Jump to content

Fritzlindsay

Members
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. None taken.😀 Sorry, sometimes words need a smiley face as nothing negative was intended. My bad Fritz
  2. Is there a reason you question this? Even her original 1765 version before the massive rebuild in 1803 had two wheels as can be seen in the contemporary model from RMG below. Victory today showing two wheels
  3. Thanks Gary I wonder why this would be the case. The same size men crawled up the shrouds and the ratlines. If the ratlines were basically nothing more than rungs on a ladder why would they have to be different sizes? I trust the information is correct, but wonder if there is some other reason such as more men on a given rung on the forward masts, thus putting double or triple the strain. Fascinating stuff one way or the other. Doing a little digging, a 3/8 inch fiber rope has a working load of a little over 800 pounds and 1/2" about 1400 pounds. Even with three men on one rung, wouldn't 800 pounds working load be sufficient to support their weight without having to go to the larger diameter rope? I am guessing there must be more to this. Now to add to my confusion, the picture above states all ratlines are 0.01mm. Assuming the model has a scale of 1:64 that makes them the full size equivalent of 0.025" diameter or less than one tenth of what they should be. My math may be off on this so any help here would be appreciated. Thank you again. Fritz
  4. Looking at your shrouds and ratlines with the neatly done clove hitches, it brings up a question that is no doubt a simple one, but I cannot find an answer. What was the typical diameter or the circumference of the ratlines? I am guessing it would be about the same for most if not all eras and nationalities or on any size ship or shroud even if the shroud circumferences varied from mast to mast. Thanks Fritz
  5. Thanks Fritz. I was thinking about my Cutty Sark when I wrote the post. It is now corrected to reflect your observation.

    Cheers, Peter

  6. Thanks for posting these photos. They give corroboration that actual ship's boats did not ordinarily have thwarts without any tholes at all. Fritz.
  7. What you are saying makes a lot of sense, but wouldn't that depend on the ship, nation and era. According to James Lees, in The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War the mizzen stay on English warships did not go to the deck before 1805. Fritz
  8. I may be misinterpreting your question but here goes. Installing topmasts after the lower shrouds are set up makes sense, but not the tops. The lower shrouds usually go through the tops/platforms so how could you rig the shrouds and deadeyes before hand? The picture may not be appropriate for your model as it is a drawing by C.N. Longridge in his book about building a model of the Victory. Fritz
  9. Five, maybe consider re-rigging the problem areas with a good quality miniature rope. Just a thought🤔 Fritz
  10. Druxey Would you agree that pinnaces would always/usually be single banked, set up with one thole per thwart as in the plans in post #17, alternating, rather than two tholes for one thwart and no tholes for the adjacent thwarts? Thank you
  11. There are a lot of contracts for ships, but I agree with you that boat contracts do not appear to be so common. I have seen contracts for a pinnace and yawl of 1790 and a contract for long boats from 1695 that include scantlings, so they do exist, but they are not so easy to find.
  12. Very true, but so will a platform as they are sloped a couple degrees toward midships which would allow the water to run to the bottom of the boat. Fritz
×
×
  • Create New...