Dr PR

Just a guess, but ... Modern ships fly the flag from high on a mast when at sea, so it can be seen from a distance. When in port the flagstaff is raised on the stern, and jack staff on the bow, and the flags are flown from them. When the ship gets under way the flag is changed to the mast and the flag/jack staffs are stowed again. I do not know how long this practice has been used, but from some of the pictures posted above it may be that it was the practice several centuries ago.

Along the straight part of the rabbet in the keel the garboard plank (strake) does not need trimming, so both sides of the plank are parallel. Where the rabbet starts curving up the stem you should start trimming the garboard plank on the rabbet side. Keep the edge of the plank opposite the rabbet straight (don't trim it). Just let it bend up naturally along the forward curved surface of the hull. Take off a little bit at a time on the rabbet side and test the fit after each cut until the garboard plank tapers to a point and fits tightly into the rabbet. You will need to taper each plank near the bow, again starting where the hull surface transitions from relatively flat to the bow curve (about the same place along the hull length you started trimming the garboard plank). Phil

wefalck, I have seen some sheet metal design programs that will unfold curved surfaces, but I can't recall the program names. One of the DesignCAD users wrote a BasiCAD macro that unfolds complex 3D surfaces into flat 2D patterns. It even works with things like spheres and toruses. However, the results can be pretty unpredictable with really complex curved surfaces and you may have to repeat the process, starting with different orientations, to get something really useful. I have used it to unfold fairly simple things like truncated cones, curved funnel caps and skirts around the base of funnels (see attached picture) and it works nicely. I haven't used it for hull strakes yet, but when I get around to plating my 1:96 USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 model I will give it a try. Phil

Nice work! It is a bit late now, but when I needed to round a bunch of square wheel axles I selected a piece of brass tubing with inside diameter equal to the desired axle diameter (1/16 inch or 1.5 mm in my case) and cut two triangular notches on opposite sides of the tube end to make "saw teeth" and then filed the cutting edges sharp. I pushed the "cutter" end of the tube over the ends of the axles while rotating the tube and it trimmed off the square parts and left perfectly cylindrical axles. It worked very fast! Much faster and more accurate than filing the axles. I later used the same cutter to make tiny dowels to serve as axles for sheaves in catheads and boat davits, and for wooden pins (trenails) to fasten parts together.

You mention mast lengths. There are a number of books that give the proportions of masts and spars. Most lengths are based upon the breadth of the hull (beam). Some are based upon the Line of Flotation - the distance between the rabbets on the bow and stern posts at the load water line. Wolfram zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models section on masts and yards (page 212) tells a lot about these things and gives a table of masts and topmasts and a table of proportions of yards. However, almost all of the books give mast and spar dimensions for square rigged ships. Schooners (fore and aft rigs) are quite different. Without all the spars and square sails the load on the schooner masts is much smaller, so the diameters are smaller. Topsail schooners are a bit different too, because of the topsail and topgallant and their rigging, but the masts are still smaller diameter than for the full square rig. And schooners with square sails on only the fore mast may have a main mast that is smaller diameter than the fore mast, although many schooners have both masts the same diameter. Then to complicate matters even more, the American schooners usually carried much taller masts, with greater rake and larger sails than the European counterparts - especially the British. Usually after the Brits captured an American schooner they shortened the masts. The best reference I have found for the dimension of American schooners is Chapelle's The Baltimore Clipper. Page 160 gives Professor Rankine's version of Fincham's Rules (he was an English ship designer) for two masted schooner masts and spars, based upon the dimension of actual ships. Rules for sails are also given. The Appendix on page 179 lists the entire set of Fincham's Rules. These rules give ranges of dimensions, because there was a lot of variation from ship to ship. And the book lists dimensions of many actual ships. However, many builders used their own rules. I have examined dozens of schooner sail plans and almost all fall within the ranges given in Fincham's Rules. And the dimension varied from century to century, so you need to decide what period you are building, where the ship was built, and if it was later captured and modified. My build log for a Baltimore Clipper, posts #52, #68 and #69 discusses the masts and sails, using Fincham's Rules. I am working on a detailed list of rules for masting, rigging and sails of topsail schooners that I will post on the Forum someday. Right now several other things are interfering with my research and modeling, so it may be a while before it is finished. Finally, Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft has an excellent section on topsail schooner rigging. It is based upon the 1812 Chesapeke Bay built Baltimore Clipper Experiment for which very good documentation exists. But Experiment had a couple of odd features, so the rigging described in the book is for a more typical topsail schooner rig.

I understand that the PNG still images can be read by any viewer program. How are the walk-throughs viewed - what file type? What viewer is needed? What operating systems? I ask because over the last 40 years I have seen many proprietary video schemes sold that lasted only a few years and were no longer usable after an operating system changes. There are still a few of these floating around that require viewer programs that are not part of any operating system.

jct, The trick is to not post photos clear enough to show the dust! Actually, every few years I take the models outside and blow the dust off. I use a small pant brush to dislodge dust from the rigging. Your model is significantly longer than the Freya, so they aren't variations of the same kit. But they do look a lot alike! It will be interesting to see where you go with this build. Chapelle's The Search for Speed Under Sail is a very good reference as is his The History of the American Sailing Ships. Both focus on non-military ships as well as some warships. His History of the American Sailing Navy is strictly about warships, if that is your interest. And if you are interested in topsail schooners, Chapelle's The Baltimore Clipper is an excellent resource. Note: A word of caution about Chapelle's The History of the American Sailing Navy. I have a newer copy that was printed in London by Salamander Books. I was disappointed to discover that the page size was a bit smaller than some other of his older books, and all of the large plans are printed on two facing pages with a significant fold between the two sheets! The first copy of this book I saw had fold out line drawings. I then bought an older edition published in 1949 by Norton & Co. in New York. It was printed on larger pages and the detailed hull lines drawings were two page foldouts that lay flat with no middle crease. This is the only one of his books that I have with the fold out drawings. If you are thinking of a schooner rig Lennarth Peterson's Rigging Fore-and Aft Craft is very good for a "typical" early 19th century Chesapeake Bay rig. Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier is mostly about late 19th century clipper ships, but it has a section about early 20th century English schooners. Edit: I still have some of the scrap plywood from the 1960s kit and it disintegrates just like the photos you have shown. It isn't much of a problem for bulkheads that will be inside the planking, but plan on using different material for anything that will show.

I came across this build and it was deja ju all over again! The picture on the kit box and other details strongly resemble a kit I bought back in 1969 in Long Beach, California. It was called the Brigg Freya um 1840, and was supposed to be a Rhine River brig. There was no manufacturer's name on the box or the single sheet plans, but it was made in West Germany. It was supposed to be 1:100 scale. Here is a picture of the kit box. Notice the resemblance of the model photo and the logo on the box? This is the second plank-on-bulkhead kit that I have built. There were quite a few kits that were more impressive, but I picked this one because it was cheap, about $30 as I recall, and I was living on an Ensign's pay of $334/month. Here is a photo of the finished model. I think I built it in 1972-74. Right after I bought the kit I was shipped out to WESTPAC and spent the next two and a quarter years pumping bullets into the jungles of North and South Vietnam. A few months after I got back I started work on the kit. It had extremely tall masts! The horizontal bowsprit was very unusual - not something you would see on a deep sea ship. That and other details look a lot like the kit you are building. The deck plan is a bit different. I don't remember much about building it, but I took a lot of time making the fiddly bits. The first ship I was on was a small minesweeper with wooden decks. We recaulked the decks and I saved some of the tar. I think that is what I used for the grout between the deck planks on this model! The kit had a crummy pot metal boat. I built a new one plank-on-frame using HO scale railroad ties for the planks. It also had the crummy pot metal "blocks" that are shown in one of your photos. I used wooden blocks that I got somewhere. Your kit isn't exactly the same as this one, but it looks a lot like Freya and apparently was produced by the same company. The Freya hull was 14" long along the top rail. How does this compare to your kit? I thought you might find this interesting. There was some discussion earlier about a Baltimore clipper. The Freya hull has very little resemblance to the Chesapeke topsail schooners. They had a lot of drag (deeper at the stern than the bow), and were broadest just aft of the foremast (I am currently working on a Baltimore clipper).

I served on three "modern" (1940s through 1970s) vessels with wooden decks. Two were wooden minesweepers and one was a modified Cleveland class cruiser (wooden deck). The deck planks were fastened to the hull structure with recessed fasteners. A wooden plug was pounded into the hole over the fasteners. These plugs were cut from the same wood as the planks, and the grain was oriented the same as the grain in the deck planks (as Wefalck said). Standing on the deck and looking down at my feet it was difficult to see the plugs. This was especially true on well maintained (holystoned) decks. From even a slight distance these plugs were invisible. Look on line for videos of the HMS Victory. There are many walk-around videos, and almost none of the trenail plugs are visible (maybe a few at the top of ladders where wear is heavy and the camera was very close to the deck). Of course, if you are modeling a rotting hulk the plugs will have expanded and stand proud of the planks. They are very visible and it looks awful! Trenails are a modeling fad. Some folks attempt to build a model piece by piece just as the original was built, trenails and all - more or less. Unlike the originals, they want you so see all the hard work that went into placing each and every trenail. As far as I am concerned this is OK - I may do it myself someday. It is a personal preference.

Some ships had a single piece bowsprit that served as bowsprit and jib boom. These were typically later 19th century ships. Before that some ships had a bowsprit with a thinner jib boom attached to the bowsprit and running through the bowsprit cap. The jib boom extended the reach of the bowsprit to allow more fore sail area. The fore stay and fore staysail attached to the end of the bowsprit and the fore jib stay and jib attached to the end of the jib boom. However, some ships also had the topgallant stay attached to the end of the jib boom and they flew a flying jib from this line. A flying jib boom was attached to the jib boom on larger ships with taller masts to extend the bowsprit even farther. The fore royal stay attached to the end of the flying jib boom and the flying jib was flown from the fore royal stay. These ships typically had a flying jib, outer jib, inner jib and fore staysail for their foresheets. The fore staysail was always the most aft of the foresheets. Some ships had only the additional jib. Some had the fore staysail, jib and flying jib. Others had the fore staysail, inner jib, outer jib and flying jib. All of these sails were not always flown - it depended upon the wind and how the ship was maneuvering. The foresheets were most useful when tacking into the wind. They acted as airfoils to pull the ship forward, and all of these sheets were flown when heading into the wind. However, only one or two foresheets might be hoisted when the ship was turning downwind. The sails used wind power to turn the ships head around. There was a lot of variability in these rigs, so you need to consult the sail plan for a particular ship to see what it carried. All of these sails were collectively foresheets. When a ship was tacking into the wind, first to one side and the other, it zig-zagged along on an unsteady course. This is the basis for the term "foresheets to the wind" that is applied to drunken sailors who are staggering on their return to the ship. Lubbers who haven't a clue what they are talking about often say "four sheets to the wind," "three sheets to the wind" or some other such nonsense.

Sam, Thanks. But if you build a Baltimore clipper you should check the small details for the ship you want to build because different builders had their favorite ways of doing things. I am still trying to decide how to rig some of the standing rigging - there are multiple choices for some of the lines. You can see a few question marks in my drawing. These lines are rigged multiple ways in the drawings in Chapelle's book, and the newer schooners of the 20th century have even more differences.

I have been studying sail plans for Baltimore clippers - topsail schooners. There really isn't much variation for these ships, even when built in different countries. The lengths of every mast, gaff and spar were calculated from Fincham's rules, found in Howard Chappel's "The Baltimore Clipper" on page 160. These rules are based upon the breadth of the hull (beam) and the Line of Flotation (distance between the forepost and sternpost at the waterline. There are quite a few possible variations, with each dimension giving minimum and maximum ranges, so I used the average values. Note: The normal calculated lengths of the lower masts assumes the masts were stepped on the keel. The lower mast lengths shown here are shorter below the deck (partners) than the length calculated with the rules because that is the way the kit was designed. Then the sail dimensions were generated using Fincham's rules. Sail dimensions and spar dimensions were in very close agreement. The sails are: 1. Flying jib 2. Jib 3. Fore staysail 4. Fore gaff sail 5. Main gaff sail or mainsail 6. Fore gaff topsail 7. Main gaff topsail 8. Fore topsail 9. Studding sails Number 6, the fore gaff topsail wasn't normally raised. It would be rigged only when the wind was greater at the tops than on the surface, and only when there was real need to catch as much breeze as possible. It is shown as a "flying" gaff topsail with the forward (luff) edge unattached to the mast. The flying gaff topsail could be raised and lowered from the deck. A similar "standing" gaff topsail was attached to the top mast , but it had to be furled/unfurled by someone in the top. In some cases a different triangular sail (main topmast staysail) was rigged on the main topmast stay in lieu of a fore gaff topsail. Number 7 was the real problem. The Main gaff topsail is shown in several different configurations in the eleven books I have that show schooner sail plans and rigging. In some cases an ordinary gaff topsail was used, similar to the fore gaff topsail. Many drawings in the books show the configuration in my drawing with the upper leading edge of the sail lashed to a spar. This configuration has been called: spar gaff topsail yard topsail gaff topsail American fashion (with the spar vertical as shown in the drawing) gaff topsail Swedish fashion (with the spar close to horizontal, like a topsail) Cornish topsail gunter or sliding gunter sail spritsail (later fore and aft rigs only) Whatever it was called the rig could be raised and lowered from the deck, similar to the fore topsail. There are actually two variations of the "American" style. In some cases the point of attachment of the lift to the spar is above the center of the spar, so gravity works to keep the sail aligned (the spar may even be attached to the mast cap). But the rig shown here has the lift attachment point below the center of the spar so the sail is hoisted even higher. For this to work the tack (at bottom forward corner of the sail) must be hauled down hard after the halliard is secured. In yachting the spar gaff topsail is used to extend the sail higher than the mast top in order to catch a bit more wind. Every part of the Baltimore clipper's rig was designed to catch as much wind as possible, because speed was the reason these ships were built. So it seems this configuration was favored because it was easy to rig. Not shown in the drawing are the ringtail (driver) and bonnets that might also have been used. The ringtail is essentially a studding sail for the mainsail, with a ringtail boom attached to and extending from the boom just as studding sail booms are attached to the yards, and with the top of the sail hoisted to the gaff by a ringtail yard. Bonnets were additional lengths of sail cloth that were attached to the bottoms of the fore and main gaff sails to add sail area. These are sometimes called water sails, although in some books water sails for schooners were triangular sails like jibs that were attached to the bottoms of the gaff sails. I think the sizes of the flying jib, jib and fore staysail look a bit odd - only the jib was listed in Fincham's rules. I'll have to work on this some more. But for now I have a good idea of how many running rigging lines will have to have fastenings on the deck or bulwarks, and that was the real purpose of this exercise. Also, some topsail schooners had a fore topgallant sail and yards (or fore lower topsail and fore upper topsail). However, the ship I am modeling is a bit smaller than the average topsail schooner. The smaller revenue cutters didn't carry the topgallant. The later larger vessels did have the two fore topsails.

What happened to Jersey City Frankie's posts?

JCF, Thanks for both posts. Are they both from Lee's Masting and Rigging?

Mark P, Here is the Mondfeld drawing. The text reads "Anchor fishing. In the 17th and 18th centuries a portable beam or fish davit was sometimes used instead of a secondary cathead or anchor davit for hoisting the anchor into position for fishing." It clearly is not the catheads he is talking about (pages 126-127 talk about catheads). The picture of the model of the Grafton 1679 that Allan posted appears to have the "English" style fishing davit (although I am not certain about this), and the others seem to have the "Continental" style. I think the idea Mondfeld is trying to show with the "Continental" style is that the fish davit is portable (not permanently fixed in place and moveable) and can be used either port or starboard. From several other sources I have read this was very common. Of course the inboard end would have to be fastened in some way. In the mid 19th century the fish davit was more like an ordinary boom, with lifts and vangs (guys), and tackle for fishing the anchor. But I suspect no two ships did things exactly the same way - there was a lot of discretion left to the master/captain of each ship, and they all had their own ideas of the best ways to do things. The entire history of sailing ships is a chronicle of change - slow, perhaps, but as people discovered better (easier or cheaper) ways to do things the ideas spread and were adopted elsewhere. It is the history of this spread of ideas that interests me. I have spent 15 years studying the Cleveland class light cruisers of the 1930s and 40s (and later conversions). I have the blueprints (about 12,000) and over 1000 photos. They were built in 4 shipyards, and even though they had the official blueprints showing how to build them, each shipyard built them differently, using what they thought were the best methods. Some of the differences were quite significant! And after the ships hit the water they underwent continuous modifications. No two ships were the same, and this was in the 20th century. In earlier centuries ships were built without detailed plans, according to the shipwright's ideas of how to do things. I suspect there was even greater variation back then. So not one picture, book or authority describes all the variations. I realize Mondfeld's book is just a sampling of some features in historic ships. I do not take it, or any other book (or anyone's opinions) as absolute truth. Like Mark T I use it for ideas or to confirm/challenge other things I have read or seen.

Anything new to report?

Allen, No problem! I am curious about the 1650 3rd rate. I know very little about ships of this period, but I did notice the anchor fish davit. Zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (page 189) shows two styles, one spanning the entire fo'c'sle and extending outboard on each side, which he calls "English," and the other like the one on the model that was portable and extended over one side only, which he calls "Continental." Of course I would suspect that either type might have been used anywhere. I have read descriptions of anchor fishing in the US Navy in the 1800s that used the portable davit. Do you know the nationality of the ship model? The name? When the ship was built (the original, not the model)? When the model was built? This discussion has peaked my interest about when and where belaying pins were first used. I suspect at first they were just tapered spikes and later assumed their more elaborate turned/carved shapes. Similar "toggle" pins were in use for quick securing of two lines together. They would be simple things for sailors to carve during long idle periods at sea. As their usefulness became apparent I suspect their use became more common as the idea spread. I have been trying to learn if belaying pins were commonly used on late 1700s and early 1800s Baltimore schooners. Some model kits and reproduction vessels use them but they aren't necessarily accurate. I read one source that said they weren't used on early 19th century schooners, but there are a lot of drawings and plans of the era that show them.

The bottom sill of gun ports should be the same height above the deck for guns of a given type. For lower decks that aren't visible on the model this isn't critical. The ports should line up according th 0 the sheer and camber of the deck (curvature lengthwise and side to side). But for open gun decks it is important to get the height above the deck correct. You can really screw this up if you just tape a copy of the plans on the side and start cutting. I make a wooden tool that has the proper opening size spaced correctly above the deck. The tool is a bit tapered on the end. For an already planked hull I cut a small hole at the center of the port and slowly enlarge it, using the tool as a guide. Keep the tool snug to the deck while using it. I use files to remove the wood slowly until the tapered end of the tool fits into the hole. Then I continue to enlarge the hole until the tool fits in all the way and is a snug fit all around. One other thing to note is that the sills of the gun port (the framing around the port) are recessed a bit into the hull planking (the thickness of the gun port lids) to make a cavity for the port lid to close into. The opening in the planking is a bit larger than the port opening between the sills. I make another simple wooden tool that fits snugly into the opening in the planking but is a bit smaller all around to be used as a guide for placing the port sills. This will make every port exactly the same size as all the others. Also, be very careful when scanning and then printing a plan. Many printers do not print the scale accurately. You are certain to have errors if you use the "fit to page" option. Even if you don't a printer may enlarge or reduce the size several percent relative to the scanned original. You may have to experiment and calculate the scale to use with your printer.

That is a truly amazing virtual model! My sympathies to the guy who had to tie the knots in the netting - I hate making knots in CAD! I have a few questions. What program did you use to make the model? What is the file format? Do you need a special viewer program? If so, what operating system is it compatible with (Windows, Linux, Apple)? Is it resident on the thumb drive or does it have to be installed on the computer?

allanyed, Your last picture (3rd rate 1650) certainly appears to have a line of belaying pins along the transverse rail (between the catheads) at the top of the forward bulkhead. They seem to have replaced the timberheads on the rails on the other models to belay lines. So it would seem that some ships had belaying pins in 1650 and others did not as late as 1719. I wonder where belaying pins originated? Perhaps the use of pins spread over time so were used earlier in some nations and later in others.

Wolfram zu Mondfeld's Historic Ship Models (pages 219-223) shows two methods of attaching bibbs to masts. One method used a round mast with a square cross section below the hounds, with single piece cheeks attached to the flats. The Neophyte Ship Modellers Jackstay shows a similar method. Note: cheeks and bibbs are sometimes interchangeable terms. The other method had a round mast with "filling chocks" below the hounds that were shaped to fit around the mast in the inside and with flat outer surfaces that the bibbs attached to. Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging (page 80) shows a round mast with flats on the sides below the hounds that the cheeks attach to. The cheeks were tapered, thin at the bottom and thicker at the tops. The cheek was a single piece and the mast appears to be carved with flats on the sides that the cheeks attach to. This was for mid to late 19th century clippers and ships. This looks something like the image you posted. I have also seen drawings showing a round mast that was tapered with flats on the sides that cheeks attached to, with the cheeks also tapered wider at the top. The flats on the mast below the hounds were conic sections - parabolas - with a curved bottom end. The cheeks were shaped at the bottom to match the curve of edge of the flats. Anatomy of the Ship Endeavor and some other AOTS books show a two-piece cheek/bib. The one on the left has the square cross section mast top with cheeks (14) attached to the mast and the bibbs (19) attached to the cheeks.. Hope this helps.

I have been plodding along with the gun rigging, which is very tedious and boring! I have also been studying the rigging on Baltimore clippers in order to determine 1) where the lines will fasten on the hull, and 2) how much rope I will need to build the model. The lengths and diameters of masts and bowsprit are a problem because no two "authorities" agree - and most formulas are given for full rigged ships and not schooners. I explained my rationale for mast lengths in an earlier post (#52). But the diameters were a problem. Some say the fore mast was larger diameter than the main mast on topsail schooners, and others say they were the same. Some say schooner masts are only 4/5 the diameter of equivalent length masts on square rigged ships. And it is likely that different builders used different rules according to their preferences. In my investigations I came up with a main mast diameter at the deck for this model to be between 0.34" and 0.43", with the fore mast being a bit smaller. I decided to make both masts the same diameter of 0.375" at the deck because this was within the range and 3/8" dowels are readily available. The bowsprit was another matter. In most schooners it seemed to be the same diameter at the base as the masts. Fincham's rules give lengths based upon the length of the hull on the water (Line of Flotation). For this model the Line of Flotation (LOF) is 64 scale feet or 16" and the bowsprit lengths are: Heel to cap = 0.33 x LOF = 5.28" Length outboard = 0.12 x LOF = 1.92" Jibboom = 0.4 x LOF = 6.4" with about 1/3 length overrlap with the bowsprit = 2.1" The angle (steeve) of the bowsprit to the waterline is given by the formulas as about 1:6 or 9.46 degrees. I examined drawings of 16 Baltimore clippers in Chapelle's book and found the bowsprit angles ranged from 4 degrees to 15.5 degrees, with an average of 8.375 degrees. Most were between 5 and 10 degrees. On the model as built the angle is 5 degrees - I can live with that. Now with these dimensions in hand I can start calculating how much rope, and what types, I will need for the model.

What is the topic of this thread? By the way, my dad loved tomatoes, but the "toxins" finally killed him at 98. Mother ate tomatoes too, and they killed her at 106. And that's the truth!

I have a cast iron skillet that is at least 70 years old. I wash it with soap and water and sometimes scour it with steel wool. After washing I put it on a burner and heat it momentarily to evaporate the water. It has never rusted and foods come away freely without sticking. I also have a large steel wok that I wash and scrub. I have always been told not to wash them and never scrub them. But I have always wondered if these aren't old wives tales, repeated by people who have always done things one way and never tried another. That reminds me of another tale. The first European settlers in North America found tomatoes growing here. They are in the nightshade family (as are potatoes), and some European nightshades have poisonous red berries. So the folk lore said to never eat red berries, especially in the nightshade family, because they will kill you. But someone failed to get the word and ate them anyway. He tried to tell people that they were edible, and quite good, but they didn't believe him. So he stood on the courthouse steps and ate a tomato in public! And he didn't die. I have been eating tomatoes and scrubbing my cast iron for nearly 75 years now, and neither myself nor the pans are dead and rusty.

Be careful using super glue on cloth or cords! It releases a lot of heat when it cures. I once used it to treat the unravelled ends of 1/8" drawstrings on a sleeping bag - mistake! They soaked up a lot of glue. After a minute or so the cords became very hot and started to smoke. I dunked them into a glass of water to avoid a fire.