gjdale

Following on from the most useful discussion on Yard Tackle Pendants and Brace Pendants, I think I've decided to show the Yard Tackle Pendants "triced up". But that leads to two more quandaries...... The first of these is to do with how the tricing was actually achieved. Lees (pg 71) says that the outer tricing line was attached to the Pendant just by the (yard tackle) block, reeved through the outer tricing line block (seized to the yard close to where the pendant would come to the yard) and then belayed in the top. He goes on to say that the inner tricing line was attached to the fall close to the hook block and reeves through the inner tricing line block. He doesn't indicate where the inner tricing line block is attached, nor where it belays, although the diagram on the same page shows the block as being on the yard close to the mast and the the tricing line then leading to the deck. In a description of the the rigging of HMS Medway (1742) on pg 175, he seems to contradict himself somewhat by stating that the outer tricing line belays "to the fore topsail sheet bits next to the upright". The same page also indicates that the inner tricing line belays to the third shroud of the foremast. Longridge (pg 242), on the other hand, says the outer tricing line is made fast to the pendant just above the (yard tackle) block, reeved through a 7" single block just outside the quarter iron, through another 7" block lashed to the first shroud just below the futtock stave and leads down on deck where it is belayed around the first lower shroud above the deadeye. The inner tricing line is made fast just above the hook block, reeved through another 7" block on the same shroud and belays on deck around the second lower shroud above the deadeye. Antscherl agrees with Lees, including the contradiction of whether the outer tricing line belays in the top or on the fore topsail sheet bits. Confused yet? I sure am!!!! The next issue is the Yard Tackle Pendant Block itself. Longridge quite clearly says that this is a 13" double block. Lees describes it as a long-tackle block. Antscherl says that at first he was confused by Steel's description into thinking that the blocks were conventional double ones while in fact these were long tackle blocks. He doesn't offer an opinion as to what convinced him of this, but does add that these were "double thin blocks", meaning they are narrower than a standard or common block of the same size. I'm inclined to go with Lees/Antsherl on this and use a long-tackle block. That then leads to the next question - what size/proportions should they be? Enter Steel. Steel describes Long Tackle Blocks as being two thirds longer than the proportion for a single block. My reckoning says then that if Longridge is describing a 13" (conventional) double block, then the Long Tackle Block would be roughly the length of a 13" block and a 10" block combined (or about 22 - 23"). At scale this equates to using the equivalent of a 5/32" and 1/8" block length, which is a total length of roughly 9/32"or 7mm. A comparison to Antscherl's choice of a 15" block for a Swan class would seem to be about right. So, how to make them then...... Noting that the blocks need to be thinner than standard, I decided to use the size of the smaller block for this dimension. I found a drawing of a Long Tackle Block and scaled it using the photocopier until it was the right overall length. I then prepared some Boxwood stock 1/16" x 1/8" and made grooves for stropping and sheaves, and stuck on the pattern: Next, I marked the divisions of the block onto the edges and drilled 0.5mm holes for the sheaves: Then I used a razor saw to make small cuts at the extremities and the "centre" of the block, and used this as a starting point for a triangular needle file to start shaping the block: I continued to file the shape until it was "almost there": At that point I was able to snap off the block from the stock and finish off the end: And here's the final result, not perfect, but I think they'll do: All I need to do now is replace the existing Yard Tackle Pendants/blocks with the new Long Tackle Blocks and then sort out just how the whole tricing thing is going to work....... Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll probably replace the Brace Blocks with Brace Pendants/Blocks as well. Okay, I'm exhausted just thinking about this. Any and all opinions welcome.

Welcome back Bug. Nice to see your log back - thanks for taking the time and effort to re-post.

Looking good Jeff. How are you getting on now with the coppering?

Great to see this one finally underway Sjors. I'm sure it will be an enjoyable build for you, especially with your little "upgrade" kit

Great decision to go with the Sherline Rusty, you won't regret it. As for size, it's very much a personal decision. I went with the longer bed "just in case" on the basis that if I didn't end up needing the extra length then nothing lost, but if I'd gone the other way,........... Also, space wasn't an issue for me. Of course, you're going to become addicted to adding accessories now too!

I see a Sherline in your future

That's a very nice looking set of spars there Len. Best wishes for 2014 - may it be full of rewarding modelling.

Looks great Bob. Best wishes for the New Year.

Hi Mike, Thanks for dropping by. I haven't done the quarter davits yet. Still considering how I will tackle this one as I agree the kit instructions are somewhat lacking here. I will probably be guided by Longridge for this aspect.

Looking good Sean, Your decision on treenails was a good one in my opinion. The Danish oil seems to come up very nicely too, Re your canon question, it is the canons that sit on carriages you need to be careful with. Those with only dummy barrels will be able to be fitted into the gun port frames easily from the outside (though I would check the fit of the dummy barrel flange into the metal hole for each frame before fitting to the hull). Those that are on carriages and will later be covered by another deck are the ones to fit early. The instructions suggest that these can be fitted through the gunports from outside. They can't. Now is also a good time to make sure your gunports are set at the right height. I understand that you are going to go ahead with the supplied metal gunport frames, but don't trust the notches on the frames as a height guide. I suggest you make up a gun/carriage assembly and use this to ensure each port is at the right height. Keep up the great work - it's looking really good.

Great work Sjors, You'll be finished this one in no time. Oh wait........I seem to recall that the Sjors shipyard will be commencing work on the Aggy from 01 Jan 14......maybe this one will take a little longer then

Barry, Your are in luck. I've sent them to you in a PM.

Thanks Jeff, John, and B.E. B.E. - Thanks so much for your excellent response with so much information. I was hoping I could rely on you to provide an authoritative response and you didn't let me down I posted the question separately for the benefit of others who may not be following this log, so the answer you provided there will hopefully help many others as well. The link to the online version of Steel is particularly helpful. I'm going to give this a little more thought now before finally deciding which way to go regarding Brace Pendants. I'll also consider how I will display the Yard Tackle Pendants - tricing them up might be the way to go. Thanks again for the input B.E. - that really has helped remove the confusion - possibly more than you could know!

Thank you so much B.E.! Once again you are a font of information - that all actually makes sense! Thanks also for the online link to Steel. I'll give this some more thought now as I'm still at a point where I can change my mind........hmmmmmmmmmm............

Barry, I think I may have a copy of these on my other computer. I'll check tomorrow and send you a PM if I have any luck.

This post is intended for anyone who has built, is building, or is contemplating building HMS Victory, whether in kit form or scratch built. Others with an interest in Rigging generally may also like to chime in. I've come across an interesting conundrum regarding the rigging of Victory that other Victory builders may be interested in. I spent several hours poring over documentation to try and work out the use of Yard Tackle Pendants and Brace Block Pendants. I consulted several sources, but my primary reference for any assertions here is Longridge. I also sent a PM to Gil Middleton to seek advice on his approach to this aspect - his reply is posted within Gil's own log (as we had a problem with the PM system), so I won't repeat it verbatim here. First up, as far as I can tell, Yard Tackle Pendants are only used on the lower yards of the Main and Fore Masts. Longridge talks of these in the text descriptions for each of the yards, and this is matched by the drawing of the Running Rigging by Campbell (Plan No. 7 in Longridge). Secondly, I don't believe Pendants were used for Braces except for the Cross Jack Yard. Longridge specifically states (pg 258), in his description of the Cross Jack Yard, that "Here is the only place in the ship where Brace pendants are employed." I also checked over McKay's AOTS book, and as vague as it is, it does seem to match Longridge as well, with the exception that it does not show brace pendants for the Cross Jack Yard. I got terribly confused by all of this as Antscherl (in TFFM) employs brace pendants on all yards, and although he shows the Yard Tackle Pendants, he doesn't say much about them. The Mamoli kit plans, as bad as they are, actually do match Longridge (now there's a turn up for the books!), with the exception of the Cross Jack Yard Brace Pendants, and belaying of the yard tackle pendants. I got further confused when I looked back over Gil's excellent log, where he has employed brace pendants on all of the upper yards. So I asked Gil about his sources and choices. Gil's response was (in essence) that the Jotika plans showed them this way, and that this matches his photographs of the actual ship (see Gil's log for these photos). He opined that Longridge was basing his version on the 1922 restoration and that this may have been different to the more recent restoration to (supposedly) the "Trafalgar" state of the ship. Gil also quite correctly points out that different Captains changed rigs to suit there personal preferences, so unless we can go back and interview Captain Hardy, we might never know for certain. In the meantime, Gil has chosen to stick with the Jotika/Trafalgar restoration version, and I have decided to stick with the Longridge version on the basis that if Longridge is wrong, then I'm happy to be wrong with him. I've also been confused by the belaying of the Fore Lower Yard Tackle Pendants. Longridge, in the text (pg 242), is quite vague saying, "The pendant...is a 7-in rope with its lower end spliced round a 13-in double block which is connected by its 3 1/2-in fall to a 13-in single block which hooks on to an eyebolt in the side of the deck." In the diagram (Plan No.7) "the side of the deck" seems to translate to the Fore Channel, and this matches the drawing in McKay (pg 109), though neither actually show the final belaying point clearly. In checking the text again, Longridge's Belaying Plan (Plan 10, pg 266) and his Table of Belaying Points (pg. 270) both show that it belays to the "7th timber head, side of forecastle". But this raises another question for me - how does the line get to this belaying point without going through the shrouds/ratlines and/or the hammock netting and consequently becoming fouled? It would make more sense to me to belay it on the Fore Channel, outside the shrouds, as seems to be indicated by all of the diagrams. Does anybody have an opinion on this? For interest, general discussion and further opinions as appropriate.

I've been battling with a persistent virus for the past two weeks, so progress hasn't been as fast as I had hoped for this holiday period. That seems to be a regular pattern for me of late - too busy while working to get sick, so get sick as soon as I stop and relax! I have however, finished fitting out all of the yards for the Main mast, so they are ready for installation to the ship. Just the one pic to keep you-know-who happy I've also come across an interesting conundrum regarding the rigging of Victory that other Victory builders may be interested in. I spent several hours poring over documentation to try and work out the use of Yard Tackle Pendants and Brace Block Pendants. I consulted several sources, but my primary reference for any assertions here is Longridge. I also sent a PM to Gil Middleton to seek advice on his approach to this aspect - his reply is posted within Gil's own log (as we had a problem with the PM system), so I won't repeat it verbatim here. First up, as far as I can tell, Yard Tackle Pendants are only used on the lower yards of the Main and Fore Masts. Longridge talks of these in the text descriptions for each of the yards, and this is matched by the drawing of the Running Rigging by Campbell (Plan No. 7 in Longridge). Secondly, I don't believe Pendants were used for Braces except for the Cross Jack Yard. Longridge specifically states (pg 258), in his description of the Cross Jack Yard, that "Here is the only place in the ship where Brace pendants are employed." I also checked over McKay's AOTS book, and as vague as it is, it does seem to match Longridge as well, with the exception that it does not show brace pendants for the Cross Jack Yard. I got terribly confused by all of this as Antscherl (in TFFM) employs brace pendants on all yards, and although he shows the Yard Tackle Pendants, he doesn't say much about them. The Mamoli kit plans, as bad as they are, actually do match Longridge (now there's a turn up for the books!), with the exception of the Cross Jack Yard Brace Pendants, and belaying of the yard tackle pendants. I got further confused when I looked back over Gil's excellent log, where he has employed brace pendants on all of the upper yards. So I asked Gil about his sources and choices. Gil's response was (in essence) that the Jotika plans showed them this way, and that this matches his photographs of the actual ship (see Gil's log for these photos). He opined that Longridge was basing his version on the 1922 restoration and that this may have been different to the more recent restoration to (supposedly) the "Trafalgar" state of the ship. Gil also quite correctly points out that different Captains changed rigs to suit there personal preferences, so unless we can go back and interview Captain Hardy, we might never know for certain. In the meantime, Gil has chosen to stick with the Jotika/Trafalgar restoration version, and I have decided to stick with the Longridge version on the basis that if Longridge is wrong, then I'm happy to be wrong with him. I've also been confused by the belaying of the Fore Lower Yard Tackle Pendants. Longridge, in the text (pg 242), is quite vague saying, "The pendant...is a 7-in rope with its lower end spliced round a 13-in double block which is connected by its 3 1/2-in fall to a 13-in single block which hooks on to an eyebolt in the side of the deck." In the diagram (Plan No.7) "the side of the deck" seems to translate to the Fore Channel, and this matches the drawing in McKay (pg 109), though neither actually show the final belaying point clearly. In checking the text again, Longridge's Belaying Plan (Plan 10, pg 266) and his Table of Belaying Points (pg. 270) both show that it belays to the "7th timber head, side of forecastle". But this raises another question for me - how does the line get to this belaying point without going through the shrouds/ratlines and/or the hammock netting and consequently becoming fouled? It would make more sense to me to belay it on the Fore Channel, outside the shrouds, as seems to be indicated by all of the diagrams. Does anybody have an opinion on this? I hope to install the Main mast yards tomorrow.

Rusty, I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I would offer this additional thought for you. Turning very small wooden parts in a wood lathe, using hand held tools, is a very delicate (and difficult) operation as just a tad too much pressure will destroy the part in the blink of an eye. If you use a metal lathe, the tools are held in the machine and applied with great control, making the manufacture of small parts so much easier. So it's not a question of, "how much metal would I turn", but more one of, "how much control of the tool do I need?". I know the outlay cost is more, but you will remember the quality of the Sherline long after you have forgotten the price. Hope this helps.

Wonderful to see you back at MSW Doris; we have all missed you and your exquisite work. Thank you so much for these recent photos - what a delight! I do hope you are now over your health problems, and as others have said, ignore the small-minded jealous bigots - you have many friends and admirers of your work from all over the world, right here at MSW.

Well done Jeff. I'd read that post on making eyes and wondered how it would work - very well it would seem!!!

Hi Sean, Good to see your build log started. You'll find no shortage of advice here from the many Victory builders. Take your time, read the instructions well ahead of where you are at and plan your next moves carefully. That way you will avoid most of the obvious traps with this kits instructions. If you don't already own a copy, I strongly recommend obtaining "The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships" by C. Nepean Longridge - it is the "bible" for modelling this ship, and you will find it indispensable once you get to the rigging. Re coppering, I chose to use the kit provided "green bits" and found it provided an acceptable result. If I were starting over, I'd probably go the copper tape route as suggested above. Re your question, it's that long ago that I did this step that I can't actually remember how I approached it, but I think your idea of planking the deck before installing the grating and ladders makes sense and would avoid potentially very thin strips around the coamings. Again memory is failing me, but I think you will need to install the false decks before planking them. Hopefully someone with more recent experience of this stage will chime in here.

More stunning work Gaetan!

Have to agree with the others Kevin, I think you are being overly harsh on yourself. The work you have done on your Victory to date has been top notch, and when you have done a "re-do", the results have been well worthwhile. And we all have re-dos!!! Similarly, your work so far on Bismarck has been very good. Striving for perfection is one thing, but don't let aspirations for perfection get in the way of enjoyment and satisfaction from things that maybe just short of perfection - that way lies disappointment and frustration. You are a very capable modeller who turns out very good work and who is learning and improving all the time. Just like the rest of us. That's why we are here on this forum - to learn, grow and develop our skills.........and to support each other through the tough times. Now, get back to work!!!

Hi Gil, Thank you so very much for your detailed reply to my query, though I have no idea what might have happened within the PM system. Your reply certainly answers the question as to why the differences among sources, even if we can't be definitive about which is "correct". I also think you are right in saying that so much depended on the whim of the Captain at the time. Having mulled this over for a few days now, I have come to the decision that I will stick with Longridge. If he is wrong, then I'll be happy to be wrong with him. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts and sources. This is one of the great strengths of this forum, that we can share our collective knowledge and research. Cheers, Grant

Thanks Keith and Gary. Keith - I think that Janos has done/is doing a carving of the old Victory figurehead. I have some photos if you're interested - just PM me and I'll send them to you. Gary - TFFM refers to the four part book series, The Fully Framed Model, by David Antscherl. While specifically about building a model of a Swan Class Sloop, it is a very good general reference set. Volume four deals with rigging. The while set is very well written and relatively easy to understand. He is quite meticulous about reference to primary sources. As I mentioned, while there are some differences between the rigging of a sixth rate sloop and a first rate, those differences are relatively few and the principles and techniques discussed by Antscherl are equally applicable to both (in general). Longridge remains my primary source of guidance, but Antscherl often helps me to understand Longridge. Hope this helps you.