Cathead

Cathead, a bit more thinking after some further study of Petersson and your posting. One of the three vessels he studies is an "American Schooner". In his diagram the sail plan is almost identical to your diagram of the Louisiana linked above. While Frankie is correct in that this is documentation of a single museum model of the type, we might as well tap it for all its worth. Frankie's screen shot is of a Lugger belaying plan, not a Schooner (which is also in his book) and the pin locations are not the same. The third craft Petersson studies is a Schooner like yours. It is the Experiment of about 1812. She was purchased by the Swedes and used as a prototype for 4 more vessels.
 
Here's the way I'd break it down if I was building your model:
Your black line is pretty straight forward as a main shroud for the main mast. It is taken around a deadeye, the only one you have on your main channel. One for each side. Shown in one of my attachments above. One deadeye might seem unusual but I found other Schooner diagrams with the same characteristic. In these cases there were other shrouds, just not ones turned around deadeyes on the channel. I bet your rigging plan has other lines playing these roles.
 
Your Red and Blue lines. I noticed (for the first time) that your picture seems to show both of these lines going through spreaders. If this is correct they are clearly topgallent shrouds. Petersson shows two treatments of these at the spreader. In one they are actually seized to lashings on the spreader directly and stop there. In another they pass through the spreader, are gathered back to the mainmast by a "necklace" through which they pass down to the deck. I can easily imagine on your ship they might not run through this necklace and run from the spreader to the channel/belaying pin rack.
 
The other ideas I posted earlier did not take into account the spreaders, sorry about that.
Topgallent Shrouds.pdf

On small craft it was not unusual to have only one or even no shrouds on a mast.  The mast was a single timber and usually very heavy.  As for getting to the top sails sailors would use the mast hoops as a ladder and climb to the top that way.

Eric
 
They may not have had ratlines and it is most likely that they climbed the hoops to the tops when it was necessary.  I concluded this two years ago with my build to the AL kit Dallas.   I have recently started a thread on my build using some photo's i had in the early stages of the model.  I also started a thread on setting a topsail flying.   Here is the link.  
 
 
Frank's memory is pretty good in remembering this thread.  He actually posted a video of the HMS Surprise hoisting the a sail flying.
 

The foresail is made and rigged. This was essentially a repeat of the mainsail, so there's really nothing new to report. If you happen to notice that the fore- and mainmasts aren't at the same angle (spreading apart as they rise), that's a temporary mistake. I hadn't noticed it at first, but when I was experimenting with tightening down all the running rigging on the mainsail, I apparently overdid it and pulled the mainmast aft (no standing rigging is installed yet). It'll be fixed once I start installing more standing rigging.

Apologies for doing such a terrible job of updating this log. Among a variety of factors, I've been super-busy lately with my editing work over the last month, along with taking some online classes, meaning that sitting down on evenings or weekends to spend more time working with words on the computer for MSW hasn't really been high on my "fun" list. I also took a long-delayed trip to Kansas City, Missouri to revisit the Steamboat Arabia museum to research my next model project, another Missouri River steamboat along the same lines as my Bertrand but a sidewheeler from ten years earlier. I have a wealth of photos and measurements of the boat's salvaged equipment, stern, and cargo to pore over and write up, which has also been distracting me.
 
But I haven't given up on this ship! I'm also still working through my uncertainties about the standing rigging, and recently ordered some deadeye kits from Syren. Next up, I'll make and rig the remaining sails, then start in on the standing rigging. I hope to update again before another month goes past. Thank you all for sticking with me on this; it's nice to have even a small audience to keep me going as my brain wanders toward my beloved riverboats again.
 

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?

Made some nice progress this weekend, lots of photos below.
 
Matt, thanks for the kind words! You probably actually think I'm nuts for sticking with the kit materials, but it's an interesting challenge to my way of thinking. Plus, I don't have anywhere near the metal-working skills you do (yes, I know there's only one way to change that). It's too late on the rings, I already glued them in, so we'll just see how that goes. Also, I did use Cog's advice and knotted some small strips beneath the channel blocks; seems to have worked nicely.
 
Building the cabin,  you guessed it, involved overcoming flaws in the kit. First, the kit only provides fore and aft bulkheads to build the cabin around, with only very thin planking to wall it in. That seemed like a bad idea to me. So I added longitudinal bulkheads to provide a solid surface all the way round.
 

 
The same problem exists for the roof, which again they expect you to plank in with no support. Uh uh. So I added some roof braces.
 

 
Of course, the height of the shoulders on the kit-original bulkheads didn't match, so that the fore bulkhead was higher than the after bulkhead. So I sanded a camber into the fore bulkhead to accomodate this, figuring it was probably a realistic choice anyway. I also started adding windows and planking.
 

 
After some trial and error I got the whole cabin built and planked. So little extra wood is given in this kit that I literally finished this with nothing to spare. I couldn't have afforded to break one single piece. I think it came out nicely, although one part of the roof planking is slightly cockeyed. It's only visible to the camera lens under harsh light, though. I like how the color balance came out, I wanted to cabin darker than the deck so it would stand out.
 


 
Now for another kit problem. The pre-cast mounting ring for the carronade has two pegs underneath that are meant for holes in the deck. No problem, right? After all, those holes are pre-drilled in the plywood underdeck, so all you have to do is plank over them, file them open, and mount the ring. Yeah, no. I didn't think to pre-test the fit of the ring until now, and sure enough one of the holes was way off. One hole was right where it should be to mount the ring dead-center on the deck; the other was over a diameter too far outboard. I had to measure and drill a new mounting hole. Below left,  you see the ring mounted properly, with the original factory-drilled hole in its horribly visible location. Below right, you see how I decided to handle this: I just filed a couple of wood scraps to look like some kind of step or brace against the ring. They'll vanish into the clutter of the deck once the model is complete, and only a serious naval historian would wonder what the heck they're for (and that person would already realize that this model is not museum-quality).
 

 
Finally, I mounted the rudder. More CA glue leaked around the edges of the iron bands than I would have liked, under the right light there's some annoying glistening along the edges. But under most conditions it's not noticeable and I think the rudder looks nice overall. I also mounted the tiller. The kit-drilled tiller hole didn't come close to matching up with the angle of the rudder, so I just cut off the rudder post and shaped a new tiller post that I glued to the top of the deck instead. No one will ever now but you, gentle readers.
 

 
I have to say, it's been really fun adding all the deck detail, this thing is starting to feel like a real ship build. I hadn't intended it to turn out as it has so far, but now I'm liking the shades of bare wood and the simple black iron fittings. I've given up on trying to match this to any specific plans or ship, it's evolved to just become a fun personal model. Thanks for reading.

I've been working on rigging the first blocks to the deck fittings; I decided it would be better overall to do this before installing the rings. It's been easy to hold each ring in a clamp, tie the block on & glue it in place, then insert the ring into the deck. This way if I make a mistake it isn't already attached to the model. Below are the first six block/ring assemblies in place around the foremast's hole. These will be in tension vertically once rigged, so I don't care how they lay about for now.
 

 
I also assembled and installed the channels, which led to an unresolved problem. Each channel has a regular deadeye attached to a chainplate, then a block that's supposed to be tied to the channel. See below.
 

 
The problem is,  the instructions just say to tie this block to the channel, and show what looks like some kind of small stopper knot beneath that would hold the block in place. But the hole in the channel is way too large for this; the size knot it would take to keep this block in place under tension would be almost as big as the block itself, and would look ridiculous.
 
So my problem is, how do I fix this block in place? Do I somehow tie a small scrap of wood onto the line to act as a stopper? Do I try to CA the line to the underside of the channel? I've been having trouble searching for an answer to this on MSW and elsewhere, as the search terms are so vague. Any ideas?

I have been working on the deck fittings.Below, you see the deck with all holes drilled for the metal fittings (rings, bits, etc.):
 

 
And here you see most of the fittings test-placed (unglued) to get a sense of the deck's layout. Many of these will have small blocks; I'm trying to decide whether I should tie those in before gluing down the fittings, or afterward.
 

 
Another source of annoyance in this kit: these metal fittings have "pins" meant to fit into the deck holes, but many of them are too thick or long. For example, the stanchions which will hold safety lines have pins nearly the width of the rails, as shown in the blurry photo below. I've drilled smaller pilots holes, but am reluctant to drill any wider for fear of splitting the rail. So I may have to file down all these tiny parts to fit proper holes.
 

 
I've also had this problem with the plates and other hull fittings; their pins are so long that holes drilled in the rails would go right through. As it is, I've been desperately careful drilling pilot holes sideways through these rails without poking through. So I've been spending lots of time filing down the pins on these fittings to be narrower and pointier so I can drive them into the wood and have them hold more securely.
 
It's been very fiddly work but I think it'll come out ok. As this is the first rigged ship I've ever attempted, I don't know if this kind of thing or normal, or unique to the Corel kit. 
 
Are there any thoughts on whether to pre-rig blocks to the rings, or do it after gluing the rings in? Anything else I should be considering at this stage?

Chborgm, sorry for the slow reply, but I finally had a chance to pull out my copy of Steamboats on the Western Rivers  by Louis C. Hunter, which has this to say about the safety act of 1838:
 
Hunter goes on to argue that of the few inspectors created by the law, there was no oversight and essentially no structure, so the system quickly became corrupt and all but meaningless, especially on the Western rivers. Congress passed a new law in 1852 that seems to have been stronger and better enforced, but I couldn't find any further mention of signal light regulations specifically. On the other hand, Hunter notes elsewhere that steamboat pilots vigorously protested any requirement for carrying signal lights on the grounds that such lights would reduce or ruin their night vision and their ability to read the river's surface, due to the glare and reflection off the water.
 
You also might enjoy reading this archived article from the February 23, 1865 New York Times, which discusses the history of regulation of navigation lights on inland waterways in the US, with reference to the 1852 act of Congress. Essentially it seems to argue that as of 1865, there was still no clear regulatory structure or enforcement of the subject on inland waterways.
 
Finally, this passage from The Steamboat Bertrand and Missouri River Commerce tells a similar tale: the 1838 law was toothless, the 1852 law stricter, but nowhere is it clear if and when clear guidance was written and enforced on just what kind of lights steamboats were required to carry.
 
In other words, backdate your boat toward the Civil War (which you've already done by converting her to a wood-burner), and you can get away with all sorts of options, including no signal lights, especially in a freelance build.
 
Cool question, wish I had more positive knowledge about it.
 

Significant progress on the blocks. I used the method described in the article below, but I used white glue and a simple overhand knot for the seizing. There's a bit of excess rope because I didn't want to cut too close to the knot (done this already!). A thinner line for the seizing would make the excess rope invisible. The rope coils should hide some of this. 
Steve
 
http://www.modelboatyard.com/stropping.html

Chborgm, sorry for the slow reply, but I finally had a chance to pull out my copy of Steamboats on the Western Rivers  by Louis C. Hunter, which has this to say about the safety act of 1838:
 
Hunter goes on to argue that of the few inspectors created by the law, there was no oversight and essentially no structure, so the system quickly became corrupt and all but meaningless, especially on the Western rivers. Congress passed a new law in 1852 that seems to have been stronger and better enforced, but I couldn't find any further mention of signal light regulations specifically. On the other hand, Hunter notes elsewhere that steamboat pilots vigorously protested any requirement for carrying signal lights on the grounds that such lights would reduce or ruin their night vision and their ability to read the river's surface, due to the glare and reflection off the water.
 
You also might enjoy reading this archived article from the February 23, 1865 New York Times, which discusses the history of regulation of navigation lights on inland waterways in the US, with reference to the 1852 act of Congress. Essentially it seems to argue that as of 1865, there was still no clear regulatory structure or enforcement of the subject on inland waterways.
 
Finally, this passage from The Steamboat Bertrand and Missouri River Commerce tells a similar tale: the 1838 law was toothless, the 1852 law stricter, but nowhere is it clear if and when clear guidance was written and enforced on just what kind of lights steamboats were required to carry.
 
In other words, backdate your boat toward the Civil War (which you've already done by converting her to a wood-burner), and you can get away with all sorts of options, including no signal lights, especially in a freelance build.
 
Cool question, wish I had more positive knowledge about it.
 

Chborgm, sorry for the slow reply, but I finally had a chance to pull out my copy of Steamboats on the Western Rivers  by Louis C. Hunter, which has this to say about the safety act of 1838:
 
Hunter goes on to argue that of the few inspectors created by the law, there was no oversight and essentially no structure, so the system quickly became corrupt and all but meaningless, especially on the Western rivers. Congress passed a new law in 1852 that seems to have been stronger and better enforced, but I couldn't find any further mention of signal light regulations specifically. On the other hand, Hunter notes elsewhere that steamboat pilots vigorously protested any requirement for carrying signal lights on the grounds that such lights would reduce or ruin their night vision and their ability to read the river's surface, due to the glare and reflection off the water.
 
You also might enjoy reading this archived article from the February 23, 1865 New York Times, which discusses the history of regulation of navigation lights on inland waterways in the US, with reference to the 1852 act of Congress. Essentially it seems to argue that as of 1865, there was still no clear regulatory structure or enforcement of the subject on inland waterways.
 
Finally, this passage from The Steamboat Bertrand and Missouri River Commerce tells a similar tale: the 1838 law was toothless, the 1852 law stricter, but nowhere is it clear if and when clear guidance was written and enforced on just what kind of lights steamboats were required to carry.
 
In other words, backdate your boat toward the Civil War (which you've already done by converting her to a wood-burner), and you can get away with all sorts of options, including no signal lights, especially in a freelance build.
 
Cool question, wish I had more positive knowledge about it.
 

The foresail is made and rigged. This was essentially a repeat of the mainsail, so there's really nothing new to report. If you happen to notice that the fore- and mainmasts aren't at the same angle (spreading apart as they rise), that's a temporary mistake. I hadn't noticed it at first, but when I was experimenting with tightening down all the running rigging on the mainsail, I apparently overdid it and pulled the mainmast aft (no standing rigging is installed yet). It'll be fixed once I start installing more standing rigging.

Apologies for doing such a terrible job of updating this log. Among a variety of factors, I've been super-busy lately with my editing work over the last month, along with taking some online classes, meaning that sitting down on evenings or weekends to spend more time working with words on the computer for MSW hasn't really been high on my "fun" list. I also took a long-delayed trip to Kansas City, Missouri to revisit the Steamboat Arabia museum to research my next model project, another Missouri River steamboat along the same lines as my Bertrand but a sidewheeler from ten years earlier. I have a wealth of photos and measurements of the boat's salvaged equipment, stern, and cargo to pore over and write up, which has also been distracting me.
 
But I haven't given up on this ship! I'm also still working through my uncertainties about the standing rigging, and recently ordered some deadeye kits from Syren. Next up, I'll make and rig the remaining sails, then start in on the standing rigging. I hope to update again before another month goes past. Thank you all for sticking with me on this; it's nice to have even a small audience to keep me going as my brain wanders toward my beloved riverboats again.
 

Chborgm, sorry for the slow reply, but I finally had a chance to pull out my copy of Steamboats on the Western Rivers  by Louis C. Hunter, which has this to say about the safety act of 1838:
 
Hunter goes on to argue that of the few inspectors created by the law, there was no oversight and essentially no structure, so the system quickly became corrupt and all but meaningless, especially on the Western rivers. Congress passed a new law in 1852 that seems to have been stronger and better enforced, but I couldn't find any further mention of signal light regulations specifically. On the other hand, Hunter notes elsewhere that steamboat pilots vigorously protested any requirement for carrying signal lights on the grounds that such lights would reduce or ruin their night vision and their ability to read the river's surface, due to the glare and reflection off the water.
 
You also might enjoy reading this archived article from the February 23, 1865 New York Times, which discusses the history of regulation of navigation lights on inland waterways in the US, with reference to the 1852 act of Congress. Essentially it seems to argue that as of 1865, there was still no clear regulatory structure or enforcement of the subject on inland waterways.
 
Finally, this passage from The Steamboat Bertrand and Missouri River Commerce tells a similar tale: the 1838 law was toothless, the 1852 law stricter, but nowhere is it clear if and when clear guidance was written and enforced on just what kind of lights steamboats were required to carry.
 
In other words, backdate your boat toward the Civil War (which you've already done by converting her to a wood-burner), and you can get away with all sorts of options, including no signal lights, especially in a freelance build.
 
Cool question, wish I had more positive knowledge about it.
 

I made a new bell the original is very small.

Thx to all for the continued likes and comments.
 
Look what I found in the G'kids toy box!!!! mine now haha.
 

Nearly done, about a weeks worth of work left I reckon, a couple of pics showing latest status, hope you like em.

On to the whaleboats.
Each is made up of 7 lifts glued together and then carved/sanded to profile.
I glued all seven sets, and set to work on the boats that will be the spares stored upside down on the boat bearer/shelter of the Morgan.
My references suggest that these were primed only, to be painted when needed to replace a lost boat.
Below are the two boats, one with only the fore and aft profile sanded and the other (exterior shaping) complete. About 3 hours work to turn the left hand example into the right hand result.

Thanks for the kind words!  I make such a mess when I do the planking, with the glue smearing the pencil all over the place, glue finger prints, etc., that I can't tell how the joints between strakes will look until I sand all the mess off.  As I sanded, I was pleasantly surprised that the last strake turned out so well.  To get it to the right width I cut it down to get it to the basic shape, but slightly oversized, and then started at the bow with removing material and worked my way along the length of the plank.  Meaning, once I got the first 1/2" so it would fit in between the adjacent strakes, I moved onto the next short segment, carefully sanding the plank edge and test fitting until it fit correctly with a little pressure.  I erred on the side of not removing enough material as I did my sanding, before test fitting.  As we all have learned the hard way, you can't put material back!
 
Erik

Nice tiny detail work. Amazing. BTW in Newfoundland during the heyday their slogan was "in Cod we trust".

Just a small update. I stropped these four blocks with hooks. Two 3/32" blocks for the staysail and jibsail halyard and two 1/8" blocks that will hook to the mast. The two hooks below will be stropped to 1/8" blocks with rope to hook to the backstay chainplates.
 
Roughly four hours of work. Good practice making hooks. Oh, did I mention they are tiny? 
Steve

Finished the gangplank, quite pleased with result, I beat up the edges with an open pair of scissors to make it a complete wreck.

Next stage of the gangplank, home mixed red oxide on the top, I'll rub this down to expose more natural wood, I think that will make it more realistic.
Below I have very limited reference  so I assumed algea, grass stains and natural aging would be fairly severe so put plenty of weathering on, I will tone the underside down with a black wash later.
Base coat is white everywhere except the actual walkway top surface, but next stage after it is dry will be a rub down with a well used 100 sandpaper.

Nothing much to show right now, I'm just wrapping up the Texas deck, less rigging and nothing is painted yet.
I did glue together the gangplank, the rough joins are deliberate by the wy, honest they are!!!! but the thing of interest is the vinegar wash finish.
The solution is about a month old now and the wire wool has just about completely dissolved. I applied a medium wash to the plank and it took about 3 days to fully age and darken up.
I know some of you guys will be very familiar with this process but the first time I looked into it was after watching a couple of Youtube vids of it. There were lots of different recipes, I'm very pleased with the results so far and the older the mix the better it performs.
 
The gang plank will have a thin coat of paint on it and lots of exposed aging showing through when I'm done. 

These days, that's pretty bad indeed. I agree, though, post some photos here too, so your log is self-contained and complete.