Dr PR

Thanks for the comments. I was hoping to avoid using CA. It makes my eyes water and burn. I don't know if adding the CA over the white glue will do any good. I doubt it will penetrate the white glue on the seizing. It isn't the white glue on the seizing that is failing - the seizing is still intact, leaving a nice hollow tube of tightly wound thread. The CA really needs to be applied directly to the polyester rope inside the seizing.

228 mm (9 inches) might not be too wide for deck planks. I have seen references to vessels with wide deck planks. However all the vessels I have been on have had deck planks closer to the 114 mm (4.5 inches). Splitting the 4 mm planks will be tricky. When you start to split wood the split tends to follow the wood grain. Unless the planmnks were cut exactly parallel to the wood grain you will get a lot of scrap wood. You can buy 2 mm planks from model lumber supply companies. I don't recall either Chapelle or Marquardt discussing what the deck plank width was. However, there are some lists of materials that were purchased for specific vessels that might give the deck plank dimensions. For example, Chapelle's The Baltimore Clipper on page 168 lists material for H.M. schooner Spider of 1815 that says deck planks were 7 inches wide.

I have some "progress" to report - more like two steps backward and two forward! I few posts back I griped about it taking an hour each to attach two lines (main topmast staysail halliard and sheet) to belaying pins on the fife rail in front of the main mast. Well, while planning the rigging for the fore course braces I noticed that I had wrapped the main topmast staysail halliard around another line! So It has to be redone! That's one step backwards! Then while I was starting the rigging for one of the braces the seizing on one of the blocks at the main top failed and the eye opened, allowing the block to fall off the mast. Another step backwards. I have been having too many problems with the seizings failing and allowing eyes to open that fastened ropes around hooks, blocks, spars and such. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHITE GLUE DOES NOT STICK TO POLYESTER ROPES. To make the eyes I have been looping the short end of a rope back on the long end and clamping the two strands. Then I used thin (0.003 inch, 0.08 mm) silk or cotton thread to tie an overhand knot around the two rope strands where I wanted the seizing to start. One end of the knotted thread was taped to a clamp to keep it out of the way. I put a drop of diluted (1:1 with water) white glue on the knot and the two strands of rope. Then I looped the long end of the thread around the two rope strands 6-8 times, using the seizings to close the eye down to the desired size. These turns were also wetted with diluted white glue. Then I tied a final overhand knot to finish the seizing. While the glue was still damp I used tweezers to push the seizing coils together tightly, and then tugged on both ends of the seizing thread to tighten the coils around the rope strands. When the glue dried the eye looked quite strong - and is strong enough for lines that have no stress on them. But just the force of pulling loose ropes through blocks was enough to cause the short end of the rope to pull through the seizing, opening the eye and leaving a perfectly formed seizing on the long end of the rope! I have had half a dozen of these seizings fail, especially when I accidentally bumped a line or spar while working in the rigging. The sudden force on the ropes just opens up the eyes as if there was no glue at all! I have resorted to placing a small drop of super glue (cyanoacrylate) gel on the two rope strands after tying the first knot to pull the strands together. Then I have to wrap the seizing rapidly before the glue gel hardens. But the superglue becomes very sticky rapidly and it is hard to finish the loops and tie the second knot before it hardens. I cannot push the coils of the seizing together or pull on the ends of the thread to tighten the seizing into a neat finished shape. But it appears the super glue does bind the two rope strands together, and it sticks to the seizing as well. Here are some repaired seizings. On the left are two block and hook assemblies after tying and two more after the ropes and threads have been trimmed. On the right is a close up of these assemblies showing the rather lumpy seizings created with superglue. One step forward. I have also had a lot of the Syren plastic hooks fail. I think one problem is that you can twist them as you are trying to hook onto eyebolts inside a bunch of rigging lines and other obstructing objects. This can cause the opening in the hook to be stretched, cracking the plastic. Sometimes the hook breaks immediately. But often it is when I am pulling rigging through the blocks the hook breaks, or if I bump a line or spar. Of course it always will be a hook that is buried behind a lot of other lines where it is near impossible to reach! Another step back! My solution is to make metal hooks from hard brass wire, and solder the eye loops closed so lines cannot squeeze between the wire ends. Then I blacken them with Birchwood Casey Brass Black. I cannot make hooks as uniformly sized or pretty as the Syren hooks, but they are a LOT stronger. The hooks on the blocks in the pictures above are my metal hooks. Another step forward! Here are several of my superglued metal hook and block assemblies hanging from eye bolts on the main mast top. The lower aft (port and starboard) are for the main course brace lines, and the two on the face of the top outboard (port and starboard) are for the fore topsail yard braces. Now I can proceed with rigging these lines with confidence these seizings will not come undone nor the hooks break! The center block is attached to an eyebolt with a white glued seized eye. And the seizing around the eye of the staysail sheet is another white glued seizing. Neither failed while I was rigging the main topmast staysail sheet. But I have to be very careful to not place any stress on this line!

Peter, Thanks for the measurements. They are close to what I got from one of Chapelle's drawings. And it dpes seem to confirm that the foremast had a greater rake than the main mast. Mark, I like what you have done for the stern counter, but I agree with Peter that you might not have enough room for the rudder post. You can do two things: 1. If you are confident about your deck measurements and overall length of the hull you can carve off a bit from the rear of the false keel/center piece to move the rudder post forward sufficiently. Note: The "length between perpendiculars" that is often used to measure hull length of wooden sailing vessels is from where the front of the bow cuts the water at the normal load waterline (Fore Peak) to the normal load waterline at the center of the rudder post (After Peak). If you have this dimension for the Lynx you can check where your rudder post should be. 2. Or you can remove the transom, extend the framing a bit and reinstall the transom. Before you start any planking on the hull or the deck I advise you to check the side-to-side (transverse) dimensions from the center line to the outside of the frames, especially at the stern. On my schooner build (started in the 1980s) I somehow got the distances port and starboard at the stern unequal by a bit. When I was planking the deck and came to the part for nibbing the planks into the margin board/waterways a few years ago I discovered the mistake. That left me scratching my head for a solution. Fortunately I was able to cut the nibs into the margin board a little deeper on one side so the ends of the planks were aligned on both sides. Unless you know to look you would never notice the difference - especially now that a lot of this area is covered with the boom, sails and rigging. But it is a good idea to stop, take a deep breath and recheck all of the dimensions before planking. You can always make corrections by sanding off a bit from the outsides of the bulkheads before starting the planking. After you have installed the planking it is too late.

Trevor is right about the instability of the heavily rigged American topsail schooners. The British originally had more conservative rigs, but the American vessels could just run away from them to avoid a fight. When the Brits did start using the larger tophamper they learned just how dangerous it was. I think it was in one of Chapelle's books he repeated a British captains story of a topsail schooner that was passing his ship running with the wind in heavy seas. The schooner rode up on one swell, dove down bow first into the next, then cartwheeled stern over bow and dove out of sight in seconds taking all hands with it! I looked at Chapelle's drawings of the Lynx in "The Search For Speed Under Sail" and in both the hull drawing on page 217 and the sail plan on page 219 the fore mast rake was about 13 degrees and the main mast was about 14 degrees. The drawing says the vessel was built in Baltimore in 1812 and the lines were taken at Portsmouth, May 1816, and the plans are at the U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. These rake angles are common for Baltimore clippers, and usually the greater rake is on the main mast! If you look at the photo of the Lynx model at the U. S. National Museum on page 216 it looks as if the main mast has a bit greater rake than the fore mast. However, if you look at his drawings of the Musquidobit on pages 84 and 85 of "The Baltimore Clipper" the rake angles are 17 degrees for the fore mast and the main mast is 14 degrees! This "draught" is labeled as taken at Portsmouth Yard, May 1816!! Note: In both cases I measured the angle to the waterline marked on the drawings. But the hull plan "waterlines" are drawn parallel to the bottom of the keel. The keel had greater draft at the stern than at the bow. And to confuse things even more, in Chapelle's "History of the American Sailing Navy" Plate X after page 74 (a photo of an original sail plan drawing) shows an 80 foot schooner named Lynx with a foremast rake of 10 degrees and the main mast at 11 degrees. He says (page 292) this schooner was built in 1814 at Washington or Georgetown, and was lost in 1820 in the West Indies (page 354) while still in American service!! If you figure this one out let me know!

Close up (macro) photos always show little things that you don't see with the naked eye. Judge it by what it looks like without the camera! 1:64 is small enough that you can probably just cut off the pin heads and let just a short bit of the pin shaft show for the door handles. If you don't give anyone a magnifying glass to examine the model they will never know!

The problem with using a clip-on guide without having a template for guidance is that the spacing between lines can creep, especially on the ends. After a while the lines are not parallel to the water line, running high on one end or the other. I speak from experience! And that is why I always have a template that I can use for reference.

Mustafa, I thought your Pickle was an excellent build, but this one is a tour de force!

John, Any build that is finished is a good build! Santa Maria is a good choice for your second build. It was my first kit build back in 1969 (long before the Internet and Forums like this). It is a bit more complicated than your first build, and you should learn a few more tricks. But the masts and rigging are not nearly as complicated a later ships, especially the huge full rigged behemoths of the 1700s and 1800s! So you will learn rigging skills without learning the frustration and sheer boredom of rigging your 50th cannon or yet another sail. There are many useful books for ship modelling - and a lot that weren't helpful at all to me. But if you are having trouble distinguishing between futtocks and carlings may I suggest you look online for Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine (1769). You can copy it off the Internet. It describes a lot of the arcane nautical terminology us ship modelers throw around to make it sound like we know what we are talking about.

Digitalis (Foxglove?), A lot of experienced builders prefer Titebond II so it is OK. White glue (Elmer's Glue-All) is probably cheaper. When you get to the rigging stage you might want to set some. It's greatest advantage is that it dries invisible without leaving a film or stain. That may be why they recommend it. If you got plans off the web site you might look at them to see if there is a drawing sheet (or two). You can take the file to a print shop and have the sheets printed to scale. As far as the CD goes, the kit may have been manufactured years ago when CD/DVD players were common, and has been sitting on the shelf somewhere since then. Good luck on your build. Don't let the kit's shortcomings prevent you from doing your best. And you should know from the very beginning that you will make mistakes, and your second ship model build will be a lot better than your first!

All right! Another schooner build!! You did a nice job on the planking.

Keith, I took one look at all the bead thingies on the bow decoration and wondered how you would carve them. Ball bearings! Great idea, and the resulting part is very nice!

This is how to make a ratline template and use it. 1. Measure the distance between the top of the deadeyes and the bottom of the trestletrees or crosstrees. 2. Cut a piece of paper to be this long on one side. 3. Put the paper behind your shrouds, with the bottom edge resting on the deadeyes. 4. Use a pencil to place a mark on the paper beside each of the shrouds at the top of the deadeyes. 5. Mark the top of the paper beside the forward and aft shroud lines. 6. Draw lines on the paper for the forward and aft shrouds. You really don't need lines for the other shrouds. 7. Now you have to think. Ratlines were typically spaced 12 to 16 inches (305 to 406 mm) apart. Now scale this distance to whatever scale your model is. For example, I am building at 1:48 scale, so I divide the real world distance by 48 to get 0.25 to 0.33 inches (6.35 to 8.5 mm) spacing for the ratlines on my model. Note: unless you are modelling a modern vessel there probably will be no record of the actual ratline spacing on the ship you are modelling, so pick a convenient spacing within the range you calculated. I will space them 5/16 inch (0.3125 inch) (7.9 mm) using a ruler marked in 1/16 inch increments.. 8. On your paper template draw horizontal lines parallel to the tops of the deadeyes at your chosen spacing. These mark where the ratlines will go. 9. Trim excess paper around your ratline template, leaving a narrow space outside the lines representing the fore and aft shrouds. 10. Tape the top of the template to the shrouds below the trestletrees/crosstrees. Clamp the bottom of the paper to the deadeyes. You could use tape, but you probably will want to release the bottom of the paper to get it out of your way while tying all the ratline knots. 11. Put on some soothing music, take a deep breath and don't even think about how many knots you will have to tie for just one set of shrouds! 12. Now tie ratlines at every level marked by horizontal lines on the template. Note: Some people clamp a small stick to the shrouds at the level of the ratline to be installed, using the template to set the position. Then they fold the template back out of the way and tie the knots above the stick. IMPORTANT! After all the knots are tied check the line against the template and move the knots as necessary to get the line in the correct position. Sloppy work here will make the model look BAD! It is a good idea to use a small brush to place a drop of diluted white glue (1:1 with water) on each knot as insurance to be sure the knot doesn't open or move on the ratline. The ratlines are tied with clove hitches (look it up). This brings the two ends out from the knot at the same level. Leave a slight "sag" in the line between shrouds - this takes some practice. You can make this sag permanent by wetting the line with diluted white glue or shellac (dries faster). On real ships the ends pf the ratline ropes had eyes spliced in them. The eyes were tied to the outer shrouds with small line. For all but the largest scale models this is unnecessary detail, and a LOT of extra work. I just use a simple overhand knot to tie the ratlines to the fore and aft shroud lines.

George, Agreed! On one of my earlier models I added the entire interior, including furniture, even though none of it was visible in the finished model. But I had the satisfaction of knowing it was there!

Wefalck, Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) covered most of the western parts of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and northern California west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. It was more abundant than grass (in acres covered). In the coastal rain forests trees grew to 15 feet (5 meters) diameter. The major industry was harvesting and exporting these trees to every large city from California to Alaska, and to Asia. Everything was made from Douglas fir, including ships (there isn't much iron ore on the west coast). When steam came along the hulls were still wooden. Likewise, when diesel came along they still built ships from wood. And timber harvesting is still a major industry even though most of the original forests have been harvested and replaced with plantations. In Oregon alone the land area growing timber (about 24 million acres) is greater than the entire area of many of our eastern States and some European countries! So yes, it is an abundant resource!

Looks like it might make a good small gear puller. I wonder if that is what it really was made for?

Keep in mind when people say "accurate" with respect to some rigging plan what is really meant is "I wonder if a ship was ever rigged this way." There was no "one way" for any type or rig, so it might be better to ask "Is there any reason why a ship might not have been rigged this way? Ships were not necessarily rigged just one way throughout the entire ship's life. There are many examples of ships that were re-rigged multiple times. So the "accurate" question becomes "When might the ship have been rigged this way." And the only real answer to any of these questions is "We don't know." Many plans for rigging a particular ship actually come from a model somewhere in a museum - Petersson used this method. But if you follow some of the threads on the Forum you will come across discussions of whether the model rigging is "accurate." Is it original, or has the model been "restored" changing the rigging from the original. Even restored "original" historic ships like the USS Constitution or HMS Victory have been restored several times, and there are always questions about whether the restored vessel is really "accurate." Do not get hung up on questions of "accuracy." We don't know for certain. So concentrate on "probable." Is it a reasonable way to rig a ship?

Mark, Regarding your measurements in post #11, it looks like you measured from forward of where the bulkheads come together at the bow to the top of the transom at the stern. This was a distance of about 18.5 inches (470 mm). This is not the length on deck! It looks like the length on deck is about 17.5 inches (445 mm). But I really can't tell where the deck planking would end at the bow or stern without the deck n place, but your measurements are pretty close to what the plans give. It looks like the stern of the Lynx/Mosquidobit had a "square tuck" and a "wing transom" below the deck level. Square tuck means that the hull planking ran back to the edge of the wing transom and terminated there with a sharp angle. Some vessels had a "round tuck" where the planking boards were curved up sharply at the stern to meet the transom. There are two types of wing transoms - flat and curved. The flat transom runs straight at an angle to the upper transom above the deck, down to where it intersects the deck planks. The curved version has a slight upward concave curvature from the upper transom down to the planking. The "golette" plan shows the wing transom to be in two parts/angles, both flat. The vessel is rigged in the European style (horizontal short spar on the main gaff topsail, and foresails all rigged to the fore mast top. Chapelle's plan and the "golette" plan both seem to show the upper transom to be flat vertically but with a bit of transverse curvature from side to side. Photos of the modern Lynx appear to show a flat transom with a curved upper edge (taffrail), and a single piece flat wing transom. There are a lot of photos of the modern Lynx on line. I don't know how accurate it is to the original Lynx. The Brits probably re-rigged the vessel as the Mosquitobit - they didn't like the very large tophamper on the American ships. They were dangerous to sail in high winds. Here are some highly enhanced pictures of the stern planking on the modern Lynx. They appear to show a flat wing transom. The upper transom could also be flat, with just the upper and lower edges curved upward in the center - hard to tell.

Mike, The curvature lengthwise is called sheer. It is lower midships than at the bow and stern. The transverse curvature (crosswise from port to starboard) is called camber. It is higher on the center line and lower at the hull sides. The resulting shape of the deck is a hyperboloid. That isn't a nautical term! How thick is the false deck? Is it plywood? I like Gary's idea of gluing it along the centerline first, curved along the sheer. But if you do this glue along the centerline only - you want the bulkheads to have a bit of freedom to move fore and aft at the outer edges so you can mate them up with the slots in the false deck. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the nails to try to hold the deck edges down. Pounding the nails into the bulkheads may rattle something loose. But the nails aren't useless - you can use them to simulate bolt heads. I would use rubber bands that are looped around the bottom of the keel and deck edges. LOTS of rubber bands. I used some 7 inch bands (the loop is 7 inches long without stretching the bands) and doubled them to hold the deck edges down on my MSI build. I used 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) plywood for the false deck and the bands held it down OK when I used enough of them. Sometimes it helps to put a piece of square dowel at the edge of the deck where the rubber band(s) comes up and over. This sandwiches the deck between the dowel and the top of the bulkhead. That seems to apply more downward force at the deck edge. It looks to me as if the bulkheads are pretty widely spaced. Too wide for a single planked hull. I have added extra bulkheads in between the widely spaced ones on some kit builds to ensure a far curvature in the planking. Another way is to fill the space between the bulkheads with balsa blocks. If it is a double planked hull it may not matter, but you want to be careful that you don't gat "flat spots" in the planking between the widely spaced bulkheads.

Dowmer, Lever (The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor) says the ropes were wormed and served. There are many other lines that could also be served (shrouds, stays, etc.) that I have not served. I don't have a serving machine, and the only lines I have served on this model are the long hook straps for the Burton tackles. If I was attempting a super accurate model like archjofo I would serve all of these lines. But this schooner build is just a learning experience for me, and certainly isn't an accurate model of any vessel. In fact, I have a list of 13 errors I have made so far - and the model isn't finished. I intend to list these mistakes in my final post so others may learn from them. In my opinion there are features of real ships that aren't worth repeating on a realistic model because the scale makes them impractical. Trenails is one such item. I served on three ships with wooden decks that had plugs of the same wood (teak) hammered in over the bolts that held the planks down, and even when standing with these plugs between my toes they were barely visible. In photos taken dozens of feet distant these details are invisible. I don't "do" trenails because they would not be visible in anything but the very largest scale models (1:10 or larger). But if you want to put trenails on your model just to accomplish it that's fine with me. Likewise, I don't care much for serving. But again that is the builder's choice. But if you insist on being truly accurate shouldn't you first worm the lines before serving, and pay attention to the different lays of the ropes that are being served? In the end, the only truly accurate rendition of a vessel is the vessel itself. Any model will have inaccuracies and omissions.

First of all, understand that there is no single "correct" way to rig any type of ship. No two ships were alike. So you won't find any book that tells you the right way to rig your model (but you may find some that tell the wrong way). So look for references that give examples of similar types of vessels and figure how they apply to your model. I second the recommendation for Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore-And-Aft Craft. The first section is for an English naval cutter. Darcy Lever's The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor (1808) is a very good book if you want to know more about how the real sailing ships work. He tells how to rig the masts and sails of a vessel from the deck up, and then tells you how to sail it. It is very useful for understanding how the rigging works. Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War is a very good source of information about large square rigged vessels, but it says nothing about the smaller vessels, especially fore and aft vessels like cutters and schooners (the British did actually have many smaller fore and aft rigged "ships of war"). Wolfram zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models is a very general description of many of the features of sailing ships, often showing how these features changed over time. It is useful for understanding the nautical jargon. You can find Falconer's Universal Dictionary of the Marine (1769) on line. It will help you decipher the arcane and obsolete nautical terminology. **** I have posted a thread that discusses the rigging of fore-and-aft sailing vessels. I have tried to explain much of the terminology for masting, rigging and sails. You may find it useful. A more concise version was included in the Winter 2024 Nautical Research Journal, Vol. 69 No. 4, page 295. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865

Serpe, Take photos with your phone or camera and then transfer them to your computer somewhere you can find them. You may be able to connect the phone or camera to the computer with a USB cable and then access the pictures directly. When you start a comment on the Forum you will see the "Drag files here to attach, or choose files" message at the bottom of the window. If you have the forum window and the file location window both open you can just drag the files from the computer to the Forum window. Or you can use the "Choose files" option (click on it) to open the computer's files folders, select the folder, and then select the pictures. Either method will open thumbnail images of you pictures below the comments dialog box. First position the cursor where you want to place a picture in your comments. Then click on the thumbnail of the photo. This will place the picture into your comments. You can then edit the pictures by double clicking on the picture. You can resize the image and select "left justified" if you want. If you reduce the width of the photo and select "left justified" you can then type test to the right of the photo. Otherwise with no justification your text will go above or below the picture.

Mark, I'll be happy to help if I can. If it is a topic that might benefit everyone post it here. For other things you can contact me with a Forum message. As I said, the Lynx/Mosquidobit is one of my favorite ships. There are pictures of the reconstructed Lynx on the Internet that show how the plans were interpreted for the modern version of this vessel.

George, I planned the gaffs, yards and sails on my schooner build in a CAD program. But when I started attaching the finished sails to the finished gaffs and yards I found that the gaffs and yards were not quite long enough. So far they have all come together, but it took a bit of fiddling and the sails don't hang correctly. The main problem is the length of the cringles at the corners of the sails, and additional length of the ropes that attach to the cringles to pull the sails out to the ends of the yards and gaffs. All this adds up to at least half a cloth, or maybe 3/4. I allowed only about half as much when calculating the length of the gaffs and yards. Another problem I had was where the head of the gaff sails fit under the jaws of the gaff. The head of the sail needed a bit of a cutout. The mast hoops are pulling the sail to the mast, and the throat is being pulled to the eye bolt on the bottom of the gaff. The result is a wrinkle in the sail under the gaff jaws. None of this has prevented me from rigging the sails, but they are not perfect.

I have been preparing things for installing the fore topsail. I made the sail months ago, but there was still some rigging to attach before it could be hung on the mast. I attached the clue line blocks to the clews and placed two cringles on the foot of the sail for the buntline attachment points. Two thimbles were tied to the topsail yard for the buntlines to pass through. Then the topsail was fastened to the yard with robands. Two truss ropes were constructed and then tied around the course yard. Each truss was about 2 inches (50 mm) long, with an eye seized into each end. One eye was positioned above the yard. The other end of the truss was looped behind the yard and then up and over. Where it met itself the two parts were seized together above the yard. The long ends will loop behind the mast and then come back around and through the lower eye of the other truss. Hooks on the single blocks of the truss luff tackles will engage the free end eyes of the truss lines. At least that is the plan. I measured and calculated the truss rope lengths, but the test will come when I try to rig this on the mast! I finished the studding sail booms and slipped them into the irons on the course yard. A block was attached to the end of the studding sail booms. They are in the stowed position. I do not intend to rig these sails. I still need to add some rope on the inboard ends to fasten the booms to the yard. I think all the other blocks for the remaining lines are in place so the topsail yard and sail should be ready to install. But first the course yard will be hung and the lifts and braces put in place. Then the truss tackles will be hung and everything will be adjusted to hold the course yard in its place.