Dr PR

Today I decided to correct a blunder I made earlier on. I swapped the gudgeons and pintles on the rudder! I knew better but got involved with making the pieces and put the pintles on the stern post instead of the rudder! What a lubber's mistake!! I was so embarrassed! Now the pintles are on the rudder where they should be. I also added more appropriate strapping for the gudgeons. Now I can sleep easier knowing that mistake has been corrected!

I have been busy with home improvements and a vacation, but finally got around to finishing the mast tops. The mast caps were the same size for both masts, but the square holes were different for the two masts, so I marked them with "M" and "F" so I didn't get them mixed up. Paint will cover this. Marquardt's "Global Schooner" said the caps were bolted to the top of the mast, so I used some 7 mm brass nails to simulate the bolt heads. This ensures the caps are securely attached to the mast top. The main mast cap has three ring bolts on the front. These are for the port and starboard fore topsail yard braces and the main top staysail sheet. The lower forward ring bolts are for the port and starboard fore course yard braces. The after two ring bolts are for the top ropes for raising and lowering the topmast. The brass band with the eye around the mast top is for the main gaff peak halliard. The complete main top shows the bolts that fastened the crosstrees to the mast and the fid that supports the top mast. I set short pieces of hypodermic tubing in the outer ends of the crosstrees for the futtock shrouds to pass through. I suppose I could have just run the lines through notches in the ends of the crosstrees but I worried the wood might split when I tensioned the lines. The mast top has eight battens around the lower part of the mast head. Marquardt said these were often used to prevent chafing of the mast by the stays and shrouds. They are chamfered at the top to make it easier to place the shrouds and stays. Very few models have these pieces but I decided to include them. The fore mast cap has two ringbolts on the forward edge for the port and starboard fore course yard lifts. The lower front ring bolts are for the topping ropes to raise and lower the topmast. The rear pair of ring bolts are for the port and starboard fore course buntlines. The upper brass band with eye is for the main topmast stay. The lower band and eye are for the fore gaff peak halliard. The fore mast top is similar to the main mast top. Not shown is a ring bolt on the aft side set into the mast above the crosstree. This is a fastening point for the lashings used to tighten the main topmast stay. The bottoms of the fore and main topmasts are nearly identical. Small cheeks are attached to the sides of the topmasts to make these narrower masts fit the gap between the trestletrees. The fid holes can be seen, as well as the sheaves for the top ropes. The sheaves were constructed from two small #2 brass flat washers soldered together as described earlier in post #32. I tried a new method of making ring bolts that was described by others on the Forum. Both methods use 0.020" (0,5 mm) 24 American Wire Gauge brass wire. The method I have used for decades is shown on the right. The wire is formed into the ring and the gap is soldered. The new method involved twisting the wire together as shown on the left. I thought this "screw thread" like form would allow glue to fill the hole around the wire and secure the ring bolt in the hole better. However, as the close-up photo on the right shows, the rings are distorted and not flat as they should be. I do not like this! They may be more secure but I think I won't use this method again. The straight wire type shown above can be pulled out if the rigging is tightened too much. In the past I have bent slight kinks in the part that fits into the mounting hole making a tighter fit, and this works OK if you don't over tighten the rigging. The entire topmast assemblies have a coating of shellac to seal the wood grain and cracks between pieces. Now I have to decide what color I am going to paint the mast tops. Most models of American and British ships from the early 1800s have black tops. Black paint was cheap and readily available. By the end of the century mast tops were almost exclusively painted white. Apparently this practice started in the 1830s, but I have found no definitive period description of masthead colors. I prefer white because it shows details better than black.

I found this image on line that shows what you are talking about a bit better I do not know how they attach the sail to the ring around the mast. It is possible that they have a line attached to the sail that passes through the ring and down to the deck. There is a line visible in this photo but it could be the halliard. When the sail is hauled down the line would come down with it. The line would loop through the ring and both ends would be belayed on deck when the sail was removed. When they rig the sail on deck the line would be attached to the sail, and could be used to help haul the sail aloft. Once aloft this line could be pulled taut to pull the point on the sail down and close to the ring. But that is just a guess. This is another example of the many variations on rigging found with the fore-and-aft rigs.

Nice weather and home improvement projects have delayed progress on the model, but 101 F (38 C) temperatures today have confined me to the house. Here is a bit more work on the masts. The topmast shrouds come down to hearts or eyes at the ends of the crosstrees. I haven't decided yet which I will use. The lower eyes/hearts are attached to the futtock shrouds that lead down to a futtock necklace below the cheeks. About 1815 the futtock necklace came into fashion. This was a metal band around the mast below the cheeks - and above the gaff jaws. It had either ring bolts or formed eyes for the futtock shrouds to attach to. I cut a 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) wide strip of 0.005 (0.127 mm) inch thick brass for the bands. I measured the diameter of the mast below the cheeks and selected a drill bit close to this diameter to serve as a jig for forming the band. As I progressed the strip was bent to fit tightly around the drill bit. I started with a simple 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) tab bent at a 90 degree angle from the brass strip. I determined that the two eyes should be 0.200 inch (5 mm) apart around the circumference, so I bent another 90 degree angle in the strip this distance from the first tab. Then I folded the strip over and crimped it with pliers to form a double thickness tab protruding from the band. Next I folded the strip again perpendicular to the tab to continue around the mast. This gave me the first eye formed from the brass strip. I added a drop of liquid solder flux and then soldered the two sides of the tab together. The eyes are not evenly spaced around the mast, but are in a "X" pattern, with two eyes a bit closer together on each side of the mast, with wider spacing between the pairs. I estimated the distance around the mast to the next eye and formed two more tabs protruding at 90 degree angles from the band, spaced 0.200 inch (5 mm) apart, and soldered them. The spacing is a bit tricky, so if you try this don't expect the first attempt to come out perfect. Finally I bent the last tab at 90 degrees from the band, leaving a bit of extra brass strip (this will be cut off later). This part will be soldered to the first tab to complete the circle around the mast. But before placing the part on the mast I drilled holes in each tab for the futtock shrouds to attach to. Then I shaped each tab to a "D" shape. It is easier to do this off the mast. The next step is to place the band around the mast and use forecepts to draw the first and last tabs together, tightening the band around the mast. Then a drop of liquid flux was added to the joint and it was soldered. After this the excess bit of brass strip was cut off, the hole was drilled through the last tab, and it was filed to a "D" shape like the other tabs. I have used this technique for attaching lines to masts for several decades and it produces a very strong attachment point without weakening the mast. This was one of the more difficult bands because it had four tabs that needed to be spaced correctly around the mast. Something similar was used on real ships starting around the mid 19th century. I thought about blackening the band before attaching it to the mast, but decided to not do this. The blackening might interfere with the final solder joint after the band is positioned on the mast. I plan to paint the tops black, and this paint will extend down to and over this band.

I have a fine silk thread that I use for serving eyes and such. It has no fuzz. Belding Corticelli size A. It is about 0.0025 inch diameter (0.064 mm). No special reason for using this. It was in my wife's sewing kit.

When I am tying knots in things like rat lines where I need to control the length of spans between knots I use this technique: First I tie a knot at one end of the line - and pull it tight. Next I tie the second knot but leave it loose. Then I use a needle or similar thin tool (fid) to move the loop of the knot back and forth along the line until it is in the correct position. Then I pull it tight around the end of the fid and slip the fid out at the last moment. This prevents the knot from wandering as I pull it tight. The third knot (and subsequent knots) are formed the same way. I leave a little excess line past the last knot in case I have to reposition it. If you need to reposition one of the knots you can loosen it with the fid and move it. When you pull it tight again the overall length of the line and positions of the other knots will be the same. After all of the ratlines are finished I apply a suitable glue, paint or shellac to lock everything in place. Then I trim the line ends.

deckdog, Almost all topsail schooners have the same proportions of hull shape, beam, length, etc. However, topsail schooners with square sails on the foremast had the widest part of the beam more forward (closer to the fore mast) than pure fore-and-aft rigged schooners. This increased buoyancy forward under the heavier fore mast. The major difference in hulls seems to be the deadrise - the angle between horizontal and the hull surface transversely (side to side). Cargo vessels had a shallow angle giving them a more "U" shaped fuller midships section to increase cargo space. But vessels built for speed, such as slavers, privateers and blockade runners, had a pronounced "V" shape cross section below the waterline. This produced less drag and that increased speed. The proportions for masts and spars were also about the same for a given nation, but American Baltimore clippers of the late 1700s and early 1800s typically had taller masts and larger sail area than their British counterparts. The fore masts were also thicker than the main masts on topsail schooners. However, I think it is a safe bet that no two ships were alike, at least in the Americas, so you have a lot of leeway. You are right about having to rescale deck furnishings and cannons if you are modifying a kit designed for a larger scale. But many kits are assembled with whatever parts the manufacturer had on hand, and often things like cannons and anchors were way out of scale anyway.

Roger, "Fisherman's staysail" makes sense. Chapelle ("The American Fishing Schooners") shows various lengths of these four-sided sails on many of the east coast fishing vessels, dating back to the late 1700s. Looking through books dealing with schooners from other nations I can't find a single example of this type staysail. Ferrus, Chapelle shows the clews of these sails rigged to the main boom on some vessels, but it appears to be rigged to the main mast or shrouds on some shorter sails. If the clew line of one of the really large sails (like in the Westward photo) was rigged to the deck behind the main mast it would interfere with the outboard movement of the main boom. Attached to the boom I would think it wouldn't require as much handling. But that's just a guess. I have never sailed on one of these vessels.

The only power tools I have for modelling is a Dremel and a regular electric drill (poor man's lathe). However, there is one thing I really want - but I have to make room for it first. That is a small milling machine - something with very good bearings and little run out (wobble). It would be handy for making jigs and tools for modeling/ But I think the most useful feature is the ability to reposition the work piece for precision distances in a straight line. This would make drilling an accurate series of uniformly spaced holes as in pin rails, fife rails, etc. This is difficult to do by hand, especially with very tiny drills. And a milling machine is designed to be used as a router for making horizontal cuts (drill presses aren't designed for lateral forces, only vertical forces). If you like to work with sheet metal (brass, aluminum, thin steel, etc.) a metal brake is very handy for cutting precise edges and making repeatable bends. It is something that most modelers don't have, so you can get by without it. A soldering iron is very handy for working with brass (photo etch). Good high resolution 3D printers have come down in price to less than $200. These are really good for making complex parts like propellers, anchors, cannons and other small parts with lots of complex curves. BUT you have to be proficient at 3D CAD design and learning a new program can be a huge and frustrating time sink. I am not sure how good the 3D parts will hold up with time.

Some people make the rope coils separately from the actual rigging. You can adjust the rigging all you want, making temporary ties to the belaying points. Then after everything is set you cut off the excess lengths of the rigging lines and attach the rope coils to the belaying points.

The only rule I know is: Sand enough, but not too much! What is "enough?" That's for you to decide. What is "too much?" If you sand through the planking and make holes, that is too much!

There are two top sails between the masts. One is the gaff topsail. The peak is rigged to the fore topmast, the clew to the end of the fore gaff, and the tack pulled down at the jaws of the gaff by a line to the deck near the fore mast. The other sail is a variation on the main topmast staysail. The simple triangular staysail is rigged to the main topmast stay that runs from the top of the main topmast to somewhere at the top of the fore mast. The tack is rigged to the fore top, the peak to the top of the main topmast, and the clew is hauled down by a line to the deck near the main mast. I have seen quite a variety of these staysails similar to what is shown in your photo. These are four sided sails with the peak at the top of the main topmast, the throat where the main topmast stay attaches to the fore top, and the tack and clew lower down below the gaff. The clew is hauled down to a point on the main boom as in the photo you posted. Some of these four sided sails have the foot a short distance below the fore gaff, some extend half way down the foremast, and the one your photo shows seems to extend all the way down near the bottom of the fore mast. These sails were common on American fishing schooners and yachts. MacGregor ("The Schooner") calls these main topmast staysails and has a picture (page 44) showing a schooner flying two main topmast staysails, one normal triangular sail and a longer four sided version similar to the one in your photo, but you can't see where the longer sail clew is belayed. Chapelle ("The American Fishing Schooners") also refers to these sails as main topmast staysails. I wouldn't be surprised if these sails had another name, but If so I can't find it. I have posted a lot of information about schooner sail plans and rigging here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865 See post #16 for a description of sail parts and how gaff topsails and main top staysails are rigged. I need to add this version of the main top staysail to my description of sails. The schooner in the photo is also carrying a main jackyard topsail, an interesting "cheat" to increase the total sail area beyond normal class racing rules. It is a very pretty ship! The racing schooners often flew as much canvas as could be hoisted. As Jack Aubry said "If necessary we'll use our pocket handkerchiefs!"

I use Microsoft's "3D Builder" program (free download) to repair faulty files. It works very well. I also use Chitubox (also free) for the slicer.

The symmetry difference started with the first planks outboard the king plank. On the port side the first butt joint is one "step" from the bow, and on the starboard side it is two "steps" from the bow. Therefore, if you follow the 1 in 4 stepping there can be no symmetry. The planks on both sides must be laid out the same with respect to the king plank if you want to have symmetrical planking. The king plank does not fit into the 1 in 4 plan. For what it is worth, not all ships with wooden decks had a "king plank." In the Cleveland class cruisers of WWII (that I am very familiar with) there was a seam between planks on the center line. I have no idea when the change from king plank to centerline seam started. But many modern boats have a king plank. As far as nibbing is concerned there seems to be two slightly different schemes. In both cases the purpose is to avoid angles at the ends of planks less than 45 degrees (no very sharp points that are susceptible to rot and tend to catch on ropes). Sometimes the width of the nib is 1/2 the plank width (again in the Clevelands) and sometimes it is 1/3 the plank width. Some people cut the nib perpendicular to the length of the plank and some seem to cut it perpendicular to the edge of the margin board (the waterway plank). Generally the planks were a standard length when delivered to the shipyard building site. But this might not be the length necessary to fit exactly between frames/deck beams. The butt ends of planks were cut to the centerline of a deck beam or frame. Any excess length was trimmed off. The first planks outboard the king plank would be nibbed into the margin/waterway plank and cut to fit the frame/deck beam nearest to the end of the plank. The second plank outboard would be placed so the aft end was one "step" (frame/deck beam) aft the end of the first plank, and so on. So there will be no short planks at the bow. The planking continues aft in this manner to the stern. There the planks are nibbed at the closest frame/deck beam or cut off at the stern waterway/margin plank. You should never have tiny sections of planking filling the gap between a nib and the waterway plank. Never! I hope this helps.

druxey, You make a very good point! And it complicates the problem. If the wood gets wet again (or high humidity) the fungus will spread. So the model should be kept in a dry place such as an enclosed case. But the case should be ventilated to avoid build up of gasses/fumes that would damage the model. My suggestion of using a sealed case with desiccant won't work. And if chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is used to remove the stain, the wood will out gas chlorine for some time. Chlorine is very reactive so you don't want that accumulating in the case!

Fungal spores are resistant to all ordinary treatments. They are inert - their metabolism is halted, waiting for the right conditions to "turn on" again. They can "wait" for decades. So the N2 treatment or other gasses or other mild treatments will have no effect. Only soaking with strong anti fungal agents (bleach is a good one) or high pressure steam will kill them, but neither of these treatments would be model friendly. The wood will be filled with inert spores waiting for more moisture to germinate and continue to decompose the wood. So keeping the model dry is imperative. It should be stored in a sealed case with desiccant. The desiccant should be replaced periodically. A humidity indicator inside the case can be used to indicate when the desiccant should be changed. Some desiccants change color (white to blue) when they should be replaced. If you are in good health I wouldn't worry much about the spores. The wood rotting fungi are not normal human pathogens. But they still can cause infections in people with an impaired immune system. More likely they will cause an allergic reaction.

I have an ancient (1970s) small Dremel Model 260 (they used to make two sizes) corded tool. It isn't the greatest but it works - heats up quickly. I also have their motor speed control, and like everyone has said it has low torque at low speeds. I do occasionally use it in the old (piece of junk) drill stand to mill various wooden shapes - such as cannon carriages. I also use this rig as a drill press to locate drilled hole more precisely than I can accomplish by hand with the Dremel or a pin vise.It is a test of my patience but it does work. But one of the best uses is cleaning up soldered joints. The steel wire brush at medium speeds will remove excess solder much better than a file or sand paper. But you have to be careful to not remove too much! The wire brushes can also be used to shine metal prior to soldering, blackening or painting. The low torque at low speeds is an advantage when working with wood, because at high speed it is very aggressive and can eat through softer woods very quickly. I sometimes use it to rough out wood prior to carving with knives and files. I also have used it as a poor man's lathe, but I also use a variable speed hand drill for this function. SO it is a useful modeling tool for a variety of operations. But I do use pin vises mostly for drilling holes.

Just drag the excel file or use the "choose file" option (seems to work best for some folks) to open a file window and select the file. It will be interesting to see how well it works.

Very nice!

Cool! I was Engineering/Supply Officer on MSI 2 (inshore minesweeper) It was 112 feet long. The write up about the MSB didn't mention MSIs, probably because the Navy only made two of them and they were worthless. I don't think I ever heard of MSBs. One reason is that they cancelled my orders to minesweeping school in Charleston and sent me (Ensign Fuzz) directly from OCS to the ship with no training! If I had gone to Charleston I surely would have seen the MSBs. You might be able to find records from the boat yard where they were built (John Trumpy & Sons, Annapolis, Maryland). Check with the museum at the Naval Academy. I found the complete blueprint set for the MSIs in the National Archives. One of these days I want to build a model of the USS Cape MSI-2.

I have a PhD in microbiology, specializing in fungal physiology, and I operated a medical mycology (pathogenic fungi) lab for a number of years. The grey stains look like dry rot - the same fungi that cause fences to turn gray with time. The fungi that cause this are dark grey to black (dematiaceae), and the stain runs deep into the wood. You can't wipe it off. Mark is right - there probably is more mold on the inside, but if the wood has been dry for a while it won't spread more. But be careful! There will be spores and some of the fungi are opportunistic pathogens and can cause infections if your immune system is weakened for any reason (illness, chemotherapy, etc.). Don't breathe the dust or spores! Wear a mask! You might be able to lighten the stain with kitchen bleach (sodium hypochlorite) or oxalic acid. Paint a bit on to the wood with a small brush and see what happens. Wash it off with water. Try it on a hidden place first if you can find one. This will not restore the original wood color, but may make the stain lighter and less noticeable. In any case the bleach will kill the fungus. You may need to remove any paint/varnish/shellac on the wood in order to get to the fungus. Come to think of it, that's what we were doing with holystoning our decks. We used a bleach (oxalic acid) to lighten the wood! So you will be following tradition! Could be some real nostalgia there. I wouldn't bet on this accomplishing much, but it might work.

Juraj, 1. The main difference between the fore and main topsails is the main and topmast stays (lines S, T and U in the drawing) and the gaff topping lift. These interfere with the fore topsail. When the ship tacks the sail and it's rigging have to be lifted over these lines. The main topsail does not have this problem with the stays, but must still be lifted over the topping lift.. For this reason many schooners just used a main top staysail that is much smaller than the one shown in your drawing and is positioned above the topping lift. 2. With just the one tack both sails would look the same. The bottom corner (tack) of both sails would blow against the gaffs. 3. The fore topsail would have tack lines running down to the deck. If there are two tack lines one (lee side) would be draped over the fore and fore top stays. The other windward (weather) stay would be pulled tight. Looks like they forgot to show the fore tack line(s) although there is a short curved line running up from the sail tack corner. 4. This is just a guess. The fore topsail may have two sheets attached to the clew corner of the sail, These pull the clew corner out to the end of the gaff, running through a block at the end of the gaff or a sheave in the gaff end. From there the sheet often ran forward to a single block attached to the bottom of the gaff jaws and then down to deck. In the rig shown in your drawings, because of the main to fore mast stays, the clew corner must be lifted over the stays when the ship changes course (tacking) to bring the wind to the other side. Two sheets would allow this to be done from the deck, pulling the slack line tight to haul the clew corner of the sail up and over the stays. So the slack sheet would be draped over the stays like the line you point to in the drawing. With two sheets and two tacks the sail could be shifted from one side, up and over the stays, and then back down on the other side just by hauling and slacking the proper combination of sheet and tack lines. One of the main advantages of the fore-and-aft rigging like on the schooners is that almost everything could be done from the deck without anyone going aloft. This was very important in the topsail schooners, especially in the over rigged (in British opinion) American schooners. They were very "top heavy" or "tender" and a sudden squall could just blow them over and capsize them. There are several records of this happening. So it was essential that they could shift or drop the topsails very quickly.

You need eye bolts and/or mast bands. There are (at least) three ways to do this. One way is to fashion eye bolts from wire, drill a hole in the mast, and glue the eye bolt in place. You can wrap a band around the mast and solder wire loops to it. Or you can drill through the band and mast and place the eye bolts as described above. For me the easiest way is to use a narrow strip of very thin brass shimstock and fold it around the mast, forming as many attachment points as needed. First bend the strip 2 to form a lug and then solder it 3. 4. Wrap it around the mast (M). 5. Fold and solder another tab. 6. Wrap the ends around the mast and fold them together. 7. Solder the ends together and cut off the excess strip. 8. Drill holes in the tabs and round off the corners. You can even shape them to look like eye bolts if you want to. If you need only one tab just wrap the strip around the mast, fold the ends together as in 6, solder and cut 7, and drill a hole 8. You can belay to the tabs directly, or in your case attach the block strops to the tabs. Here is an example of a two lug band on the end of a dolphin striker. I have been using this method for decades. It takes a bit of practice to get the tabs spaced correctly around the mast. But it is very strong - you won't be pulling these "eye bolts" out of the mast! Before trying this I did try to use individual wire loop "eye bolts" and they sometimes pulled out of the holes in the masts when I tightened the rigging.

I'm not sure it is a "good call" but it certainly is Schooner's choice. These large latrines are shown on a number of plans for topsail schooners of the mid 1800s. The revenue cutter Joe Lane (1851) is a good example (Howard Chapelle, "The History of American Sailing Ships," Bonanza Books, New York, 1935, Plate VIII between pages 205-206). Chapelle's plan is taken from Coast Guard drawings, and the hull looks very much like your model of the Harvey. Joe Lane was 100 feet long between the perpendiculars, and that would make a 1:50 model about two feet long at the water line. I have also seen these privies placed at the stern. When they stopped building heads on ships there were no longer "heads" for the crews. They had to have something so these latrines or outhouses appeared on some ships. I have photos of a late 1800s schooner Wawona that had a fore deck above the windlass, and it had seats of ease along the bulwark under this fore deck. There are a lot of drawings of these vessels that do not have these privies. I suspect that smaller vessels just had buckets for crew use, but I do not have a reference for that. So you can do pretty much whatever you want. For further discussion of schooner heads see this thread: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/29060-schooner-heads-1700s-through-1800s/?do=findComment&comment=829120 As for the 5 mm planking (9.8 inches at 1:50) I faced the same problem on my 1:48 Baltimore clipper. Some vessels did use pretty wide deck planks, but 10 inches does seem a bit large. I decided to use the 5 mm planking and it looks pretty good. Here are links to what I experimented with and ended up doing: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=602855 https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=603771 https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=605072 Since you are making a mid-1800s model you can realistically use the nibbing method I used. This came into use about 1830-1840 and was still in use more than a century and a half later. Before that planking (deck and hull) was often "hooked" and that is much more difficult to implement.

It would help if you said what type ship you are modeling. Rigging can be very different on different type of ships. But since you mentioned a book by Underhill, I looked in his "Masting and Rigging of the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier." Figure 24 (page 24 in my copy) shows brails attached to the leech (aft side) of the sail at three points and the brail blocks attached to the mast at three points - also stated in the text. However this is for a mast with the gaff permanently attached to a swivel below the mast top (late 1800s configuration). The sail is taken in to the mast by the brails. This arrangement wouldn't work if your gaff can be raised and lowered on the mast to set or take in the sail as was common in earlier periods and on many types of vessels. In Plate 10 (page 50 in my copy) he shows the metal main mast of a barque, and it shows a mast band with lugs for brail blocks and a jackstay. Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" (page 325) shows a different arrangement for brail blocks for gaff sail on the mizzen mast where the gaff is lowered down the mast to take in the sail. Three brails are attached to the leech of the sail as before, but the brail blocks are attached to the gaff at three points. In this case the brails would draw the sail up to the gaff. Lees "Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" (page 109) shows rigging for the mizzen brails similar to what Mondfeld shows. Lever's "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" (page 63 Fig. 346) shows the same arrangement as Mondfeld and Lees, but states that the blocks are spaced on the gaff at the same distance from the peak as the cringles (where the brails attach) are spaced on the leech.