jud

While keeping up with what lambsbk is doing with his hawse holes and the breast hook, it made me to wonder about the use of the configuration of those hawse holes and capstan to hoist the anchor. Would work well to take in the scope but when the cable became almost up and down, the angle at the hawse would act as a brake and the sharp turn would damage the cable. When the cable reached an almost up and down position was the capstan secured and the lift taken over  by the cat rigging using stoppers to reset the lifting block to the cable after each two blocking of the rig?
jud

Stoppers could have worked while re positioning the lower block on the cable. Have knocked the keepers off of pelican hooks holding the anchor chain and have been at the capstan when hoisting the anchor, taking in the chain when unshackling from a buoy, taking a strain on  bow lines and even used a capstan once to pull a 40mm gun out of battery. The hawse hole, chocks or blocks were used to lead the chain or lines to prevent sharp angles in all of the above. Have pulled rope around sharp angled corners and know what it does to the rope and if wood, what happens to the angle point on the wood itself, chains usually hang up in such conditions, so my question is based on experience. The hawse holes on the Constitution and ships so rigged would destroy themselves and any cable pulled through them with any strain at a near 90° angle, even a light load would do it, something missing in how the evolution was accomplished. Those old boys went to a lot of trouble to use blocks, bits, guides and fraping gear, to prevent damage to all their running and standing gear, the same care was also needed for the anchor cable and chains, those needs resulted in changes in how the hawse pipes were used to lead the cable, 'chain', out of the ship. Not a light question for me, I see a problem and I wonder how it was addressed. Have thought through how I might do it, but that is not the same as doing it or hearing from someone who actually needed to lift an anchor with that gear and hawse hole configuration. Not worth arguing about, but will continue to wonder how the anchors were lifted, I have a strong suspicion that the whole picture has not been reveled yet.
jud :)

Mark, thanks, I had seen that before and it bothered me then, it is only a solution to taking in the cable when the cable is lead out ahead of the ship, be a good way to move the ship against the wind or current until it was near the anchor. When the cable was up and down, the cable coming outboard of the hawse would bend down 90° when tension was created by the capstan pulling against the anchor that would have been under the bows, creating the up and down position of the cable.  More  modern hawse pipes  that lead the cable outboard from the powered capstan outboard do not allow an angle to develop as a hawse leading horizontally outboard does when the cable is up and down. That cable being pulled around that sharp angle would not only act as a brake but would damage the anchor cable. My question is, what was done to overcome that problem. I suspect that the cat was used to do all of the vertical lifting when recovering the anchor.
jud

I think one gets easily tricked by the fact an iron anchor as a very heavy object. 
 
Just some thoughts to jud´s interesting question: The cat hook is to be hooked in as soon as the ring breaks the surface. This can be seen nicely on the famous picture of the Royal Sovereign with the little man standing on the anchor´s stock handling the cat block´s hook.
 
At this moment the weight of the anchor is far less as it is not its weight of iron but only the one of the displayed water, which is - if I am right - 1/7th of the weight of iron. Afterwards the cathead, cat tackle and all the other rigging parts of the fishing rigging have to take the whole weight of the iron.
 
As the ship is always drifting with wind and current, the anchor cable always will have a certain direction a forehead. The ship should neighter run over the anchor, so a turn backwards of the cable was less favoured. Also breaking the anchor was often done by the big boats means there should usually not be the pull spill-hawse-downwards. 
 
So the pull downwards is far less than expected imho, but I do strongly believe, that a ship an a long cable, especially in a strong gale, will pull with a multitude of the anchor ´s weight. So it makes for me perfect sense to have the hawsers horizontal for that case, means in the direction of the ship pulling on the cable and having the minimum of breakage risk or chafing in those moments :-) 
 
XXXDAn

There was no way to reposition the cable to the cat, and (particularly on larger vessels), the messenger was below deck, not on the upper deck with the cat. As Zeh pointed out, the cathead was for final stage as the anchor cleared the water for stowage.

Hi Jud
 
When you start heaving the anchor you're trying to get an object weighing about 1500 tons moving.
That's the moment the chain or cable is under the greatest stress, once you get the ship moving it's easy.
When the anchor is up and down you have to contend only with someting like 3 tons, unless the anchor is fouled 
on the bottom, that bend really acts as a brake, but is not under enough stress to damage the cable.
As an aside, on ships with weak anchor winches or capstans we would go dead slow ahead as we started heaving to
overcome the inertia of the ship then stop  and let the capstan carry on.
 
The cat can only be used once the anchor is out of the water so that the tackle can be hooked to the anchor and the main purpose 
is to move the anchor from the hawseholes (where it would eventually end) to the side of the ship to then be stowed.
 
 
All the best
Zeh

Think that a cow hitch is used on the outside schrods and clove hitches between, takes advantage of the natural lay of the hitches. Been looking at the constrictor knot, it might be the better knot for the ratlines, replacing the clove hitch. popeye2sea suggested the constrictor on another post, probably a knot used by grandad on the ears of grain sacks, to start and finish sewing the tops closed, a knot I haven't used but see some use for it.
jud

Think that a cow hitch is used on the outside schrods and clove hitches between, takes advantage of the natural lay of the hitches. Been looking at the constrictor knot, it might be the better knot for the ratlines, replacing the clove hitch. popeye2sea suggested the constrictor on another post, probably a knot used by grandad on the ears of grain sacks, to start and finish sewing the tops closed, a knot I haven't used but see some use for it.
jud

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.
jud

Going along very well Dashi.
I am nearly convinced to add a "transom" under the tiller of my build.
If I can get it under their now.
 
Dave R

Thanks for the likes and thanks Ron. I think Pat has offered a really good interpretation of this log entry to my question in the discussion I started on this and which could alter my representation of that tiller transom as Cook calls it. Certainly worth dropping in to check it out http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/13109-hmb-endeavour-tiller-and-steering-question/. 
 
Cheers Dashi

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.
jud

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.
jud

Hi Gentleman,
 
have you seen this little video here ?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWYWphMtZZg
 
Tom

Hi folks, to get back the the key discussion here, I think it prudent (for the time being) to ignore the technical definition of what exactly is a "transom" and concentrate on whether a tiller support was fitted (and when).  Once this has been determined, its naming convention can be sorted later?  Only a suggestion!
 
Druxey, I agree WRT hard fact, but I think this discussion was not trying to establish hard fact for the existence of the Tiller Support but whether such a device was a possible fit (at some stage) as implied by "interpretation of several cited log/ entries, and the curved device shown on one of the draughts - that latter part is fact as it is drawn there - but what is it?  That part can only remain conjecture unless hard evidence is found.  I think (correct me if I am wrong) that Dashi is trying to establish what this was, but we may never be able to truly determine that, but could arrive at some very real possibilities?  Similar to the yet to be fully resolved issue of whether Endeavour was fitted with bumpkins/boomkins?  I don't think there is any harm in postulating as long it is recognised that is simply a postulation?
 
The log text cited by Dashi, indicates that Cook had been experiencing troubles with the tiller for some time and that he set his armourers and carpenters to work to try and resolve the issue; and with some success in NZ.  This included fixing the iron work, including the 'braces' (still to be defined).  From my naval experience, fitting a 'jury' rig to overcome a design deficiency, or temporarily fix damaged equipment, is not unheard of (and probably acceptable back in those days also), and if the fix proved satisfactory to the task, could be formally submitted as a design change and eventually included in the ship's official drawings and if necessary, also updated in the related technical documentation.  This  approach forms the basis of my interpretation of the cited text. 
 
What I am suggesting, and is only one possible interpretation of the cited text, is that Cook may very well have contrived a jury rigged support for the tiller (in addition to fixing transom timbers, metal work etc) to overcome the issues he was experiencing, and that on his return to England, submitted the results of this "fix' in his reports to the Admiralty.  This may then have been formally included in the 1771 refit (and may therefore be the basis of the drawn curved shape in the draught - it may also have been a steering compensation device, or even a combo of both - we will probably never really know?).  Cook was the type to try new or different things, and such a support would certainly have assisted in bearing the load of the tiller arm.  As an example of Cook's willingness to try different solutions, there is a Parkinson drawing (I think it is Parkinson) which suggests that at some stage he also rigged a spare spar across the transom to provide additional flexibility to the working of the mizzen/driver (let's not deviate on that discussion here though ).
 
In summary, I am suggesting that Cook must have tried several options to resolve the many tiller issues he cites in his log/journal.  From what I have been able to determine, I do not think a tiller support was fitted in the 1768 refit, but it is possible that some form of tiller support may very well have been contrived as a jury rigged fitting during the voyage, and later formally accepted and fitted during the 1771 refit. One interpretation of the cited text infers a 'fix', but at best, the statement is a little ambiguous in that it does not directly state it was a tiller support, but it also does not eliminate it.  Therefore I submit that we should not ignore it?
 
Ranging shots complete; fire for effect
 
cheers
 
Pat

Thought I'd repost these so they don't get lost under the recent posts.

Thanks Jud. I was starting to wonder what was going on also? 
The Encyclopaedia Britannica page does mention such a thing as a Tiller Transom in reference to shipbuilding when the tiller exited the stern in earlier ships which I think Jud is pointing out also.
 
I wonder if it is possible that it is this earlier terminology Cook was drawing on to describe this transverse support timber that he got the carpenters to fix as a tiller support in place of those iron braces? I see the annotation as an attempt to clear up possible misconceptions that may have arisen here because of Cooks use of this term. Therefore I don't think we should dismiss this annotation which indicates that Cook is referring to the carpenters as fixing a transverse timber under the end of the tiller as a support.
 
 
Pat's answer seems to stack up the to the evidence and as I've already stated my representation could be wrong in light of this.

Pinched from dashicat post # 97;
From the entry for Saturday 27th January from the book, 'First Voyage Around the World: Captain Cook's Journal During his First Voyage, Page 272, Cook writes:
 "Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor'd at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom,* for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply'd the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair'd."
 
*The reference at the bottom of page 272 states: * A transom is a curved piece of wood which supports the end of the tiller.
 
https://books.google...transom&f=false
 
I would expect that all who have read Cooks words would agree that he is speaking about the tiller, that term defined today is as it was in Cooks day. Transoms as the term is commonly used today, have nothing to do with steering except in a few cases, nor is it common for ships to have their steering gear attached to a transom. Transoms are used today as attachment points for outboard motors, sometimes a steering oar can be used with the transom. Rudders also get attached to small boats by anchoring them to the transom, if there is no stern post.
 
Why is there so much resistance to the tiller supporting arc being added by Cook to prevent future problems with his steering gear? Since that is not logical, it makes me wonder.
 
We know he was having problems with his tiller, it was breaking reinforcing bands, the only place where there was iron reinforcing was at the rudder post head,  the attaching point between the tiller and the rudder post, serious stuff when you are traveling around the world looking into inlets, negotiating island and reef clusters not to mention heavy seas. The Endeaver used the stern post as the attachment point for her rudder, not a transom, the rudder post did pass through the transom area but just as in other ships, it passed through, not attached. Cook did need to do some structural repairs to his hull, he beached his ship to do it, no mention of structural repairs was made to the hull in the stern area. The most logical solution of a design flaw  would be to put in place something that would relieve the destructive forces that were causing the problem. When faced with a problem, you repair it and do what you can to prevent it from happening again. Cook did that by putting in place, an arc shaped support for his tiller, it worked. The best proof of that, would be that Cooks fix showing up on drawings for her refit after the voyage.  I'm sticking with the arc and also the voyage was mostly in tropical waters, the chimney was probably removed and Cook kept his chickens in the stove so the eggs weren't stolen.
jud 

Pinched from dashicat post # 97;
From the entry for Saturday 27th January from the book, 'First Voyage Around the World: Captain Cook's Journal During his First Voyage, Page 272, Cook writes:
 "Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor'd at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom,* for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply'd the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair'd."
 
*The reference at the bottom of page 272 states: * A transom is a curved piece of wood which supports the end of the tiller.
 
https://books.google...transom&f=false
 
I would expect that all who have read Cooks words would agree that he is speaking about the tiller, that term defined today is as it was in Cooks day. Transoms as the term is commonly used today, have nothing to do with steering except in a few cases, nor is it common for ships to have their steering gear attached to a transom. Transoms are used today as attachment points for outboard motors, sometimes a steering oar can be used with the transom. Rudders also get attached to small boats by anchoring them to the transom, if there is no stern post.
 
Why is there so much resistance to the tiller supporting arc being added by Cook to prevent future problems with his steering gear? Since that is not logical, it makes me wonder.
 
We know he was having problems with his tiller, it was breaking reinforcing bands, the only place where there was iron reinforcing was at the rudder post head,  the attaching point between the tiller and the rudder post, serious stuff when you are traveling around the world looking into inlets, negotiating island and reef clusters not to mention heavy seas. The Endeaver used the stern post as the attachment point for her rudder, not a transom, the rudder post did pass through the transom area but just as in other ships, it passed through, not attached. Cook did need to do some structural repairs to his hull, he beached his ship to do it, no mention of structural repairs was made to the hull in the stern area. The most logical solution of a design flaw  would be to put in place something that would relieve the destructive forces that were causing the problem. When faced with a problem, you repair it and do what you can to prevent it from happening again. Cook did that by putting in place, an arc shaped support for his tiller, it worked. The best proof of that, would be that Cooks fix showing up on drawings for her refit after the voyage.  I'm sticking with the arc and also the voyage was mostly in tropical waters, the chimney was probably removed and Cook kept his chickens in the stove so the eggs weren't stolen.
jud 

So...moving along on the gun deck bow area and the manger. I fashioned what I think is called a "king" or "deck hook" (I am really not sure if these are the correct terms either) as seen on the 1920's refit. After this I will make the manger bulkheads and then the messenger rigging. The messenger will be the last line joined before closing in the deck later.
 

 

Actually, i think there is some logic to the addition of a support given the odd geometry and the length of the tiller.  I was just supporting an earlier post concerning the use of the word transom.  None of the period treatisers on shipbuilding chose to use that word to describe anything other than the stern timbers.

Pinched from dashicat post # 97;
From the entry for Saturday 27th January from the book, 'First Voyage Around the World: Captain Cook's Journal During his First Voyage, Page 272, Cook writes:
 "Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor'd at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom,* for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply'd the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair'd."
 
*The reference at the bottom of page 272 states: * A transom is a curved piece of wood which supports the end of the tiller.
 
https://books.google...transom&f=false
 
I would expect that all who have read Cooks words would agree that he is speaking about the tiller, that term defined today is as it was in Cooks day. Transoms as the term is commonly used today, have nothing to do with steering except in a few cases, nor is it common for ships to have their steering gear attached to a transom. Transoms are used today as attachment points for outboard motors, sometimes a steering oar can be used with the transom. Rudders also get attached to small boats by anchoring them to the transom, if there is no stern post.
 
Why is there so much resistance to the tiller supporting arc being added by Cook to prevent future problems with his steering gear? Since that is not logical, it makes me wonder.
 
We know he was having problems with his tiller, it was breaking reinforcing bands, the only place where there was iron reinforcing was at the rudder post head,  the attaching point between the tiller and the rudder post, serious stuff when you are traveling around the world looking into inlets, negotiating island and reef clusters not to mention heavy seas. The Endeaver used the stern post as the attachment point for her rudder, not a transom, the rudder post did pass through the transom area but just as in other ships, it passed through, not attached. Cook did need to do some structural repairs to his hull, he beached his ship to do it, no mention of structural repairs was made to the hull in the stern area. The most logical solution of a design flaw  would be to put in place something that would relieve the destructive forces that were causing the problem. When faced with a problem, you repair it and do what you can to prevent it from happening again. Cook did that by putting in place, an arc shaped support for his tiller, it worked. The best proof of that, would be that Cooks fix showing up on drawings for her refit after the voyage.  I'm sticking with the arc and also the voyage was mostly in tropical waters, the chimney was probably removed and Cook kept his chickens in the stove so the eggs weren't stolen.
jud 

Jud is this correct: If I take an 18 foot beam and support it at a fulcrum point 'c' of 1 foot from end 'a' and apply 250 pounds at the other end 'b' then would it produce 1.9 tons of force at end 'a'? 
Assuming I've understood the physics, then the 8" square oak tiller would need to be able to withstand a load of 1.9 tons at the fulcrum where it enters the rudderhead. Whilst the rudder head would need to be able to withstand an upward load of 1.9 tons @ 1 foot past the tiller fulcrum while at rest. If this is correct then we need to know two things. What is the breaking point of an 8x8" oak beam and the steel strapping required to lift 1.9 tons. If the breaking point of the oak tiller is less than 1.9 tons then it needs to be braced with a support along it's length. If it can withstand a breaking point of 1.9 tons plus extra for tolerences then the rudderhead needs to be strong enough to hold past an upward load of more than 1.9 tons.
 
Of course please correct me if I've got the physics wrong.
 
Bottom line is regardless of the conventional interpretation of history and what we might choose to believe, as Jud has rightly stated, "everything still needs to obey the laws of physics", which is what we are trying to research and answer here with out bias.

Welcome aboard. Cook is talking about the Tiller being in danger of breaking, so it is in this context that I think his use of the word 'Transom' is taken to mean a 'Transverse Supporting Timber'. I don't think he is talking about the rudder or rudder head. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tiller 
looking at the tiller length and weight, and to compare apples with apples so to speak, then I think there are examples of tiller supporting quadrants where the length and weight of the tiller require support. The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery, Chapter 2 Tiller and Whipstaff and Chapter 3 The Steering Wheel.
 
Looking at the Bounty it's tiller appears considerably shorter compared to Endeavour which does highlight that Endeavour appears to have an exceptionally long tiller for the size of vessel and therefore as the physics suggest would have required support possibly by use of a sweep, which have been in use for supporting larger tillers since at least the use of the wipstaff in the 17th century. Where the tiller is below deck then the sweep is fixed to the overhead beams and the tiller hangs from it via what some call a gooseneck. However the term gooseneck is also used for the iron fitting attached to the end of tillers that fitted into the whipstaff. Lavery gives a description and drawing of the use of a sweep above decks in smaller vessels, ( 1771 draught of Endeavour), where the tiller requires supporting. (page 23) The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery, Chapter 2 Tiller and Whipstaff and Chapter 3 The Steering Wheel.
 
Hope this helps answer some of your questions.
 
Cheers Dashi

The defininition of transom dosn't just refer to the aft timbers of a ship or boat, but any transverse supporting timber http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transom .
 
I have only referenced one source which agrees with all other sources I have cross referenced for this log entry. So here is another source http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00043.html#ch6
 
In this context I think Cook is refering to the tiller and not the stern or stern post as opposed to the transoms you are referring. But I need more evidence.
 
A broken stern transom would be a major structural failure resulting in extensive repair work. Granted they were anchored a while with their forge set up on shore for repairs.
 
The note which appears in other sources of the log entry is refering to the end of the tiller.
 
What about the physics?
 
 
 
Thanks Frankie for sharing your point of view.