Dr PR

Nice work on the deadeyes. And making your own ropes! Good practice for the next build.

Pat, Thanks. The period and type of ship is important. The calculations I made were for the Baltimore clipper and revenue cutter schooners of the late 18th century and early 19th century. They were based upon Fincham's 1829 tables and Marestier's schooner descriptions included in Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper."

Leopard, I went through the same process to determine mast lengths for my current build of a revenue cutter, post #52: I found the length of the main mast heel to hounds on American Baltimore clippers to be 2.6 to 2.8 times the extreme breadth, while on British ships it was only 2.3 (probably for normal square rigged ships). But the American vessels did carry a larger top hamper. The head (the part above the hounds to the top cap) is 0.25 to 0.45 times the extreme breadth. Look at sail plans of ships similar to the one you are building to determine a suitable head length. The heads are usually the same length on both masts. Total mast length is heel to hounds + head. Drawings show the main mast height above the deck (partners to top cap) to about equal to the hull length, or maybe a bit longer. The "partners" are where the mast penetrates the main deck. In this respect your masts may be a bit too short, at least on American schooners. The fore mast is 0.9 to 0.97 times the total length of the main mast. The fore and main top masts tended to be about the same length, and are typically about half the length of the lower masts. The mast diameters from Fincham's rules are a for full square rigged ships, and are bit large for schooners. Underhill says in "Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier" that schooner masts are only about 4/5 the diameter of masts for full square rigged ships. The fore mast on top sail schooners carried greater weight and was typically was larger diameter than the fore and aft rigged main mast. Both Underhill's "Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier"and Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" have tables and formulas for mast diameters and tapers that agree closely. After making your calculations compare your results with Marestier's data for a ship of about the same length as you are planning. In the end, you are right that there was a bit of leeway in determining mast heights and sizes, so anything reasonably close will do.

Leopard, Thank you very much for your comments. I am tempted to agree with your interpretation of the stays and preventers. But looking through Chapelle's "Baltimore Clipper" (1968) I find many illustrations showing the stays from the main top to near the base of the fore mast. Awkward though it may be, it would be possible to tack the fore gaff with the two stays running from the main top to the base of the fore mast. To do this the fore gaff would be lowered to the deck, swung to the other side, and raised again. Another way would be to reef the fore gaff sail, lifting the sail to the gaff and then moving the halyard over the stays. Then the sail could be lowered on the opposite side of the stays. Chapelle's "Baltimore Clipper" shows a slaver with the two main stays running to the base of the fore mast, and with the fore gaff sail reefed above the stays (plate before page 109), with no stay from the main top to the fore top. Similar arrangements with main stays running to the base of the fore mast with no stay between the tops are shown on plates at pages 45, 66, 67, 70, 71, 78, 79, 114, 115, 136, 142, 143, 151, 169. The Fig 14 and Fig 25 "Baltimore Clipper Schooner - Sail Plan" on pages 130 and 132 also show the main stays rigged to below the fore mast, without the stay between the tops. The Fig 26 sail plan on page 133 shows the main stay from the main top to the fore top, without the stays to the bottom of the fore mast. These drawings are from Maresttier, who drew them from the actual ships he surveyed. If it was just one illustration by one artist that showed the stays to the base of the main mast I might think it was just a mistake. But there are at least 17 instances showing the main stays running to near the base of the fore mast, and I saw only three that did not have these stays, with a stay between tops. Rigging the main stay to the deck at the fo'c'sle was the standard method on square riggers. So, what do we make of this?? **** Maybe the answer is in George Biddlecombe's "The Art of Rigging" from 1925. In Plate XVI (facing page 111) he shows a topsail schooner with a stay running from the main top to the base of the fore mast. He also shows a stay from the main top to the fore top. On page 109, in "RIGGING A SCHOONER" he states "The main-stay leads to the head of the fore-mast, by which means, the the sail abaft the fore-mast is not obstructed when the vessel goes about, as the peak passes under the stay. There is also two jumper-stays, which set up to an eye-bolt in the deck, just at the after part of the fore-rigging, so that the weather one is always kept taut." I was wondering if both the stays to the deck were rigged at the same time. Only one would be under strain under a given condition (except when the wind was from directly ahead) so the other could be slacked. This may explain the slack line crossing the fore gaff sail in the Pride II pictures - a slack "jumper-stay." Someone who has sailed on the Pride II could answer this puzzle. However, Biddlecombe's book was written in 1925, more than a century after the Baltimore Clipper was being developed. During that time different rigging methods were tried and the style evolved into the 20th century version. Underhill's "Masting and Rigging of the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier" says the rigging of British topsail schooners changed over the years and by the 20th century the main stay ran from the main top to the fore top. **** Chapelle's "American Sailing Ships" shows the rigging of the 1812 Prince de Neufchatel (page 147) with the mainstays rigged to the deck at the base of the fore mast. The 1815 80 ton revenue cutter (page 190) and 31 ton revenue cutter (pages 184 and 191) have mainstays to the fo'c'sle deck. The 1825 drop keel revenue cutter (page 197) and a shoal draft cutter with main stays to the fo'c'sle deck (pages 199 and 201). The 1830 built Morris (page 207) has both types of main stays. The Forward of 1831 (page 211) does not have the main stays to the deck. The Joe Lane (ex Campbell) of 1848 does not have the stays to the deck. **** I am guessing that the earliest schooners continued the long time practice of running the main stays to the deck at the fo'c'sle. This complicated swinging the fore gaff sail, but far be it from most to part with tradition! However, rigging the main stay to the fore top greatly simplified sail handling, and that would improve performance, especially in combat. The war of 1812 created a "natural selection" for schemes that worked best and were more survivable in combat. Under such conditions traditionalists lose out to those who adapt best. Even so, traditions die hard, and it would seem that for new construction the stays between mast tops were not adopted until the 1820s and main stays to the deck did not disappear completely until the 1830s. But it is possible that the Captains of earlier ships re-rigged their vessels to improve handling.

Rick, I should have stated that some of my 3D drawings have millions of objects and tens of millions of points. These designs strain even my 3.4 GHz 6 core work machine, and there is no way I could ever get much done on the 2 GHz 2 core laptop. But for simple designs with only a few hundred parts the laptop would be adequate.

Andre, I have used quite a few CAD programs over the last 30 years. Here are a few things I have learned. Before you choose any CAD program be sure to look at the user Forum. First of all, is it free? Is it open to everyone, including non-registered users? If not, move on to another program. Any company that limits access to users' comments is more interested in wringing every penny out of its customers than providing help for the users. You can also be sure they censor posts to their forums to eliminate any negative comments. Second, is technical support free? Or do you have to pay a yearly subscription - even after you have paid for the program? If so, the company really isn't interested in supplying technical support. I have used CAD packages that extort several thousand dollars per year just for technical support! To make matters worse, often the "technical support" people have little experience with the program (just someone the suits hired to read prewritten statements), and they may not speak your language. Third, are updates to fix bugs free, or do you have to pay to correct the programmer's mistakes? Again, this tells you something about the company and what you can expect from them in the future. Forth, can you transfer files from the CAD program to and from other CAD programs? Look at the list of file types the program supports. Some CAD programs have little or no ability to work with files from other programs - especially to export to other CAD programs. Some companies deliberately limit export capabilities so their users are trapped into continuing to use their program. They don't want you to be able to move your existing designs to another program. **** I use DesignCAD 3D MAX. It is a full featured 2D/3D CAD program. Our company started using it in 1988 (it was called ProDesign back then). The user Forum is open to everyone. It has many very experienced users who can answer just about any question you post. Furthermore, some of the users are more knowledgeable than the technical support people. Technical support people monitor the Forum, and jump in to answer questions. Bug fixes and annual updates are free. The program has absolutely the best user interface I have seen for any software. Is it perfect? No, but it sells for about $100. Don't take the cost of the program as a measure of the quality. I have used a $15,000 program that had lousy documentation, poor support, and lacked many of the 3D drawing features DesignCAD has! If you have doubts what you can do with an inexpensive CAD program, check out this link: https://www.okieboat.com/CAD model.html Or follow the link to my post on this Forum:

I have been puzzling over belaying pins on the schooners and revenue cutters in the early 1800s. I have read that they did not use pins and pin rails, although they were common on larger ships (however some schooner kits include belaying pins, fife rails and pin rails). So, if they didn't use pin rails and belaying pins how did they attach the running rigging so it would be easy to release it for adjusting the sails? I have drawings that show the standing rigging attached to ring bolts on the deck. This would not be a convenient way to handle the running rigging. Some texts say they attached the running rigging to cleats or cavels (kevels) along the bulwarks.

Next on the agenda are the 6 pounder cannons. I have been making the little fiddly bits for the carriages and attaching the cannons. I used 0.019" brass wire for the ring bolts to attach the gun tackle and training tackle and the larger rings that the breaching line will pass through. The trunnion straps were cut from 0.008" brass sheet and attached with 7 mm brass nails. After the cannons were attached the quoins were added to set the elevation of the barrels. When all pieces were in place I painted the metal parts with flat black enamel. Now I need to place the ring bolts on the bulwarks for the gun tackle and breaching lines. I have been thinking about placing the guns in the run out battery position or in an inboard stowage position, or maybe run out on one side and stowed on the other.

The acrylic paints did eventually harden a bit, but I would have been happier using lacquers. I finally got tired of looking at the very dark brown bulwarks and decided to repaint with a lighter shade of brown. I couldn't find a suitable color so I mixed the dark "true brown" with a much lighter "beige." The result is something like a chocolate color, which will do. After reading several sources about ship colors I decided the white deck fittings were not used until a few decades after the period I am modeling. Most models have some shade of brown or red. I used the same light brown that I painted the bulwarks with. I also repainted the waterline to be a bit lower at the bow. The cannons and other metalwork were painted flat black. I didn't care much for the original skylight. The flat window would become a fish tank in heavy seas, and was certain to leak. It also needed some protection for the windows. I decided to replace it with a style that had sloping windows that could also open to allow air circulation to the cabin. Brass rods provide protection from falling objects. I have been puzzling over the sequence of the build beyond this point. Now that the color problem is behind me I can continue the assembly of the guns and their tackle, and add the fastenings to the bulwarks. I also have cleats for the gun port door ropes. I could work on the anchors and the ship's boats. But I hesitate to place too much detail while there is still a lot of work - and handling - for the masts and rigging. I will at least need to know where everything fits on deck before I can plan the attachments for the standing rigging, and consider where the running rigging will be fastened. In addition to the kit's rigging plans, I have the following books to guide me: Historic Ship Models, Wolfram zu Mondfeld, 1989 Masting & Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier, Harold Underhill, 1972 The Art of Rigging, George Biddlecombe, 1925 The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, George Blunt, 1858 I also have Chapelle's books with some rigging detail for Baltimore clippers and revenue cutters, and a few ship modelling books. I think the research for the model is as much fun as the actual construction.

Jo, Thank you very much. On my current build (1:48) I glued black construction paper to the edges of the planks and it produced very satisfactory results. But the planks were 5 mm wide, or about 12 scale inches. The paper gave about 3/8 scale inch grout, which is about right. My next build will be 1:96 with 4 scale inch planks - and a LOT of them! The planks will be 0.04 inch wide and 0.04 inch thick, and there will be about 150 of them across the beam. I'd go nuts trying to glue very thin paper to the edges! I like your felt tip pen solution much better! Your build is looking good!

Pat, I was looking through your Victoria build and saw mention of single tree masts. While looking for something else I came across this 1854 reference: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044091909846&view=1up&seq=13 Masting, Mast Making, and Rigging of Ships Robert Kipping London 1854 Chapter III describes construction of single tree masts, and mast hounds for these masts.

Pat, I was already wrestling with this when I read your first post so it was easy to share. Actually, I think some people may use "knees" for "cheeks" that do not have separate "bibbs." I have found only one author who called the cheeks "knees" and in his drawings they were trapezoidal and didn't resemble actual knees! Metal masts had single piece metal cheeks.

Here is an image from the Anatomy of A Ship series for the HMS Granado. The associated text gives these definitions (by numbered part) for the main mast: 1 Mast side view, 2 Mast front view, 3 Tenon for mast cap, 4 Lower mast head, 5 Bibs, 6 Cheeks, 7 Side fishes, 9 Wolding, 12 Cross section of the mast at the hounds. There is no clear definition of the extent of the "hounds" other than it is some part of the square section of the mast where the cheeks attach. In other drawings in the book "hounds" are just "rigging stop" attachments to the mast to support rigging that is tied around the mast. The cheeks are attached to the mast with bolts and woldings, and the bibs are attached to the cheeks. This seems to be the most consistent use of the terms. On smaller or later ships the cheeks and bibs may be a single piece. Instead of a longer piece extending down the mast and secured with woldings, the cheek may be a single knee-like piece that is bolted to the flats on the mast.

Pat, I have been researching this a bit more. Cheeks, bibbs and hounds are terms that are used differently by just about every author. Hounds are the part of the mast structure directly below tops - that is pretty uniform for all authors I have looked at. However, exactly what the hounds are is pretty vague. Some authors say the hounds include the cheeks and bibbs. Some say it is just the part of the mast at the top of the cheeks or bibbs. One author refers to sheaves set into the cheeks as hounds. Another seems to consider anything on a mast that is intended to prevent lines or structures from slipping down the mast to be hounds. And one author says the top is built around the part of the mast call the hounds, implying that the hounds are above the cheeks! Take your choice. Underhill is the only author that used the term "hounds" to mean a specific point along the length of the mast, and it is for the purpose of defining the diameter/cross section of the mast at that point. The terms "cheeks" and "bibbs" are used interchangeably for the attachments to the masts at the hounds that support tops and cross trees. Most authors refer to the main part that is attached directly to the mast as the "cheeks." This may be a simple single piece knee, where the forward curved part may be called the bib. Or it may be a long piece secured to the mast by woldings that is shaped at the top to form a "cheek." A "bibb" or "bib" is a piece attached to this cheek to create a forward extension to support the trestle-trees. One other thing to be aware of is that the knees that support the head timbers at the bow are also called "cheeks." Some call these "head cheeks." So the term "cheek" is about as ambiguous as can be.

Pat, In "Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier" (1972, page 5) Harold A. Underhill gives the following definitions of mast parts (bottom to top): Note: In this case the "mast" is a single pole or spar, such as the lower mast, the top mast or topgallant mast. Heel: the bottom of the mast. Partners: where the mast passes through the main deck. Hounds: the top of the cheeks, where the trestle-trees* rest. Head: the part of the mast between the hounds and the highest part of the mast at the cap. Doubling: the part between the hounds and the cap (the head), where the lower mast and upper mast fit side by side. Hounded length: the part of the mast between the heel and the hounds. Measured length: the overall length from heel to highest point at the top of the cap. Measured length = hounded length + head. These terms should apply to mid 1800s British and American ships. **** The mast cheeks are supports for the top that are fastened to either side (port/starboard) of the mast. The shape, how they are attached to the mast, and additional parts varied with the type of ship and the period. In "Historic Ship Models" Wolfram zu Mondfeld has drawings of several arrangements. Continental ships had single pieces called "bibbs" attached to the sides of the mast (p 219). English top supports were built up with a piece attached to the sides of the mast itself (the "cheeks") with the bibb pieces notched into the front of the cheeks. The whole collection of pieces that support the top are typically referred to as the "cheeks" or "mast cheeks" (p 221). **** * The "top" is the platform near the top of a mast. The trestle-trees are the fore-aft members that the mast top is constructed on. They support the side-to-side cross-trees that support the decking in the top. Trestle-trees rest on the top edge of the cheeks. So the hounds were the line at the top edge of the cheeks and the bottom most part of the top. In this Underhill is quite specific. In a drawing showing the top and the cheeks he has an arrow pointing from the label "hounds" directly to the line between the top of the cheek and the bottom of the trestle-trees. The mast top itself is above the hounds. Hope this helps more than it confuses!

YC, Here is a blueprint for the "flag board" (also known as the flag bag) on a Cleveland class cruiser guided missile conversion in the 1950s. I suspect (but I am not certain) it is the same flag bag that was used on cruisers during WWII and was reused after the conversion. It is the same basic design shown in the photos Bob posted. This shows the general shape and size of the flag bag, and is an example how it was arranged with respect to the signal mast and halyards. This is a prettty large drawing showing the details clearly, but it looks like the Forum reduces it drastically. Contact me through this link and I'll send you the full sized drawing: https://www.okieboat.com/Contact page.html I might even find some more photos of cruiser flag bags.

Jo, Did you "paint" the edges of the planks before putting them in place, or were the grout lines drawn on after the planks were on the deck? Phil

Jo, Nice work! The deck looks good. I had similar problems on my latest build with varying thickness of the deck planks. It just takes a lot of sanding to get them smooth. I finished with 0000 steel wool and a coat of clear lacquer. How did you make the black grout lines between the planks? They look very good. I second what Popeye said about being careful with the bulwarks. With the frame ribs removed they are vulnerable to cracking. If that happens it can be difficult to get the planks to align properly again - they will have minds of their own, like herding cats. I would put the replacement frames on as soon as possible to add strength. If they protrude above the bulwark a bit you can sand them down before adding the cap rail. Also, having the frames in place and sanded to the proper angle will cause the cap rail to fit correctly. If you attach the cap rail first and then try to place the frames the cap rail might be at the wrong angle and it will be more trouble trying to cut each frame the proper length.

The main problem with laptops is inadequate cooling of the CPU. The i5s and i7s generate a lot of heat when all of the cores are running 100%. The tiny fans in laptops cannot remove all of this heat fast enough. To avoid meltdown (literally!) the processors have a protection circuit that stops the CPU clock momentarily, stopping heat production to allow the fans to catch up. This slows down program execution significantly. The more heat that is generated the more frequent the clock delays. If stopping the clock doesn't work the CPU voltage is reduced (higher voltage makes more heat). But some components will not work correctly at lower voltages so the system eventually crashes (BSOD - Blue Screen Of Death). When Win 7 came out laptops began crashing regularly with the BSOD. Oddly, this would happen only on certain days and times. In it's effort to make computers more useful Microsoft made hard drive file defragmentation automatic, not requiring the user to start it (because most users didn't even know why it needed to be done or when to do it). Unfortunately, when the weekly scheduled defrag started all cores were run at 100%, processors overheated and the computer stopped working. This happened only on laptops and not on desktop machines that had lots of fans and coolers for the CPU. Win 8/10 came out defrag was implemented bit by bit, periodically while the computer was running. This kept up with the fragmentation of files so the defrag process never lasted long enough to generate enough heat to crash laptops. But it does slow things down every now and then. **** Laptops are useful for very slow operations, such as typing and reading email, where the processor is waiting on the user most of the time. CAD programs, image rendering, complex spreadsheets and such can run the processors full time, and that causes the CPU to overheat, resulting in very sluggish performance. I have a 2 GHz i7 laptop and a 3.4 GHz i7 desktop. The desktop is many, many times faster than the laptop for complex CAD work. It has 10 fans in the chassis and a liquid cooler for the CPU, and I have never seen the CPU slow down because of overheating. The fans normally run very slowly so they are barely audible, but for really long complex operations the fans sometimes start roaring like the thing was about to lift off!

I tend to stick to one project at a time, but within a project it is necessary to plan ahead. You really need to be familiar with every step of the build before you start, otherwise you may find that you misunderstood how one of the later parts fits into the whole and find that you have to go back and reconstruct something. For me this is very frustrating! In many cases I create my own plans for parts and assembly, even if it is a kit with plans. Kit plans often leave a lot to be desired! I read about how things worked on the real ships. That gives me a much better understanding of what it is I am building, and how it fits into the whole model. For example, on my current build, while I was attaching the channels and chain plates to the hull I needed to know the angle of the shrouds from the mastheads to the channels in order to get the angles of the chain plates right. This required me to determine the heights on the masts where the shrouds attached, and that required a bit of study of the mast assemblies. I didn't actually construct the masts, but I learned how to do it. Having said that, I am planning another 1:96 scratch build project of a guided missile cruiser. No plans existed for the ship so I worked 14 years to research and create a very accurate 3D CAD model to be used to create plans. After that I was pretty much burned out for a while on the cruiser project, so now I am "relaxing" with a revenue cutter kitbash build. But I started the kit build before I began working on the CAD model of the cruiser! One of these days I will restart the 1:96 scale project, and I suspect it will take several years to build it. I may alternate between the two builds in order to get a change of pace. Who knows which will be completed first? The important thing is to enjoy what you are doing. If you lose your enthusiasm for one project, that is the time to put it on the shelf and work on something else. The first will keep, and will be there when you again have interest. Besides, in the interim you may discover something about the shelved project that will help you build a more satisfying model.

Welcome, and congratulations on your first build. I started building wooden boats and ships from scratch when I was a kid and quickly learned to be disappointed in the results. Get used to the idea that your first build will not be perfect, no matter how hard you try. It will be a learning experience, and that will help make your second build much better! If something doesn't come out "right" in your opinion (and your opinion is really the only one that matters) think about it and decide what you think is not right and why. That way you won't make the same mistake again. I am working on my sixth large scale wooden ship build (the third from a kit) and there are things about it I am not totally satisfied with. I'm still learning, and having fun! The only bit of "advice" I would offer is to study each part of the ship and learn what its function was. What did it actually do on the real ship and how did it work? This often gives insight into how the part fits into the whole, and that can go a long way to fill in the gaps in the instructions. And, of course, ask questions of the modelers here and on other ship building forums. If you are having a problem you can be sure someone else had been there before and may be able to solve your problem. Happy modeling!

This may be a bit late for your build, but something to think about when using rub-on lettering. I have always worried that it might some day peel off. And often I have not been able to find the right color in the font I need to use. I use the rub-ons as a type of stencil. First I paint the desired lettering color on the surface and let it dry. Then I add the rub-on letters. Then I paint the background color over the letters. After the paint dries I use masking tape to lift off the rub-on letters, leaving the desired font and color. This has the advantage of being permanent lettering, and the letters have no apparent thickness - important in really small scales. Since you seem to be staining the wood this technique probably won't work, but it is something to keep in mind. Phil

Valeriy, Beautiful work! I love working with brass and solder, and you are doing an excellent job! Commercial sanding sealers typically are clear paint with a fine powder - like talc - mixed in to fill in the pores in the wood. However, the white talcum powder can make the wood a lighter color. If the wood is to be painted with an opaque color this isn't a problem, but for "bright" or unpainted wood, like decks, it can create an unnatural look. You can also mix very fine wood dust from sanding into clear paint and use it to seal the wooden decks. Then after sanding and finishing with fine steel wool the wood retains a natural color. If the deck planks are fine grained you can just use clear paint without a filler.

Carl, I have been using "craftsmart multi surface premium satin acrylic" paint that I got at a local craft store. The color is "White/Blanc/Blanco." Just plain white. It is pretty thick, but after thinning a bit with water it worked well with my airbrush. Again, I would not recommend using this paint for modeling. It is very soft after it dries - even after a month or more. It scratches easily. Note: After several months it dried pretty hard. I have even considered stripping all of the paint and starting over with lacquer. Ug! Another option would be to spray over the acrylic with another coat of clear satin lacquer or enamel. But this would probably be asking for trouble - I would have to experiment first. The acrylic undercoat would still be soft. I suspect the problem is that I used a lacquer based sanding sealer on the wood (except the deck) and after the sealer I sprayed the entire ship (including the deck) with clear lacquer. These were model airplane paints (dope). I guess the acrylic just doesn't cover well over the lacquer.

Painting has been a tedious chore. The acrylic paints I used are very slow drying, and even after dry they are very fragile. I can scrape the paint off with my fingernail! Should have used lacquers or enamels!! But I have added the channels, deadeyes and chain plates and finished the basic painting. I also painted the dummy gun ports outboard the deck house. Here you see the six pounder carriage guns positioned for a four gun broadside. The channels and chainplates came out pretty good. I need to touch up the flat black enamel on the metal parts. The chainplates are exposed to handling and are easily bent. I need to do a bit of straightening. On the other hand, maybe they are just "weathered" like might have happened on the real ships. I still do not like the dark brown paint on the bulwarks and cannon carriages, but I don't look forward to trying to paint over it with a lighter shade of brown. I also think the deck house and other deck "furniture" probably should also be brown. From what I have read white deck fixtures didn't come into use until the 1830s.