Sources for Rigging tables before Steel 1794 wanted

[archnav]

Hello members,

 

I am looking for rigging tables and other contemporary sources before the time of David Steel`s works. From about 1750 to 1780. I only have informations from the books of Karl-Heinz Marquard and James Lees.

Are there rigging tables in the 1745 Esteblishment ?

 

Would be great if somebody has useful informations of sources.

 

Have a nice weekend !

 

Tom

Edited August 13, 2016 by archnav

[michaelpsutton2]

Get yourself a copy of "Sutherland's shipbuilders assistant" 1711

[Jaager]

There is a ready source:

 

SCANTLINGS OF THE ROYAL NAVY 1719-1805
Comparisons of 1719, 1745 Establishments, Ship Builders Repository and Steel’s Elements and Practice
by Allan Yedlinsky

This specially formatted book (14”x8 ½”) is divided into 2 sections. The first shows all of the scantlings from the 1719, 1745 and 1750 amended figures in an easy to use spread sheet format.

 

Seawatch Books

[michaelpsutton2]

Or for even earlier "Deane's "Doctrine of Naval Architecture".

Are you looking mostly for the sizes of the rigging or the run of it.

[Tadeusz43]

Hi,

Historic Ship Models by Wolfram zu Modfeld

 

Tadeusz

[michaelpsutton2]

In Brian Lavery's "Ship of the Line" page 171, there is a table for the "Proportions of rigging for his majesty's dhips of the First, Second, & Third Rates"

[allanyed]

Jaager

Thank you for the recommendation on The Scantlings of the Royal Navy 1719 - 1805,     BUT  ----->

 

Tom, unfortunately I did not include any rigging information in the book as neither Steels Elements, the Shipbuilder's Repository nor the Establishments gave any rigging information, at least that I came across in my research.   That said, Lees gives all the dimensions one would need for British vessels, but he does so via ratios or proportions that lead back to the mast diameters and even hull dimensions. It is a long road to travel to get to each line's circumference.  He also gives a series of charts with the masts and spars dimensions for various periods so all calculations can be made and I presume will  be as accurate as anything else other than specific rigging charts for specific ships if they exist.  It would be far easier to have a set of charts for the various periods and vesssel sizes rather than having to do all the calculations,  Hmmmmm, wonder if such a little book would be of interest......

 

Allan

[trippwj]

Unfortunately, I have not come across very many good tables on rigging thus far - that is the next in depth topic I am going to be pursuing.  In the interim, here are a couple of thoughts and a resource of sorts.

 

Rigging methods and ratios, much like ship building and naval architecture as a whole, developed slowly and incrementally, rarely undergoing periods of great change.  While the methods of attaching specific lines to blocks or of manufacturing blocks may have evolved, along with the nuamnces of a mast or sail (such as the spritsail topmast, for example), the fundamentals (such as the thickness of a cable required to support a mast or yard) remained relatively constant until the advent of steel and iron cables.  This matters, because Steel (1794, 1796) would reflect established practice for the period preceeding publication - which was likely in use during the mid-18th century.

 

It may prove beneficial to compare Steel (1794) to Bond (1704) to see what may have changed, and likewise see how Mountaine (1761) fits into the gap.

 

Bond, H. 1704. The Art of Apparelling and Fitting of Any Ship... http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/MPIWG:A09VZBVW.

 

Mountaine, W. 1761. The Seaman’s Vade-Mecum and Defensive War by Sea. http://books.google.com/books?id=a8IzAQAAMAAJ.

 

From Bond (1704, originally puclished 1663)

 

 

From Steel (1794)

 

 

From Mountaine - provides narrative based on size of the item to which a line is assigned.

 

 

 

 

 

[trippwj]

I suppose, since Sutherland was mentioned above, I ought to include a snippet from him.  This is from the 1717 version:

 

Sutherland, W. 1717. Britain’s Glory: Or, Ship-Building Unvail’d, Being a General Director, for Building and Compleating the Said Machines. Tho. Norris. http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/ECHOdocuView?url=/permanent/shipbuilding/Suthe_Brita_01_1717/index.meta.

 

[michaelpsutton2]

You hardly ever here the word snippet used in conversation these days

[archnav]

Thank you guys !

 

I do have all the books you have listed for my research work but......there is a widely spread area of time in the mid 18th century that gives no

RIGGING TABLES for any ship such as being listed from Sutherland to Steel !

 

I think Allan is nearest to what I meant and there is much work to do to mark out the differences between these two authors.

 

Thanks to every single one of you for your help !

 

Tom

[trippwj]

Thank you guys !

 

I do have all the books you have listed for my research work but......there is a widely spread area of time in the mid 18th century that gives no

RIGGING TABLES for any ship such as being listed from Sutherland to Steel !

 

I think Allan is nearest to what I meant and there is much work to do to mark out the differences between these two authors.

 

Thanks to every single one of you for your help !

 

Tom

 

Danny Vadas has provided a spreadsheet which will calculate the size for various lines based on the data in Lees for English ships of war 1625 to 1860.  It may be downloaded here:  http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-masts-and-yards.php

[michaelpsutton2]

Does anyone know where to find a complete copy of the1719 or 1745 Establishment? Have they ever been published?

[trippwj]

Does anyone know where to find a complete copy of the1719 or 1745 Establishment? Have they ever been published?

 

I have never seen any of the establishments published in full, although Lees has tables from several in his work.  The 1745 establishment, according to Lees, may be found in the Caird Library at the NMM.

[archnav]

Thanks Wayne for the link !

 

Tom

[michaelpsutton2]

Darn...I suspect it may be a bit before I can pop on over to the UK. I wonder why someone, anyone (Allan) doesn't publish the full data from all of the establishments.

[allanyed]

Wayne, Michael and Tom,

 

I have a copy of the 1745 Establishment dated 5 August of that year signed by Allen, Lock, Ward, et al.  It is 41 pages long, and was what I used for the  appropriate columns in the scantlings book.  It is available for purchase through the RMG Collections web site. It does not give sizes of the lines, but it does include sizes of masts, spars, and tops for 100 gun down to 24 gun ships.   

 

The 1719 Establishment is also available.  It is dated 11 November 1719, 42 pages long and also available from RMG collections. 

 

Allan

Edited August 15, 2016 by allanyed

[allanyed]

Michael,

 

With the information put together by Danny V, I am not sure a book of tables would be worth publishing.   Something to be said for paper, but Danny did a fantastic job and I'm not so sure there is anything to add to that mix.  Something to think about I suppose, but not sure it would be a good investment.

 

Allan

Edited August 16, 2016 by allanyed

[michaelpsutton2]

Did the promulgation of the 1745 Establishment initiate a change in the spar proportions or did it formalize practices already in use in the fleet?

As an example would you imagine a vessel of the late 1730's or early 1740's with the spars of 1719 or something approaching those of 1745.

 

The 1745 sail plans are wider at the top. That is the top-gallant yards increased more than the lower ones. The vessels of the 1733 & 1741 proposals are wider and have a larger displacement, so they would be able to stand up under a larger press of sail.

 

Just for the record this is the first time I have ever used the word promulgagted and I am so proud,

[allanyed]

Michael

 

:D  Just don't turn into a sesquipedalian for crying out loud.

 

The 1719 Establishment was given some minor changes in 1733 and 1741 and were ship size specific, not across all rates.  For example the 50's and 60's were changed slightly in 1733, but not the others.  The 70's became 64s in the 1741 proposals is another example.  Armament changes took place in that heavier guns was one of the desired end results.

 

Allan

[michaelpsutton2]

I do understand that the changes in the dimensions of the ships were on the whole relatively conservative. So do the 1719 spar dimensions hold true up until

Jan 1, 1745? Or had they been "field" tested prior to that date?

[allanyed]

Michael,

 

I suspect as is often the case, it depends on the rate or maybe even the specific ship and a bit on the shipwrights.  The 50s and 60's were made slightly larger based on the 1733 modifications to the Establishment.  Bigger changes came with the 1745 Establishment. 

 

Examples of a 60 gun fourth rate

HMS Windsor 1729 built to the 1719 Establishment, Length  on the gun deck 144' 0"  Beam 39' 0"

HMS Warwick 1733, built to the 1719 Establishment, Length on the gun deck 144' 0"  Beam 39' 0"

HMS Stafford 1735 built to the 1733 modifications of the 1719 Establishment, Length on the gun deck 144'0" Beam  41' 5"

HMS Tiger 1747, built to the 1745 Establishment  Length on the gun deck 150' 0"  Beam 42' 8"

 

Allan

[allanyed]

Michael,

 

I forgot to mention in the last posting, that the masts and spars were proportionate to the beam of the ship at that time, therefore, with a change of the beam in ships built to the 1733 modifications, the spar dimensions would have changed as well. 

 

Allan

[michaelpsutton2]

So taking as an example HMS Medway 1742. She had a beam of 41'5", some 6% more than the 1719 Establishment spec of 39'. And a displacement of 1080 tons a full 13% more than the 1719 number. You would take the 1719 spar dimensions and  proportionally increase them by something. But you would not use the proportions of 1745.

 

By the way a bit of rather imprecise Photoshop work to allow for perspective and lens distortion with the pic's I have seems to show that the ratios of the yards to one another on the NMM model is closer to what we see in the 1719 Establishment than to 1745. It is of course almost impossible to get good measurements with pictures taken at random and unknown angles.

[trippwj]

So taking as an example HMS Medway 1742. She had a beam of 41'5", some 6% more than the 1719 Establishment spec of 39'. And a displacement of 1080 tons a full 13% more than the 1719 number. You would take the 1719 spar dimensions and  proportionally increase them by something. But you would not use the proportions of 1745.

 

By the way a bit of rather imprecise Photoshop work to allow for perspective and lens distortion with the pic's I have seems to show that the ratios of the yards to one another on the NMM model is closer to what we see in the 1719 Establishment than to 1745. It is of course almost impossible to get good measurements with pictures taken at random and unknown angles.

 

The beam was used to calculate the size of the spars - the dimension of the spar would change with the beam, not as a proportionate change to the other vessel.  For example, in the 1719 establishment, the length of the main mast for a 60 gun 4th rate was 2.34 times the beam.  In the 1745 establishment it was 2.22 times the beam.  All the other spars were then related to the main mast or, for the yards, the length of the gun deck.

[allanyed]

What Wayne said :>)

 

You might try Danny V's tables and you should get accurate information. 

 

Allan

Edited August 17, 2016 by allanyed

[michaelpsutton2]

I think maybe my question has been misunderstood. Years ago I calculated the ratios for different periods from the tables in Lees (see attached). What I am trying to figure out is when to use the 1745 ratio, possibly adjusted for beam and when to use the 1719 ratios, again adjusted for beam.

 

Would you use the 1719 ratios, adjusted for beam, on ships of the 1733 & 1741 proposals, or the 1745.

 

The 1745 ratios produce a sail plan that is quite a bit wider at the top. Squarer if you will.

 

By the way if anyone wants copies of the ratios, just drop me line.

Edited August 18, 2016 by michaelpsutton2

[trippwj]

Prior to adoption of the 1745 establishment, the most recent predecessor would be in use.  If there were no changes to the masting rations in 1733 or 1743, then the 1719 establishment would be the most appropriate.  I am not familiar enough with the 1733 and 1743 establishments so can't be much aid there.

[allanyed]

Michael

 

Are you referring to the Medway specifically or some other ship?  According to the RMG Collections,  Medway 1742 and Dreadnought 1742 both were built to the 1733 Establishment proposals, thus a beam of 41 feet versus 39 feet as specified in the 1719 Establishment.

 

Allan

[michaelpsutton2]

Absolutely yes the Medway. But the question I am asking is a larger and more general one.

Imagine the meeting or meetings where the new Establishment was agreed on sometime in 1745. Don't you think that sailors captains rigger, so called technical experts would have been called in. Ship's top hamper was constantly being repaired, modified,  and experimented with. Look at the never ending discussions on this website about the finer points of Old Ironsides rig. So I think these guy showed up and said "here are some things we have been doing at sea over the last few years that improve performance".And they got them made official. Under that scenario you might reasonably find some of the changes of 1745 actually in use on ship prior to that time.

 

Everyone is fixated on the ratio of beam to mainmast. True enough and it changes over time. But the other spars changed in relation to the main mast as well. In particular the length of the topgallant yards in relation to the length of the other yard increased steadily over the years.  You can see from my tables abovevtheratio of topgallant yard yo topsail yard went from .58 in 1719  to .69 in 1745.The ratio of the topsail yard to the main yard remained at .7 The ratio of the topgallant mast to the top mast remained the same as well at about .48-.49. The topgallants in 1745 were noticblely wider in proportion to thier depths and to the topsails in 1745 than in 1719.  This had the effect of reducing the taper of the sail plan as it went up. I ma certainly not an engineer but it must have been improvements in hull stability and spar materials that allowed them to raise the center of effort.

 

So the question is which Establishment do my self titled" inter-Establishment" ship look most like.