Dr PR

There are always some tricky parts like this, and some always seem to be asking to be broken off! One thing you can try is using very fine wire or a wood sliver as a nail. Get a small drill bit slightly larger than the wire diameter. Use a pin vise to drill a hole through the piece and into the part it fastens to. Fill the holes with glue, position the part and insert the "nail." After the glue has set file the end of the nail flush with the surface.

Ian, If Underhill's very detailed "Masting and Rigging" doesn't say how the wire running rigging was secured, who would? Actually, he does tell something about this in an off-hand way. Chapter IX "Use of Tables and Formulae" describes the dimensions of wire running rigging, so it is clear he is talking about wire rope. Then in Appendix III and Appendix IV he lists the rigging for a full rigged ship, with line numbers corresponding to the folding plate No. 51 Belaying Pin Layout for a Full Rigged Ship. Most of the lines run to pin rails and are labeled "BP" (belaying pin). So at least we know that the wire rope was secured to belaying pins in some manner. I hope someone knows for certain how this was done! **** EDIT: Bob and Jim posted while I was making my reply. Thanks! Bob is certainly right about the broken wire ends and how you don't handle wire rope with your bare hands! The same is true for spring-lay nylon ropes wound with some metal strands and other nylon strands. They are easier to handle, and the wire prevents the nylon from stretching. But the "meat hooks" can still get you!

In the picture of the deck house (engineering space vents) in post #484, what are the things on either side just above deck level? Air filters? Rope spools? By the way, I was looking back through this thread and saw the picture of Khrushchev/Brezhnev 56 Chevy Bel Air (a Khrushchevy?). I drove one just like that (same color) to college in my freshman year (1963)!

Very nice (as usual)! That is a very simple - if tedious - method to make the chain. Using photoguestimation based upon a wire diameter of 0.8 mm I calculate the links to be 5.4 mm x 3.4 mm (0.21" x 0.13"). I don't know if I want to try it for my 1:96 OK City build. Wire diameter would be about 0.6 mm (0.26") and the links about 3.96 mm (0.156") long. I have the soldering skill but I don't know if I have the patience!

If you have questions about the rigging you might want to look here. I have been puzzling over topsail schooner rigging and have posted some of that I have learned.

Beautiful work! I think you are having too much fun! Phil

How you rig the back stays is another question. Often they were rigged to deadeyes at the aft end of the channels, similar to the shrouds. Sometimes they were rigged as shown in the drawing, but they would interfere with the swing of the boom and mainsail. To get around this the stays were rigged with a gun tackle or luff tackle at the lower end, with the lower block hooked to a ring bolt in the deck close to the bulwark. The back stay on the lee (downwind) side was slacked and unhooked and led forward out of the way of the boom. The windward side stay was tightened to take the strain of the force of the wind on the sail. When the wind shifted (or the vessel maneuvered) the stays were rerigged on the windward side and slacked on the lee side. Same thing on the stays for the fore mast. For more information about schooner rigging and sails see:

Don, Curvature along the center line length of the ship at the deck level is called "sheer." Typically the bow is higher than midships, and sometimes the stern is higher than midships. The curve at the deck from side to side is called "camber." A ship's keel was straight when the ship was new, but the bow and stern tended to sag with time, especially on wooden ships. This is because the lift from flotation is proportional to the cross section (side to side) area of the hull. The narrow bow and stern did not have as much lift as the wider midships section. This curvature with drooping bow and stern is called "hogging." If the bow and stern bend upward relative to midships it is called "sagging." Long ships experience some hogging and sagging as they ride over large waves and into the trough between waves.

Bob, I have seen rigging diagrams and photos of both ways to rig the topping lift. In the drawings the mainsail outhaul ran through a small block attached near the end of the boom and the lift ran through the sheave in the boom. I agree with you that the way with the lift passing through tackle at the mast top makes more sense to me. I have also read at least one account saying the the foot ropes were duplicated port and starboard, and I have seen this arrangement on the Lady Washington replica. They are called "boom horses" on the Lady Washington sail plan. The rope had an eye spliced in the aft end and the two parts ran parallel up to a point inboard of the taffrail where the lines looped over the boom and were spliced. Wooden cleats on the boom held the foot ropes in place. Maybe they are doubled for safety? Maybe it was just easier this way? Here is a photo. To me this is just another example of how there is no one "right way" to rig a ship. Also notice that they used two sheets instead of one riding on a metal horse behind the rudder as on some vessels. And notice the clever way they locked the tiller to the rope- and could easily unlatch it when they wanted the tiller to swing free. The ship was underway and motoring out of harbor against the wind and tide, so this is the operating configuration.

Most ship modeling books recommend against gluing the masts in place. If they aren't at the proper angles you are stuck with it. If the mast fits a bit loose you can correct the angles with the rigging. I visited the Bounty replica used for the Marlon Brando movie but I don't remember a lot about it. It was built oversized to create room for the camera trolleys to move freely along the deck. Somewhere I have a bunch of 35mm slides. Did the masts have any rake (angled back toward the stern) or were they 90 degree vertical from the horizontal? If there is a rake it can be tricky to get the right angle through the wedge ring. I would file out the wedge ring to accept the diameter of the mast rather than trying to reduce the diameter of the mast. Since you are building from a kit you will probably want to use the supplied masts. But if you are really anal about details and want to create your own masts from scratch I have attached an image of a spreadsheet I prepared for my current project (a topsail schooner). It contains the masting rules for ships from Lees and Zu Mondfeld. Ignore the Fincham and Rankine rules - they are for schooners and the masts were much smaller diameter and longer than for square rigged sailing ships. The numbers are for my model of a ship with a 20 foot beam. Just about all the dimensions are based upon the beam of the ship (the widest breadth midships). The mast and spar lengths are in feet and diameters are in inches, and for the real 1:1 scale ships. Just figure out the real dimensions using the Bounty's breadth and divide them by the scale of the model you are building. And if you want to replace the kit thread with scale ropes I have posted spreadsheets for rigging here:

Here is a spreadsheet for calculating rigging diameters. I have included an Excel 2010 file and a PDF printout. Enter a value for the mast diameter in the green cell and all rigging sizes will be calculated. I label the mast diameter as "Model mast diameter" but you can also enter the real ship mast diameter. Use English (inches) or metric (millimeters) and the resulting calculations will be in the same units. The mast diameter 0.320 inches is for the 1:48 scale topsail schooner model I am working on. CAUTION: The last three calculations for gun carriage rigging are based upon actual cannon bores in inches, and calculated for a 1:48 scale model. You will need to recalculate these for a different scale or if you want to use metric units. All of these values are based upon Lees' formulae. They will work for ships or schooners. Everything is based upon the mast diameter. Rigging calculations.xlsx Rigging calculations.pdf

Dart, Sorry, I didn't understand your question. "Tack" is the name of the lower fore corner of the sail, and the gear that is attached to handle the sail. It also means changing course. I have photos of ships with the lower corner of the sail (tack) on the windward or leeward sides of the gaff, so they didn't try to raise the sail tack over the peak halliard for the gaff. Either way the sail caught the wind. However, on some schooners with flying topsails (the luff is not attached to the topmast) there is a brail attached to the sail tack and run through a block at the sail peak and back down to the deck. This brail allows the sail tack to be raised over the gaff peak halliard. But for this to work there must be port and starboard tack lines to haul the sail tack down on either side of the gaff and gaff sail. This would be purely a matter of preference for the vessel's captain or owner, and they might change their minds occasionally and try something different. With the American style gaff yard topsail there was no interference between the vertical yard and the mast when tacking. For the European style gaff yard topsail (with the yard more horizontal) they may have lowered the yard when tacking and then raised it again on the lee side. The main idea behind this type of sail was that it could be rigged on deck and then hoisted aloft quickly, and then dropped to the deck again to "furl" the sail. No one had to go aloft. **** I took another look at the drawing of the Russian clipper. It has gaff sails on all three masts! Does this make it a three mast fore and main topsail schooner? It is another good example of the ambiguity in assigning names to individual ship rigs. **** I didn't mean to say that gravity and time alone were responsible for the curvature of the boom, and your 1886 photo of the 1884 schooner shows the curved boom on a relatively new schooner. But gravity would add to the curvature of the long narrow boom, and I would suspect that with time the boom would continue to sag more from the constant influence of gravity. But it looks to me that the primary cause might be the opposing forces of the lift and sheets. One other thing I am trying to understand is the cut of the gaff sail. Why doesn't the sail hold up the center of the boom? Some references say some sails were made with a curvature ("gore") to the foot to increase sail area. From your photo of the Mary G. Powers it looks like the foot of the sail is curved to match the curvature of the boom. So there is no attempt to cut the sail to provide extra lift to the center of the boom.

Dart, That is a "European style" spar gaff topsail. I described the rigging in an earlier post #16 in this thread for the Main Gaff Topsail. The halliard raises the spar. The tack pulls down to stretch the sail vertically. The sheet spreads the sail horizontally to the end of the gaff. The "American style" typically had the spar oriented almost vertically, but the rigging was the same. It depended upon the cut of the sail. Does this answer your question?

I think Bob makes a good point. In some cases the topping lift attaches to the aft end of the boom and runs through tackle attached to the mast top and down to the deck. However, in some cases the topping lift is attached to the mast top and runs through a sheave near the aft end of the boom and back to tackle near the mast. In either case the lift pulls up on the boom end. The boom sheets are usually attached to the boom about 2/3 of the boom length (give or take a little) from the mast, and these pull down/in on the boom. With the topping lift supporting (pulling up) the end of the boom and the sheets pulling down closer to the middle of the boom the forces would tend to bend the boom down. Another reason for the curvature would be gravity and time. With the boom supported only at the ends gravity would eventually cause the middle to sag. Schooners typically have lighter mast and spars than larger square riggers, and the main boom on schooners is much longer that typical for the spankers on square riggers. So schooners have long booms of relatively small diameter, and this would allow them to flex more.

I have spent weeks looking at rigging rules for ships and schooners. I have created a thread with general discussions of rules for masting and rigging of topsail schooners. It will eventually include the rules for lengths and diameters of all masts, spars, booms and gaffs, plus rules for determining circumference/diameter of all standing and running rigging.

Rachel, Sorry for the late reply. For some reason the Forum no longer notifies me when a post is made to this thread (or any threads I follow). I thought about putting the bell where it is shown on the Albatros drawings, but it would be very susceptible to damage from a swinging boom. I think I will mount it on the fore side of the main mast below the boom foot. This was a common place for a ship's bell. But I haven't decided to do that for certain. The box with the glass front is the binnacle - where the compass was housed. Typically it would have had glass directly in front of the compass rose and opaque doors to either side. Oil lamps would be placed behind the doors on either side of the compass at night to illuminate the compass. The binnacle often was actually a "piece of furniture" that could be moved around, but it was tied down to ring bolts in the deck most of the time. Here is my binnacle. I should put door knobs on the side doors, and tie-down rings on the sides. There is a compass rose behind the window but it doesn't show very well. **** Paul, Some small vessels did not have a capstan or windlass. I have posted a thread about the anchor handling on small vessels. I plan to rig the fish davit, anchor and messengers as in this link:

George, As long as I am doing this for me I think I should share it with others. After all, others are sharing a wealth of knowledge on this Forum for me to use and enjoy. About Rankine - you just have to appreciate someone who helped develop the Laws of Thermodynamics! James Burke told a story about the development of thermodynamics. The Brits were trying to figure out how to make steam engines work. The Scots were trying to figure out how much heat they needed to distill a gallon of Scotch Whiskey. Does this say something about priorities? And you are right about the research being as interesting as the actual model building. I really enjoy it. I always wanted to understand how all that rigging worked on sailing ships. When I was "building" the CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 I got so sidetracked with the research that it took 14 years to complete. In the meantime I investigated how just about everything on the ship worked and created a web site for the ship! One of these years I will use all of that information to build a real model of the ship.

George, I have added Cock's and Hedderwick's calculations to the spreadsheet. There are now five values you must add (in the green cells). Mast and spar calculations V2.xlsx I have also added a PDF version of the spreadsheet: Mast and spar dimensions.pdf

George, I found Cock's formulae gave results similar to Fincham and Rankine. Not exactly the same of course, but in the same ballpark. But his language to describe the rules is about as obtuse as any I have seen. Like many authors he assumes you already know what he means. Fortunately he doesn't just give his rules but he gives numerical values based upon a beam of 20.5 feet. To figure out what he is trying to say you will have to do a lot of calculations to test the many ways in which his instructions can be deciphered relative to the beam width. Hedderwick's rules for schooners (page 361) also approximate Fincham and Rankine. He bases his calculations upon beam, load waterline length, and distance between the deck and keel (housing), compensating for the many different length, width and depth variations in hull designs. His descriptions are very clear despite more complex calculations than the other writers. Both are useful texts for mid 1800s ship design. Thanks again.

George, Thanks for those references. I guess! Now I'll have to work through all this again - but that's not a problem. I have attached my Excel 2010 spreadsheet for mast and spar calculations (I think). At the top are two green cells that contain the beam and line of flotation values in feet. Be cautious about converting to metric because I did a lot of feet to inches calculations for diameters throughout the page. It could be reworked to use multipliers in each calculation to convert from feet to meters and inches to centimeters - and vice versa. Apparently Fincham was an influential ship designer for the Royal Navy and one of the first to try to standardize ships rigging. There weren't that many people to reference. Professor William John Macquorn Rankine FRSE FRS was quite an influential mathematician who liked to generate mathematical formulae for everything. He reworked Fincham's rules verifying his work with actual ship dimensions. Look him up. He had a very wide range of interests, and was quite influential in many fields. NOTE: THE ORIGINAL SPREADSHEET HAS BEEN UPDATED AND IS AVAILABLE IN A LATER POST.

I have seen most, or possibly all, of those definitions. As you see the length of the hounds varied from author to author. The problem I had was with the term "hounded length." Most of the authors do not say what part of the hounds are the end of the hounded length. The bottom of the hounds, which could be 1/3 the length of the mast above the partners, the bottom or top of the cheeks, where? Given the plethora of definitions for hounds it seems to me to be anyone's guess. Of course this is obvious to all of the authors, but unfortunately I cannot read their minds. And, being a scientist who knows what it means to know something, I am reluctant to guess. Underhill is the only author I have seen who specifically defines hounded length in unambiguous terms. And as far as I have been able to find Lees doesn't ever say what he means by "mast length" (hounded, measured, what?).

I have been studying rigging dimensions, and that has been an adventure. First, here is a drawing showing various dimensions used for determining mast, spar and rigging diameters. The biggest problem is that many authors use the term "length" ambiguously and just assume you know what they are thinking. This is known as "functional illiteracy" and it is very common. The Hull The length of a sailing ship's hull is often the length on deck - for the uppermost continuous deck from bow to stern. Poop decks, forecastles and gun decks add to the confusion. The line of flotation was the distance at the ship's normal (load) water line between the rabbits in the stem and stern posts. The length between perpendiculars is the distance between the fore peak and the after peak. The fore peak is always the forward most part of the hull at the load water line. This is true for older vessels as well as modern ships. For modern ships the after peak is the after most part of the hull at the load water line. But for wooden sailing vessels the after peak is usually the center of the rudder post at the water line (but not all authors agree on this). The beam is always the broadest part of the hull along its length. Normally it is the absolute widest part of the hull plating or planking unless it is specifically stated as the beam at the waterline. Masts Mast dimensions are even more confusing. The measured length is the total length of the mast timber(s) from the bottom (heel or foot) to the top (cap). This is often used as a reference for calculating other mast and spar dimensions. But it assumes the heel was resting in a step on the keel or keelson (a timber resting on top of the keel timber). But on most models the bottom of the mast stick is some distance above the top of the theoretical keel. This can screw up your calculations if you are not aware of it. The other length that is sometimes used is the hounded length. Take a deep breath, because this gets messy! This is the distance between the mast heel and the mast hounds. And there are just about as many definitions of "hounds" as there are authors. For some authors hounds and cheeks are synonymous, and the cheeks are the pieces on the sides of the mast below the trestletrees in the top. But some say the hounds are supports a third of the length of the mast between the partners (the deck) and the trestletrees. So is the hounded length up to the bottom of the hounds or the top? The authors never say and assume you know. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., William Benton Publisher, 1966 (three volumes) says: hounds - the framing at the masthead of a ship for supporting the heel of the topmast and the upper parts of the lower rigging. So the hounds are the top of the cheeks or the trestletrees. Harold Underhill is the only author I have found that specifically states this is the definition he uses. The others leave you guessing. The head is the part of the lower mast from the hounds to the top of the cap at the very top. The measured length is the hounded length plus the head. But hounded length has the same problem for modelers as the measured length. It assumes the mast foot rests on the keel or keelson, and this isn't the case for many models. Some mast dimension tables use the deck to hounds length, and this is a bit more useful for modelers. This is also called the partners to hounds length - the partners are where the mast penetrates the deck - whichever deck is being used for the measurement. And modelers sometimes just use the deck to top length. Whatever measurement you use to determine the mast length, first determine the overall measured length. The measured length (or hounded length) is used to calculate most other mast and spar dimensions, and for mast diameter calculations. Then correct for any distance between the model's keel and the actual mast foot to decide how long your mast sticks should be. Then after you have determined the theoretical main mast diameter from the theoretical measured length (not the corrected model length), multiply it by 4/5 (0.80 or 80%) to get the more probable mast diameter for a schooner. The 4/5 rule comes from Underhill's Masting and Rigging (see references in an earlier post). Got that? Now we can determine the length and diameter of all other masts and spars. Almost everything is based upon the dimensions of the main mast, and that is usually based upon the beam width of the hull. Rigging diameters are calculated from the mast diameters. I have found James Lees' book to be the most complete. Zu Mondfeld's book is almost as complete. But they are both for full rigged square riggers. Howard Chapelle (The Baltimore Clipper) lists actual dimensions of schooners taken off ships in the early 1800s by the Frenchman M. Marestier from ships he inspected. Chapelle also gives masting rules for schooners by John Fincham, a Royal Navy (Great Britain) naval constructor, and Scottish mathematician Professor William Rankine who refined Fincham's rules. Rankine's calculations give minimum, average and maximum dimensions based upon variations in actual ships. I have compiled just about all of these rules in this spreadsheet, using a beam of 20 feet to derive the numbers: EDIT: See later posts for a more inclusive spreadsheet for schooners. If you examine these calculations closely you will see that Lees' and Mondfeld's rules for square riggers give significantly different results than Fincham's and Rankine's schooner dimensions. The Fincham and Rankine rules agree pretty well with the actual dimensions listed by Marestier. Mariestier's data also agrees with Underhill that the schooner masts were significantly lighter (smaller diameter) than given by Lees' and Mondfeld's rules. So this is the basis for the mast and spar dimensions I will be using on my model (as topsail schooner of 20 foot beam). Rigging dimensions will be next.

Mike, I am working on a Baltimore clipper also. I am at that start of rigging and have been reading a lot about it. For real ships George Biddlecombe's The Art of Rigging says they started with the bowsprit and then the lower masts. One reason is that the forestay from the fore top usually fastened to the bowsprit and was necessary to support the fore mast. Then the added the jib boom and topmasts. After that went up the spars and booms, and topgallant masts (if any) and spars last. After that the sails were added. But the all around best advice for model building I have ever seen was a lot simpler. Ask yourself if you really want to try to work on spars and sails after the standing rigging is finished? Do you like the thought of trying to rig the sails to the spars through a web of rigging lines? Rig as much as possible to the spars, booms and gaffs on your work bench where you have no obstructions. Rig the spars, booms and gaffs to the lower masts before stepping the top masts. I have been working on the sail plan and rigging for my topsail schooner for a couple of months, and I have posted some general information about schooner rigging here: I have been reading everything I can find about schooner rigging details and rigging sizes and will soon add more to this thread. Almost everything published about rigging has been for square rigged ships, and I have found it to be misleading for rigging schooners. And especially American schooners of the late 1700s and early 1800s because the builders followed their own rules. But after allowing for schooner masts and spars being lighter (about 4/5 the diameter of square riggers the same beam/length) the rules for relative spar and rope sizes can be used as almost everything is related to the diameter of the main mast.

Bruma, Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier (Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd., Glasgow, 1972) is an excellent source of information about rigging of clipper ships. It is the best written and most complete book on ship rigging I have found. It has detailed descriptions of the masts, bowsprits, yards, booms, gaffs and every line of the rigging, plus a complete pinrail diagram for belaying every line of rigging for a full rigged ship. It says: The down-haul is shackled to the head (peak) of the sail and led down the stay to a block at the foot (tack) , and from there to it's belaying point. The down-haul runs through one or more lizards that are siezed to the hanks at intervals. Not all authors define "lizard" the same, so Underhill says these are short ropes with eyes (thimbles) spliced into one end and the other end siezed to the hanks. The down-haul runs freely through the eyes in the lizard. Hanks are rings around the stay that the sails are siezed to, and allow the sail to ride up and down the stay.. The flying jib downhaul runs through a lead block on the port side of the bowsprit, outboard. The outer jib downhaul runs through a lead block on the port side of the bowsprit, inboard. The inner jib downhaul runs through a lead block on the starboard side of the bowsprit, inboard. The fore topmast staysail downhaul runs through a lead block on the starboard side of the bowsprit, outboard. Underhill shows these downhauls leading to a pin rail in the extreme bow of the ship.

Peter, Good question!! You are absolutely right. Duh! When I consulted Lever's reference both the jib and fore staysail downhauls were rigged through a single block at the tack and through a few of the "hanks" at the head rope to the peak. This is shown for the fore staysail in Petersson's book but it is not apparent for the jib and flying jib. Biddlecombe also shows the downhauls attached to the peaks of all the fore sails. The tack of each sail is made fast (hooked) to the bottom of the stay, or to the traveler if it is used for the jib. Thanks for pointing out this mistake. Corrected!