Stockholm tar

Captain Al, I'm not sure about this, but the gaff on the mizzen mast may have been left more or less permanently hoisted. Most of the illustrations I have seen of 18th/19th cent. men of war have them aloft when at anchor and the gaff sail was brailed into the mast, it being loose-footed along the boom. Since the Bounty was rerigged when she was purchased, I imagine she would have followed naval practice in this too. The gaff probably had throat and peak halliards, but there may have been an extra span from the spar to the mast to take it's weight. The vangs would have secured the gaff from movement at its outer end. In passing, there would have been a topping lift to take the weight of the boom when the sail was not set, even though it is not shown on your plans. The peak halliard and vangs would only be of use when the gaff was in the hoisted position and would not have had any control of the boom, not being connected to it. I would think there was a crutch to hold the boom end, when the sail was not set. Hope this helps, but I am sure someone else may have the definitive answer.

Endless, I agree, they are not and this is sometimes how such models are displayed – although there are many other such models with the rigging belayed to pins. In reality even in port with the sails furled, the rigging would normally still be belayed to its pin.

Ropes on deck at sea are not usually feasible. To begin with, in any rough weather and has been mentioned, lines adjacent to each other would get tangled together, which is not a good idea, and there is the fact that they could potentially cause accidents, tripping etc. Then there is the damp problem. A wet rope on deck hold moisture far longer than one hung up and even modern ropes will disintegrate eventually through rot. The only real place for running rigging is for it to be belayed on its designated pin. From my own experience, the only time I have seen a large part of the 'spagetti' on deck is when the ship is tacking, wearing, or carrying out some other sail evolution. At most other times, the lines are coiled and tidily hung from their pins out of the way and ready for use Regarding the coils themselves, they are normally coiled on deck in an oval shape to begin with, and even hemp ones will sag under their own weight. Chuck, the coil in your first photo seems very small and not the normal size for most running rigging. Perhaps it was for some special purpose? To me, the coils shown on the models seem not to reflect the way things were done at sea, where all the above would apply, but rather perhaps a modelmakers convention. At that scale, perhaps they couldn't all be belayed in their proper places.

Tony, I've just spotted your post re. the horse, where you mention my effort! As you say, I had some difficulty in placing it. I seem to remember that I had to put it far enough forward so as not to impede the foremost guns, far enough aft to make it possible for the hatch to be lifted, and high enough for it to clear the anchor cable. Something of a tall order, but I think I made a reasonable compromise! Your height of 15" would seem about right. I also made it what I considered a suitable length, about 4cm, although I guess it could have been a little more. My reasoning was that the deck is cramped enough as it is and the sail could, within reason, be let out further with the sheet running through the blocks attached to the horse. Chuck's drawings were interesting, I had not seen those before. Here's the photo of my horse:

Hi Nils, No, it was always going to be a half model. I had thought of a full hull model, but at the rate I work, I thought that a half model wouldn't take so long! It would also be rather interesting. One day perhaps. Hope your not too disappointed?

Nils, You're Pegasus is looking superb – but then I expected nothing less – and love your 'maritime museum' with all those lovely models.

Re. the furled sails of Columbia and Cuauhtemoc, posted by Tadeusz, some foreign training ships tend to display their sails like this at Tall Ships events. The skipper of a vessel I was on asked one of their captains, at one of these events, why they left them like this and he said that it was because it looked 'artistic'. Our skipper thought it looked untidy and unseamanlike and believed that the sails should have been given a proper 'harbour stow.' I have to say that I agree – there's nothing more pleasing than a well stowed sail. Frankie is quite right about their actual stowing, although I would point out that the wind is also a factor in the way they are furled. I have stowed a few sails in my time and the mate, or whoever is in charge, was usually at pains to furl the sail properly, especially at sea where the wind can get into the sail and open it all out. Sometimes the crew would have to do it all over again, if he wasn't satisfied, and many of them had bruised knuckles afterwards!

Teal 2, The bowsprit angle is 30° from the horizontal, according to the book 'Anatomy of Nelson's Ships' by Nepean Longridge. This is quite an old book now, but still a valuable source of information about the Victory, since it was written from his scratch build of the ship for the Science Museum in London. (I have seen it several times and it is superb, although I'm not sure it is on display now.) The book would be useful for the rest of your build and you should be able to get it fairly cheaply, if you look around.

Joel, You're right, she had. Robin, You make some valid points, especially with regard to the spritsail. I wonder if Stanfield had perhaps seen the Victory when the davits weren't fitted, eg. in a refit, since they would likely be removed at such a time – or did he just overlook them? I'm sure you understand very well the artistic mind.

How about this painting by Geoff Hunt? It shows the Victory, followed by the Temeraire and Neptune, heading towards the enemy line at Trafalgar. You'll note the Victory has quarter davits, but the other two ships do not so is it that Victory, being the flagship, has the latest innovations yet to be fitted to other ships? Incidentally, it looks like all Geoff Hunt's paintings of Victory, circa 1805, show the davits. In passing, I would imagine he has done his homework: http://www.artmarine.co.uk/nelsoncollection.aspx

It would appear, from various sources, that quarter davits appeared on the larger ships of the line from around 1800. I can't find any definite reference as to when those on the Victory were introduced but McKay, in his AOTS book 'The 100 Gun Ship Victory', gives a date of 1803 in his inventory of the ship's boats. This included the two cutters launched from quarter davits, so they would certainly seem to be there prior to Trafalgar. Regarding the positioning of the stern kedge anchor Harland, in his 'Seamanship', says they were generally stowed in the main and mizzen channels, although McKay says that the Victory had one stowed in the starboard mizzen channel. (He doesn't, however, say how.)

Pat, Your assumption, regarding the design for the jack and that in the ensign, is correct. The diagonal St Patrick's cross was not incorporated into the Union flag until 1801, when Ireland became part of the Union of Great Britain. When added the cross was offset from the centre of the white diagonal – indeed the jack as we know it was designed so as to not upset, as far as possible, the sensibilities of the other nations of the Union. I'm not sure it worked 100%!

Mike, Good advice from Frankie. It's easy enough to overlook the mast hoops, which is what I did on my Sherbourne – forgetting them completely, instead concentrating on gluing the crosstrees, trestletrees and topmast and then stepping complete mast into the hull. Having calmed down (both in self and language ) I decided the only thing to do was make them out of metal (they were originally to be wood). I used an easily bendable aluminium strip, each cut off hoop first being painted a suitable wood colour and formed into a round shape slightly larger than the mast. These were then opened just enough to pass around the mast, before being closed up and attached to the sail. As with most problems, there is usually a way around it.

Captain Al, Catharpins are the lines which cross the ship from one side of the lower shrouds to the other, level with the lower end of the futtock shrouds running to the edge of the top. They were normally attached to a bar, the futtock stave, on each side. You can just see them in the top pic in Shihawke's last post, just below and behind the main yard. I believe their purpose was to tighten in the upper part of the shrouds, so that the lower yards could be braced further.

Shihawk, Captain Al, The ratlines of the lower shrouds go above the catharpins, to almost under the top. Btw the length of the main yard, on the 1:1 model, is 102' 4". Hope this helps.

Tony, It really, really, is too! Isn't that always the way, do one job and you find another.

George, Yes, great to see another Ballahoo – if not Ballahoo. You seem to have done some research on this, so it will be interesting to see the changes you make. As regards the windlass, I had wondered about this on Eamonn's build of Ballahoo. (I've actually wondered about Eamonn too, he doesn't seem to have been on the site for a little while). Anyway, I would have thought there was a windlass, and probably catheads, so I'd be inclined to add them – unless of course you find to the contrary. I agree with you, that the 'naval pipes' would have been of a later period, but I'm not sure the cables would have passed down through the forward end of fore grating. Hemp cables were usually very heavy, so were often/usually stowed in the centre of the ship, even large ones, in order to distribute the weight (particularly if wet) and so that the ship was not excessively 'down by the bow'. On the Sherbourne the cable passes through the fore end of the main hatch, which effectively is in the centre of the vessel – so it might be worth checking that point. In passing I'm inclined to agree that your drawings are without many of the fittings shown.

Tony, Very nice work overall – just to get the main stay down on top of the shrouds, like what that man said, and she'll be fine. I can't think why Petersson put it there, as I would have thought it a good place for chafe – rope against angled metal, not good.

Doh! Apologies. If you do mean the tack then ignore my earlier post.

Tom, In addition to what has already been said, according to John Harland in his 'Seamanship', a crossjack sail was introduced in the mid-nineteenth century but, not surprisingly, was not a great success for the reasons pointed out. In passing though, a surprising number of ships had one bent and even today many sail training ships carry one, judging by the photographs. It should be mentioned however, that most are furled! The one exception would appear to be the brig, where it is quite commonly used. With reference to the blocking of the wind from aft to the forward sails, I have seen modified triangular shaped crossjack sails, sheeted from the point in the centre of the sail and belayed in front of the mizzen mast.

Wabass, I take it you mean the staysail sheets? If so, then by 1812 I would have thought they were doubled.

Jan, Thanks, I had been looking for a diagram. Jp, As you can see from the diagram, the jeer blocks are attached to both the lower yard and the underside of the top and are a means of hoisting the former from the deck should they ever need to be lowered. They are normally kept in the hoisted position. Each jeer consists of two blocks (a single and a double, the latter being fixed under the top). One end of the jeer rope is fastened near to the centre of the yard (I think with a timber hitch), which then runs through all the sheaves in the blocks and so to the deck. Here, it normally passes through a sheave in the bitts at the foot of the mast, and is then made fast to a timber head or a cleat. You can probably see that there is also a parrel, holding the yard to the mast.

Jp, I don't know the model, or how you fixed the yards on the mizzen mast but, apart from any jeers, parrels etc. which are probably shown on your plans (if you can see them) a good tip is to also put a metal pin through both yard and mast, which will hold the yard firmly in place. It should, of course, be invisible so drill a suitably sized hole half way though both. Glue and insert the pin in the mast first, then similarly attach the yard, making sure the latter is horizontal. I think you'll find this will make the attachment of the other rigging etc., much easier. In passing perhaps another member here, building the same model, would be willing to copy his/her plans for you – but only if they are clear of course!

Captain Al, John, The reason behind the Bounty voyage was to collect the breadfruit and transport it, not to England itself, but to her sugar plantations in the West Indies – as cheap food for the slaves. I'm not sure who came up with this idea, but it may have been Joseph Banks who was on Cook's voyage in 1768 in the Endeavour. Whoever it was, obviously noticed that the Tahitians ate it as part of their diet and took the idea from there. So, the voyage was really an experiment – which failed dramatically on several counts. The Bounty of course was really too small, a converted merchant ship and, as has been pointed out, it was found that rather more space was needed for the breadfruit plants on the return journey than was expected – encroaching into living space and even Bligh's great cabin. Plants of course need water, so there had also to be space for additional water casks. One thing they had thought of was to send a gardener from Kew Gardens to tend the plants and I believe the voyage was specifically timed so that the young plants would be picked at the right time. Two other points that have been made were that the crew, apart from some of the officers, weren't hand picked which might perhaps have been the case on this particular voyage. This would have weeded out some of the troublemakers and prevented the subsequent horrific events, but it seems as though the men were drawn from the usual sources as for any other ship. Thus many of them didn't really understand or care about the purpose of voyage – to them it was just another ship. Perhaps one other glaring error was that the Bounty didn't carry any Marines, part of whose duties was to prevent mutiny and protect the officers. However, nothing can be guaranteed one hundred percent! Incidentally, a few years later Bligh did undertake a second breadfruit voyage which was successful and about which a book was written a few years ago. I can't remember its title, but I believe the ship was called the Providence. I think breadfruit, descendants of the original plants, still grows in the West Indies but have heard that the slaves refused to eat it. I'm not sure how true that is.

Glancing through Bligh’s log, I can find no reference to cotton bales being on board the Bounty and have never of heard this before. I am practically certain AL are incorrect here (they should have done their homework) and you would therefore be justified in leaving them out. Bounty was quite a small ship and I'm sure nothing was taken which wasn't needed. Their inclusion doesn’t make any sense anyway. Cotton was not grown in England, probably because the climate is too cold and wet and it was imported from America, India and other countries. In any case, why would they then transport them to Tahiti? Bligh had been there before with Cook, so knew that the natives made cloth from coconut fibres etc., ie., from what was grown on the island. They wouldn’t have needed anything else. There was no great trading scheme in place and, so far as I can gather, the items that were exchanged for the breadfruit were fairly simple things, such as mirrors, beads jewellery, some items of food, a few iron tools, etc., which seemed to satisfy the natives – at least at first. Bligh was later to find that other objects were ‘purloined’ by the natives and he had to lay down the law. Conversely, the natives were mystified – and somewhat amused – as to why Bligh wanted breadfruit, which to them was cheap, plentiful and not worth anything!