Rope sizes

[DaveBaxt]

Just looking at the different rope sizes for running rigging and noticed several references to rope sizes for purchase and pendants. For example Main mast Tye and purchase and Braces and pendant. I am assuming that the purchase is for the halyard  and the Brace pendant is the pendant block attached to the yard. I might be wrong but if my thinking is correct The pendant on the braces is larger than the lifts which seems a bit odd to me. I am just trying to work out what threads will be needed for the running rigging as the Kit only supplies three different sizes of natural thread. I now see why you guys make a lot of you own rope. Best regards Dave

[popeye2sea]

The sizes of the ropes are related to the other parts of that particular piece of rigging.  For example; the Main yard tye is the line that leads from the yard up through a sheave or blocks at the mast cap and then terminates in a block that hangs abaft the mast. The halyard is the line that is rove through the tye block  The halyard fall provides the purchase to hoist the yard. There are various rules of thumb published for the relative sizes of these lines with the following being an example:

 

Tye = the thickness of the shrouds

Halyard = 2/3 the thickness of the tye.

 

For the Braces it is the same idea. The brace pendant has an eye spliced in to take the yard and a block is seized on the other end. The brace runs through this block and itself terminates in a block which then has the tackle fall rove through.

 

Brace Pendant = 1/2 the thickness of the shrouds

Brace = 3/4 the thickness of the pendants

Fall = 1/2 or so the thickness of the Brace

 

Lifts can be rigged in various ways but if they have pendants:

Lift pendant = 1/2 thickness of shrouds

Lift = 3/8 thickness of shrouds

 

Caveat - the above rule of thumb is just an example I have read for ships from 1600 - 1720. You can find other examples and tables of rigging for other periods.

 

Regards,

Edited April 7, 2021 by popeye2sea

[DaveBaxt]

1 hour ago, popeye2sea said:

The sizes of the ropes are related to the other parts of that particular piece of rigging.  For example; the Main yard tye is the line that leads from the yard up through a sheave or blocks at the mast cap and then terminates in a block that hangs abaft the mast. The halyard is the line that is rove through the tye block  The halyard fall provides the purchase to hoist the yard. There are various rules of thumb published for the relative sizes of these lines with the following being an example:

 

Tye = the thickness of the shrouds

Halyard = 2/3 the thickness of the tye.

 

For the Braces it is the same idea. The brace pendant has an eye spliced in to take the yard and a block is seized on the other end. The brace runs through this block and itself terminates in a block which then has the tackle fall rove through.

 

Brace Pendant = 1/2 the thickness of the shrouds

Brace = 3/4 the thickness of the pendants

Fall = 1/2 or so the thickness of the Brace

 

Lifts can be rigged in various ways but if they have pendants:

Lift pendant = 1/2 thickness of shrouds

Lift = 3/8 thickness of shrouds

 

Caveat - the above rule of thumb is just an example I have read for ships from 1600 - 1720. You can find other examples and tables of rigging for other periods.

 

Regards,

Thank you for your reply and I am sorry if I was unclear . I appreciate your reference to the rigging but what I suppose I really wanted to know  is , what is the purchase and pendant ,if not what I suggested, as these have different sizes  as you have kindly stated.

Also according to my source ( Historic ship models) the thickness of the  Braces are thicker than the pendents ( 35% and 25% respectively) which does not make sense to me , thats why I am querying about pendents .Also the Tye is 50% and the purchase is 30% . The halyard is not mentioned. I assumed that the purchase is where the halyard is secured to the deck .Again if this is correct I cannot understand why the purchase would be smaller than the Tye. These percentages are of the main stay which is 100% .Best regards Dave

Edited April 7, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[popeye2sea]

Purchase is another name for a block and tackle.  Purchase is old term meaning to move , haul, get leverage on, especially by mechanical means.

 

So the purchase you are referring to is the halyard.

 

A pendant is a length of rope used to shift the bearing point of a pulley to give better advantage or a better lead. So you will find pendants like brace pendants to give a better lead for the braces, Mast tackle pendants to be able to place a tackle over a hatch. Lift pendants to allow the lift blocks to clear the shrouds, etc. They need to be thicker because there is only one rope bearing the entire load.

 

The purchases (block and tackles) are always smaller than their respective tyes or pendants for a few reasons. The first being that the load is distributed over the multiple parts of the tackle. Next up a smaller diameter rope is better able to bend around the sheaves of the blocks. And finally, the diameter of the hauling part of the tackle needs to be small enough for a person to hold on to and haul on.

 

Remember, I did mention that depending on the time period, nationality, etc.  the rules of thumb used to establish the rope thicknesses will vary.

 

Regards,

Edited April 8, 2021 by popeye2sea

[DaveBaxt]

5 hours ago, popeye2sea said:

Purchase is another name for a block and tackle.  Purchase is old term meaning to move , haul, get leverage on, especially by mechanical means.

 

So the purchase you are referring to is the halyard.

 

A pendant is a length of rope used to shift the bearing point of a pulley to give better advantage or a better lead. So you will find pendants like brace pendants to give a better lead for the braces, Mast tackle pendants to be able to place a tackle over a hatch. Lift pendants to allow the lift blocks to clear the shrouds, etc. They need to be thicker because there is only one rope bearing the entire load.

 

The purchases (block and tackles) are always smaller than their respective tyes or pendants for a few reasons. The first being that the load is distributed over the multiple parts of the tackle. Next up a smaller diameter rope is better able to bend around the sheaves of the blocks. And finally, the diameter of the hauling part of the tackle needs to be small enough for a person to hold on to and haul on.

 

Remember, I did mention that depending on the time period, nationality, etc.  the rules of thumb used to establish the rope thicknesses will vary.

 

Regards,

Thank you Pop eye for taking the time to explain this to me. Your patience holds no bounds. Now that I know what a purchase is I get what you are saying regards the halyards. I also get what you are saying regarding the pendent and have already fitted a number of them to the masts and yards, although I wasn,t so critical regarding the correct thickness of rope then and just went thicker as I knew they pendents received all of the load. Now the book I am referring to 'Historic Ships models' by Mondfield is saying the Braces are 32 % and pendants are 23% of the main stay. This is for ships built during the eighteen century, this is why I am querying what pendants are. I know these differences are not great and as I am not making my own rope will just make do with the next size smaller or bigger, where am I going wrong?

[popeye2sea]

You are not going wrong.  Personally, I would not use Zu Mondfield as an accurate reference. There are other, more contemporary, references available.

 

Regards, 

[Gregory]

10 hours ago, DaveBaxt said:

Thank you Pop eye for taking the time to explain this to me. Your patience holds no bounds.

 Isn't it really great when someone takes the time to explain something rather than telling us to go look in " $200 Book " ..

This epitomizes the true worth of these forums..

[DaveBaxt]

17 minutes ago, Gregory said:

 Isn't it really great when someone takes the time to explain something rather than telling us to go look in " $200 Book " ..

This epitomizes the true worth of these forums..

Yes this is very much the case with this forum. I have had a lot of help from a number of these people including yourself on a number of occations.Once again I thank you for your input.

[DaveBaxt]

2 hours ago, popeye2sea said:

You are not going wrong.  Personally, I would not use Zu Mondfield as an accurate reference. There are other, more contemporary, references available.

 

Regards, 

Thanks again Popeye for your advice and hopefully I can get the correct information on line somewhere but if not perhaps you could be kind enough to point me in the right direction. I have just put a search into this web site and came across your reply regarding a similar question asked by another modeler and you have given me the information I require .Again I would like to say thank you for helping me out with what is turning out to be a very complex hobby. The more I learn the more I realize what I don,t know, However I am finding it more and more rewarding and interesting too but also very challenging, at least it is for me. Best regards Dave 

Edited April 8, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[popeye2sea]

Like a lot of people on this site I love the beauty and history of these ships.  I am also a constant student of history so I am very much drawn to the why, what, where, when and how ships function. 

One thing I learned early on is that I will never be done learning.

 

Best wishes for a rewarding and successful journey of knowledge.

 

Regards,

[allanyed]

Dave

Have you looked at the mast, spar, and rope sizes on the spread sheet here at MSW?  It is based on the formulas from Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War book and is quite useful except for the period from 1670 to 1711.  An incorrect formula was used on the length of the main mast for this time span so every thing else that follows is wrong.   But, from 1640 to 1670 and from 1711 to 1860 all the numbers appear to be correct.  Go to "More" on the ribbon at the top of the MSW  page, then click on Articles Data Base, then scroll down to Masting and Rigging Spread sheet and click on it and the spread sheet will appear.   Danny Vadas did a great service in creating this.  I wish someone had Danny's original so the one time period between 1670 and 1711 could be corrected.

 

 

[Trond]

It is fantastic that more knowledge people here in the forums help us new to ship building (like me) with understanding ship/sailing terminology.

 

Here is the link to Steel https://www.thenrg.org/resources/Documents/articles/TheArtOfRigging-Steel.pdf book with a lot of rig tables as Allanyed mentioned.

What I found is that it is possible to get good books for building ship at low cost, by choosing electroical version ($8-15). Just need to check the different web pages (Ebay, Amazon, Biblio, Abebooks...).

[allanyed]

Hi Trond

Actually the spread sheet here at MSW is based on Lees' Masting and Rigging.  It may be close or the same as Steel for his era, but Lees covers the 17th-19th centuries so helps a wider range of model builders.   Both are worth having and checking as appropriate.  Used copies of Masting and Rigging are available for under $100, but if one is only interested in the mast, spar and rope sizes without drawngs and details on rigging, the Vadas spread sheet is a free way to go (not including the 1670-1711 time period which as mentioned above is not at all accurate, especially when it comes to the lengths of the masts and spars.   For this stretch  of years, Lees is a great source.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by allanyed

[Gregory]

5 hours ago, allanyed said:

Have you looked at the mast, spar, and rope sizes on the spread sheet here at MSW? 

Do you by chance have a link for that?

 

Searching for stuff here is not as intuitive ( for me anyway ) as you think it might be..

[allanyed]

Go to the top of the  page and click "More"  Then click on "Articles Data Base".  Then scroll down to the Masts and Rigging section.  Then click on Danny's spread sheet, third one down.

Cheers

Edited April 9, 2021 by allanyed

[Gregory]

This one?

 

Masting and Rigging Spreadsheet

 

Thanks for getting me there.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Gregory

[allanyed]

That's the one.

Which of the many Resolutions are you building?  If it is the Corel kit of the cutter that they describe as 17th or early 18th century the tables are  wrong so it should not be used.  If it is the Ferret 1711 the table might work, but they do not cover cutters.   Sorry this is not cut and dried.

 

  

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by allanyed

[Gregory]

3 hours ago, allanyed said:

Which of the many Resolutions are you building? 

My log explains that 'Resolution" is a name chosen by  Corel  with no resemblance to any actual ' Resolution ' on record.

 

Also explained in my log, the lines are a close match to drawings found at the NMM for Ferret 1711.

 

The drawings say it is " ... a cutter-rigged Sloop. " ...

 

I try not to struggle too much with rope sizes based on tables or establishments..  I look at contemporary and other well made models and try to get a look that is well proportioned.

[tedrobinson2000]

Hi.  I just found the MSW rigging spreadsheet, and was delighted as I spent a lot of time developing a similar one for my 1;72 Victory.  I just wanted to point out that there seem to be some errors in the calculations, so beware - check the math.  I entered the data for Victory, and noticed that the ratline diameters given in the table are consistently wrong - they are often 30% larger in diameter that that mast's stay!  Same goes for snaking.  I tried it for several input parameters (scale, date of launch and rate), and it is consistently wrong.  It seems to be a problem with original ropes of 1.5" circumference, but there may be other computational errors as well.  The table is really helpful, but if the given scale rope diameter seems too large, check the math manually!

[DaveBaxt]

On 4/9/2021 at 11:46 AM, allanyed said:

Dave

Have you looked at the mast, spar, and rope sizes on the spread sheet here at MSW?  It is based on the formulas from Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War book and is quite useful except for the period from 1670 to 1711.  An incorrect formula was used on the length of the main mast for this time span so every thing else that follows is wrong.   But, from 1640 to 1670 and from 1711 to 1860 all the numbers appear to be correct.  Go to "More" on the ribbon at the top of the MSW  page, then click on Articles Data Base, then scroll down to Masting and Rigging Spread sheet and click on it and the spread sheet will appear.   Danny Vadas did a great service in creating this.  I wish someone had Danny's original so the one time period between 1670 and 1711 could be corrected.

 

 

 

On 4/9/2021 at 11:46 AM, allanyed said:

Dave

Have you looked at the mast, spar, and rope sizes on the spread sheet here at MSW?  It is based on the formulas from Lees' Masting and Rigging English Ships of War book and is quite useful except for the period from 1670 to 1711.  An incorrect formula was used on the length of the main mast for this time span so every thing else that follows is wrong.   But, from 1640 to 1670 and from 1711 to 1860 all the numbers appear to be correct.  Go to "More" on the ribbon at the top of the MSW  page, then click on Articles Data Base, then scroll down to Masting and Rigging Spread sheet and click on it and the spread sheet will appear.   Danny Vadas did a great service in creating this.  I wish someone had Danny's original so the one time period between 1670 and 1711 could be corrected.

 

 

Alan I have only just seen this.For some reason I am not recieving notifications on of any updates, so I was just looking back to read again and noticed a lot of activity on this thread so thank you. I have just had a look at the spread sheet as I am trying to find the rope size for the crows feet but for some reason I am unable to find the start button. I have also downloaded the file but can,t find where it is on my chromebook. So back to the drawing board for me. I have tried adding the scale in 1 :64 but then nothing happens so I am clearly doing something wrong. Perhaps I need windows?

Edited April 13, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[allanyed]

Sorry Dave, I have no idea what the problem is.  Perhaps you can contact a moderator for some help on this.   Again, sorry I cannot help.

 

[tedrobinson2000]

Hi Dave,

I am running Windows 10, and the downloaded spreadsheet shows up as an Excel file.  When it is opened, it comes up as a protected file which can't be edited to input your particular data.  At the top of the page is a button to Enable editing.  Click on that, then hit the salmon "New Build" button to clear the spreadsheet of previous data, if any.  Then enter your scale factor in the pink box at lower left, and then the green "enter Data" button to get started.

[DaveBaxt]

On 4/14/2021 at 2:15 PM, tedrobinson2000 said:

Hi Dave,

I am running Windows 10, and the downloaded spreadsheet shows up as an Excel file.  When it is opened, it comes up as a protected file which can't be edited to input your particular data.  At the top of the page is a button to Enable editing.  Click on that, then hit the salmon "New Build" button to clear the spreadsheet of previous data, if any.  Then enter your scale factor in the pink box at lower left, and then the green "enter Data" button to get started.

I am not using windows but it should work anyway. I have downloaded it and opened it up with a different program . I cannot see the button to enable editing . Does this button have a name, perhaps it has a grid reference or what ever they are called. Thank you for your reply it is much appreciated. Best regards Dave

[DaveBaxt]

On 4/14/2021 at 12:46 AM, allanyed said:

Sorry Dave, I have no idea what the problem is.  Perhaps you can contact a moderator for some help on this.   Again, sorry I cannot help.

 

No worries Allan, I am hopeful I will eventually get there, providing it can be run on different spreadsheet other than windows excel.

[allanyed]

Dave, there is no edit button.   Click on "New Build"  at the top of the page.  Scroll down to the bottom of the page and enter your scale.  Go back to the top of the page and hit "Enter Data."   

[DaveBaxt]

28 minutes ago, allanyed said:

Dave, there is no edit button.   Click on "New Build"  at the top of the page.  Scroll down to the bottom of the page and enter your scale.  Go back to the top of the page and hit "Enter Data."   

Alan I can,t find that either. all I can find is the caution this will erase all your data, which I have clicked and then entered the scale of the ship and then clicked on yes for metric. I am beginning to think I am an idiot. It does work on metric as why would you get the choice?

[allanyed]

This is the screen that you should have.   The "New Build" button, second from the left on top is what needs to be hit to get the process started.   Cheers

 

[DaveBaxt]

6 hours ago, allanyed said:

This is the screen that you should have.   The "New Build" button, second from the left on top is what needs to be hit to get the process started.   Cheers

 

Allan for some reason all of the square buttons are all  missing as is a few other things. I will try and see if I can open another spreadsheet from somewhere and use that instead of the current one. Unfortunately I no longer use windows( too much hassle  with running older programmes when a new version of windows s released) so went with a chrome book which is android like a phone..  I have just found out that I can download Excel onto my Chrome book . However I am now have problems logging into my Microsoft account having not used it for a few years. It has froze me out, so unable to try again until tomorrow.Thanks once again for taking the time to take a photo and post it and trying to help me out. Best regards Dave

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[tedrobinson2000]

Dave,

Look at the ribbon in yellow just above the "Edit Program" button.  It essentially says that you can't edit the spreadsheet (yet).  Hit the Enable Editing button to the right of the message, and you will be able to then use the spreadsheet.

 

Regards,

Ted

[tedrobinson2000]

Correction: The button reads "Enable Content"