rwiederrich

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

I know, the hardest part of adding jackstays is keeping the eye bolts that the stay wire runs through as parallel as possible. I found if you can mount the yard in a machinist vice and drill the holes by using your drill press......the eye bolts will all be uniform and then the wire will run through them straight and true. You're doing a great job. I did notice that the trucks you made that are fixed to the masts....will not permit you to rotate the yard.....so it appears all your yards will be perpendicular to their masts. Not a problem, it just dosn't give you the option of setting the sails for tacking or leeward breezes....just running with the wind. Suggestion: Don't forget to stretch your wire.so it is as straight as possible. Fantastic work. Rob

Oh my, my friend. I pray the new year will bring better days as you move forward. Rob

I see it will be published on July 2023. Pre orders are being taken now from the publisher. And the painting on Mikes living room wall of Glory of the Seas is on the cover……cool. Rob

When will it be available? I need my copy now………. Rob

Cool steady rest design for your lathe. Great job! Now , that’s thinking. Rob

Sweet metal work Rob I never thought about simply drilling a hole in the mast to mount the truck. Sturdy! Rob

Fantastic work Rob. She is looking amazing and the choice on the kit sales looks fantastic too. What was your method for tapering the yards, did you use a small lathe or did you use a drill motor and sandpaper? Just beautiful. Rob

Funny thing Pat…….I went into my Shop to clean , rearrange and just sort it all out, but I had to put Glory somewhere……she was in the way. So I went out to the wood shop, selected a nice piece of knotty maple(I cut down 5 years ago), and made a new shelf for her. Mounted her, installed some ambiance lights and…bam! Now back to the shop to finish up organizing/cleaning. First things first. Didn’t finish in the shop, but I’ll wrap it up tomorrow sometime One thing always leads to another. I hope to find Glory a new home….where she will be properly cared fore and displayed in a case. Rob