Topsail schooner sail plans and rigging

[georgeband]

I use Powerpoint for simple illustrations and the reason is familiarity with the software through work. I am sure that 'proper' drawing packages can do much more but for an occasional user like me I would have to climb up that learning curve again after a break of 6 months or a year.

A package that offers 3D would be nice but I don't particularly want to assign the time that I would need to master it, especially when there is competition from other things to do. It would have to be very intuitive. 

 

George

[Dr PR]

I have a new reference to recommend thanks to Eric William Marshall who told me about it.

 

"The Global Schooner" by Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, USA, published by Conway Maritime Press, London, 2003.

 

This book is devoted to the history and construction of schooners. It has an exhaustive history of the schooner rig - the best I have seen. Did you know that the fore-and-aft rig was inspired by a Peruvian raft from the early 1600s?

 

The book has very detailed chapters on masts and rigging with detailed drawings. Numerous tables in the appendices give rules and dimensions for mast, spars and rigging. It is the most complete text on schooner rigging that I have found.

 

It is a large book (11.6 x 10 inches, 294 x 254 mm) with 239 pages containing many detailed drawings, full page ship plans and illustrations.

 

The only drawbacks are poor proofreading (some text is misplaced and a few drawings are mislabeled) and the author uses numerous undefined terms that I cannot find in other books on ships' rigging. In a few cases the text is so ambiguous I can's tell what he is talking about. These are minor problems, and common to most books about sailing ships. It has a good index but no glossary. There is no list of drawings and illustrations, and that would help finding the drawings the author often refers to.

 

When I have time I will add Marquard's rules to my masting and rigging spreadsheet.

[Gregory]

Have you seen this one?

 

The Schooner: Its Design and Development from 1600 to the Present Paperback – March 1, 2001

 

It looks like it may be fairly comprehensive as well..

[wefalck]

I don't have Marquardt's book on schooners, so I cannot check, but I am sure he didn't suck the rigging data from his fingers, but must have taken them from the literature of the time. Which works did he reference ?

 

There are numerous textbooks on rigging from the 19th century in different languages, some of them original, some of them translations, and some of them have copied from others.

 

Concerning terminology, this can be quite a contentious field, as even textbooks of the time in the same language may not agree. Much of the currently used terminology has developed in the North Sea regions and seems to mix English, Dutch, Low German, and perhaps some Frisian and Danish. French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian terminology is another can of worms. Interestingly, the Austrian-German terminology is strongly influenced by the Italian Adriatic terminology, which is were the Austrian navy operated.

 

Marquardt was a native German speaker and he emigrated to Australia as a mature adult. So, I am quite sure that he would have mixed German and English terminology, at least on more obscure subjects.

[Dr PR]

Gregory,

 

I have not seen McGregor's The Schooner. The reviews on line are not especially flattering. One says it has few detailed plans, another says there are some. Does he give tables of dimensions for the parts of masting and rigging? If so, is he just repeating what someone else has written, or is it original research? I did note it is another Naval Institute Press book.

 

McGregor is a well-known author of books about ships. I have McGregor's British and American Clippers. It has a lot of history, and quite a few drawings of ships, but very little construction detail. The index lists ship names and people involved in the shipping industry, but nothing about the individual parts of ships. So even if there was detailed information about the construction of a part of a ship I would have to search through the entire book to find it. And there is no glossary where the author defines the terms he used.

 

Although I am interested in nautical history, for ship modeling I really don't need a lot of detailed history. I am looking for illustrations of how the parts of ships were constructed and not a long winded history of how the particular design came about, who the designers were and their personal histories.

 

Compare this to Harold Underhill's Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier, Brown Son and Ferguson, Glasgow, 1972. It is one of the best (perhaps the best) nautical books I have seen. The 12 page Index contains about 1500 entries (at least 3000 page links) and almost all are for specific details of masting and rigging. Want to know what a "lower studding sail tripping line" is? Page193. Almost every detail is illustrated, and he gives the formulas for calculating various parts and numerous tables for determining proportions of masts and spars. There isn't a separate glossary, but he does define every term he uses in the text linked to in the index. He also gives some brief histories of how and when each part came into use, plus a bit of history of the development of ships rigging. It is a must have book for modelling British clipper ships of the late 1800s and early 1900s!

Edited April 13, 2021 by Dr PR

[wefalck]

Unfortunately, no one has ever written a comparable book that covers the second and third quarter of the 19th century with modern hindsight. There are quite a few english, french, dutch and german textbooks from that period around. Their shortcoming from a modellers perspective is, that they do not give a lot of details on the seaman's handiwork that goes into rigging a ship. They are mostly written from the quarter-deck perspective, not from the forecastle's.

[Dr PR]

wefalck,

 

Good questions!

 

One thing I noticed right away is the very long list of references (more than 100) that he quotes. Although some things he writes are speculative - and he says so - most is based upon period writings. Likewise, he has many dated illustrations to reinforce his claims, although he sometimes sees details in sketches and paintings that I cannot see!

 

You are probably right about his use of terms from numerous languages. He states that the word "schooner" did originate in America, but might have been from a Dutch colonist who use the Dutch word "schoone," which means "beautiful" and that New Englanders often added a "r" sound to the words ending in a silent "e" to produce "schooner." And he notes that in Dutch "ch" is pronounced like the English "sh" but in America "ch" is pronounced like "k"in English. So we have the word "schooner" (pronounced "skuner" in America). Maybe.

 

A very interesting point he makes is that before the word "schooner" appeared in America in the early 1700s the schooner rig was not called a "schooner." The Royal Navy didn't start using the term until the mid 1700s. However, the first true schooner rig may have been the HMS Royal Transport of 1694 (he has numerous drawings and photos of an original model of the vessel). Before "schooner" came into use schooners were called "sloops" and some other terms. Some authors credit the invention of the schooner to America (and who of us who are true blue Americans would doubt that?) simply because there are no reports of "schooners" in the fleets of the world before they appeared in American reports. But he reprints many earlier drawings and illustrations of schooner rigs in Europe (especially The Netherlands) long before the term came into use in America. Marquardt's history is very well researched! But in his history of the fore-and-aft rig he says nothing about the history of the lateen (latin) rigged vessels of the Mediterranean and Arab world!

 

One of the undefined terms he uses many times is "cutter mast." I can find no other reference to this term. However, he does have one drawing of mast types with a "cutter mast," but no explanation of what the difference ifs from any other mast. There doesn't seem to be anything unique about it. Another ambiguous term is "roach" which I think is the same as the undefined term "gore" that other authors use to describe the curvature of the foot of a sail. He uses the term "schooner sail" to refer to only the fore gaff sail with a boom. Without a boom is is not a "schooner sail." But the main gaff sail with a boom is not a "schooner sail," even though it is found on almost all schooners! Again I can find no other reference for this peculiar term.

 

But even with a few faults it is an excellent reference for schooner masting and rigging, the equivalent of James Lees' The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War (which also has a lot of undefined terms and nothing about schooners).

 

Marquardt does reference numerous authors who have published details about schooners, and has comparisons of the different calculations. There are 23 tables of schooner masting and rigging dimensions in the Appendix, from  Frederick H. auf Chapman  1768, Paris 1769, Steel 1794 and 1818, Falconer 1815,  Fincham 1854, Steinhaus 1858, and Brady (US Navy Board of Navy Commissioners) 1876.

 

Another example of Marquardt's work that I have is Captain Cook's Endeavor in the Naval Institute Press "Anatomy of the Ship" series, 1995. Just about every part of the ship is illustrated. He has similar (but not as extensive) drawings for half a dozen schooners in his Global Schooner book. And the various parts of the rigging are illustrated with as much detail as in the Endeavor book.

 

And one other bonus for those "down under," Marquardt describes a few Australian and New Zealand schooners. Where else will you find that?

Edited July 23, 2023 by Dr PR

[wefalck]

Phil, I am aware of Marquardt etymologie of the term 'schooner' as he had published it (in German) also in an article in our association's journal LOGBUCH.

 

As to the terminology, the term 'schooner sail' is probably borrowed from German, where it describes a sail exactly the way you did. I find attempts to trace lineages of sail-plans and insisting on specific names for certain sail-plans sometimes futile and the people of the time often did not make the distinctions we tend to make today or were so particular about them. I think one observation one can make is that over the years ships gradually began to loose their square yards (probably as the result of socio-economic pressured due to rising seamen's wages, which let to a reduction in crews). In this way brigs lost the square sails on the main mast to become hermaphrodite brigs (in German Schonerbrigg). At the same time at least some acquired gaffs on the fore-mast on which a fore-and-aft sail could be set in suitable conditions. Due to the hardware in the way, such as boats or deck-houses they initially did not have booms. These were the Schonersegel (in German) to indicate that the rig now was a schooner, rather than a brig. Eventually, of course the foremast lost its topgallant mast and the topmast carried just one or two square sails, to turn it into a top-sail schooner. It appears, that in Europe 'schooner sails' only acquired a boom, when schooners became purely fore-and-aft rigged in the last days of sail, but it varied from country to country.

 

Roach and gore do not appear to me unusual terms. I understand that roach is the extra cut of sail cloth that makes the belly of a sail, noticeable when flattened out as convex foot of the sail. Gore, I understand is the arched part of a square sail that allows it to clear stays.

 

By the description of Marquardt's book it seems that I should get hold of a copy one day. Not sure I ever looked at it in nature.

 

'Banyan' here on the forum was a personal friend of his, I never met him unfortunately in person, as he had left Germany for good before I seriously got into this 'scene', but when I prepared the obituary for him for the LOGBUCH, I got myself somewhat acquainted with his background and personal history. I don't that he had been very familiar with Mediterranean craft in the widest sense and studied the interrelations between the Arabs, the European Mediterranean and the Northern European maritime cultures and how they influenced each other. I tried to pull together his bibliography, but there seems to be no publication that addresses this question.

 

Also, I don't think he spoke any of the Latin languages, so literature in those languages he did not evaluate for his books I believe.

[Dr PR]

Thanks. I agree with what you have said.

 

Marquardt uses the term "roach" for the concave foot (bottom edge) of the sail that allows it to clear the stays, referring in one instance to an extreme roach up to 2/3 the height of the sail. I think I have seen "gore" used to refer to the extended belly of the sail, but I will have to see if I can find that reference. In any case, when I see "roach" or "gore" I can at least think that the author is probably talking about the bottom of a sail.

 

I also chuckle at some of the modern dogmatic arguments about the differences between this and that sail rig. One author pointed out that the difference between a topsail schooner and a brigantine is that when a vessel has the fore gaff sail (fore sail) raised it is a schooner, but when the gaff sail is lowered and a fore course (square sail) is raised it is a brigantine.

 

But I have photos of vessels with both the fore gaff sail and a fore course raised at the same time. So is it a "schoonatine" or a "brigooner?"

[wefalck]

The people of the time definitely were much less dogmatic, which today in historic research can cause a lot of confusion, as one and the same ship may be listed under different categories in different ships lists for instance (another reason, of course, is that it may have been re-rigged).

 

I have he feeling that this dogmatism comes from yacht-clubs that in turn were often influenced by navy traditions. A dogmatism that persists in yachtsmen until today. The professionals in the merchant navies didn't seem to care too much about such things.

[Roger Pellett]

Re: Mc Gregor’s Schooner Book

 

It’s not on a par with his Fast Sailing Ships or his Merchant Sailing Ship trilogy.  His coverage of American Schooner development uses Howard Chapelle drawings and provides no information not found in Chapelle’s books.  

 

Those interested in late Nineteenth Century British Merchant Schooners might find something of interest here.

 

I am about to get rid of my copy.  If anyone (US only) would like it send me contact info by PM and I’ll send it to you.

 

Roger

[Flying Scotsman]

Quote

She was the old NZ training vessel Spirit of Adventure and here is an old pic of all sail set.

Pardon the thread-drift (again), Dr PR.  Your schematics and bumf on rigging is a godsend, for my current kit, btw.

(Newbie on a reading binge playing catch-up.)

 

Spyglass, soon as I saw the superstructure I recognised her. Even with the different suite.

I knew SoA as a 'brigantine' then. Sailed on her as volunteer galley crew around the Cook Strait and the Sounds a couple times.

 

But spent more time aloft than in the galley!

 

Also did a short stint on the 'Black Boat", barquentine Spirit of New Zealand, out of Waikawa, in Marlborough. SoNZ has an easier rig but SoA was more fun in a stiff breeze.

[Tewhano]

I am getting back into model shipbuilding after many years away from the hobby. I bought a 1/100 scale cheap kit to test the waters. I searched the internet and found your post. Most helpful and although the kit is very, very tiny I plan to rig it as per your guidelines posted here. BTW, I served aboard the Okie Boat back in the 70s.

[Keith Black]

Tewhano, welcome to MSW. You should introduce yourself in the new members section where we all have a chance to meet you. 

[Dr PR]

Tewhano,

 

Welcome aboard mate! Glad you found my posts useful.

 

Have you seen my Okie Boat web site?

 

https://www.okieboat.com

 

Edited October 8, 2021 by Dr PR

[Tewhano]

Thanks for the link Dr PR. Just finished looking through it. The slide show brought back a lot of memories.

[townpiper]

Dr PR

Very helpful...Thanks a lot

Paul Thompson aka townpiper

 

[townpiper]

Greetings doc

Re: MSW Pride of Baltimore with sails 

I'm stuck on the throat halliard rig...MSW's plans call for a triple sheave throat block seized around the mast. The lines seem to go around this block- the  lanyard goes thru the 3 sheaves and one would assume through another trip block someplace on the deck .

 

If I can figure out how to attach a pic, I'll send a copy of the plan.

Hope you can shed some light on this. Thanks k

...

[Dr PR]

Paul,

 

The configuration of both the peak and throat halliards is interesting because it reflects the limitations of tackle and the requirements for handling the gaff sails.

 

First, the throat halliard. This line raises and lowers the end of the gaff close to the mast. On the left side is a line that is belayed to a cleat or pin on the bulwark, runs through a lead block attached to a ring bolt in the deck and up to a treble block (throat block) attached to the mast top and then down to the right where this line is fastened around a double block.

 

The upper throat treble block is part of another tackle with a double block attached to a ring bolt in the jaws of the gaff. The left hand line passes around the treble block and down to the double block, back through the treble block and double block, and back up through the treble block and down to the right to the double block.

 

The double block is part of a tackle with the lower double block on the right side attached to an eyebolt in the rail. The right hand tackle line is attached to the upper double block, runs through the lower double block, back up and around the upper double block, down to the lower double block again, and then back up and around the upper double block. The free end of the right line is belayed (fastened) to cleats or belaying pins on or near the base of the mast or to cleats/pins on the bulwark.

 

The tackle on the right serves to raise the heavy gaff and attached sail. The tackle provides significant mechanical advantage for hoisting then load. But multi-block tackles are relatively slow. You have to pull three feet/meters on the free end to raise the single block one foot/meter. Sometimes it is necessary to lower the gaff and sail quickly. The left side line solves this problem - just loosen the end that is belayed to the bulwark and let it run quickly to allow the gaff to fall.

 

I think this rig is unnecessarily complex, and I question whether any ship was actually rigged this way (of course if it is possible someone probably tried it at one time of another). Normally the throat halliard is rigged in one of several ways.

 

The first was used on vessels with heavy gaffs and sails, and consists of a line attached to a ring bolt on the gaff jaws, passing through a single (throat) block attached to the top, with the line running down and fastened to a double block that is part of a luff tackle. The single block of the tackle is attached to a ring bolt on deck. The running part of the luff tackle line is attached to the single block, passes through the upper double block, back thorough the single block, over the double block again and the free end is belayed to a pin or cleat on the bulwark.

 

The second was used on smaller ships with lighter gaffs and sails, and is a bit simpler.  A luff tackle single block is attached to a ring bolt on the gaff jaws, and the double block is fastened to the mast head. The fixed end of the line is fastened to the lower single block, runs through the upper, lower, and upper blocks and down to the deck. This end could be belayed near the bottom of the mast, but this would provide a relatively slow way to lower the gaff. Or the end could be attached to a single (whip) block. The Whip line was attached to a ring bolt on deck at one end, ran through the whip block, and back down to a belaying point on deck. To lower the gaff quickly the whip line was released.

 

A slight variation of the second method used a double block at the gaff jaws and the double block attached to the mast top. This gave a bit more mechanical advantage for raising the gaff.

 

The method shown in your drawing appears to be a combination of the first two methods. With the mechanical advantage of the treble throat block I do  not see why the right hand tackle was necessary. Of course the crew of the Pride II was not made up of burly hardened sailors so maybe they needed that extra mechanical advantage? I have the book "Pride of Baltimore" (International Marine, Camden, Maine, 1994) by Thomas Gillmer. On page 163 is a sketch of the sail plan of the ship, and it shows a two block throat tackle similar to the second method (a luff tackle with one end of the line attached to the lower block. How the free end of the tackle was belayed is not shown. Like many authors, after many pages of detailed description of the hull he says "Oh, yeah, it also had sails."

 

****

 

The peak halliard shown in your drawings is rigged similar to the description above for the throat halliard, with right and left sides reversed. Instead of the treble throat  block the peak halliard was rigged with three "peak blocks shackled to eyebolts." It shows the end of the left side going to one of the blocks (lower) and the end of the right side going to another (upper) block. Again, this seems a bit strange. Without the drawing of the gaffs I can't say how the blocks were arranged.

 

Karl Heinz Marqiardt's "The Global Schooner (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 2003), James Lees "Masting and Rigging English Ships of War" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1990) and John Leather's "The Gaff Rig Handbook" (Wooden Boat Books, Brooklyn, Maine, 2001)  show at least a dozen ways to rig the peak halliard, and none resemble what is shown in your drawing.

 

Gillmer's "Pride of Baltimore" drawing shows something similar but distinctly different for both gaffs. The fore gaff peak halliard fixed end if secured near the end of the gaff. It leads through a single block attached near the mast cap, down through another single block attached near the midpoint of the gaff, back up through a third single block  attached to the lower mast between the trestle trees and the cap, and then down to deck. How the free end is belayed is not shown.

 

The main gaff peak halliard is fastened to a single block that is attached to the mast cap. The line runs down to another single block attached near the end of the gaff and back up through the first single block. From there is runs down to another single block attached near the middle of the gaff and back up to a fourth single block attached to the lower mast close below the mast cap. Then it leads down to the deck, and the means of belaying it is not shown.

 

Both of these configurations are fairly common. In neither case does the peak halliard have two running ends. It would be possible to lead down from the top to a luff tackle on deck, as shown in your drawing.

Edited April 16 by Dr PR

[townpiper]

Doc

I'll try to send a photo of MSW's POB plans for peak and throat halliards. Some of it is clear and understandable but the throat halliard has me stumped...looks like the halliard lines go around the throat  block (triple sheave) not through the sheaves...makes no sense to me. Must be missing something. 

The lanyard goes thru the sheaves and I assume through another trip block someplace on the deck. 

MSW leaves you to guess where the block should be placed. Can you shed some light on this?

 

 

Thanks doc...Clears it up for me..

Cheers

[Dr PR]

Paul,

 

 A sling is tied around the treble block and around the lower mast at the top. This just supports the block.

 

The halliard goes through the sheaves in the block. I think that's what the three short lines below the block are supposed to represent.

 

There could be a double block fastened to a ring bolt on the jaws of the gaff. The halliard would go up from the left and through the treble block, to the double block, up through the treble block, back down through the double block, and up through the treble block again and then down to the right.

 

You need to find a good resolution photo of the main mast top and main gaff jaws.

 

There is a fellow on the Forum who works on the Pride of Baltimore II and has posted some photos. Look through my Topsail Schooner Rigging thread (I think that is where I saw his posts). He could clear this up for us.

[BobG]

I've been reading over this topic again and I can't tell how helpful it is to me. Thank you so much for all the time and energy you have put into these detailed rigging explanations. Simply outstanding and one of the most thorough and useful information sources on rigging that I have ever read on this forum. 

[Dr PR]

Bob,

 

I am glad it has been helpful. After wading through all this information I hoped that putting it here would be useful to someone else.

[Srenner]

Hi.. just question on the main gaff topsail.. in the photo of the jolie brise looks like the sail is hooked to a wooden ring on the mast... but also in video they haul it up from deck on running lines so wondering do they go up mast and attach it later?

Edited August 1, 2022 by Srenner

[Dr PR]

I found this image on line that shows what you are talking about a bit better

 

 

I do not know how they attach the sail to the ring around the mast. It is possible that they have a line attached to the sail that passes through the ring and down to the deck. There is a line visible in this photo but it could be the halliard.

 

When the sail is hauled down the line would come down with it. The line would loop through the ring and both ends would be belayed on deck when the sail was removed.

 

When they rig the sail on deck the line would be attached to the sail, and could be used to help haul the sail aloft. Once aloft this line could be pulled taut to pull the point on the sail down and close to the ring.

 

But that is just a guess. This is another example of the many variations on rigging found with the fore-and-aft rigs.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Dr PR

[Dr PR]

Aha! Better late than never!

 

I wonder of the topsail rig shown on the Jolie Brise is a sliding gunter rig? See posts #84 and #85.

 

In this topsail rig the sail peak, and often the upper part of the forward edge (luff), is attached to the vertical yard. The lower part of the luff hangs free. The yard slides in rings near the top of the mast. A halliard hoists the spar to it's upper position, taking the sail up with it. A line on the sail tack pulls the sail down taut. To lower the sail the spar is lowered so it no longer catches the wind. It is a popular rig on smaller vessels.

 

The clew is attached to the end of the gaff and the tack is pulled down by the tack line.