guess. I went through so much brass I got nervous I wouldn't have enough to finish the kit. As it turned out, a comment in ggrieco's build log gave me a way forward; Kurt Van Dahm noted that he was very comfortable with the longevity of BSI brand CA, which is what I have, so I decided to try using the gap-filling CA the way others had used solder. The instructions suggest you can use glue to attach the brass rings together, but I went a step further and used the CA to actually create a solid "gap" between the two halves, just enough to drill through: Doing this meant that all three rings had holes drilled through top-bottom rather than sideways for the upper two, but I think this will be barely noticeable in the final model, and it meant I didn't have to twist the brass 90 degrees, something I had also failed to accomplish satisfactorily. Above, you see the three rings formed and drilled, with one strung on a piece of wire as proof of concept. I actually strung all three on wire for painting, both for ease of handling and to keep paint out of the hole. I don't know if this is a good approach or not, but it's what I did, so we'll find out over time. I'm happy with the resulting appearance, at least. I found tlevine's and dcicero's logs particularly helpful in finding a way around my metalworking impass; thanks to both. I also solved another problem: how to hold the model going forward.I didn't want to place it in a clamp for risk of damaging the hull, but also didn't want to mount it on a permanent base yet. I had pre-drilled mounting holes in the keel, and had the bright idea of running wire through a "blank" of wood that would fit into my flexible work clamp: I'm really happy with this setup. Now I can angle model in any direction I need for working on delicate rigging, the hull is out of any danger, and the wire can bend a bit to absorb some shock from any accidental bump. When I'm finished, I'll just replace the "blank" with nicer pedestals of some kind. With this in place, I worked on finishing and painting the mast and bowsprit. The latter was straightforward, with the sheave formed just as on the mast, and the metal work done with the same method. I used the paint scheme shown on the plans, just replacing the red with cherry stain as I've done elsewhere. Here's a closeup of the mast and metalwork, with blocks attached: And here's what she looks like now, with mast and bowsprit attached. I've been keeping the rudder locked away so I don't damage it accidentally, but placed it on for these photos. Next up, I have some research and planning to do. I want to model this with sails attached and raised, which is not part of the plans, so I need to figure out just what those sails would look like, and how to set things up properly. Right now my working idea is to make the boom, gaff, and sail as one assembly off-model, then rig it all together, then attach a jib. Thoughts?

Man, is that pretty. Definitely the closest I've come to truly envisioning/understanding the 3dimensional machinery of a steamboat. Thanks.

She sunk in 1943? Must've been one desperate U-Boat Kapitan.

Kurt, that's a really useful and interesting perspective. I've read the warnings about CA going brittle, too, but didn't have enough experience to judge. I looked at my bottle, and sure enough although it's Model Expo brand, it's the BSI maker that you recommend. Now I feel better about using it! Glenn, thanks for your answer. It makes a lot of sense, and certainly gave me more to think about for future builds.

Hearty congratulations! It's been a fascinating project to follow, full of creativity and education. Many thanks for the time you spent sharing it with us.

Glenn, great explanation of the partition, thanks. I'm curious: if you were to do the boilers over (and I'm NOT suggesting that you do), how would you approach them differently?

You're right, you could easily have fooled me into thinking that was a solid sheet! Nicely done.

Keith, that's a really interesting model. Is there a specific prototype, or something whimsical you came up with?

Looks really nice, Glenn. I wish I'd taken better photos of the boiler construction on Bertrand. It wasn't my favorite part of the build, either, both in the doing and in the result. Kinda nice to know I'm not the only one! What you've got certainly captures the feel of a typical steamboat boiler, which since it's speculative anyway, is more than good enough. And as on most boats, the boilers kinda get buried under the shadow of the boiler deck anyway, so any little mishaps fade from view. Speaking of which, what's that slatted structure over the boilers in your drawing? Some kind of screen nailed to the outer stanchions? What's it for? Whatever it is, it'll also help hide any boiler imperfections. Edit: also meant to ask, how did you emboss the rivets? By hand or with a ponce wheel? Curious to know what you tried and what you'd try differently in the future, since you didn't like the result.

I wasn't sure if you meant how much firewood was used to run a steamboat, or how much wood was used in construction, so here's my take on both. Good question either way. Firewood (from Steamboats on the Western Rivers, Louis C Hunter): "Steamboats of the smaller classes burned 12 to 24 cords of wood every 24 hours, and the larger boats running at mid-century consumed anywhere from 50 to 75 cords per day." Also, keep in mind that firewood quality varied tremendously along western American rivers, everything from well-cured oak with lots of heat potential to green cottonwood that was barely worth burning. Early boats (like Heroine) probably had to cut their own wood daily as they worked up-river (salvaging driftwood, dead trees, live when necessary), whereas woodlots began to proliferate along navigable rivers as traffic developed, meaning that boats could stop and buy wood daily instead, often finding better-quality stuff as woodcutters could stack and cure wood for later sale knowing that boats would be coming along. Especially on the Missouri River, this too changed along the route, as the river slowly left behind forested areas and extended into the mostly treeless plains and prairies of the Upper West. Construction (from The Western River Steamboat, Adam Kane): "According to the 1880 census, the shipyard at Sewickley PA consumed 100,000 to 225,000 feet of oak, pine, and poplar in the construction of each steamboat hull between 180 and 260 feet long...this equates to approximately 20-50 old-growth trees per hull". Early boats were built tough and heavy, simulating maritime construction, but builders quickly realized this wasn't the way to go about things, and starting building them lighter and lighter, using less oak and more pine & poplar, and using thinner pieces. American riverboats needed to be light and flexible, not hefty and rigid like an ocean-going ship.

John, Kurt, or other moderators: given the immediate interest expressed in riverboats worldwide, should we just change the title of this topic to something like "Steamboats and rivercraft - general discussion"? I'd be happy to edit my opening post to make it less focused on the US if we all think it's better to have this topic broadened. Keith & leclaire, welcome to the steamboat addiction! To the latter, at risk of self-promotion, check out my build log for Bertrand. If I can scratch-build a steamboat, then I suspect many others can as well.

Hey, John, I sure don't mind if folks want to talk about riverboat anything. I set this up the way I did, in part because US boats are all I know, and because it seemed to be the focus of models here right now. But it's neat to learn anything that anyone wants to share, and I hope I didn't offend anyone by making it US-centric. Your photo of the Adelaide shows a really neat craft that's noticeably different from anything in the US. Thanks for sharing!

Wow, Gerhard, that's a new one for me. Recently, reading a book on the Ottoman Empire, I found a maddeningly vague reference to the British army using steamboats to transport troops and supplies up and down the Tigris & Euphrates rivers during WWI. Would have loved to know more. I really only know anything about American vessels, and only so much about that. So much history, so little time.

Yeah, I agree, Bob. Much prefer the pickups to the palaces. There are a few obscure boats, like yours above, from the Osage and Gasconade rivers that would be really interesting scratch projects too. The oddballs are just so interesting!

Bob, good question. I'd say you have to drill down a bit deeper to answer, though as a very broad characterization you wouldn't be wrong. The lower Missouri (especially Omaha or Kansas City or St Louis) had a fair amount of passenger traffic and regular packet service. There was even service up a few of the larger tributaries, like the Osage and Gasconade. The upper river certainly focused on hauling freight to Montana and gold/furs back, with only primitive passenger accommodations. We tend to see photos of the floating passenger palaces on the Mississippi, but they obscure the existence of lots of regular cargo/work boats, too, hauling cotton and other agricultural products downriver to New Orleans and lots of imports and other stuff back up. Then there's the question of what era we're talking about, which influences the question, too. But, yeah,to me the "typical" Missouri River boat was essentially a pickup truck with cramped quarters while the "typical" Mississippi boat was a tricked-out SUV with some cargo space.

Glenn, I have some really interesting news: the team that found Arabia has found another boat, the 1841 Malta, in west-central Missouri. It'll be an amazing comparison to Heroine if they end up excavating it. I know the area well, I pass through it whenever I go to Kansas City. This gave me the kick in the pants I needed to finally start a general steamboat/river-craft thread in the Nautical History section of MSW, so we don't have to fill up build logs with side discussions. I put a story link about the Malta in there, along with a few photos of other rivercraft models I've built that relate to the recent stories in the Nautical Research Journal. Hope this is of interest to you and your readers!

Note: I altered the title and topic of this post later on, to be more inclusive of rivercraft from all parts of the world. I'd started it as a topic on river craft of western American rivers in the nineteenth century, because that's what I know most about and what most of the models here seem to be of. But the burst of interest in other regions and periods led me to think it'd be best to open this up to a broader set of interests. Below is my original starting post. Many unique and interesting watercraft developed along the interior and western rivers of the United States, especially the Mississippi River system and its major components such as the Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, and Red rivers. The most recent issue of the Nautical Research Journal (spring 2016) has several good articles about early, unpowered craft on these rivers, like the keelboats, flatboats, and barges that were poled/rowed/sailed up the rivers and floated down again. Once steam power developed in the 1830s, a unique class of steamboats developed along these river systems. There seem to be a number of folks with an interest in western river craft on MSW, judging from the interest in recent projects like my own sternwheeler Bertrand (1865), ggrieco's sidewheeler Heroine (1838), gerhardvienna's USS Cairo (1862), chborgm's Mississippi riverboat (1870), and so on. It's easy for general questions and discussions to take over such build logs, so I thought perhaps we should have a discussion/question forum for this topic in general. Perhaps it'll take root, perhaps not. I'll kick off with two topics. One, I was delighted to see the articles on keelboats and such in the latest NRJ, as a few years ago I build models of a Missouri River keelboat and Lewis & Clark's barge when I was first getting into maritime modelling. As a Missouri resident and river buff, I never expected to see my inland maritime empire so prominently featured. Here are the models I built based on the research I was able to do from home: I thought some folks who read the NRJ articles might be interested in seeing models of the subject matter. Two, although steamboat wrecks were exceedingly common in western US rivers, very few boats have ever been found, recovered, and studied. Thus, there was some great news recently when the team that excavated the Arabia (and displayed its cargo in a beautiful museum in downtown Kansas City, Missouri) announced its discovery of the steamboat Malta in central Missouri. The town of Malta was named for the boat, as the wreck was well-known when it happened in 1841, but the location was long-lost as the river's course shifted dramatically over time and left the wreck buried somewhere beneath miles of farm fields, as was the fate for many such wrecks. Here's a news story about the discovery; this should be especially exciting because we have almost no information about early steamboats from the 1830s and 40s; the Heroine is a rare exception. If this team does end up excavating Malta, we'll have a lot more information about this period. I drive through the town of Malta whenever I go to Kansas City, and it's really neat that its namesake craft has been found.