Open heart block question

[DavidG]

I'm in the stage to rig the stays on my model with pairs of heart blocks and getting a bit confused on the purpose of the open heart.

Petersson show this in his rigging book:

 

the legs of the block are around the jibboom and the blocks sit on top of them. This makes sense, and justifies the purpose of the open heart block design.

this picture is from the Jotika website, showing the open heart blocks rigged in the air. This is the way, how the Swan rigging book shows them as well. And most of the ships I see built.

But what's the point in using an open block rigged hanging in the air, if they are purposely designed to spread around the top of the mast?

The Petersson way make more sense to me. But there must be a reason, why it is not seen on the models.

Maybe someone can help.

thank you

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by DavidG

[allanyed]

David

The rigging of the stays varied over the years.  Abridged description from Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War ----  Deadeyes were used up to about 1690 rather than any type of heart.  Closed hearts came into use  about 1690 followed by the use of open hearts for the forestay from 1773 on.  From 1840, some ships used thimbles in place of the hearts, but this was not general practice.  The rigging of the hearts changed as well depending on which stay, ship, and year.    If the ship had open hearts, according to Lees on page 169, ……This type of heart was used on the fore stay and fore preventer stay collars to allow the collar to go round the bow sprit, leaving room for the jibboom,  which jives with the picture you posted from  Petersson..    Note that this does not apply to the main stay.  I could not find  any snaking between the stays and preventer stays in Petersson's book.  While this was common practice during war time in the 18th century and into the 19th century, it was not always used, so inclusion is up to the builder, but makes a nice touch if appropriate for a ship built and used during any of the war years.    As England was at war with France from 1793 to 1815, the snaking would be appropriate if you are referring to your build of Diana 1794.. 

Allan 

Edited May 6, 2020 by allanyed

[druxey]

The Swan class plans show the open hearts rigged with a slightly longer collar than Peterssen's drawing, but I would not characterize them as being 'in air'. Attached is a photo of a modern  model from about 1770.

The slightly longer legs to the collar give lateral clearance to the jibboom.

[wefalck]

Remember that Peterson's main source of information seems to have been the models in the Stockholm Maritime Museum. So strictly speaking, what he shows would be Swedish practice at the time the models were rigged or restored (which does not necessarily coincide with the period of the prototype ship).

[allanyed]

Hi Wefalck, 

You may be correct about sources of information being from Sweden, but in the book's introduction  Petersson explains at some length that his source of information is from a contemporary model of the British ship Melampus in the Bristol Industrial Museum in England.  He also credits guidance from Lees' work, the NRG and a few others but for some reason makes no mention of,  the Stockholm Maritime Museum as a source of help or  information.    

Allan

[wefalck]

I may have been colporting wrong information then. Admittedly I do not have the book, but have seen criticism to the effect that it generalises information from just a few sources, mainly Swedish ones. Apologies, I was wrong in this respect.

[druxey]

Actually the Melampus model does show certain lines that are of a later date than the ship. This may be a result of restoration rather than lack of accuracy of recording on Petersson's part.

[DavidG]

thanks to everyone responding to the question. as Druxey says, lateral clearance might be the key. I will follow this practice, actually I think it's the easier route. 

thanks again.