rwiederrich

He said no futtock shrouds...the means to climb up and over the top from the lower shrouds to the top shrouds... And no topmast shrouds from the tops...Weird. I think the addition of the tops should be eliminated and only cross trees are required. Still you need shrouds to access above the tree. Weird...again. Rob

Time to, *Make it so #1*. Rob

Vlad....you have a real job ahead of you. You will need many hundreds of blocks. but in your scale....that will be fun....if I can say that. I created blocks for each yard and purpose at the time I needed them. It broke up the monotony of making so many blocks at the same time. That was just me. In your scale, each block is nearly a small model in of itself. There are some nice videos , where folks mass produce blocks from dowels chucked up in a drill motor...or on their small lathe. Good luck. I'll be watching. Rob

My library of books has been my own life saver as well. Glad the suggestion is making the task so much easier. I agree...one thing with larger scales is you can work around issues a bit easier. Through the function has to remain the same. To be honest....I haven't given my next build much thought. I have many hobbies...each requiring, as much of my time to accomplish the desired results. I build refractor telescopes in my shop and summer approaches...meaning I will want to take my big ones out so the grandkids can enjoy them. I also want to reinfuse my HO train passions and build my grandkids a small layout. And to top it all off....I'm retrofitting my library with production lighting, video and audio....so my sweet wife can engage her passion of live podcasting. I've spent thousands of dollars on cameras, video and audio control equipment. I'm simply trying to find Glory a new home, or a quality case so I can protect her for the long term. Rob

I use simple wood glue. I first cut the ratline about an inch longer on both ends.....then dab some glue to each shroud at the ratline's proposed location...then I hold the ratline thread from both ends and gently press it into the glue and roll the ratline thread into the glue, incorporating it completely in both the ratline and the shroud. Then pull away, leaving the ratline glued to the shrouds. The glue dries clear, with a mat finish, but I always finish it off with some black paint. All my ratline/shroud joints get painted. Thing is you see....on the prototype the knot and ratline is left on the outside of the shroud....so is it on models....cept...in 1/96...no overly sized knot is present. Just clean ratlines....without the awkward, un-natural look of over sized knots and ratlines that don't flow harmoniously. PLUS....you don't have to spend tedious hours with tweezers tying knots on 5 to 6 shrouds...trying with all your might to NOT pull in the outer shrouds and warping the fantastic work you spend other hours rigging. That's just me. Remembering that all we are actually doing is *Simulating*. You've done a fantastic job. Rob

Fantastic job Vlad. You’ve discovered why I prefer the 1/96 scale. The size of model is still commanding, but allows you freedom to detail without that detail becoming (at times) out of scale. Not to mention, the smaller scale permits your details to be easier to disguise if you use unorthodox building materials. (That I’m fond of doing). So are you finished with the standing rigging and ready to move on to the sail and yard control rigging? I’m always following with great interest and pleasure. Rob

Fantastic. I'd love to see her......but that is completely across the country from me. Someday maybe. I've been working at getting my Glory of the Seas loaned to local nautical museums myself. Several museums have declined due to lack of floor space. Glad folks are getting to see her first hand. Rob

Rob....your sails are well fabricated and it looks like you are aware of the down falls of using cloth material. One significant reason I used paper.....and even there, I needed to be careful of weight issues as well as billowing issues. I've built so many clipper models that I finally resolved to make all my sails furled (starting with Glory of the Seas). As they were actually furled in port.....on top of the yard. I've also concluded(for myself), that this arrangement releases me from making the jackstays, as well as satisfying the need to include sails on my model. Since sailing ships need to have sails mounted as much as they need rudders to steer. A sailless vessel was a rare thing....unless it was to be laid up in port for a lengthy period of time.....be it for financial inactivity or extended repairs. Your version is wonderfully made, and the addition of sails makes her even more so. I look forward to your remedy and approach. Rob

Ed....what became of her....if I may ask? Rob

Hours of something....... I build in 1/96 so I don't tie....I glue....then paint. I can lay ratlines on the entire mast in a about .. two to three hours. Futtocks included. 2 time killers.........laying copper plates and ratlines... 2 reasons why I developed my embossed copper tape system and my ratline technique. Rob

Yep, the perrell was leather lined and lubricated. And had some play to it, so it would not bind under a heavy load. Rob

Any evidence of your fine needle work? You do know....no pictures...it didn't happen....right?😄 I remember you talking about this technique......can't wait. Rob

I'm confused. Why would anyone want to *band* a yard (Irregardless of having a truss), that NEEDS to travel up and down the mast it travels? Yes the main and LOWER topsail yard are trussed...because they do not move up and down the mast. The lower topsail yard in a Howes design is fixed with a crane to the mast cap. But if you are only using a single topsail.(As what appears you are modeling)...it must travel up and down the mast freely by way of a hinged parrell. Your topsail yard is banded to the mast, making it stationary and immovable. Your wonderful work on your chain/gin block tys and haulyards will not work with a stationary banded yard. Do you see what I am pointing out? Rob

Great metal work Mike. I wasn't aware the Flying fish only had a single topsail........? 1851 build might mean prior to being Howes Rigged. Fantastic work. One observation though......those yards would not have been strapped to the masts, but parrelled for ease of movement up and down the masts Rob

I propose, that even caps and other fixtures where easily made from wrought iron straps that required to be parallel to the sheer or waterline that were intended for raked masts. This image of Glory of the Seas bowsprit cap is evidence that off perpendicular forging of bands was possible to achieve in house. Rivets included to affix the fixture to the Timbers. Rob

Pat...the cap was not press fitted to the mast as would be the practice for mast banding. (The cap was only pressed and pinned to the mast it was the cap for) The topmast and subsequent upper masts easily slid through their caps for removal and replacement. The caps only held the mast in relative proximity to its mating mast at the doubling. If one removed the topmast cross trees and rigging....you could remove the topmast easily by way of removal of its fid and down through the cap and top goes the defective topmast to the deck below. Mast components were fluid and had to be easily removable to repair them when at see. It WAS the standing rigging that gave rigidity to the masts. Main Masts could get *sprung* (losing or extreme shifting of its wedges that are covered up by the mast coat. However, a sprung mast could still be made rigid enough by way of the shroud and backstay lanyards. Rob

OK *Goober*.....😜 Let me take a poke at it. For general peir side symmetry, the tops were typically set parallel to the waterline. At the time period Vasa was constructed the tops(Or Nest) was perpendicular to the mast axis and they did indeed lay at the rake of the mast. Mast inclination of this time period varied remarkably between fore and main/mizzen/lanteen. In many cases the foremast leaned forward 5~10 deg. Ship designers experimented with all kinds of arrangements to gain better control and advantage of the wind. Vasa's main engineering error lied in her top heaviness. Typically the rake of each mast is set , do, to the location of each masts foot in the keel bed....so arbitrarily changing the rake was not a real option. Not even for the Captain. A *sprung* mast is an entirely different subject. Again, the top platform was typically set parallel to the waterline....establishing a clean balanced and symmetrical view. The pitching and rolling of the hull in the ocean paid no respect to the design of the top or the cap, nor their relationship to each other. I can't speak for your observations of the Tennessee, but she is a more modern design and would generally have her tops parallel to the waterline....not necessarily her caps. Perspective of any image can throw off the actual top inclination, due to the roundness shape of the top.....hence, the general practice rule has to be your guide. Rob

Nicely done Rob. Fully rigging them will bring you closer to frustration then you have ever strayed.....if you do not do your homework. Wonderfully done........indeed. Rob

Vlad...my research, along with the physical limitations I observed.......resulted in me terminating the first 3 backstays at the topmast cross trees. It was not possible to terminate them at the mainmast cap. The tops for each mast rudely interrupted that idea. In short, the stays would have pressed up against the aft edge of the tops and would have been abrading against it, and would have been extremely misaligned. An entirely unacceptable situation. Unlike your version....my version represents Glory after her major backstay conversion and would not be a good representation of your goal. However, the first 3 backstays would not truly be effected by the modification and in reality, still would not interrupt the path of the first 3 stays as I mentioned. Review my completed images and you will see where all the backstays terminated on my Glory. Again....my version has 2 new backstays on each side of the fore/main masts, and their insertions would effect the others. Making your true locations more problematic. Typically the first 2 stays would insert at the topmast crosstrees. The second pair would terminate at the foremast flying jib stay insertion(at the point were the topgallant shrouds insert. The last 2 stays would insert at the outermost foremast jib stay at the Royal mast top. Review Mikes drawings in his books. Rob

One particular fact not readily discussed, is General symmetry and balance. It was a common practice for designers and even captains(because they often were the building Forman in charge of a vessel they would command, to make design decisions based on their own preferences, whims, or artistic/symmetrical leanings. Parts (fixtures) of the vessel were used to measure out other parts (fixtures. At times the main yards lengths were determined by the length of the lower main mast (deck to cap), or the jibboom as it extended past the bowsprit was twice the length of the bowsprit. So many more examples could be sighted, if one had the desire to know. The tops were always parallel to the waterline...most likely due to the fact men would be traversing it and if it cantered at the rake of the mast....could prove to be a danger to men. Not forgoing that it would be quite unsymmetrical. Likewise, in most cases the cap would follow the same symmetrical principal....establishing a clean symmetrical sightline. Yes there are always exceptions to every rule...if violating that rule does not compromise structural integrity. In MHO.....it is more preferable to keep the caps/tops/waterline parallel. What does imagery of your vessel show you? Rob

Praying my friend. Rob

Pat……good research can pay off. I hope my earlier comment didn’t appear too off center. Maybe I failed to be clear. Rob

Personally...my experience shows that the cap of the doubling nearly always is parallel with the deck and the mast tops. This *rule* does have its exceptions...namely on schooners(Baltimore clippers and smaller craft, which do not have tops where men may have to work. Also one must not forego the notion of functional aesthetics and just plain preference of the captain and or designer. The function of the cap is not compromised either way. But appearances make a very big difference. A cap is almost never perpendicular to the mast axis if a top is just below it. From my experience they are parallel to one another and the deck. It makes for a much cleaner sight line. My 5 cents. Rob

Great metal work. Rob

Just wonderful.... Rob