Rigging Diameters?

[Call Me Ishmael]

I'm thinking of enjoying social distancing by building an old plastic sailing ship model that I've been saving for such times.  It's a very old kit that you might remember, Aurora's whaling ship WANDERER (1966).  The scale is a little vague, 1:87 (HO Scale), but my measurements say it's around 1:93.  The kit has plastic molded shrouds and ratlines, but I'd like to use thread instead.  What diameter cordage should I buy to be scale?  Black shrouds?  Black standing rigging?  Tan running rigging?

Thank you.

[allanyed]

 Ishmael,

Welcome to MSW.  It would be really nice if you would post an introduction with a little about yourself in the New Members section.  

 

For the rigging, there would likely be many  different rope circumferences but 4 or 5 should be OK for the running and the same for the standing rigging.  There is a chart that a member made for calculating line sizes for British warships, but it should be reasonably accurate for your whaler model.  Go the search box and look for Danny Vadas rigging spread sheet.   

 

Allan

 

[Call Me Ishmael]

Allan--Thank you very much.  With the help of my wife the librarian, I think I found the rigging spreadsheet and posted a short biography.

[Jaager]

Note that the old guys used circumference, not diameter there is a factor of 3 difference.

pre iron and steel  - bark brown (Walnut) instead of black is less garish.

 

diameter is easier for us -  It is easily measured by counting the number of rotations of the line - tightly packed - in a inch distance along a dowel. the diameter of the dowel does not matter

1/rotations x pi = circumference

[Bob Cleek]

I've checked the rigging spread sheet done by Dan. I can't seem to get it to respond. It appears to be a "dead" link. I can get to it, but it doesn't work. Is it possible to revive it. It looks woderful.

[allanyed]

Bob,

 I just tried to open it and have the same problem.  It opens, but does not do anything.  If I remember correctly,  unless it was edited after I alerted Dan a year or two ago, there is one caution to take, I am pretty sure  the data for 1670 to 1711 is incorrect.  The formula in Lees is good to go, but not on this spread sheet.   If I can get it to open, I will double check to see if it still a problem.   Because the issue is in the very first calculation, using  length of main mast to length, beam and depth of the ship, the error passes to every calculation that follows.  

Allan

Edited April 18, 2020 by allanyed

[Bob Cleek]

Not good news, Allan.  If you do get it to open, please post the "fix!" The raw data is available in various texts, but this spreadsheet program really seems to be a much easier way to access it.

 

Thanks much! 

[tlevine]

I just tried it and it works correctly.  Starting the process is NOT intuitive.  Go towards the bottom of the page to view the instructions.  Depending on how your Excel is configured, you may need to enable editing and formulas.  Check the top of your screen as you proceed to see if this is necessary.  Once you put in the scale, put in the pertinent dimensions  (upper deck beam length for example) and the rigging numbers are calculated for you.

[allanyed]

I did finally get it to open, thanks Toni.

Bob,

Per Lees for 1670 up to 1711 on page 183  Add together the length of the keel, breadth of the ship and depth of the ship then divide the answer by 1.66.  If the beam exceeds 27 feet then deduct from the total the amount that the beam is in excess of 27 feet:  If the beam is less then 27 feet then add to the total the amount that the beam is short of 27 feet. 

From this I derived a length of the main mast formula when the beam is more than 27 feet.

A =Length of KEEL, not gun deck

B= Beam

C = Depth

Length of main mast = (A+B+C)/1.66-(B-27) as the beam is more than 27 feet for Litchfield 1695 

(107.58+34.63+13.5)/1.66 -(34.63-27) = 86.17 feet.   Using Danny's  spread sheet , the length of the main mast is only 67 feet which is much too short for a fifty gun ship.  I cannot figure out exactly what is wrong with the formula on the spread sheet, but I suspect, the 27 feet was deducted rather than the difference between the beam and 27 feet which in this case is 7.63 feet.  

If there are any math teachers or profs  in our group and they spot an error in the way I presented the formula, please do not hesitate to offer a fix.  

Allan

 

 

 

[Call Me Ishmael]

I thought I found Dan's spreadsheet, but it turns out it's for USS Constitution 1:96, but close in scale to the Wanderer 1:87.  The information is difficult to understand, but I think if I purchase black cord around 0.028 inches in diameter for shrouds, black cord 0.008 inches in diameter for standing rigging, and tan cord 0.008 inches in diameter for running rigging, I'll be in the ballpark.  I also looked at the parts lists for two Model Shipways kits, Flying Fish 1:96 and USS Constitution 1:76.  As near as I can tell, they both use pretty much the same cord sizes above.  Given that 1:87 is between the two models, I hope those cord sizes will get me started.

 

I think I like Syren Ship Model Co.'s cord.

 

Am I on the right track?

[mtaylor]

Ishmael, I shall call you that.

 

Here's one:  http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-rigging-and-sails.php

Another here:  http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-masts-and-yards.php

 

I didn't see any that were just for the Constitution.

[Cabbie]

Sorry mark didn't read your post.

 

Dan's spreadsheet is in the articles database at the top, then Ship Model Masts and Yards.

http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-masts-and-yards.php

Took me dang!!! ages to find it.

Cheers Chris

Edited April 20, 2020 by Cabbie