tkay11

In my copy on Page 50 it seems to have been corrected. It reads "These shrouds are of 7" cable and their laniards are 3 1/2" line." It seems corrections are made on the hoof as people notice them. My copy arrived a month ago. Tony

If you click on the generic line tool you'll see a box with what looks like an inverted T. That allows you to select a line to which you'd like to draw the perpendicular, then the length of the perpendicular and finally the end point of the perpendicular. Tony

It may be that you have to convert your pictures to jpg before they can be viewed on this site. Tony

Dr. Mike's videos are up to 95 now. He's the one publishing them on YouTube. As before his full list of videos is at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5wX2_PJGI8sxN_zzXNTWaZ9qi-U_9Zp7 Tony

Very pleasing. Delightfully rigged! Tony

Thanks, Mick. Useful info. I'd looked at a Peatol/Taig before and wondered how it would compare with the ARC models. I see it's set up for imperial units only, but suppose that's not much of a problem. Sorry for diverting the thread! Tony

Looks like a nice lathe. Which lathe is it? Bought in the UK? The reason I ask is that I'm looking for one myself. Tony

What a great sense of satisfaction and pride you must have! I've often wondered if at the end of a build there's also a sense of anti-climax, as though you can't quite believe it's all over. Looking forward to your next build Tony

Perhaps more seasonal than seasoned in my case, seeing the amount of time I've taken to get this far. Tony

Sorry, I just remembered, I measured the angle off the plans. Probably the best way to go! Tony

From memory, I set the cross trees to be parallel to the keel assuming a mast angle of 85 degrees (based simply on the way the mast fitted the slot!). I haven't yet fitted the mast as I'm working on the yards and their rigging. I am not sure a couple of degrees either way would be very noticeable. Tony

Just a quickie as I'm on a 30 minute connection in India at the moment. Re the 3-pounders, there is a set of drawings for the Armstrong 3 pounders in the armaments section of the ship modelling resources pages on this site. Tony

Just arrived in Bangalore and have a short spell of internet available. Great to see the progress. Re the 3-pounders, there is a set of drawings for the Armstrong 3 pounders in the armaments section of the ship modelling resources pages on this site. I'll see if I can pop in again later this week. Tony

Great to see another Sherbourne build! And, like you, I've just decided on adding sails, so I'm more than interested in your progress. There was a long discussion on MSW1.0 as to whether the Sherbourne might have been clinker built. The consensus at the time was that it might well have been not, but it was agreed that either way would fit the period. It's really up to you -- but no doubt others more knowledgeable than I will chip in with their opinions! I'm sure you'll have noticed Gregor's, Dirk's and Kester's outstanding Sherbourne builds on this forum -- they have lots of good discussion, demonstration, advice and hints. I too have used George Bandurek's book, and found it very helpful indeed -- although my build has differed from his in a few respects. I'll be interested to see what you decide about the topmast and the windlass. I left out the fife rail on mine because of the clutter fore of the mast, but Kester says there are very good reasons for it! I'm not at all a sailor, so I'm probably wrong in that decision! You might want to look at the pictures I took of contemporary cutter models at the NMM at Chatham on this forum as they provide some very interesting details. I'll be travelling for the next three weeks, so may not be able to follow your build until I return. So in the interim, have a good bash! Tony

Marquardt in 'The Global Schooner' shows the following as being used for the main sail sheet on page 185: This is very similar to the rig that Petersson shows, although in this case it is for a schooner rather than a cutter. Then on page 176 there is a rather interesting (though quite different) rig described as a 'small topping lift for smaller vessels': I'm showing the latter just as interest! Tony

It's a bit late in the game for me, but every time I've looked at my Sherbourne deck recently I've had a nagging suspicion that something is odd. It was this morning when I had another look that it dawned on me. All the cutter models I've seen, as well as the plans in the AOTS book of the Alert by Goodwin and the plans for other cutters, show the bowsprit supports fore of the windlass, and their bitts include the pawl for the windlass. The following are pictures I've taken during my visit to Chatham as well as at the Science Museum store: The following is from Goodwin's book on the Alert: The original plans for the Sherbourne, however, show it aft of the windlass, as is done in the kit: My question is whether this was an oddity, or was it just variable? In mechanical terms I would have thought that having it aft of the windlass would be advantageous in terms of balance and the ease of moving it in or out, but it's clear that a lot of cutter designers seemed to think differently. Having it aft does clutter the deck more, though. Tony

I too am at that stage, and in general have found the combination of Steel, Biddlecombe's 1848 Art of Rigging, Petersson, zu Mondfeld, some rigging tables from the forum's database, a visit to Chatham to look at 18th-19th century cutters, and numerous contributors on this forum to be the most useful. My own decision was not to go for rope (other than for seizing) less than 0.25mm, and then to restrict myself to observable differences. So I've ended up making rope of 0.25, 0.4, 0.5, 0.7 and 1.0 -- apart from the anchor ropes which will be made from one of those. Then I went through Petersson and by using Biddlecombe's tables, listed each rope to the nearest size of my thread in a spreadsheet table (which automatically converts the original circumference sizes in inches to mm at 1/64). I added to my table the blocks that would be connected to the ropes, defining them by the rope sizes, using the spreadsheets I mention below of zu Mondfeld's tables for block sizes. As with the ropes, I've decided on only a few block sizes, going for the smaller option when available. Thus I have 3mm, 4mm and 5mm blocks in single, double and triple sizes. You'll find a very handy set of spreadsheet tables for the sizes by Jim Lad <Period Ship Scale Tables.xls> as well as Biddlecombe's book in the Ship Modeling Database of this forum. There also used to be two spreadsheets on the old forum (MSW1.0) before the crash called <Rigging rope sizes metric V2.03.xls> by Bev Armstrong (which allows you to specify the period of your ship and the rope diameter steps you prefer) which converts using zu Mondfeld's data, and <Rigging.xls> by Peter Jaquith which is a rigging line and block conversion table allowing you to input the scale of your model to establish the scaled diameter of rope and the ensuing blocks in both mm and inch dimensions. I have both of these latter tables and can send them to you by PM if you'd like. Armed with all this, the advice given above by the others in their replies above sounds great. I've found that as with all the other steps in making a model so far, the best approach is a step at a time, making sure you understand the function and the potential ways of making it as fully as possible, and you'll find that all of a sudden you're looking back at something you thought would be next to impossible before you started. After having been daunted, like you, with the new terminology and complexity of rigging, as well as the different ways in which the same piece of rigging can be described, I've now completed my bowsprit rigging and about to venture to the uncharted territory of masts and yards. This time not with dread, but with interest and excitement at the thought I may actually be able to do it! Best of luck! Tony

Thanks, everyone, for the rich detail. These are the kinds of explanation that make the making of a model more deeply satisfying and interesting. I can certainly see that what I was calling 'bees' are in fact turning blocks -- the small point opposite each one implies a sheave. Interestingly, none of the 5 cutter models I saw at Chatham (see the discussion at http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/10370-18th-and-early-19th-century-cutter-models or in the Gallery) had either the tackle or the turning blocks, even though it seems from this discussion that they are quite normal aspects of sailing. Tony

Thanks, Tadeusz and Spyglass. That's the very one! It shows I have a lot more to learn about sails. That was very helpful indeed! Tony

In his book on Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft, Petersson shows a diagram of a boom as follows: The arrow I have added shows some tackle fitted to the underside of the boom, quite separate from the mainsheet tackle (which is given the honour of a full diagram later), but there is no other mention in the book or diagram of how this might be used. I'd be very grateful if someone could explain it to me or give me some idea of its function and the points to which it might be fixed. Oh, and by the way, I'd also be glad of some explanation of the function of the bees at the end of the boom as displayed (just to grab as much info as possible in one swoop!). Thanks in advance for any ideas Tony

Interesting about the US eBay. I looked it up for the UK and it's on the UK eBay site too, ref 311275446173, for £21.97 plus £4.35 p&p in the UK. Tony

Just want to say, Dan, that I've used this method of yours for cleats (after your posting on cleats) and it's such an elegant solution for consistent width and height of small pieces. Thanks a lot! Tony

For the difference between ship's and french curves, see the discussion at http://forum.woodenboat.com/archive/index.php/t-13329.html. Tony

Thanks for the thought, Kester. I was also wondering whether, when they increased the length of the topmast (perhaps with a view to supporting wider or more yards) they found the need for backstays and therefore that the more logical position would then be aft. Tony

Sorry, Alex, but I simply don't know as I didn't ask -- although I was told that some of the rigging was done in the museum as a repair. Tony