Dr PR

Paul, The configuration of both the peak and throat halliards is interesting because it reflects the limitations of tackle and the requirements for handling the gaff sails. First, the throat halliard. This line raises and lowers the end of the gaff close to the mast. On the left side is a line that is belayed to a cleat or pin on the bulwark, runs through a lead block attached to a ring bolt in the deck and up to a treble block (throat block) attached to the mast top and then down to the right where this line is fastened around a double block. The upper throat treble block is part of another tackle with a double block attached to a ring bolt in the jaws of the gaff. The left hand line passes around the treble block and down to the double block, back through the treble block and double block, and back up through the treble block and down to the right to the double block. The double block is part of a tackle with the lower double block on the right side attached to an eyebolt in the rail. The right hand tackle line is attached to the upper double block, runs through the lower double block, back up and around the upper double block, down to the lower double block again, and then back up and around the upper double block. The free end of the right line is belayed (fastened) to cleats or belaying pins on or near the base of the mast or to cleats/pins on the bulwark. The tackle on the right serves to raise the heavy gaff and attached sail. The tackle provides significant mechanical advantage for hoisting then load. But multi-block tackles are relatively slow. You have to pull three feet/meters on the free end to raise the single block one foot/meter. Sometimes it is necessary to lower the gaff and sail quickly. The left side line solves this problem - just loosen the end that is belayed to the bulwark and let it run quickly to allow the gaff to fall. I think this rig is unnecessarily complex, and I question whether any ship was actually rigged this way (of course if it is possible someone probably tried it at one time of another). Normally the throat halliard is rigged in one of several ways. The first was used on vessels with heavy gaffs and sails, and consists of a line attached to a ring bolt on the gaff jaws, passing through a single (throat) block attached to the top, with the line running down and fastened to a double block that is part of a luff tackle. The single block of the tackle is attached to a ring bolt on deck. The running part of the luff tackle line is attached to the single block, passes through the upper double block, back thorough the single block, over the double block again and the free end is belayed to a pin or cleat on the bulwark. The second was used on smaller ships with lighter gaffs and sails, and is a bit simpler. A luff tackle single block is attached to a ring bolt on the gaff jaws, and the double block is fastened to the mast head. The fixed end of the line is fastened to the lower single block, runs through the upper, lower, and upper blocks and down to the deck. This end could be belayed near the bottom of the mast, but this would provide a relatively slow way to lower the gaff. Or the end could be attached to a single (whip) block. The Whip line was attached to a ring bolt on deck at one end, ran through the whip block, and back down to a belaying point on deck. To lower the gaff quickly the whip line was released. A slight variation of the second method used a double block at the gaff jaws and the double block attached to the mast top. This gave a bit more mechanical advantage for raising the gaff. The method shown in your drawing appears to be a combination of the first two methods. With the mechanical advantage of the treble throat block I do not see why the right hand tackle was necessary. Of course the crew of the Pride II was not made up of burly hardened sailors so maybe they needed that extra mechanical advantage? I have the book "Pride of Baltimore" (International Marine, Camden, Maine, 1994) by Thomas Gillmer. On page 163 is a sketch of the sail plan of the ship, and it shows a two block throat tackle similar to the second method (a luff tackle with one end of the line attached to the lower block. How the free end of the tackle was belayed is not shown. Like many authors, after many pages of detailed description of the hull he says "Oh, yeah, it also had sails." **** The peak halliard shown in your drawings is rigged similar to the description above for the throat halliard, with right and left sides reversed. Instead of the treble throat block the peak halliard was rigged with three "peak blocks shackled to eyebolts." It shows the end of the left side going to one of the blocks (lower) and the end of the right side going to another (upper) block. Again, this seems a bit strange. Without the drawing of the gaffs I can't say how the blocks were arranged. Karl Heinz Marqiardt's "The Global Schooner (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 2003), James Lees "Masting and Rigging English Ships of War" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1990) and John Leather's "The Gaff Rig Handbook" (Wooden Boat Books, Brooklyn, Maine, 2001) show at least a dozen ways to rig the peak halliard, and none resemble what is shown in your drawing. Gillmer's "Pride of Baltimore" drawing shows something similar but distinctly different for both gaffs. The fore gaff peak halliard fixed end if secured near the end of the gaff. It leads through a single block attached near the mast cap, down through another single block attached near the midpoint of the gaff, back up through a third single block attached to the lower mast between the trestle trees and the cap, and then down to deck. How the free end is belayed is not shown. The main gaff peak halliard is fastened to a single block that is attached to the mast cap. The line runs down to another single block attached near the end of the gaff and back up through the first single block. From there is runs down to another single block attached near the middle of the gaff and back up to a fourth single block attached to the lower mast close below the mast cap. Then it leads down to the deck, and the means of belaying it is not shown. Both of these configurations are fairly common. In neither case does the peak halliard have two running ends. It would be possible to lead down from the top to a luff tackle on deck, as shown in your drawing.

You live in Medford and you dared post that comment?! Taunting Marines is one thing, but lumberjacks is another, especially when they live all around you. Here at the OSU College of Forestry you don't mention the "Lumberjack Song!" Are we off topic?

Dave, The size of the masts was based upon the beam (width of the hull at it's widest point). In some cases a more complex formula was used based upon the length of the hull, the width of the beam and depth of the keel. But in most cases the beam will be good enough. The sizes of almost everything in the rigging was based upon the diameter of the masts. The resulting circumference of the ropes was calculated from the mast diameter. And the sizes of the blocks was determined by the size of the ropes. Do not forget that rope sizes were specified in circumference! James Lees "Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Marylend, 1984) is the most common reference for mast, spar and rigging dimensions. However, it contains nothing for smaller vessels and fore-and-aft craft. Apparently someone posted a spreadsheet based upon Lees' formulas somewhere else on the forum but it is said to have errors. Lees was repeating the formulas used by the period shipwrights. I posted a spreadsheet with Lees' and Wolfram zu Mondfeld's ("Historic Ship Models," Sterling Publishing Co, Inc, New York,1989) formulas here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=801356 It is in Excel format and PDF format. It also includes several sets of formulas for schooners from period sources. Both the text formulas and spreadsheet calculations are included. Note that the left side of the spreadsheet lists all the formulas used to calculate dimensions, and in the spreadsheet version you can enter some information (in the green cells) about the hull size and the spreadsheet will automatically calculate almost all of the rigging dimensions. In the middle part you can enter the scale of your model and most of the scale dimensions are calculated.The right hand side is specifically for schooners. Schooner masts were only about 4/5 the diameter of full square rigged ships, so the resulting rope diameters are a bit smaller. But you have to enter your model's mast diameter in the green cells, so it can be used for any ship. However, it includes only the rigging found on topsail schooners, and is a bit abbreviated for full square rigged ships. Also, both circumference and diameters are calculated, since some model rope suppliers (and normal thread sizes) list diameters. WARNING: The calculations include many Imperial units conversions. Trying to change the spreadsheet equations for metric units will cause some strange errors. It is better to just convert the results of the calculations to metric. For schooners I recommend Karl Heinz Marquardt's "The Global Schooner" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 2003. He is as thorough as Lees in descriptions of how the masts, spars, rigging and sails were made for schooners.

A good way to remove the higher "lumps" would be to use a coarse file or rasp. Hardened epoxy actually machines something like a soft aluminum, although it is more prone to cracking and flaking. You can also carve some hardened epoxies. However, these tools are much more aggressive than sand paper, so start out gently until you get a feel for how much material you are removing. A rasp will leave relatively deep gouge marks. A file will leave a smooth surface. A rat tail file or rounded file will not leave sharp cut edges, but they also do not leave smooth surfaces. After you reduce the lumps and have approximately the correct faired surface, use hard grit sandpaper, as suggested above, to finish the job. For an even smoother surface finish it with fine (#0000) steel wool. Afterward you will need to clean the surface thoroughly to remove any remaining sandpaper grit or steel wool filings.

George, Your sail plan looks quite reasonable for a topsail schooner. The jib in your illustration is probably riding on the fore stay, so it might also be a called fore stay sail. Also, there is some ambiguity in the term jib boom. On some schooners a short boom was rigged at the head for the foresail nearest the fore mast, but I think this was a late 1800s or early 1900s configuration. For your vessel it would be the jib boom riding on the bowsprit. They were often hauled inboard in port so the vessel would fit into a smaller berth of moorage. When I first saw your post I wondered if the HMS Whiting was a topsail schooner? Howard Chapelle ("History of the American Sailing Navy," Norton & Company, New York, 1949, page 282) has a bit to say about the Ballahou, "The Ballahou and Landrail were ... tiny schooners 55' to 56' long on deck and about 18' beam, on a Bermuda design." Both ships were captured by the Americans, but later the Ballahou was recaptured by the British. In "The Baltimore Clipper" (Edward W. Sweetman Company, New York, 1958, page 60) Chapelle says "A favorite class of schooner was called the "Ballahou." These had "fore-and-aft sails of great hoist and no topsails." "This type of masting was also called the "Bermuda Schooner rig," at a later date."He has an illustration (Figure 14) on the next page that shows both gaffs hoisted almost to the tops of the single pole masts, one jib sail, and a loose footed fore sail (no boom). Harold Underhill ("Sailing Ship Rigs and Rigging," Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd.,Glasgow, page 11) shows a very different sail plan for a Bermuda rig: Underhill illustrates several Bermuda rig varieties, but the key feature is the tall triangular main sail. I respect both authors, so the definition of "Ballahou rig" and "Bermuda rig" is a bit ambiguous. However, your descriptions from Roach's log clearly describe a different sail plan, so theBallahou class HMS Whiting apparently was not a Ballahou rig! Figure that one out! A search for the definition of "ballahou" comes up with a schooner rig with the fore mast raked forward and the main mast raked aft. But Chapelle's illustration shows the fore mast raked slightly aft, almost vertical, and the main mast raked sharply aft. Fincham apparently said the same. My go-to book for schooners, especially topsail schooners, is Karl Heinz Marquardt's "The Global Schooner" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 2003). It is the "Lees" for fore-and-aft rigged ships. It has very detailed drawings of masts, spars, sails and rigging, and agrees with James Lees "Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1984) in most details of mast, spar and rigging dimensions. In Marquardt's book on page 47 he has good drawings of the Ballahou or Fish class of schooners. He says there were 17 of this class built in Bermuda, and another 12 copied in the Cuckoo class. He says these were of the "pilot boat model." Chapelle (The Baltimore Schooner, page 58 and 59) describes the 1805 Haddock class 75 ton schooners, saying the HMS Whiting was captured in 1812. He says pretty much what Marquardt says about the Ballahou or Fish class. On page 62 he says the pilot boat model rig was "probably a regular fore-and-aft schooner, without square topsails of any kind. They may have carried a square-sail yard when fitted for long voyages and may have had square topsails too, but this was not the regular rig." Unfortunately, none of the books I have give sail plans for the Ballahou/Fish class ships! There were small schooners of 80-90 tons and 55-60 feet on deck that were topsail schooners (I am modeling one) but they apparently did not carry a fixed topgallant. But, as you noted, they could carry a "flying" topgallant that was fixed to the spar on deck and hoisted aloft, controlled by the topsail braces and lifts. The fore course wasn't fixed in place on topsail schooners, but could be hoisted to the fore course yard when needed. There were a variety of configurations, pretty much like everything else on schooners! If the ship had stunsls (studding sails) as Roach says, it certainly had square topsails and a fore course. I will be interested to see what you find in the National Archives in London.

I was a Nuclear Weapons Officer in the Navy and had a Marine detachment to guard my spaces. I am pretty certain some of the Marines would take exception to CPO cid's comments about marine attire. The dresses they wore definitely were not sexy!

I have seen similar problems with photos in other programs over the years. In some cases it was the problem of the software that generated the photo (camera, phone, etc.). There are a lot of inexperienced programmers out there who are producing flaky software! In some cases the header information in the file was incorrect or didn't match the file type. For example, if a PNG file is renamed or saved as a JPG file, some programs will open it anyway and some won't. The solution is to open the file in a reliable photo editor (Microsoft MS Paint works fine, and it is supplied with every copy of Windows, or was up thorough Win 10). Just open the file and save it as a JPG file. This will write over an original bad JPG file and save it with the correct header info. C:\Windows\System32\mspaint.exe

Kieth, Beautiful work! I had a similar problem trying to figure out all the antennas and such on the spars on my Okie City model. I searched through Navy electronics manuals and found photos and dimensions for most of them. In your case, since it is a more modern vessel, you might try looking around on marine equipment suppliers' web sites. You can probably find equipment that looks like the things in your photos, and they usually have manuals telling the overall size and mounting footprint.

I have this book and it is a good way to "fall down the rabbit hole" just wandering through the illustrations. However, I find it is rarely useful for details of what I am researching. Often there are many versions of a particular type of equipment, and the versions illustrated just aren't right for my particular project. Still, it is an interesting starting point for understanding nautical mechanisms and terminology.

Dave, You certainly aren't the only one to have had problems deciphering the meaning of "mast length." The problem I have found is that different authors use different definitions for "mast length" and never bother to explain what they are talking about. For example, James Lees "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" never says what he means by mast length (at least I have been unable to find it after reading the book several times). We are just supposed to read his mind and know what he means. I'm not picking on Lees. Almost every other author I have read makes the same error - we are supposed to know what they mean. Harold Underhill is the only author I have found who says unambiguously what he means by "mast length." However, I have been able to figure out what most authors mean, and there are three different definitions of mast length that are used. I have attached a drawing illustrating the various ship dimension terms and measurements. The most common definitions of "mast length" are: Measured length - from the bottom of the mast heel (foot) to the highest point (top of mast head). I think this is what Lees means in his book. Underhill also uses this in most cases. Hounded length - this is the most commonly used definition. It is from the heel (foot) to the hounds. This is the length used in many of the period tables of dimensions. However the meaning of "hounds" is almost never given, leaving that to your imagination. The term "hounds" has numerous meanings among authors, usually the part of the mast the trestletrees of the top rest on. But some authors also include the part of the mast below the top where the cheeks attach, and one even says the hounds extend down 1/3 of the "mast length" (whatever that is). Usually the writer doesn't say if the "hounded length" extends to the bottom or the top of the hounds. Again, Underhill is the only author I have found that explicitly defines the term "hounds" (the point at the top of the cheeks that the trestletrees rest on). I have also found authors who used the "deck to top" and "deck to hounds" measurements for "mast length" but these are not too common. Mast length is often calculated from other undefined terms. "Breadth" or "molded breadth" is most common, and I think the meaning is clear (the "beam" in modern terms, or the widest dimension of the hull). However some formulas base the dimension on hull length, and, of course, they rarely say what they mean. For more modern ships it is the "length between perpendiculars" (distance along the normal load waterline between the foremost point on the hull - fore peak - and the aft most point on the hull -aft peak - which is the center of the rudder post on wooden ships). Some older authors use "length on deck" ((length of the longest continuous deck inside bulwarks) Many formulas use the "line of flotation" (length at waterline between rabbets - grooves in the stem (bow) post and stern post that hull planking fits into). Hope this helps more than it confuses.

Looks good! I like the way you made the "thimble" loop.

It is interesting that the binnacle was tied down with turnbuckles. This is a carryover from sailing ship days when the compass/binnacle was "portable" and normally tied down to eye bolts in the deck with lanyards.

After they fire the missiles the rear end of that thing is going to need a new paint job!

And there is the problem that the measuring devices used to design the vessels probably weren't exactly the same as the tools used to build them. Look at the yard sticks and measuring tapes used in modern construction and you can see significant differences in length. If you have ever taken measurements in modern house construction you know that actual construction is far from precise! I have five "accurate" rulers sold for drafting and engineering measurements from reputable companies like K&E, Staedtler-Mars, etc., and when I carefully line them up I can see as much as +/- 0.002 inch difference over a length of 12 inches. I'm willing to bet the rulers used in different shipyards a few centuries ago were not calibrated to very exacting standards! Plus, often there were no real plans. It was all in the head of the ship builder and whatever came out of the ways is what you got. No two ships of the same type would be the same dimensions. So don't sweat the small stuff. Good enough is good enough!

I am a lot like Roger. The guns we had in the Navy were 3", 5", 6" 8", etc. When I hear "155 mm" I instinctively have no idea how big that is. I have to stop and divide by 25 (25.4) or 150/25 = 6 to figure that it is a 6" gun. However, even though I am 76 and grew up in the US I really am not sure how many ounces there are in a pound or gallon! I guess I must have gotten some bad scores on tests in grade school. I think the people who came up with noggins, inches, furlongs, ounces (and Troy ounces),fathoms, pottles, bushels, firkens, kinderkins, pints, gallons, yards, chains, pecks, miles (and nautical miles) ... and all the other ridiculous Imperial measurements were a few cans short of a six pack! None of it makes any sense. No one in his right mind would come up with such a mess, and were are all stuck with it! All of the scientific work I have done was in metric, and that makes perfect sense to me! But it was in electronics design that some sense was worked into the Imperial system. We did everything in decimal fractions of an inch. Not true metric, but much better. To this day I think in 0.25", 0.125", 0.0625", and such units instead of 1/4, 1/8 or 1/16 inch. But even there some weirdness crept in. Transistors and integrated circuits originated in the US along with their packaging. Everything in decimal Imperial units. But when we started using parts from Japan and Europe I really had to scratch my head The units were metric, but the values made no sense. Why would anyone design a new part with a dimension of 1.27 mm? Or 5.08 mm?? Or 1.5875 mm?? Then I realized that the parts were being produced overseas in Imperial units (1.27 mm = 0.05" or 50 thousandths, 5.08 mm = 0.2 inch, 1.5875 mm = 0.0625 inch or 1/16 inch) but the data sheets used metric dimensions. That was really strange! But I got used to it and found it was easy to make part of a design in Imperial units and another part in metric. Whatever. I could have used cubits if necessary. The actual units just don't matter. Things are as big as they are no matter what units you choose to measure in. **** But in ship modelling I have a word of advice. Use the measurement system the original ship was designed in. This will avoid a lot of measurement conversions, and that invites errors. Also, sometimes the actual dimensions of a part are unknown, but you can make a close guess. It is far more probable that an old English or American shipwright worked in common fractions of the Imperial inch than in millimeters! Likewise, you wouldn't expect a French or Dutch shipbuilder to use Imperial units. To carry this idea a step further, I do all my design work in CAD. Over a period of 14 years I created a very detailed CAD model of the exterior of a 610 foot guided missile cruiser, including every part 3/32" (0.09375 inch or 2.38 mm) or larger. Approximately 1/3 of the approximately 1 million parts are rivets, screws, bolts, nuts and washers. Almost everything was based on the original builder's blueprints and drawings in technical manuals. I designed the model 1:1 scale - no problem in a computer where the virtual universe is practically infinite in size. This allowed me to proceed without wasting time converting measurements to a smaller scale. That reduced the chance for error. Of course, not all dimensions were in the paperwork, and I was only able to get a few critical dimensions by visiting the last remaining ship in a museum. But when I had to make "guesstimations" from photographs and sketches, I was confident that the mid 20th century US designers did everything in fractions of an inch or foot - 1/16, 1/8/,1/4 and 1/2. Every dimension in the blueprints and manuals used these measurements. In most cases guesses based upon the closest fraction fit seamlessly into the known dimensions. When I get around to finishing the 1:96 scale model I will just change the scale of the entire drawing to 1:96 and take my model measurements directly from the scaled CAD model. No time wasted with unit conversions and scale calculations.

DesignCAD 3D MAX can easily generate unlimited cross sections of a hull in the X, Y or Z planes (section lines, water lines and butt lines). The "Contour Line" function (Draw/Lines/Contour Line) will generate cross sections lines in any plane at any position. You set a point on the plane and tell the Contour Line function to generate an intersection line with the hull and an imaginary plane that passes through the point in the X, Y or Z plane. The transverse contour line through a hull is the shape of the frame. Basically it is the same thing as drawing a plane that intersects the hull and using the "Draw/Lines/Surface Intersection" tool, but without having to create the intersecting plane. I just create a series of points at the desired spacing along the length of the hull, create a contour line at one of them, then move the cursor to the next point and use the "F3" "Repeat" function key to repeat the Contour Line function, and so on down the line of points. But if it is something you do often you can write a BasicCAD macro program to determine the length of the hull, divide this into some number of equal spaces, and generate the contour lines for each section automatically. Contour lines are also extremely useful for fairing the curves of a hull. I create waterlines (horizontal plane intersections) at various elevations and then look at them length wise. If there is any slight kink in what should be a smooth hull surface it is readily evident, and easy to locate the point on the hull that needs fixing. For modern hulls where you have a Table of Offsets it is fairly easy to generate a CSV (comma separated variable) text file from the offset data and feed it into the program to automatically generate all of the curves. However, the engineers or draftsmen often made "typos" when they were entering thousands of numbers from calculations into the tables. These are usually single unit errors (1/8ths, inch or foot) that cause very noticeable bumps and dips in contour line waterlines generated on the hulls, and then corrections are easy. Here is an example of water lines and butt lines generated with the DesignCAD Contour Lines function for a Cleveland class cruiser hull:

Tommy, Good question. First, although there was a general "right way" to build masts that was passed down from generation to generation of ship builders over the centuries (word of mouth - no Internet), ship builders were also artisans who took pride in their work. And whoever commissioned/purchased the ship (merchant or Navy) set limits to the cost (time and materials). Consequently there were a lot of variations on the basic "right way." One of the problems with wooden masts is that trees could not be found that were tall and straight enough for really tall masts. So they were created in two or three parts, with each part "stepped" as in the Petersson illustration Barkeater posted above. This area where the two masts ran parallel was called the "doubling." They also needed platforms for sailors to stand on while working aloft. So the "top" was created where two masts were joined and the associated rigging attached. Just below the "top" the mast was round typically, although this is a very oversimplified statement! But at the top some structure was necessary to support the lower part of the upper mast and fasten it in place. The point where the mast changes from round to square is called the "hounds." Please do not ask anyone to explain why! But at the hounds several pieces of timber were attached to create the foundation for the top. Two fore-and-aft wooden boards (rectangular cross section) or "trestletrees" were attached on either side of the lower mast. Note: In the Petersson illustration forward is to the left for most, but not all, ships. To make the trestletrees fit tightly the mast was carved square. These two trestletrees formed the sides of a pocket the upper mast fit into. You can see these in Petersson's illustration. The square mast section prevented the trestletrees from trying to rotate around the mast. Two or more "crosstrees" (also rectangular cross section) were attached behind the lower mast top and forward of the upper mast bottom or "foot." You can see these in Petersson's illustration. Again, having these parts of the masts carved square made the cross trees fit tightly. On the higher masts the cross trees were all that were provided. But on lower mast tops of larger ships a platform was sometimes built on top of the crosstrees. OK, we have described the lower part of the doubling where the two masts ran parallel. The top of the doubling was the "cap". This is the rectangular wooden piece at the top of the lower mast in Petersson's illustration. The hole for the lower mast was square. This was to ensure that the top couldn't rotate around the mast. So, with the lower part of the lower mast doubling square to accommodate the trestletrees and crosstrees and the upper part square to fit the cap, it was easiest to just make the entire part of the lower mast doubling square. Of course, it really isn't that simple. The hole in the cap where the upper mast fit was round and the upper mast tapered above the cap. Below the cap it was typically cylindrical, or maybe octagonal, but slightly smaller diameter than the hole in the cap. The bottom or "foot" of the mast was square and sized to fit into the pocket formed by the trestletrees and crosstrees. This was so the upper mast could be lowered and raised through the hole in the cap and the pocket between the trestletrees and crosstrees. The whole thing was designed to be taken apart and rebuilt at sea! And that is a long story! Then you must add to this the variations in design that resulted from cost conscious jobs and the very elaborate variations where elegance was more important than cost. In other words, on fancy ships the upper part of the lower mast and lower part of the upper mast were often carved octagonal, or square with octagonal sections, etc. "Tricked out" in modern terminology. If you really want to know how masts were assembled and repaired get one or both of these two references. They explain how ships were built and operated in the age of sail - from the horses mouth!: "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" by Darcy Lever (1808) and updated for the US Navy by George Blunt in 1858. Everything you ever wanted to know and a lot more! "The Art of Rigging" by George Biddlecombe (1925), a republication of David Steele's "The elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship" (1794). You can also find Steele's original work on line in PDF form. For mast plans and a LOT more look at James Lees' "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860", Naval Institute Press, 1984. But it is specific for British ships (a strong influence on American practice), and says little about smaller rigs, especially fore and aft rigs of schooners, cutters and such. A very good general reference (get this if you don't get anything else) is Wolfram zu Mondfeldt's "Historic Ship Models", Sterling Publishing Co., New York, 1989. Again, everything you wanted to know and a lot more. He explains the historical development of a lot of the parts of sailing ships. Harold Underhill's "Masting and Rigging of the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier", Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd., Glasgow, 1972 (mentioned above) is the best written and most useful reference I have sound for sailing ships, especially for understanding the arcane terminology. However, he describes ships of the late 1800s and early 1900s, so it is of less usefulness for earlier ships. If this isn't enough just ask and we can supply references to a dozen or more other useful books!

Jaager, CAD programs have many different ways to draw arcs and circles. All have the ability to set a center point, another point on the radius, and then set the length of the arc with a third point. You can set the center and radius points and define the angle. Other arc functions allow setting three points and generating the common arc or circle, set two points on the arc and a third for the radius, draw an arc tangent to a line, etc. Spline curves are universal, but it can be difficult to create a specific "French curve" or similar variable radius arc. But if you know the geometric definition of the particular curve you can generate a sequence of points and connect them with a curve. I use a program called DesignCAD 3D MAX that sells for about US$95 (there is a 2D version for about US$65). It has an excellent user forum (probably the most important thing for starting a new program) that is free, and the program does not have recurring subscription costs. It has the best user interface I have seen in any program. BUT - it is a CAD program, and all CAD programs have a pretty steep learning curve.

The US Navy changed to "Ocean Gray" in the late 1940s. We were still using it during the Vietnam War. I have also heard this called "Haze Gray" so maybe the Navy changed the name again. But it definitely was not the Haze Gray of WWII - the WWII color was far bluer than the Ocean Gray/Haze Gray we used in the '60s and '70s. I went to a local Sherwin Williams paint store and they had a catalog of official US Navy colors. They found the correct mix for "26270 Haze Gray:" BAC COLORANT OZ 32 64 128 Y3 - Deep Gold - 8 1 - R2 - Maroon - 14 1 - L1 - Blue - 32 - 1 Quart EXTRA WHITE I'm not sure what this means in terms of mixing model colors, but I am guessing these proportions of yellow, red and blue shades were mixed into white paint to get the Haze Gray color. You might ask for a translation at a paint store.

Tim, A source for precut tiny sections of small diameter metal tubes for thimbles and such is the jewelry section at Michael's or some other craft store. They have a selection of wires and small fiddly bits for home jewelry making. This includes some fine threads that look like wire cables, and a selection of small chains.

According to Howard Chapelle there was no established naval color rules in 1815 for the U.S. Navy. But many ship builders, owners and Captains followed the colors used in the Royal Navy. In the early 1800s this was black hulls above the water line with yellow bands along the gun ports. But some American ships started sporting white bands along the gun ports about 1810-1820. A very strong influence was the availability and cost of various paints. Commercial vessels were usually painted with inexpensive paints. Bright colors generally cost more than black and white. And the white used on hulls below the water line wasn't actually a "paint." It was a mixture of tallow, white lead and who knows what else. In "The Baltimore Clipper" (Edward W. Sweetman Company, New York, 1968, page 170) Chapelle says: "The painting of the hulls seems to have varied widely as yellow, black, green and blue were used, with white or black bands. On privateers, the inside of the bulwarks were often painted red or brown, but the decks were usually bright [unpainted]. Yellow and black were popular colors, however, for pilot boats in 1812-1814. They had yellow sides with black moldings, wales or trim. Very few were painted white, as it made them too prominent at a distance, which was considered naturally, a handicap during the war." Reading other sources it appears that deck fittings were often the same color as the bulwarks, or unpainted. White deck furniture didn't appear in the US Navy until after about 1835, about the time standardized color schemes were adopted.

Bob, I agree that pine tar is pine tar, although there might be slight differences between species. It isn't hard to make - I made some myself when I was in high school. What am curious about is how it was diluted, and with what, and what consistency it had when brushed onto the ropes. There is a wide range of possibilities, as discussed earlier in this thread. And this means the actual end results could have varied significantly over time and geography. And I certainly agree that examining a small number of artifacts doesn't tell us how all ships were built. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the (relatively) long chain hydrocarbons in turpentine and tar have antibiotic effects. I'm not sure what the specific mode of action is (it has been a very long time since I studied this), but possibly it interferes with cell membrane integrity. This is something sailors of old wouldn't have had a clue about, but tarring the natural fiber rigging would protect it from microbial degradation.

Bob makes some very good points, but I have to disagree with him on one score - and agree with a point wefalck made. Bob describes his experiences as a youth and later in life working on a real vessel with deadeyes and such. He describes the materials he used and provides photos of some of them. I do not question any of this - he is the best authority on his own experiences, and I accept what he has said as fact. However, given the limits on human age I think it is a fact that Bob's experiences were in the last half of the 20th Century and the early part of the 21st. He does not have first hand experience of the 17th, 18th and 19th century (none of the rest of us have either). So even though his arguments are very convincing, they are not facts, but only opinions of what might have been done centuries ago. Well formed and substantiated opinions, I might add. Furthermore, it has been my experience that no two ships were alike, and no two crews alike. Even when there are "standards" within an organization, there are often exceptions made on some vessels, sometimes unauthorized. And there are many variations between nations. So I am highly skeptical that there was just one way to rig deadeyes, in every nation, and throughout all time. Of course, some variations have been discovered from artifacts and old writings. Bob makes a very good point that we cannot depend upon modern practices and materials in modern vessels be authentic to historical methods, especially when new synthetic materials are used for rigging. That could explain why modern vessels have different colored lanyards. In fact, I have noticed that three modern French schooners, including two sister ships used for training in the French Navy, have light colored lanyards. Yet American built schooners appear to have black lanyards. So these colors may just be "fashion." And I hope never to see a ship rigged with purple synthetic lanyards! But if fashion plays a part in the appearance of ships today, it may well have done the same in times past. **** What I have been looking for is a authoritative description that was written centuries ago (from the horse's mouth) telling how to perform all of the steps leading up to rigging and using deadeyes, and how to prepare all of the materials. I have yet to find such a work, and even if I do it will still be just one man's opinion of how things should be done. But it would at least be a reliable source of a way things were done and the materials that were used for that period. Darcy Lever's "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" (1808) tells how to rig a ship, and describes different rope lays and such. But the only thing I have found about making ropes and lanyards is a description of naval and commercial methods for making spun yarn (section 2). There he mentions "tar" (but doesn't say what that is) and says "upon every three or four fakes Tar is rubbed on with a Brush." That leaves a LOT to the imagination! Falconer's "Universal Dictionary of the Marine" (1769) says the rope yarn (Rogues -yarn) that was "placed in the middle of every strand, in all cables and cordage in the king's service ... differs from all the rest, as being untarred ..." Falconer does say "tar" was used to preserve the hull and rigging from the effects of weather, and says "tar" was a blackish liquid gum distilled from pine or fir trees. So tar was used to preserve rigging in the 1700s, but we already knew that. I can't find anything in David Steel's "The Art of Rigging" (1796) or George Biddlecombe's 1848 revision for the US. Navy about tarring rigging. Likewise half a dozen other books that describe how to make masts and spars say nothing about the rigging other than giving formulae or tables of dimensions for the ropes. I think wefalck described the process for making Stockholm Tar in some thread on the Forum. But we can be certain that not every ship had access to the real stuff from Stockholm. (Think of the early American Navy during the wars with England when American ports were blockaded) So some type of "tar" was probably concocted locally rather than using a commercial product being sold world wide. And that means local materials were used, and that means variations. Chapman's "Architectura Navalis Mercatoria" (1820) mentions "coarse" and "Clean" Finland tar but says nothing about what it was or how it was made. And that is all I have found describing period practices. There isn't much "fact" to go on. But I may well have missed something in the books I cited, and there most likely are other period works that I am unaware of. I will appreciate it if someone can provide other evidence to guide this discussion. **** So with nothing else to guide me I intend to follow Bob's advice and use dark lanyards on my deadeyes. It is as good a choice as any!

I second what Roger said about going to an eye doctor. I had extraordinary eyesight as a kid, and when I went into the Navy at 23 they tried to get me to be a pilot because of my eyesight. When I got to 40 my eyesight started downhill, but was still 20:15. Over the years I used a series of ever increasing magnification cheap store-bought eyeglasses to correct the changes, but eventually went to an ophthalmologist when I was in my 60s and my vision was 20:45. She prescribed progressive lenses that corrected back to about 20:15! It was an amazing improvement. But that was 12 years ago, and things have continued to go downhill. Now even with new glasses that correct my right eye to 20:20 I have trouble reading small print and text on the computer screen with my left eye, and it can't be corrected with glasses. This really interferes with modeling - both CAD and physical! A visit with a cornea specialist revealed serious distortion of the cornea due to a growth that was induced by UV light (I have always hiked a lot). So corrective surgery is coming up early next year. Then I probably will have new lens implants. We don't know just how much improvement all this will make, but it is pretty much guaranteed to eliminate the distortion. I was reluctant to go to the eye doctor. But it has paid off. Every time they have improved my vision. And that is priceless! My mother had similar problems, and when she was in her 80s she had some type of eye surgery. I called her afterward to see how she was doing and I could tell something was not right from the tone of her voice. "I didn't realize I had so many wrinkles" she said!

I have several cheap headband magnifiers that I picked up over the years as my eyesight went downhill. They are very useful. Some have a flip-up lens that doubles the magnification, and this is very useful. One has an extra circular lens that can be swung into position in front of the main lens on the right, and it is useless. The simple screw mounting will not stay tight and this lens just flops around and is an annoyance. These all have plastic lenses and slip-adjustable head bands. The plastic lenses have scratched a bit over time. Recently I bought another OptiVISOR "head-wearing magnifier" that has four switchable glass lenses. It isn't as convenient as the flip-up dual lens reg described above, but the lenses are much better. You have to snap out the lens and snap the next lens in, but this doesn't take much time. How long the plastic snap parts will last is to be determined. It has a knob-adjustable head band that didn't work - it was jammed - when I got it but I fixed it in short time. It also has knobs to tighten the position of the lens on the head band, but these don't work very well and I occasionally have to tighten them again to keep the hood from dropping onto my nose. But this really isn't much of a problem. The four interchangeable lenses are 1.5X, 2X, 2.5X and 3.5X magnification, with focus distances from 20 inches to 4 inches. I have been using the 3.5X lens.