Dr PR

wefalck, Good questions! One thing I noticed right away is the very long list of references (more than 100) that he quotes. Although some things he writes are speculative - and he says so - most is based upon period writings. Likewise, he has many dated illustrations to reinforce his claims, although he sometimes sees details in sketches and paintings that I cannot see! You are probably right about his use of terms from numerous languages. He states that the word "schooner" did originate in America, but might have been from a Dutch colonist who use the Dutch word "schoone," which means "beautiful" and that New Englanders often added a "r" sound to the words ending in a silent "e" to produce "schooner." And he notes that in Dutch "ch" is pronounced like the English "sh" but in America "ch" is pronounced like "k"in English. So we have the word "schooner" (pronounced "skuner" in America). Maybe. A very interesting point he makes is that before the word "schooner" appeared in America in the early 1700s the schooner rig was not called a "schooner." The Royal Navy didn't start using the term until the mid 1700s. However, the first true schooner rig may have been the HMS Royal Transport of 1694 (he has numerous drawings and photos of an original model of the vessel). Before "schooner" came into use schooners were called "sloops" and some other terms. Some authors credit the invention of the schooner to America (and who of us who are true blue Americans would doubt that?) simply because there are no reports of "schooners" in the fleets of the world before they appeared in American reports. But he reprints many earlier drawings and illustrations of schooner rigs in Europe (especially The Netherlands) long before the term came into use in America. Marquardt's history is very well researched! But in his history of the fore-and-aft rig he says nothing about the history of the lateen (latin) rigged vessels of the Mediterranean and Arab world! One of the undefined terms he uses many times is "cutter mast." I can find no other reference to this term. However, he does have one drawing of mast types with a "cutter mast," but no explanation of what the difference ifs from any other mast. There doesn't seem to be anything unique about it. Another ambiguous term is "roach" which I think is the same as the undefined term "gore" that other authors use to describe the curvature of the foot of a sail. He uses the term "schooner sail" to refer to only the fore gaff sail with a boom. Without a boom is is not a "schooner sail." But the main gaff sail with a boom is not a "schooner sail," even though it is found on almost all schooners! Again I can find no other reference for this peculiar term. But even with a few faults it is an excellent reference for schooner masting and rigging, the equivalent of James Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War (which also has a lot of undefined terms and nothing about schooners). Marquardt does reference numerous authors who have published details about schooners, and has comparisons of the different calculations. There are 23 tables of schooner masting and rigging dimensions in the Appendix, from Frederick H. auf Chapman 1768, Paris 1769, Steel 1794 and 1818, Falconer 1815, Fincham 1854, Steinhaus 1858, and Brady (US Navy Board of Navy Commissioners) 1876. Another example of Marquardt's work that I have is Captain Cook's Endeavor in the Naval Institute Press "Anatomy of the Ship" series, 1995. Just about every part of the ship is illustrated. He has similar (but not as extensive) drawings for half a dozen schooners in his Global Schooner book. And the various parts of the rigging are illustrated with as much detail as in the Endeavor book. And one other bonus for those "down under," Marquardt describes a few Australian and New Zealand schooners. Where else will you find that?

Gregory, I have not seen McGregor's The Schooner. The reviews on line are not especially flattering. One says it has few detailed plans, another says there are some. Does he give tables of dimensions for the parts of masting and rigging? If so, is he just repeating what someone else has written, or is it original research? I did note it is another Naval Institute Press book. McGregor is a well-known author of books about ships. I have McGregor's British and American Clippers. It has a lot of history, and quite a few drawings of ships, but very little construction detail. The index lists ship names and people involved in the shipping industry, but nothing about the individual parts of ships. So even if there was detailed information about the construction of a part of a ship I would have to search through the entire book to find it. And there is no glossary where the author defines the terms he used. Although I am interested in nautical history, for ship modeling I really don't need a lot of detailed history. I am looking for illustrations of how the parts of ships were constructed and not a long winded history of how the particular design came about, who the designers were and their personal histories. Compare this to Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier, Brown Son and Ferguson, Glasgow, 1972. It is one of the best (perhaps the best) nautical books I have seen. The 12 page Index contains about 1500 entries (at least 3000 page links) and almost all are for specific details of masting and rigging. Want to know what a "lower studding sail tripping line" is? Page193. Almost every detail is illustrated, and he gives the formulas for calculating various parts and numerous tables for determining proportions of masts and spars. There isn't a separate glossary, but he does define every term he uses in the text linked to in the index. He also gives some brief histories of how and when each part came into use, plus a bit of history of the development of ships rigging. It is a must have book for modelling British clipper ships of the late 1800s and early 1900s!

Well spoken Valeriy! I have written a few books and it is a lot of work and a real time consumer! It just doesn't leave enough time for the more important things in life - like building ship models!

It has been a while since my last post. I am working on details on the hull before taking on the masting and rigging. I have decided upon the rigging and created a spreadsheet to determine sizes and lengths of different size ropes and the sizes and numbers of blocks and such. I placed the order from Syren Ship Models and was able to get what I need before Chuck runs out of stock (I hope - the order has shipped but I don't have it in hand yet). There is a new twist to my plans. Eric William Marshall recommended another book, "The Global Schooner" by Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, published by Conway Maritime Press, London, 2003. It is the best book I have seen on schooner masting and rigging! I am about 2/3 through the book. After I add Marquardt's formulae to my spreadsheet I may make some changes to my plans for the dimensions for masts and spars.

I have a new reference to recommend thanks to Eric William Marshall who told me about it. "The Global Schooner" by Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, published by Conway Maritime Press, London, 2003. This book is devoted to the history and construction of schooners. It has an exhaustive history of the schooner rig - the best I have seen. Did you know that the fore-and-aft rig was inspired by a Peruvian raft from the early 1600s? The book has very detailed chapters on masts and rigging with detailed drawings. Numerous tables in the appendices give rules and dimensions for mast, spars and rigging. It is the most complete text on schooner rigging that I have found. It is a large book (11.6 x 10 inches, 294 x 254 mm) with 239 pages containing many detailed drawings, full page ship plans and illustrations. The only drawbacks are poor proofreading (some text is misplaced and a few drawings are mislabeled) and the author uses numerous undefined terms that I cannot find in other books on ships' rigging. In a few cases the text is so ambiguous I can's tell what he is talking about. These are minor problems, and common to most books about sailing ships. It has a good index but no glossary. There is no list of drawings and illustrations, and that would help finding the drawings the author often refers to. When I have time I will add Marquard's rules to my masting and rigging spreadsheet.

I recall seeing a very nice large scale (1:96 or 1:48?) model of the USS Oregon in the maritime museum in Astoria, Oregon, about 45 years ago. I visited again a few years ago and the model wasn't there any more. I have no idea what happened to it.

I believe the tackle used to position the studding sail booms was temporary, and not left rigged permanently. It was taken aloft to rig the sails. On smaller ships the booms may have been manhandled to push them out or haul them back in. When in position in/out the inboard end of the boom was lashed around the yard to hold it in place.

I have to add my two cents here! My first "ship" was a 112 foot long inshore mine sweeper (MSI). Three officers and 19 enlisted. I was Engineering Officer, Supply Officer, George and 25 other official duties. I was told, when first going aboard, that ships in the US Navy were 150 feet or longer, and anything smaller was a boat. However, we had a letter from the Secretary of the Navy authorizing us to call the vessel USS Cape, United States Ship. So the Cape and her sister the Cove (MSI 1) were the smallest ships in the Navy. The Cove was probably a bit shorter than the Cape. The ships had four GMC 6-71 diesel engines ganged together to drive one 4 foot diameter bronze propeller and a 6" diameter prop shaft. The prop and shaft weighed more than the engines. If we tried to shift into reverse while the shaft was turning the momentum of the prop and shaft plus the force of the prop "windmilling" would just crank the engines over backwards, and they were happy to run that way! To reverse the prop we had to pull on a brake lever that tightened a brake shoe against the shaft and hold on until the shaft stopped turning. Then we could shift the transmission into reverse, rev up the engines, let out the clutch and start the shaft/propeller turning again. Ditto when going from reverse to forward again. All this messing around took several minutes and made close maneuvering tricky. Why am I telling this? One time when coming in to the pier the Cove timed the approach wrong and while trying to reverse engines to slow down it rammed the stern of a destroyer in the berth ahead. It cut a several inch deep "V" shaped notch in the destroyer's stern. The destroyer presented the Cove with a new name plate for the "USS Can Opener." So the Cove was probably the shorter of the two. And there were only two. They were worthless. PS: One of these days I may build a model of the Cape. A wooden model of a wooden ship.

Bob, Thanks for that information. I have seen pictures of schooners with this type of topsail, but I had no idea what they are called.

Some vessels had gaff vangs and others didn't. But without the vangs the only control of the gaff was through the gaff sail, and that wouldn't prevent the gaff from swinging side to side as the ship rolled. Only the windward vang had to be taut to control the gaff swing. The leeward vang could be loosened to allow the boom to swing outboard. The vangs were typically hooked to ring bolts in the deck, and slack vangs could be unhooked and lead forward to get them out of the way of the boom.

I have a couple of the cheap Optivisor type with plastic lenses. They were OK at first but the plastic scratches easily, and after a while the image deteriorates. Optical glass is much better. Stronger (higher diopter) glasses are a convenient way to go, but they cause eye strain after a while.

If you use very fine grit sandpaper (400 or better) and lay the sheet flat, grit side up, you should be able to rub the photo etch sheet over it to remove the resist without rounding the edges of the pieces. Rubbing with #000 or #0000 steel wool will probably round the edges, and it can get tangled in the finer etched parts and bend them. I remembered that the sodium hydroxide solution was used to remove a pressed on resist film. It doesn't take much on the surface of brass to block the etching solution. I used to make "printed" circuit boards by drawing the traces on the material with water proof Sharpie pens (laundry marker type). After etching acetone removed the ink.

I have been cutting brass (and even a bit of copper years ago) using an ordinary variable speed hand drill. I just hold the drill in my lap and use the lock on button to keep it running without having to pull the trigger. I adjust the speed screw to get a fairly slow speed. I use a set of very small files to cut grooves, and a razor saw to part off the piece. I also use the drill and saw to cut pieces of tubing. Of course, with this hand held method no two pieces are the same, so I just make a lot more than needed and pick a collection of pieces that are of adequate dimensions. Also, after cutting tubing sections I can file/sand down the ends to get matching lengths. It is certainly not precision work, but it produces "good enough" parts. Maybe some day I will cut down the cabinets in the end of my garage and make a work bench. Then I can get a milling machine and lathe (I used to use the tools at work). But then I will have to insulate the garage so I can work in winter (and protect the machines from temperature and humidity extremes). And I will have to add electrical circuits for the new machinery. Then I will have to add heating ducts to the furnace to heat the work area, and then ... When will I find time for modelling?

One of the chemicals used for an etch resist stripper is sodium hydroxide (NaOH), a strong base/alkali. Caution: NaOH will cause skin burns and eye damage. Since NaOH is a base, and is used to remove resist, acids probably won't work. Besides, acids will attack the brass. Etchants are usually water based, so most water soluble solvents probably won't work (alcohol). First I would try acetone or enamel or lacquer thinner and an old tooth brush. These solvents won't harm the brass. If they don't work try sodium hydroxide.

I have a friend who had lens replacement for cataracts - and paid extra for proportional lenses. They work well for close-up but she needs glasses for distance! I haven't use the type of loupe you link to. It looks like it would be quite a bit of weight resting on the bridge of your nose. My close up vision has been deteriorating for a number of years, and I have some astigmatism. I do use a different form of magnifier, a multiple lens visor. It works well and isn't uncomfortable. It is similar to this visor: https://www.amazon.com/Headband-Magnifier-Head-Mounted-Binocular-Magnification-1-5X/dp/B07M7H3P95/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwr_uCBhAFEiwAX8YJgaKGKYBCNNWnWEE_WXJ37_cq0yNJZmiRivPrrIzlpNVpI4N6rl3ILxoCHU0QAvD_BwE&hvadid=241934970686&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9032979&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=13202486322252462774&hvtargid=kwd-339304622&hydadcr=24660_10400764&keywords=magnifier+visor&qid=1616903724&sr=8-3

Thanks. I suspected that, and was considering it. I have used black craft paper of appropriate thickness for grout on other models.

Mike, I love these wooden runabouts too. I grew up in a tourist trap surrounded by three lakes and there were swarms of these back in the 50s and 60s. Nice models! I checked your other build and I have a question. What did you use for the white grout on the deck? I have considered building the Admiral's barge from a ship I was on and it had the mahogany deck with white grout.

There is nothing new about tool rip offs. My dad was a mechanic and carpenter, and he had a lot of tools made in the US in the '40s, '50s and '60s. In the early '70s after he wore out his 25 year old Skill saw he bought a new Black and Decker saw from a local store he had done business with for years. A few months later I saw what appeared to be the same saw in a Krap Mart ad for about half of what dad paid for his. He was curious and we went out to have a look at it. It looked just like his, but when he looked it over he noticed that it had cheap brass/bronze bushings on the armature shaft instead of the roller bearings on his saw. A little more inspection revealed a few other cheap substitutions. It was made overseas. The lying marketing scum called it a heavy duty carpenter's saw!

I posted a bit about trusses, truss pendants and truss parrals (all often referred to as just Trusses) on this post:

I recently posted drawings of three types of trusses used to hold yards to masts. Unfortunately I cannot locate that thread right now. If I do I will post a link here.

Allen, My drawing of the stunsails was based upon Darcy Lever (The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor, page 65) drawings and text for topmast studding sails (the drawing is for a topsail schooner). The line nomenclature is directly from Lever. The "loose footed stunsail" drawing you posted is based on drawing number 352, and if you read Lever's text you will see that he does not use the term "loose footed." He refers to it as a stunsail that is "set flying" without a boom. In fact, Lever doesn't define "loose footed" in his "Dictionary of Sea Terms." Biddlecomb (The Art of Rigging) also does not say anything about "loose footed" sails, but he does mention stunsails without booms as "flying." I suspect the term "loose footed" may not have been in use in the 1700s and early 1800s and may be a more modern term However, the drawings you posted are not from Lever, but are from Lees (The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, page 116) and are relatively new (1979). He uses the term "loose footed" with respect to Lever's "flying" stunsail drawing. Harold Underhill (Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier, page 125) refers to a "loose footed spanker" that had no boom. John Leather (The Gaff Rig Handbook) defines "loose footed" as the bottom of the sail not laced or "bent" to a boom with rope bands or robands. In contrast it is common for a gaff sail to be laced (to the upper gaff and to the lower boom. But there is a fore and aft rig in which the bottom of the gaff sail is unattached to a boom, and it is called "loose footed" and "boomless gaff sail." Of course the the tack and sheet are attached to something, otherwise the canvas would just flap in the wind. **** Note the difference between a stunsail boom and a stunsail yard. Stunsail yards are the spar the the head (top) of the sail is bent (laced) to, and it is not attached directly to anything but is hoisted by the halliard. Or, as in figure 352 the foot (bottom) of the "flying" stunsail is attached at the clews to an unattached yard that has a guy to haul it down. The yards are essentially free to swing on the halliards and guys. The booms are definitely attached to the course, topsail and topgallant yards, or in the case of the lower stunsail the (swinging) boom is attached to the hull, typically in the channels. The booms are held to the yards with irons and there are several ways to rig them with the booms stowed or extended. In some cases the booms were permanently attached to the yards, and on some ships they were stowed below (to reduce tophamper weight) and hauled aloft when the stunsails were set. In all cases except the "flying yard" the foot of the stunsails were attached to the booms with tacks (outboard clew) and sheets (inboard clew).

Pat, Yes, the relative lengths are my calculations. I was surprised to see that they came out very consistent over a large range of ship sizes. I understand your problem finding information in Lees. I sometimes have trouble with it too. On my topsail schooner project I could find very few "rules" for masting and rigging, and they all were for English ships. One of the interesting things about the American topsail schooners of the early 1800s is that they invariably put aloft longer masts and spars and larger sails than the British. This made them faster but trickier to handle. I determined my own rules by examining drawings and working from published data for a bunch of American schooners. So lacking any other option I looked through the tables in the back of Lees. As it happens I was just coming to the same question about stunsail booms and yards as you did.

Roger, You are correct about flush head rivets on more modern ships, but early iron hull ships up to the 1920s did have domed rivets on the hull exterior, at least above the water line. They are clearly visible in some photos. The blueprints for the Cleveland class cruisers that I am familiar with say that countersunk head (conical head) rivets were to be used. Then the heads were to be ground flush with the plating below the water line to reduce drag. Unless you were very close to the hull you couldn't see any trace of the rivets, especially after it was painted. The blueprints also say that where plates of different thickness are butted together below the water line, the edge of the thicker plate was to be ground down at a 45 degree angle to the level of the thinner plate, again to reduce drag. The conical head rivets were called "countersunk" or "countersunk round" where the head had a slight convex curvature. Large pan head rivets have a head that is shaped like a truncated cone, larger at the base and narrow on top (trapezoidal cross section) . Small pan head rivets have a more cylindrical head.

Anyone ever hear of Captain Charles Noble? The amount of brightwork (metal) on a ship depended upon the crew and the officers. I was Engineering Officer on a small minesweeper - the "flagship" of the squadron. The crew kept all the brass piping, engine valve covers, gauges and such in the engine room polished. It was their doing, not mine, because they took pride in their engine room. Of course, since we were bolted to the pier most of the time, polishing brass was about all the watch crew had to do. When I went aboard the cruiser (another flagship) most brass was painted. The Captain was a no nonsense man who was commanding a ship of war. After 12 years on cruisers he could drive the 15,000 ton ship like a sports car! The awnings were gray and the metal was painted gray. We got a new XO who wanted to polish all the brass and paint the piping in a rainbow of colors (not the standard navy engineering colors). I was on the bridge when the XO was explaining his plans to the Captain. "Rodney," the Captain said, "you want to turn my ship into a circus boat!" Then that Captain left and we got a new Captain who had spent most of his career commanding a LMD (large mahogany desk). I'm not sure he knew the difference between the pointy end and the blunt end. I don't think he ever took the conn. The XO talked him into making changes, and pretty soon our circus boat was decked out with white awnings, McNamara's lace, and polished brass. The XO went around with a pocket knife scraping paint off of everything looking for brass. Woe be it to the Division Officer who had painted brass! So, to be "historically correct" you would have to model a particular year and know how the officers and crew wanted the brass to look. PS: Ever been in port after a bunch of ships "blew stacks to clear out the soot? White awnings don't stay white very long. There is a reason they were usually gray. PPS: Captain Charles Noble insisted that the brass galley stack on his 1850s English merchantman stay brightly polished. To this day the galley stack on ships is called the Charley Noble.

Allan, On my current build I started at the center line as you described, laying the first two planks on either side, and worked outward from there. After a few planks I cut the openings for the masts, hatches and deck house. The deck house and hatches have coamings cut to match the camber. I nibbed the planks into the margin boards. I had never done this before, and to my astonishment they came out symmetrical! It was a lot easier than I had imagined. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=603771 However, some ships did have a single plank laid along the center line, and sometimes these planks were wider and thicker than the outboard deck planks. Sometimes there were several wide planks at the center with narrower planks outboard. And some smaller ships (schooners, etc.) and boats had a wide center plank and the outboard planks were bent to follow the curvature of the hull and nibbed into the center plank. So you need to know how the planking was laid out for the particular ship you are building.