Dr PR

Petersson shows the following rigging for the fore topsail. P/S = port and starboard. A. To control the yard: 1. The braces (P/S) are connected to the outboard ends of the yards and run to blocks at the main mast top (where the lower and upper masts double). From there they lead down to the deck. These are used to turn the spar to angle the sail to the wind. 2. Lifts (P/S) attach to the ends of the yards and run to a block at the fore mast top. From there they lead down to the deck. 3. The topsail halliard attaches to the center of the spar and runs through a sheave in the mast and then down to the deck. This is used to raise and lower the yard. B. To control the sail: 1. The cluelines (P/S) attach to a single block fastened to the topsail yard outboard of the spar center. Then they run through a single block attached to the lower corners of the sail and back up to the block on the topsail yard. From there they lead down to the deck. These can draw in the lower corners of the sail for reefing the sail. 2. The sheets (P/S) are attached to the lower corners of the sail. They lead through a sheave near the end of the fore course spar, from there to a block attached to the canter of the spar, and down to the deck. These are used to pull the corners of the sail out for setting the sail. They work opposite to the cluelines. 3. The buntlines (P/S) attach to the lower edge of the sail about 1/3 of the way in from the sail corners. They lead up to a single block attached to the topsail yard near the canter and then down to the deck. They are used to pull up the bottom edge of the sail for reefing. 4. The reef tackle (P/S) attaches to the outboard end of the topsail yard. From there it runs down to a single block attached to the outboard edge of the sail 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down to the lower corner of the sail. It runs through the block and back up to a sheave near the outboard end of the topsail spar, then over to a single block attached to the mast above the spar, and from there down to the deck. It is used to draw up the outer edges of the sail when the sail is reefed. 5. Bowlines (P/S) had bridles that attached to the outer edge of the sail at several places below the reef tackle. The bridles attached to lines that led down to single blocks on the bowsprit cap and then back to the deck. They were used to keep the upwind side of the sail extended when running close-hauled. **** That's 15 lines for a single topsail and yard. To my inexperienced eye it seems a bit unwieldy to lower the entire rig to the deck. Either the port or starboard lines would have to be lead over the fore stay and the braces would be draped over the main course spar. A lot of rope would be needed! But there is no reason why it wouldn't work. It would allow changing the sail without sending men aloft. The topsail spar and sail could be lowered to the main spar where the sail could be tied to the spar along with all lines, and then the bundle could be lowered to the deck. If anyone reading this actually has experience on a topsail schooner, please enlighten us to how it was actually done.

Bob, Thanks for the details. I have the blueprints for the American Cleveland class cruisers, and the drawings for the wood deck have instructions for caulking the seams. They are pretty much what you just described, and the marine glue was supposed to be added to create a bead above the deck surface that overflowed the plank edges. There were plenty of men in the deck divisions to scrape and holystone the decks to bring the glue down even with the plank tops. They referred to "caulking" the groove with one thread of cotton and two of oakum pounded in, leaving a minimum 1/8" deep groove. Then they were "payed" with black marine glue that overran the seams by 3/16 inch. However, in another part of the drawing they also refer to the marine glue as "caulking compound." We replaced the wood deck on the OK City while I was aboard, but I really didn't pay much attention. We were spending 2/3 of our time at sea pumping bullets into the jungles in Viet Nam or trying to shoot down MiGs, and after six or eight weeks of one in three watches the last thing I wanted to do in port was stand around and watch shipyard workers replacing the decking! I do remember all the threaded studs welded to the metal deck to bolt down the wooden planks. You could stub your toe on those things and do a face plant if you didn't pay attention!

Mike, Good question! I do not have a certain answer. Here is my best guess. With the hull length you gave - 65 feet - this is a relatively small topsail schooner, so the single sail and spar wouldn't be all that heavy. The rigging for the main topsail would be about the same as for the fore topsail, with the braces running forward to the fore mast top and then down to the deck. The main stays would present an obstacle for lowering the main topsail just as the fore stay was for the fore topsail. So I can't see why there would be much difference between the procedure or difficulty for raising and lowering either topsail. Of course, given the number of lines running to either of these sails, there would be plenty of opportunity for getting things fouled up. But with the proper rigging and experience it should be routine. Why would they go to the bother? I guess it was because it took fewer men to rig the sail and spar on the deck and then haul them aloft. I also think I read where it was a very quick way to put up the sail when the wind was right and get it back down when the high sail wasn't wanted/needed. On of the rather bizarre characteristics of the topsail schooners - especially the Baltimore clippers with their very large sail area - was nosing into a swell when hit from behind by a strong gust and suddenly plunging to the bottom. I have read two accounts of schooners with full sails set just diving into a wave and disappearing with all hands in a matter of seconds! When the Brits captured American Baltimore clippers they often reduced mast heights and sail areas because they thought the rig was too large for the relatively light hull. But this reduced speed, and that is what these ships were all about. When the British started increasing mast height and sail area on their topsail schooners to increase speed they lost some of them just like the American ships. In addition, there are accounts of schooners with the topsails set suddenly capsizing when hit by a strong gust broadside. There was a price to pay if the top hamper was too large. So it was very important to be able to get the top sails down in a hurry! The Baltimore clippers had the broadest beam forward near the fore mast, instead of midships like most other sailing ships. The reason was the additional weight of the topsail and rigging, and sometimes a larger diameter fore mast to support the larger rig. The broader the hull the more weight it could float. This put the center of gravity farther forward, and that probably contributed the the reduced stability.

Bob, It was a mess! Note that I said I built the model (from a kit) about 50 years ago. It was the last deck that I calked with tar! As I recall I laid the planks and then ran a knife blade between them to create the gap for the grout. Then I heated the tar and rubbed the thick liquid into the grooves. And that left a lot of tar on the tops of the planks. After scraping the excess tar away I tried sanding the deck, but that just smeared the tar over the planks, so I had to scrape again. I didn't pack the grooves with cotton and oakum before applying the tar, so it isn't truly "authentic." The kit planks were a coarse grained wood - out of scale, but typical for kits of that period. And the caulk grooves were also too wide for scale. The "tar" was actually a mil-spec black marine glue. We just called it "tar" because it looked like tar. It has aged a bit now, with half a century of dust accumulated on the tar.

Kieth, Wefalk's suggestion of "photo stacking" is a good way to get extremely good depth of field. I used it to make this picture: The distance from the tip of the bowsprit to the stern boat davits is 22 inches (56 centimeters) and the image is in sharp focus for the full length! I think there were 12 different images. I just focused first on the tip of the bowsprit, and then moved the focus in steps along the length of the ship for each successive picture. This was made indoors with rudimentary lighting. You get the best results with good lighting, but harsh lighting like direct sunlight will produce undesirable shadows. Cloudy bright or diffused light is best. The camera has to be mounted on a tripod and in the same position relative to the model for each shot. A high f-stop and good depth of field make better images. However, you can use low light and shallow depth of field and just take a lot of images with slightly different focuses. The separate images must be aligned and scaled before stacking.

Mike, Schooner rigs were not "normal" with respect to square sail rigs, and virtually every "how to" book focuses on square sail rigs. Most of what the normally referenced sail and rigging books describe just doesn't apply to schooners. Everything about the schooner rig evolved to require the minimum crew and a minimum number of men aloft. The ships often did not have ratlines, and when a man had to go aloft he was hoisted or climbed the gaff sail hoops. If you look at books on schooner rigs you will see that the fore/aft sails have minimal rigging. The masts also have just the basic shrouds and stays. There isn't a lot of rigging aloft to interfere with raising and lowering the upper yards. The lines for the jib and flying jib were usually attached to the fore mast above the spars for the top sail and topgallant. Only the fore stay was in the way of lifting and lowering the rigs. However, on larger ships the jib stay might be attached above the top yard and below the topgallant yard. I have seen descriptions of the top sail rigs, but very little on how they were handled. But just looking at how they are rigged you can see that they had to be maneuvered around the fore stays. The sheets, cluelines, reef tackle, braces, halliards, bowlines, buntlines and lifts would have to be rigged to the spars and sails on deck. Then the running ends would have to be led around the stays and shrouds or over the fore yard to avoid interference as the spar was lowered or hoisted. It sounds complicated, but if you think about it the process is no different from the procedure to replace a spar on a square rigger. But there were only one or two sails involved on topsail schooners, and they were much smaller than the sails on a square rigger, and the spars were much lighter. It appears to me that the lifts and braces bore the force of the wind on the sails. Because often there were no parrels the lifts pulled on the fore mast and the braces pulled on the main mast. In a similar way the course sheets transfer part of the force to the hull. However, on some rigs parrels were used for the top yard, but these were detached for raising and lowering the yards. Again, I recommend Petersson's Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft as a reference for topsail schooner rigs. Also, you can find some descriptions of modern topsail schooner rigs and rigging practices on line.

McMaster-Carr is an excellent source for tubing, sheet, special shapes, fasteners, materials, tools and much more: https://www.mcmaster.com/ The prices are usually better than hobby suppliers.

Mike, A 65 foot Baltimore clipper would have a light rig. I am building a model of a topsail schooner from about 1815 that is 68 feet between perpendiculars, with six 6 pounders and a 12 pounder "long tom" pivot gun. I have been studying a number of references and have posted some of my results for masting here: Post #69 discusses the sails for a Baltimore clipper of this size. Most drawings of 60-70 foot topsail schooners show only a top sail. Larger ships had a topgallant, such as La Recourvance with an 82 foot hull has a topgallant. Belle Poule is about the same size but has only a topsail and no topgallant. Lynx, at 72 feet between perpendiculars, has only a topsail. From what I have read parrals weren't used on the topsail and topgallant yards. These yards were lowered to the deck to work the sails. That way no one had to go aloft. Then they were hauled up again. So the yards were not attached directly to the masts in any way. The fore yard was attached to the fore top. I guess it was rarely, if ever, lowered. I hope you post your work. I am very interested in these topsail schooners.

Dave, I recently planked a hull with nibs and caulking. I did some experiments on six different methods of "caulking" in the link below. I chose to use black construction paper. Post #25 shows the results. I was very happy with the results. I served on two ships with teak decks (a minesweeper and a cruiser). On both ships the decks were holystoned and bleached so the wood was very light and the grout was very black. But I have also seen older ships (in museums) where the grout stood proud of the surface a bit and was weathered gray and the wood was also weathered gray. On both ships I served on the grout was 3/8 inch wide. On the 1:48 scale model linked to above I chose a black craft paper that was 3/8" scale thick. However, the planks supplied with the kit were far too wide to be realistic (about 9.5 scale inches). After the deck was scraped to remove paper rising above the planks, sanded to even up plank height (the planks supplied with the kit were a consistent 5 mm wide but varied in thickness from 0.75 mm to 1.5 mm), polished with 0000 steel wool and finished with clear lacquer the grout lines were very narrow and the color was a dark gray. If you really want to get "realistic" grout you can do what I did on an earlier model. We reworked the decks on the minesweeper and I saved some of the tar that was used for the grout. Then on my next model I used the tar for the grout between the planks! Here is a picture of the deck from that model I made about 50 years ago.

Smaller topsail schooners (50-80 feet between perpendiculars) usually had one top sail. Longer schooners had a top sail and topgallant, or lower and upper top sails, depending upon the period. The fore yards were supported by slings attached to the fore top, and controlled with braces and lifts. The highest yards usually were supported only by halliards and controlled with braces and lifts, with no parrels or attachments to the mast. They were lowered to the deck for rigging the sails and lines, and then hoisted aloft. This way no one had to go aloft to raise the sails, and you often see drawings and plans with no rat lines on the stays. The gaff topsails were rigged in a similar manner, supported only by halliards and sheets, often with a top spar (gunter) that was hoisted in a similar manner to top sail and topgallant yards. Again, the sails could be rigged on deck and then hoisted aloft. Some of the largest schooners (greater than 100-110 feet in length) had rigs more like the full rigged clipper ships of the mid 1800s. Of course, these are just general "rules" and different masters and owners had their own variations. And in addition the standard sails they had means of hanging a lot of additional canvas in studding sails, water sails, ringtails, staysails, gunter sails, courses, bonnets and drabblers. Howard Chapelle's The Baltimore Clipper is the best reference for these ships. Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft is an excellent reference for rigging small to medium topsail schooners - Baltimore clippers. Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier is an excellent reference for mid to late 1800s clipper ships and coastal schooners, English style. But by then the design had evolved so everyone was building topsail schooners in more or less the same way. He provides very detailed drawings and descriptions for rigging these ships. I have a bunch of the other "standard" references for ship rigging, but most of what they say applies only to large square rigged vessels. Topsail schooners were a breed apart, with a rig that evolved for handling by very small crews. However, these references are handy for deciphering the nautical terminology. George W. Blunt's 1858 revision of Darcy Lever's 1808 The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor described the American way of rigging ships in the early to mid 1800s. Again, it is mostly about square rigged ships, but it does describe how the lines were rigged and has quite a bit that applies to fore and aft rigs.

Kenna (and Ron), I envy you! Your first build is always exciting and challenging. And I commend you for wanting to scratch build. When I was your age I didn't have the money for a wooden model kit, and the hobby shops in my home town didn't carry them anyway. This was decades before the Internet so scratch building was my only choice. I built a two foot long model of a Chris-Craft cabin cruiser, like a 40 foot real boat a friend of the family owned. I occasionally got to drive the real one, and loved the lines. I had no plans so I just winged it, and the model came out OK. It had a complete interior and even had motors (but no radio control) - I just swam along and turned it by hand. It wasn't very "accurate" but it was a lot of fun to build! Nothing like the quality of the scratch built beauties you see on the Forum, but I thought it was great, and that's what counts. Then I got bold and tried to model a schooner like I saw on a favorite TV show. Unfortunately, I knew nothing about sailing ship designs. I had built a bunch of plastic ship models, so my "schooner" hull was far too narrow, more the shape of a destroyer hull. The masts were too tall, and when I put it in the water it immediately capsized - "turned turtle." That was a disappointment! Eventually I hung a heavy weight from the keel but that acted as a sea anchor so it didn't "skim over the waves" like the schooner on TV. And it still floated with a sharp list to one side or the other. I gave up on the floating model and just sat it on a desk to look at. As a working model it was a failure, but I thought it was pretty. I tell you this because no one's first model, kit or scratch build, will be their best. But just building the kit you will learn the skills you need to do a better job. I have built several models from kits and from scratch since then, and I am much better now at researching the designs before I start. But I still have fond memories of those first scratch built attempts at wooden ship modeling. So I encourage you to dive in, and don't be too critical of your own work - even though you may be your own worst critic. What ever you build, be it a beauty or a beast, you will always remember it. And you will have the satisfaction of having built something! So remember to laugh at your mistakes and enjoy the experience. If you do, your next build will be much more enjoyable. And if you post your build here on the forum, other members will be a source of encouragement and advice.

Very nice work! You said you thought this wasn't a good kit for a first build, but in your case I think that is wrong. You have stuck with it and are doing a great job. And you are learning the frustrations of kit building and ways to work around the problems. That is good experience for a first time builder. When you are finished you will have the satisfaction of having overcome the limitations of the kit to build a nice model. Your next build will be easier as a result.

Jim, I have been building wooden ship models for at least 60 years and I still find times I need lots of advice! They are right about keeping the keel straight. Be cautioned that even though your new one is straight now, it can still warp while you are working on the bulkheads and such. You have a good building clamp but it holds the keel in only two places - allowing it to bend between the clamps. One thing you might try is getting a piece of aluminum "L" - either 3/8" or 1/2" - and clamping pieces a bit longer than the keel in the vice on either side of the keel. That will keep it straight along the full length. After you have installed the bulkheads, spacers between bulkheads, wales and deck the structure will be rigid enough that you can dispense with the "L" pieces. This might be overkill, but it is cheap insurance!

You can find punches with concave or "dimpled" ends - for leather working. They are usually knurled for a good grip, and the hollow end won't slip off the head of the pins. For really snug fits you can use a small hammer to tap the end of the punch to encourage the pin to enter the wood. I have inserted very small pins without drilling, but drilling a slightly undersize hole first makes life a lot less frustrating!

Generally, the standing rigging had to take larger loads than the running rigging, so it was larger diameter. It was also usually tarred to treated to withstand rot. The running rigging was smaller diameter, but the multiple strands running through the blocks gave the overall assembly much more strength than the single rope it was made from. Running rigging was not tarred and usually natural hemp color. The exception was the anchor cable. It was sometimes the largest diameter rope, and not tarred. But it isn't normally considered "running rigging." The actual rigging on ships was determined by formula or a table of rigging sizes based upon the size and sail rig of the ship. Generally each line of standing rigging is given relative to the diameter of the stays (often the main stay), and they are based upon the diameters of the masts. If you are really into the nitty gritty details there are several books that give guidance on rope diameters: Historic Ship Models, Wolfram zu Mondfeld, Sterling Publishing, New York, 1989. General modeling information and rope size tables. The Art of Rigging, George Biddlecombe, Echo Point Books & Media, 1825. Reprint of an 1848 guide to rigging sailing vessels in the US. The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, James Lee, Naval Institute Press, 1979. Very detailed rigging sizes for English ships. Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier, Harold A. Underhill, Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd., Glasgow, 1946. Excellent for clipper ships. Many model rigging books don't mention rope diameters.

John, Are you talking about the "wire" diameter of the rod the chain is formed from? The length certainly isn't six times the width.

The Floating Drydock carries some very nice 3D printed stud-link anchor chains and ordinary metal chains in various sizes: http://www.floatingdrydock.com/ Smaller vessels like schooners often used cables (heavy rope) instead of chains, especially prior to the 20th century. Cable/chain size depended upon the weight of the anchor, and that depended upon the size (tonnage) of the ship. Zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (page 240) has a table of stud-link chain sizes for various ship tonnages. Sailing ships often carried two or three different sizes of anchors, each with its own cable size. For more modern vessels you can just look on line for anchor and chain suppliers to get the proper sizes.

It depends upon the material. If the wood grain is visible it will look pretty hokey, in my opinion - all the boards having a continuous grain pattern and color. Natural wood boards have different grain patterns and different colors. However, if the deck is bleached and holystoned all the boards will be about the same color, and lighter than many natural woods. I enjoy the challenge and satisfaction of planking the deck. Even if the kit had a printed/etched deck I would still use individual planks.

Wefalck, You forgot to mention one other use for nitrocellulose. It is also called guncotton, and the highly nitrated version is a powder charge used to propel projectiles from guns. It burns extremely rapidly, what is sometimes called a low order or Class B explosive, but it doesn't explode like TNT. The low nitrated version that was used for commercial products is not considered an explosive but it still burns rapidly. So if you do work with nitrocellulose treat it gently. Just don't heat it too much. It has a flash point (temperature where it vaporizes to produce a flammable gas) at 4.4C (39.9F) and ignites at 170C (338F). That is lower than the ignition temperature of paper. And it is toxic so don't breathe the fumes.

In response to Caleb's question about the topsail schooner rig, I have been investigating schooner rigs for a while now. There was a lot of experimentation in the early 1800s with different rigs. I have found mention (and drawings/paintings) of a few vessels that had simple fore/aft rigs at one time and topsail rigs at another. Some just had the topsail, and some had topgallants, and some had lower and upper topsails. Some of the larger schooners had royals. Although the "typical" topsail schooner had square sails on the fore mast only, some carried spars for a topsail, topgallant and/or royal on the main mast. Ships designed for square sails on the fore mast only typically - but not always - had a foremast that was larger diameter than the main mast. Gaff topsails were common on the main (aftermost) mast, but not always raised - it depended upon the winds and seas. Some had a gaff topsail on the fore mast and some had staysails between the masts. And there were bonnets, drubblers, studding sails and ringtails that were occasionally hung on to "standard" rigs. To further complicate things, the "typical" topsail schooners often carried a main sail that was only rigged when conditions were right - as in the painting in post #766. The same is true for topsail schooners with square sails on the main mast. So, if a two mast topsail schooner was carrying a full square sail rig on both masts, why wasn't it a brig? And if a brig wasn't flying the fore-course and main-course square sails was it a topsail schooner? So the same hull might show quite different sail rigs from time to time, depending upon the whim of the captain/master/owner, the job to be done, and the size and abilities of the crew. I haven't yet figured out exactly what defined the "types" of these chameleon ships, other than what the original sail/spar rig was when the ships were built.

Schaye, The tops of the bulkheads must align with the sheer (fore/aft curvature) of the deck. If they do not your deck will have waves in it. You may end up having to sand the tops of some of the bulkheads, or maybe add strips to the top to bring a bulkhead up to deck height. This isn't uncommon in kits. You can use a strip of wood laid down lengthwise to the ship on the tops of the bulkheads to detect any that are high or low. You will also have to sand the outer edges of the bulkheads to get the correct bevel for the planking. Again, attaching thin strips of wood or plastic to the bulkheads along the length of the hull will reveal if any are too wide or too narrow, side to side (port to starboard). Look down the length of the strips and if you see any "waves" along the length a bulkhead is either too wide or too thin. You must get these things right before proceeding to hull or deck planking. Also, be sure that you do not create any curvature in the false keel as you fasten the bulkheads to the keel. Check to be sure the keel is straight as you add each bulkhead.

Jolene, Hope you and yours are doing well. I know that France has been hit pretty hard by the corona virus. Nice work on your new build. Now we have plenty of time for ship modeling!

No one's first kit is his best effort (or second, third ...). There is a learning curve, so don't worry too much. If something doesn't come out to your satisfaction you can always tear it out and start again. You first build is a learning experience so don't expect perfection. No matter what you do it should help prepare you for your next build. The important point is to take it easy, don't sweat the small stuff, and enjoy the build.

Good idea! (Why didn't I think of that?) I have bunches of these left over from my electronics design days.

Roger, That is a clever idea! Officers' gigs and barges in the 1970s had mahogany decks with white grout (see image below). It is also common on civilian yachts. I have often wondered how to model that.