Dr PR

Allan, You are correct - Lees does give detailed descriptions of the "length" of the main mast relative to hull dimensions on page 183, and I have no doubt that he researched this well. But what "mast length" is he specifying? I did see where he was using a length measured from the step on the keel, or the foot of the mast. But I have read through the book several times now and cannot discover if his mast length is the hounded length (from the foot to the hounds - cross trees) or the "measured length" from the foot to the top (top of the top cap) - the actual length of the entire pole or mast structure. So the question is whether his "mast length" includes the top (measured length) or does not (hounded length). Since mast diameter and spar dimensions are usually based upon "mast length" and rigging diameter/circumference is based upon mast diameter, virtually every dimension in the masts and rigging depend upon this question. Lees says the mast head length varied over time from 3.75 inches to 6 inches per yard of main mast length, or from 10% to 16.7% of the mast length. The difference between hounded length and measured length was 10% to 16.7% of the "mast length" and this will give proportionate differences to the calculations of everything else in the masting and rigging. This is a possible error of 1 in 6 to 1 in 10 in all calculations if we assume one mast length and it was actually the other he was talking about. However, he does give the diameters of all parts of the mast from the foot to the top on page 2, and I suspect he is using the measured length. But it would have been nice if he had stated unambiguously what he meant by "mast length." As I said, Lees book is a valuable reference, but this one omission greatly reduces it's reliability for mast and rigging dimensions. But Lees certainly isn't the only author to make an important omission, assuming that the reader will know what the author meant!

Mark, You are right, I should have checked the 0.166 value with other formulae. The stay diameter I calculated did seem rather small! Using a main mast diameter of 24 inches here are the main stay calculations. Mondfeld says the thickness (diameter) of the main stay should be 0.166 x mast diameter. (Note: my error above. Mondfeld is talking about stay diameter, not circumference) 24 x 0.166 = 3.984 inches Circumference would be diameter x pi (3.14159) 3.984 x 3.14159 = 12.516 inch circumference Lees says something (undefined) is 1/2 the mast diameter. Assuming he meant circumference, 24/2 = 12 inch circumference So there is a 4% difference between Lees and Mondfeld. For modeling purposes in all but the very largest scales this difference is insignificant. Both Lees and Mondfeld give data for large three masted square riggers, but it is all useless for schooners and other fore and aft rigged vessels. Some of the difference between Lees and Mondfeld lies in slight differences in calculations for mast length and diameter. Lees' (The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625 - 1860) calculations are specific for full scale English warships and Mondfeld's (Historic Ship Models) are more general and apply to a range of warship and commercial vessel models. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. **** Everyone raves about Lees but all through the book he fails to say what he bases his dimensions on. All mast and spar dimensions are based upon a hull length or beam, but he doesn't say if the hull length is the Line of Flotation, distance between perpendiculars, or length on deck. All three different values are used by other authors, and they usually say which they use. The difference between these lengths is significant. We are supposed to guess what Lees is talking about? Furthermore, although he does define the "hounds length" he doesn't say what the "hounded length" is that mast dimensions are often based upon - but this is common to most authors. We are just supposed to know if it is to the top of the hounds, the bottom, and whether the length is from the foot of the mast or the partners, or something else entirely. Underhill is the only author I have found who says explicitly the the "hounds" is the flat the cross trees rest on, and the hounded length is from the foot (the very bottom of the mast) to the hounds. Lees also used the "length of the mast" but never says if it is the measured length, hounded length, deck to top or deck to hounds. All four lengths are used by other authors in different periods and they are significantly different. Again, are we supposed to read his mind? There are other places where he fails to define the basis for his statements. We are just supposed to know what he means I guess, and this is VERY frustrating to someone who doesn't already know all the answers. I have spent many hours doing calculations based upon the representative tables to back calculate to try to figure out what he is talking about! These errors are characteristic of someone who is functionally illiterate - incapable of understanding how to communicate the things he knows to people who do not already know. But this is a common characteristic of many authors. And a common problem I see on this forum is that different people assume they know what he is talking about without realizing their assumptions are just one of several possibilities. So they make pronouncements based upon their interpretations that often are questionable. **** Having said this, I do think Lees is an excellent reference. His drawings are superb and he gives a lot of actual ship data for English square riggers. But you have to do a lot of reading between the lines to figure out what he really is trying to say. For other nationalities and types of rigs you must look elsewhere. And as for statements that Mondfeld's (Peterson's, etc.) books are full of errors, these are always unsubstantiated. Rarely does anyone say what the errors are, and in some cases the criticism is based upon knowledge of a single vessel that differs from the author's description of another vessel. One thing I am certain of is that no two ships were exactly alike, and even a particular ship may have changed over time. And it is a fact that the records for historical ships are almost always incomplete, so a lot of guesswork is necessary.

ah100m is correct about the circumference error in Mondfeld's tables on rigging size. Everything is based upon the mast diameter, but the resulting rope sizes often are given in circumference! The relationship is the main stay circumference is 0.166 the diameter of the mast at the partners (at the deck). I am sure this confuses all novice modelers - it had me going in circles for a while! CORRECTION: It certainly is confusing, and tripped me up again! Mondfeld says the thickness of the stay is 0.166 (or 16.6%) of the mast diameter. Corrections below are in bold type. Rope circumferences are then given as percentages of the main stay circumference ( or the fore stay for two masted fore topsail schooners). This is common in every text I have seen, going back into the 1700s. But you must use the same units of measure (inches, centimeters, etc.). So if the mast diameter is in inches the circumference will be in inches. And if you really want to get picky, remember English feet were not the same as French, Dutch or Swedish feet (before they changed to the metric system). The differences are small and can be ignored for model rigging diameters/circumferences. However, for wire rope that began appearing in the last half of the 1800s the formulas are different - basically about 33% of the rope circumference as Mondfeld says. But this is just an approximation. Circumference = pi x diameter, or C = 3.14159 x d. So the diameter of the stay is the stay circumference divided by pi (3.14159): Mondfeld says mast diameter x 0.166 = stay circumference thickness (diameter) stay circumference = stay diameter x pi. stay diameter = (mast diameter x 0.166)/3.14159 = mast diameter x 0.0528 So the stay diameter is about 16.6% of the mast diameter. For a 24 inch diameter mast the stay will be about 4 inch diameter. Since model rope and thread sizes are usually given in diameters it is best to calculate the stay diameter and work from that. After you get the stay diameter the percentage ratios in Mondfeld's tables apply to all other rigging diameters. However, there are other rules that give slightly different results, depending upon nationality and period. And almost none of these rules apply to schooners and other fore and aft rigged vessels. **** I don't know that there are any outright errors in what Mondfeld says. He gives general rules for different periods and nationalities that I am certain were right for some vessels. But if there is anything I have learned it is that no rule applies all of the time for any period or nationality. A great deal of leeway was given to ship builders, owners and Captains for how a ship was constructed and rigged, and it could change with time. It is certain that some vessels were built and rigged differently from what Mondfeld shows, but since no two vessels were ever exactly alike, this is not Mondfeld's error. Just take what he says with a grain of salt, and if you cannot find accurate period plans for the ship you are building, Mondfeld's "rules" are as good as any other. I have compiled just about all the rules I can find in the spreadsheet in the discussion in this link about topsail schooner rigging (post #57). The spreadsheet compares the different rules and shows the slight differences. Most of the rules are for full rigged ships but there are some for schooners. Then a separate section calculates the sizes of ropes for schooner rigging based upon a mast size you provide. The thread also gives definitions of sail and rigging terminology, and the basis for calculating many of the dimensions of ships.

Druxey, Thanks. That is what I suspected, and enlarging the image of the foc's'le I can see a seat of ease port and starboard aft of the catheads. No covers or "closets". Not much more than a pissdale with a seat.

Thanks for the info. Chapelle's "History of American Sailing Ships" also shows a four-holer in the head of the Bainbridge in Figure 19 (page 123), and possibly "water closets" at the stern. I suspect that every ship that had a head also had seats of ease in the heads. But what about vessels that had no head? The drawing of the Subtle (1808) on page 235 shows cabins or water closets at the stern. The vessel was 78 feet length on deck and 139 tons. The Plate VIII (after page205) of the Joe Lane and the drawing on page 215 shows low stern water closets and lockers at the stern and more substantial two-holer water closets port and starboard just aft of the fo'c'sle deck. Joe Lane was a relatively large revenue cutter of 1851, 100 feet at the load water line and 153 tons. The Wawona of 1897 had similar facilities. I suspect most/all vessels of about 100 tons or greater that did not have a head would have had similar water closet accommodations, but very few drawings depict them.

George, Thanks. I know that some schooners had similar "closets" at the stern, and at least one had something like this near the bow, port and starboard. But these were relatively large vessels (greater than 100 feet between perps). For smaller vessels I am inclined to agree with Wefalk about the "gold buckets." I have read Simmon's thesis a couple of times to learn more about the subject. My favorite part is on pages 96-97 where a seaman was punished for painting an "uncaulked seam." It is hard to keep a straight face when pondering this subject. The "Ingrid and Other Studies" paperback sells for $137.05 on Amazon. That's a lot of bread for a short article about heads.

Yes, it was important to choose the lee side! I thought of the bucket idea and I am sure it was used on some ships. The "honey bucket" was in use in many households until the advent of running water and flush toilets. It would be "normal" to use them on ships.

John, It would help if you could post a photo of a gun and carriage, showing the quoin area. Carriages had a support piece (stool bed) for the quion that rested on the rear axle tree, or sometimes extended over both axle trees. Maybe your carriages have this support but do not have the quoin? If so all you need to do is add a quoin to set the gun elevation.

I have been trying to determine where the heads (latrines) were on small to mid sized schooners (60 to 100 foot between perpendiculars) from the late 1700s through the 1800s. I haven't found much information about them. After the bows were closed in with no beakhead I wonder where the seats of ease went? Here are a couple of photos of the Wawona from the Historic American Engineering Records (HAER). It was a three masted lumber schooner built in 1897 in San Francisco, CA, USA. The vessel had a fo'c'sle deck above the main deck at the bow. In this photo looking aft from the bow this overhead deck had rotted away, exposing the winch and the port side seat of ease to the elements. A short "bulkhead" afforded some privacy. Photos do not show the starboard area. The vessel rotted away and was scrapped. In this view looking forward (below) you can see the short bulkhead behind the ladder on the port side leading up to the fo'c'sle deck. Photos of the hull do not show any openings in the hull side in the area where the seat of ease was located. The Wawona was very similar to the C. A. Thayer that is in the nautical museum in San Francisco. But the HAER plans and photos for the Thayer do not show the seats of ease. They show one internal water closet in the aft cabin. So the Wawona photos show one possible solution. Any one have examples of other heads on smaller ships that didn't have the elaborate beakheads like the larger ships? PS: I read through the "Development of External Sanitary Facilities Aboard Ships of the Fifteenth to Nineteenth Centuries" thesis by Joe John Simmons III. It deals mainly with larger warships and has nothing about smaller vessels.

McMaster-Carr is a good supplier of materials, fasteners, tools, etc. We have used it in our business for decades, and I get some of my hobby materials there too: https://www.mcmaster.com/ The web site is easy to navigate, and that's good because I think they used to say they have more than a hundred thousand items!

I have also been wondering about size and color of belaying pins for a 1:48 scale model. Here is a photo of pins on the Lady Washington replica ship. This is a working ship so these pins are not museum pieces. Notice how the lesser used pins are a bit shinier than the two with the ropes on them. These may just be spare pins or for occasional use, or maybe new replacement pins. I suspect these were varnished, but a couple hundred years ago the pins probably weren't varnished (too expensive). Oil from sailor's hands might well have darkened them after decades of handling, along with the common fungi that cause wood to turn gray over time. The pin at bottom right sows the "correct" way (according to some people) to attach coils of rope to a pin by pulling one of the last turns through the center of the coil and looping it over the pin - the entire coil does not hang over the pin so much of the pin is visible. Also, the crew was hauling in the line around the second pin from bottom right when the photo was taken. The line runs down through a runner block, then up and around the pin, and was being pulled to the left. The friction of lines on the pins would soon wear off any varnish, so these pins look more weathered.

You mention a texture to the surfaces. I recall seeing in one of the carving threads on the forum that often the "background" surfaces between carved figures was pitted to create a surface that wasn't smooth and shiny.

How big will the model parts be? What scale are you working in?

It was project 1164, a Slava class. Three were completed back in the 1980s. Moskva. Marshal Ustinov and Varyag. Ukrayina was started but not finished. Ukraine took possession after the breakup of the Soviet Union and it is in Mykolaiv, Ukraine. I think these are beautiful ships, although a bit out dated now. They served in the same flagship role as the USS Oklahoma City CG-5 that I served on. The huge anti-ship Balzat/Sandbox missiles are similar technology to the Talos missiles I worked on.

I have been using CAD software for 33 years, and at least 25 years working in 3D CAD, including ship modeling: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19321-uss-oklahoma-city-clg-5-1971-3d-cad-model/?do=findComment&comment=590228 Learning to use a 3D CAD program is not an easy task for most people. It can take a year or more to become really proficient. Some programs have absolutely horrible user interfaces - what we once called "user hostile." Some of the documentation (if there is any) is abominable, and often incomprehensible. So if you are thinking of getting a CAD program be sure it has a FREE on line user forum where you can get help from other users (like this forum). Don't count on technical support from the company unless you have to pay for it, and some CAD programs charge as much as $2500 per year for technical support, and even to be able to use the user forum! This will be time spent when you are not creating your real model. But once you learn it is an extremely useful tool for figuring out how to build models, and most programs can even create files for 3D printing . **** My experience with 3D CAD newbies (I was a 3D CAD user forum monitor for decades) is that the biggest problem is that they have never "thought" in 3D. This is especially true of experienced 2D CAD users. 3D CAD is not "drawing!" Almost nothing you have learned using a 2D CAD program, Photoshop, Corel Draw and other drawing programs will help you, and will probably be an obstacle you have to get over before you can really work in 3D. In 3D CAD you are modelling in a virtual universe that you create, and you have to think in 3D. You do not create a drawing, you create an object. Some people never achieve this and their 3D CAD attempts are failures.

Valeriy, I have been following this model since you started back in 2018. Your workmanship is superb, and the model is beautiful! A person can learn a lot about building a model from scratch by reading thorough this thread. One of the things I find interesting about the Varyag is that even though it was a Russian Navy ship it was built by the Cramp Shipyard in Philadelphia, USA. The cruiser I served on was also built by Cramp, but 40 years later. There were a lot of changes in ship design over those 40 years! I actually came across your build by accident. I was studying the modern Russian Navy Varyag guided missile cruiser and Google lead me here. It was a fortunate bit of serendipity.

A mill is very handy for two basic types of work. As Tom said above, with a mill you can do precision work when drilling lines of evenly spaced holes (pin rails, etc.) or cutting straight precision grooves. It is useful for making multiple copies of things like the sides of gun carriages, gratings and such. If you get a rotary table you can then make more complicated things like wheels and such. And a dividing head (it has stops for rotation at precise angles) allows precision machining of things like holes for spokes in a wheel hub, etc. Once you get used to working with a mill you can do a lot of interesting things. **** The big difference between a mill and a drill press is that the bearings in a drill press are just designed for single axis up/down drilling. You can position the table below the drill and then drill a hole, but it isn't designed to work with forces perpendicular to the drill axis. You can use a Dremel in a press for milling (I have done this) but if you do this often it will wear out the bearings relatively quickly. A mill is basically a three axis drill press.The bearings in a mill are designed to cut into material moving at right angles to the axis, such as when you use an end mill to carve a groove into a piece of material fastened to the moving table. Especially if the material is steel or brass. And you can do anything with a mill that you can do with a drill press. **** Another thing a mill is useful for is making very specific tools. For example, on an upcoming project I will need about eight feet of a thin brass strip with two rows of alternately spaced rivet heads. For this I will need a special tool. It could be a tool for use in an arbor press that has a custom created punch and die and provision to increment the position of the strip with each successive stamping, or a geared roller arrangement to pull the brass strip through a rotating pair of punch/dies. Either way I will have to make the tool and a mill will be essential for this. A similar tool will create two and three rows of rivets along the edges of hull plates. Another specialized tool will stamp water-tight doors out of 0.003" brass. There are eight different types and sizes of these doors on the ship with different stamped rectangular "bumps" for stiffness and from four to ten dogs, plus rotary handles and levers to operate the dogs. Most of these doors are not available commercially at 1:96. So I am thinking of how to make the dies for use in an arbor press. A similar tool will be used to stamp rivet patterns in external "backing plates" in the hull plating. **** And with the right combination of tools you can even use a mill as a lathe for fairly short pieces - but I can't imagine trying to make threads on a mill! Here are some photos of milled frames I made for a 1:96 Cleveland class light cruiser hull. This is 1/2 inch thick Plexiglas that I salvaged from the scrap bin of a plastics fabrication company next door to where I worked. The fiberglass hull was pretty thin and flexible so I needed stiff frames to pull the hull into shape. This was especially necessary because the hull had a lot of tumblehome (wider at the waterline that at the main deck level, but the mold had to be wider at deck level so the fiberglass shell would come off. I also had to make longitudinal pieces between frames at the deck level to get the correct hull shape. The longitudinals fit into the frames. Everything was epoxied into the fiberglass shell. The frames also served to hold the brass alignment jigs for the propeller shafts. The stern was also a challenge. It is roughly square at the waterline and semicircular at the deck level. The fiberglass hull would not make the correct shape at deck level without the machined Plexiglass shape fitted between the last frame and the stern of the hull. I could have cut all of these shapes with a band saw or even a hand saw, but it would have been a lot more work. On the mill it was an easy task. These things were all cut free-form - I clamped the Plexiglass sheets to the table and used the hand wheels to drive the table so the end mill cut along printed lines on sheets of paper attached to the Plexiglass. Keep in mind that I was using a several ton eight foot high milling machine to cut this thick material in single passes. But a small desk top mill can do the same thing with 1/4 inch Plexiglass, wood, aluminum and other "soft" material. You can cut thin (1/16 inch or less) steel with the smaller mills. You can cut thick material with the smaller machines, but you have to go slower and use multiple passes. Here is another example. This is an old 1950s Lionel O-27 engine that I got as a kid. Later on I got another engine like it, and I wanted to double head them. But the Lionel engines did not have a front coupler. So I replaced the front casting with the machined piece circled in red. It was carved from a block of aluminum, shown on the right. Again, I used the milling machine with an end mill to whittle away material from the aluminum block a bit at a time. I drove the X, Y and Z axes by hand. I used small files to smooth the rounded surfaces of the steam cylinders, and added brass ladders and the brass bar on the front below the coupler - using tiny brass hex head screws from the local hobby shop. The pilot truck, side steps and coupler are Lionel replacement parts for different engines. You really are limited only by your imagination as to what you can do with a milling machine. With a small mill you don't have as much power as with the larger mills so you just have to remove smaller amounts of material with each pass. A larger and more powerful machine will let you work faster than some rig using a Dremel tool.

wefalck, I used to have a D5100 but gave it to my youngest grandson when the D5200 came out. I got the D5200 for the 24 megapixel photo element. Extreme contrast images are difficult with any camera. I have made good shots of the moon at night, solar eclipse, etc. The full moon looks bright to our eyes, but it isn't nearly as bright as full sunlight. But it is a LOT brighter than the stars and nebulae! Here is a D5100 Hi-Res JPEG shot taken through a Nikon 70-300 mm FX lens (450 mm effective focal length on the DX series cameras) and cropped to 2048x1366 pixels. 1/320 second at f5.6 with ISO 200 and spot metering. The great thing about digital cameras is instant gratification. With film I had to wait a few days for the pictures/slides to come back. There was no real time verification that the picture came out. With digital you can take a shot, look at it, and adjust as necessary while hopefully the subject is still there. With model/macro photography I try to use the smallest f stop for maximum depth of field and low ISO for noise reduction. Then I just use whatever shutter speed is necessary to make the shot. The model isn't going anywhere.

I do a lot of macro photography, wildflowers, insects, etc., and use an excellent macro lens. So I have the camera equipment for model photography. I learned long ago that the best lighting for outdoors work is cloudy bright - a slight thin white cloud layer illuminated by the sun. This gives a nice diffused white light with good illumination from all around and no harsh shadows. Strong shadows are a real problem for most macro work. Of course you can't always have a cloudy bright day, especially if you are trying to photograph something indoors or at night! For indoor work I do not want a direct light. A good white light bounced off a wall or ceiling gives diffuse shadows. For ship model photography I find it best to avoid harsh contrasts from bright lights that leave part of the image underexposed and part overexposed. Low contrast lighting is usually best for illustrations. But when you have a diffused or dim light to avoid harsh shadows you need to use longer shutter speeds, especially if you are using very small apertures for greater depth of field. I mount the camera on a tripod and use up to 30 second exposure with f stops up to 34 or 40 - depending upon the light - to get good depth of field. I use a remote shutter release to avoid moving the camera. Mounting the camera on a tripod allows me to make multiple exposures from the same camera angle. I often do this, adjusting the focus point to different places of interest on the model to get sharp exposures of that part of the model. Then I use photo stacking to get very good depth of field. For example, in this composite image of 12 photos you can see the grain at the end of the bowsprit and the ring bolts on the boat booms on the stern are also in focus. This is a 22 inch (56 cm) depth of field! The diffused soft lighting allows you to see details in the shady bulwarks on the right and in the brighter lighted parts, with no harsh shadows.

Rick, I suggest you don't get too anal about the "correct" locations for tying off the rigging. There is a good chance that some things changed during the life of the ship. I modeled a mid 20th century light cruiser that was in service for several decades and there were dozens of changes over the years. Some were simple, like the bosun wanting another cleat or bitt to tie to, or new antennas to improve reception. Others were large like adding new compartments on deck of adding new equipment. But in every case the changes were made to improve the performance of the ship. I doubt that this idea was new to the 20th century! I would not be surprised to learn that 15th through 19th century ships had occasional changes to the rigging to make it "better" in the eyes of the current Captains. There are some recorded accounts where rigging and sails were changed because a "better" way was observed on another ship. Unless you have an accurate period rigging plan for a ship for the year you are modelling you will never know exactly how it was rigged. There are a few simple rules of thumb for rigging that comes from some period books on rigging ships. 1. Standing rigging like stays form triangles with the mast and deck in order to support the masts. Forward stays fasten on or near the ship's center line on deck or to the bowsprit. After stays attach to the bulwarks or channels outboard the bulwarks. 2. Running rigging from the lower spars and sails leads to the forward most points on pin rails, fife rails and belaying points on deck, and the rigging from the highest points leads to the aft most belaying points. Rigging from near the center of yards or the mast leads down to points near the base of the mast (fife rails, ring bolts on deck, etc.) and rigging from the yard arms and outboard parts of sails leads down to points along bulwarks, pin rails or ring bolts on the deck near the bulwarks. Mast tackles usually lead outboard to channels or pin rails. 3. Lines should not cross or rub together. Each must lead free and clear down to the belaying point. Since this is how ships have been rigged for centuries, if you follow these guides you will probability end up rigging the model almost exactly like the real thing.

Looks like the current 100 Watt model. The user manual and other information can be found here: https://americanbeautytools.com/Resistance-Probe-Systems/110/features I have a little experience with resistance soldering with an American Beauty 250 Watt unit. Part of the probe is a carbon electrode which is VERY brittle and breaks easily (really annoying). The carbon electrode does not react with the metal being soldered. A metal probe might arc and scar the piece being worked on, or might even weld itself to the piece, depending on the materials and current. You can use an alligator clip to connect the return circuit to one of the pieces being soldered (preferably the larger piece. However, this will create several tiny point contacts with the work piece, and you might get some arcing and pitting. Many people recommend using a large sheet of conductive metal (copper,steel, etc.) as a base and clamping the larger work piece to it to get a good electrical connection. Then the probe is positioned against the other work piece before power is turned on. The carbon probe has a relatively high resistance and therefore heats up as current flows through it. Some of this heat transfers to the work piece, but it is heat generated in the solder that causes it to melt.

Marcus, zu Mondfeld's "Standing rigging sizes" table on page 272 and "Running rigging sizes" table on page 308 have an error. This had me scratching my head for a while. They say "The figures given refer to the thickness of the main stay, 0.166% of the diameter of the mainmast at the deck (100%)." The actual number is mast diameter x 0.166, or 16.6% of the mast diameter. The resulting number is the circumference of the rope, not the diameter. Divide the circumference by Pi (3.14159) to get the diameter of the rope. **** Before I figured this out I was getting really strange rope sizes. For example, 0.166% = 0.0016. If a model's mast was 0.375 inch diameter I thought the rope diameter was 0.0016 x 0.375 = 0.0006 inch! That is about 1/5 the thickness of a sheet of 24# printer paper! That is way too small and obviously incorrect. So I tried 0.375 inch times 16.6% = 0.375 x 0.166 = 0.062 inch, or about 1/16 inch. But 1/16 inch diameter seemed much too large. Then I realized it meant a 1/16 inch circumference, or 0.0625/3.14159 = 0.019894 or 0.02 inch diameter rope for the main stay. All other rigging circumferences are based upon the main stay circumference. **** In my schooner rigging spreadsheet I used Lees' formulas for English square rigged ships. But mast diameters are smaller on schooners that on full rigged ships. So reducing the mast diameter for schooners also reduced the size of the ropes used for the rigging. However, the rigging size section of the spreadsheet is not linked to the masting part. There is a separate cell (BH9) for the rigging calculations where you enter the model's mast diameter. So for any ship type just enter the mast diameter and the spreadsheet will use Lees' rules and calculate all the rigging sizes. However, I only include the rigging used on a schooner (and not all of that it turns out - I am learning). But the spreadsheet is not locked so you can modify it however you please. CAUTION: The spreadsheet uses Lees' English unit formulas and some calculations contain English feet to inch conversions, so entering metric values for the mast diameter will result in some meaningless Metlish measurements! If you want metric values enter the mast diameter in inches and then add a column to the calculations to convert the English units to metric units. Or just rewrite the spreadsheet. Mast spar and rigging calculations.xlsx

Bill, I am kitbashing a topsail schooner kit into a hypothetical revenue cutter of about 100 tons. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=598658 Take what you see on my link with a grain of salt. It is constructed "like" what a revenue cutter of that size might have looked like, but it is not a model of a real ship. For me it is a learning exercise. But there is a lot of information about Baltimore clippers and revenue cutters. There aren't a lot of plans available for American schooner revenue cutters, and they aren't highly detailed. Howard Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper" is the most detailed book I have seen, but there aren't detailed plans for any revenue cutter. Chapelle's "The History of American Sailing Ships" has plans for two revenue cutters, Morris and Joe Lane. He also discusses the 31, 51 and 80 ton designs of William Doughty. Kits of these designs are available. Chapelle's "The History of the American Sailing Navy" has plans for the revenue cutter James Madison, Roger B. Taney and Washington. If you do get this book look for the 1949 version by W. W. Norton and Co. It has two page fold out plans for many ships (no revenue cutters). The newer Salamander Book version has the drawings split on two adjacent pages with details lost in the fold. When you get to the rigging stage you might find information at this link useful: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=750865 It explains a lot of the terminology and describes the various parts of the masting and rigging of topsail schooners.

I would think the vangs would be led forward near the base of the mast. That way they wouldn't interfere with the swing of the booms. On some schooners the vangs are attached to hooks so they can be moved easily when necessary. The lee (downwind) vangs do not need to be tightened but they should be ready in case the wind shifts or for sudden turns.

Thanks. I agree with what you have said. Marquardt uses the term "roach" for the concave foot (bottom edge) of the sail that allows it to clear the stays, referring in one instance to an extreme roach up to 2/3 the height of the sail. I think I have seen "gore" used to refer to the extended belly of the sail, but I will have to see if I can find that reference. In any case, when I see "roach" or "gore" I can at least think that the author is probably talking about the bottom of a sail. I also chuckle at some of the modern dogmatic arguments about the differences between this and that sail rig. One author pointed out that the difference between a topsail schooner and a brigantine is that when a vessel has the fore gaff sail (fore sail) raised it is a schooner, but when the gaff sail is lowered and a fore course (square sail) is raised it is a brigantine. But I have photos of vessels with both the fore gaff sail and a fore course raised at the same time. So is it a "schoonatine" or a "brigooner?"