Dr PR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My dad was a mechanic and carpenter. My first tools were whatever I could find in his tool boxes. But woe be to me if I didn't return them! When I was seven or eight I got a switchblade knife from my older brother (who wasn't supposed to have it) that I used for wood carving. One day I sharpened it razor sharp, and no sooner than I had finished it snapped shut on the knuckle of my index finger. Lots of blood and I could see the ends of the vein it had severed. Mom was a nurse and was in the bathroom bathing. I knocked on the door and said I had cut myself - I didn't mentioned the severed vein and pool of blood. She asked if it was serious or if I could wait a minute. Well I wasn't dying so I put my finger over the cut and waited. When she came out I had already put a band aid on it and told her it was OK. She probably would have wanted to put in a couple of stitches. I still have the finger but the scar has long since disappeared. I didn't get to keep the knife after Mom found out about it.

I use a narrow kerf hobby saw or jeweler's saw to trim the ends fairly close to the frame. Then I use coarse sandpaper (160 grit) to smooth things and finish with fine grit (320-400). I also have some files that work with most woods, but I think the sandpaper gives me better control. Just place a sheet on the workbench grit up and drag the grating across it.

Lees gives examples of sunsail boom lengths on page 194 for ships of 1716 and on page 204 for 1838. Stunsail boom length 1716 100 gun 1716 70 gun 1838 1st class 1838 3rd class 1838 frigate main yard length x 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.57 topsail yard length x 0.64 0.63 0.71 0.70 0.71 topgallant yard length x - - 0.80 0.78 0.79 The numbers are pretty consistent regardless of ship size. Maybe a bit smaller in the early 1700s than in the 1800s. Stunsail yard lengths Lees does say the sunsail yards were about 1/3 the length of the yard up to 1745 and then about half the length. However tables in the back of Lees (page 200) give actual dimensions. For a 110 gun ship of 1815 the stunsail yard lengths on the main mast were 0.37 (main yard), 0.4 (topsail yard) and 0.44 (topgallant yard) times the length of the yards. There are some variations in the numbers for different sized ships, but they are still in the range of 0.35 to 0.45 of the yard length. The tables on pages 194 and 204 also give stunsail yard dimensions for several ship sizes. Lees gives data for English ships. Some American ships of the 1812 period carried excessively large tophampers, so the spar lengths may have been longer. I wouldn't get too hung up on precise boom/yard lengths. These things varied with different ship builders and different periods. Close is good enough unless you have an accurate spar dimension table for the ship you are building.

Mike, Lees has detailed information in the back about the circumference/diameters of rigging. It is all based upon the mast diameter. However, the rigging dimensions are for the circumference of the ropes. Divide by Pi (3.14159) to get the diameter. I am attaching a spreadsheet I made for my current build, a topsail schooner. This spreadsheet contains most of the formulas for mast/spar/rigging dimensions from Lees and Mondfeld. However, some of the upper masts and yards that are not found on schooners were omitted. You have to enter the hull dimensions (explained in the drawing) in the appropriate green cells. CAUTION: Although the calculations for each part are valid for any ship, the second set of calculations are for the lower mast dimensions of schooners. Schooner masts were typically only 3/4 as large as square-rigget masts. So you need to pay attention to the part for determining mast dimensions (based upon the ship's beam). Once you know the diameter of your masts you can plug it into the appropriate green cell and all the calculations will be done automatically. I deliberately did not carry the calculations for mast dimensions through the whole spreadsheet. You have to enter the numbers in several places (green cells). In this way the first set of calculations are for full rigged ships, the second part for schooners, and the final rigging part is for all ships. The spreadsheet also calculates the proper block dimensions to be used with each rope size. Mast spar and rigging calculations.xlsx

Camber is also used today for the curvature of a road surface from side to side, higher in the middle. So i suppose it could apply to any surface that is curved to be higher in the center than at the edges. Webster's unabridged says it means curved higher at the center. It id of French origin. I don't have the Oxford English Dictionary to see when it was first used in English and what the meaning was then. I first heard the word with reference to the vertical tilt of automobile wheels (dad was a mechanic).

Druxy, Modern use of the term "camber" refers to the side to side (transverse) curvature of a deck, always highest at the centerline and lower at the deck edges. This prevents water standing on weather decks when in port. The longitudinal (fore to aft) curvature is called "sheer." The weather deck at the bow is typically higher than at midships. The stern may also me higher than midships, depending upon the ship. Any idea when "rounding down" became "sheer" and "rounding up" became "camber?"

rraisley, There were trusses, truss pendants and truss parrals. Often just the term "truss" is used for all three. Trusses were ropes fastened to the center of spars and run down to deck to help lowering the yards. Trusses pendants were rope rigging attached to a spar to hold it against the mast. Typically the spar was suspended from the mast with a rope sling that went over the cross trees and around the mast. On later ships an iron assembly supported the spar, at least the heavier lower spars. The rope slings supported the spar, but allowed it to push forward, swinging on the sling, when the wind was in the sail. The truss pendants held the spar to the mast and transferred the force of the wind to the mast, taking this load off the sling. There were two ropes, port and starboard. One end of the line was fastened around the yard to one side of the mast, looped around the mast and through a thimble secured in the line of the opposite truss where it was tied to the spar, and then the free end ran to a tackle. The opposite side truss was rigged the same way (see below). For smaller ships the free end ran down from the spar to a (luff) tackle on deck. On larger ships the free end ran up to a (luff) tackle attached to the trestletrees in the mast top. In either case both truss pendants were pulled taut to snug the ropes tight around the mast. Thus caused the force of the wind in the sail to be applied directly to the mast through the truss ropes. But when the spar was being rotated or raised/lowered the truss pendants were loosened. Here is a drawing of the sling and truss pendants on a smaller vessel (topsail schooner). In this case the truss pendants are run down from the spar to the tackle on deck. When the truss pendant are pulled tight they pull down on the spar in opposition to the sling. If they ran up to the mast top they would actually help support the spar and could actually be used to raise and lower the spar, although a separate halliard was normally used for this on heavier spars. Here is a quick and dirty top view sketch to show how the truss pendants fasten to the spar and around the mast. This shows the port truss pendant fastened around the spar, with a thimble looped into the rope. The rope then passes around the aft side of the mast to starboard and through the thimble in the starboard truss pendant rope. From the thimble it either runs down to the tackle on deck, or up to tackle attached to the trestletrees in the mast top. The starboard truss pendant rope is rigged the opposite way round, passing around the mast to port and through the port truss pendant thimble. The smaller/lighter topsail, topgallant and royal yards typically did not have truss pendants, although I suppose the topsail yards might have had them on very large ships. The topsail and topgallant yards usually had parrals, but the royals often did not. A truss parral was two ropes tied around the spar port and starboard like the two truss pendants with thimbles looped into the ropes, but without the pendants leading to tackles. A separate lanyard passed back and forth around the aft side of the mast and looped through the thimbles. When the lanyard was pulled tight and secured it worked like a parral. Wolfram Zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models" (Sterling Publishing Co., Inc, New York, 1989) is an excellent general resource for the parts and construction of sailing ships. On page 312 he describes truss pendants. James Lees' "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625 - 1860" (Naval Institute Press, Conway Maritime Press Limited, 1990) tells everything you ever wanted to know (and a lot more) about the rigging of English ships. Hope this helps.

Kieth, I have used 3M masking tape for decades. The older stuff "dries" and becomes very brittle. The adhesive fails and the paper flakes off after 20-30 years, leaving a crust of adhesive on the surface. I don't know if the newer tape is any better.

This thread has been very informative. I especially thank Cristiano for his drawings. I have know of the existence of latin (lateen) sails for decades, but never made a serious effort to learn how they were worked. Years ago I read a poorly worded description that said when the vessel tacked the lower end of the spar was held in place on deck and the spar (and sail) was lifted over the top of the mast! Or at least that is the way I interpreted the wording, and it made no sense at all! How are you supposed to lift something over the top of the mast? Use a sky hook?? Now I see how the sail and spar are swung around the mast, and it really is quite simple. A small crew can handle it. Thanks to everyone for clearing this up.

manic, Don't underrate first efforts. There is a learning curve, and getting other modeler's comments really helps. But something newbies often don't realize is that their "dumb" question sometimes cause the old-timers to stop and think. And the comments often reveal a multitude of ways to do the same basic things. Maybe there is a better or easier way than what the experienced modelers have been doing. There are no "dumb" questions, but sometimes the answers make you wonder!

turangi, I can't imagine Hong Kong without junks! There were dozens in the harbor at any time in the '70s, and thousands in the typhoon shelters (Aberdeen, etc.).

My first ship was a wooden minesweeper USS Cape MSI-2. In port, with the engines off, I could hear the lapping of the small waves against the hull. But it was a pretty low sound and things like generators and fans/vent ducts would drown it out. You could hear some things going on topside (like holystoning) but I don't recall footsteps. Like Gary said, in heavy seas you can hear (and feel) waves slamming against the hull. And as he said, ships do flex a lot, so there were a lot of creaking sounds. I never tried hanging over the bow to listen to the bow cutting the waves. The ship's top speed was 13 knots with a tail wind so it wasn't cutting through the water very fast. On the cruiser I was on I did occasionally hang over the bow and on calm days the stem made a hissing sound as it sliced through the water. I did sail on a square-rigger once (Lady Washington) and a thing I noticed was that after we left harbor under power (against the tide and wind) and were at sea, when they shut off the engine it seemed to be very quiet. The engine wasn't loud, only a low hum, but under sail in calm seas it was very quiet. Just the low sound of the wind in the sails and ringing. And a bit of creaking as the ship rolled and strains changed on the rigging.

rraisley, "Loose footed" means the foot (bottom side) of the sail is not laced to a yard, spar or boom. The two "cringles" allamyed refers to are rope loops at the lower corners of the sails where the handling lines are attached (tacks and sheets). Typically stunsails were laced to a stunsail yard at the top and loose footed at the bottom. Stunsail booms were attached to the regular yards, sometimes on top, sometimes below, and sometimes forward of the yard, depending upon the country, period and whether it was a naval ship or merchant ship (nothing about sailing ship rigging is simple one size fits all). A halliard ran through a block at the end of the stunsail boom or upper yard, through a block at the mast and down, and was used to haul up (lift) the stunsail yard . The lower outer corner (tack) of the upper sunsails ran through a block at the end of the sunsail boom on the yard below and then to a purchase below. The lower inner corner or sheet was attached to the inboard end of the lower boom and then ran down below. The downhaul line was attached to the stunsail yard at the top of the sail, ran down through a block at the lower outboard corner and then down to below. It was used to pull down the sunsail yard and sail. Depending upon how high up in the rigging the stunsail was set these lines either terminated at the lower mast top or at purchases on deck. Stunsails on the course (lowest and largest square sail on the mast) were hauled up to the end of the stunsail boom with the halliard as shown for other stunsails. However the lower outboard tack ran to a block at the end of a stunsail boom rigged to the side of the hull (not shown), usually at the channels where the shroud deadeyes were attached. The tack then lead inboard. The sheet ran inboard to spread the bottom of the sail. I have been wading through rigging plans for topsail schooners and have posted sail diagrams, definitions and some other information here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/?do=findComment&comment=787759 It is focused on topsail schooners but there is a discussion and drawings of stunsails that you might find useful. There are also general diagrams of sails and rigging and explanations of terms. Since you are making a model of the HMS Victory you would do well to get a copy of "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860," James Lees, Naval Institute Press, Conway Maritime Press Ltd., London, 1990. It is a very detailed book, although it can be frustrating because the author often uses undefined terms and assumes the reader already is familiar with the subject. Another very useful book for the ship modeler is Wolfram zu Mondfeld's "Historic Ship Models," Sterling Publishing Co., New York, 1989. It is a more general book about all aspects of sailing ship models but it has a wealth of knowledge and definitions of many of the obscure nautical terms relevant to wooded ship construction.

I use an inexpensive CAD program (DesignCAD 3D Max) to create the 2D and 3D drawings and produce image files. Sometimes I edit the images in a photo editing program (Photoshop) to add or remove details, text, etc., and to crop and resize images.

I made "cut" splices for the cascobels on the cannons on my current build. It took some research and a few attempts to find a way that worked well. I describe it in this post: Note: If for some reason for me the Forum refuses to use the correct link and this link opens at the first post go to the second page and scroll down to post #59. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=650378

Jud, Thanks. You are correct that the anchor was not let go from the cat hook! My error! Lever/Blunt "Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" doesn't describe letting go the anchor. However, it says that when the anchor was catted a rope stopper that was attached on one end to the cathead was looped through the anchor ring and then the free end was taken round a cleat on the cathead and hauled taut, and the end secured to a timber head and stopped. To drop the anchor it was lowered until it is hanging from the cathead by the stopper. The cat tackle could be used to carry the ring while the crown end is being lowered. Then the cat tackle would be slacked to let the stopper hold the anchor. The tackle would be tied back to clear the anchor. To let go the anchor the stopper was freed from the timberhead and allowed to slip off the cleat, allowing the anchor to drop. I will correct the original post. Of course, like everything else in the construction, rigging and operation of wooden sailing ships there was no single "correct" way to do things. There were different techniques used in different parts of the world and at different times. I do not know when pelican hooks were introduced, but I have read somewhere there was at least one other quick release "hook" in use before the pelican hook. I am familiar with modern (20th century) anchor handling: https://www.okieboat.com/Free steaming.html

Marcus, Thanks. But I am not an "expert!" I am a student and this is all a learning exercise. Keep that in mind. I'm sure others will find faults in what I have written and hopefully provide corrections. And as I have said many times, there was no one "correct" way to rig any vessel. There are a lot of exceptions to these rules! The spreadsheets are mainly for schooners and do not include everything about full ship rigging mentioned in Lees and Mondfeld.