Jump to content

Understanding Truss Pendants and other rigging things


LucienL

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I'm working on the HMS Beagle and basing my build off of the Anatomy of the Ship to modify the OcCre kit. Apparently, the Beagle used a significant amount of chain in its rigging, including for the truss around the lower yard. This diagram is included

image.png.cd7b82ff767d6093fb6b8a6efc278011.png

Looking at image I1/3, I'm not sure I'm fully understanding what's going on. The truss pendants are number 4 and the truss tackle is number 6. Would the truss pendant really simply dangle like this? If the truss tackle were to be tightened too much, wouldn't the truss pendant slide out of the iron block and suddenly become useless? How many ropes should be going down to deck regarding the truss, is it just one for the truss tackle or should there be another set of tackle on the other pendant?

Also I have similar questions about the mast tackle pendant (is there a difference between mast tackle and burton tackle?)

image.png.4adf13cb9e21a7e105ebc969fcfb4632.png

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Edited by LucienL

 

Previous builds: HMS Bounty's Launch (Model Shipways), USS Albatros (OcCre)

 

Current build: HMS Beagle (OcCre)

 

Future builds: HMB Endeavour (Caldercraft), De Zeven Provinciën (Kolderstok), HMS Victory (Caldercraft/De Agostini/Artesania Latina/Corel)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucien,

FWIW, according to David Lees in The Masting and Rigging, on page 67 chain pendants were not used until 1850.  As Beagle was already de-masted and set in a marsh by 1845 and later renamed Watch Vessel Number 7  it may be the plans you have are not accurate.  It would be a good idea to look for contemporary information to confirm information given with most any kit.  The Anatomy of a Ship series is great, but  again, it is wise to check contemporary sources or "modern" sources based on contemporary information before cutting wood or metal.   It may be that Beagle was 30 years ahead of her time and had chain pendants when built but I would not think so.  Hopefully if you  do some research it will turn up accurate information. 

 

There are very detailed descriptions of both mast tackles and burton tackles in The Masting and Rigging on pages 42 and 66-67.  Far too much to copy here without violating copyrights.  In short though I believe the two are very similar with the mast tackle on the lower masts and the burton tackle on the topmasts but keep in mind that at least the burton tackle was rigged differently depending on if it was actually in use or not.  Hopefully some member can give you more information. 

 

Allan

 

 

PLEASE take 30 SECONDS and sign up for the epic Nelson/Trafalgar project if you would like to see it made into a TV series.   Click on http://trafalgar.tv   There is no cost other than the 30 seconds of your time.  THANK YOU

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 12:33 AM, allanyed said:

Lucien,

FWIW, according to David Lees in The Masting and Rigging, on page 67 chain pendants were not used until 1850.  As Beagle was already de-masted and set in a marsh by 1845 and later renamed Watch Vessel Number 7  it may be the plans you have are not accurate.  It would be a good idea to look for contemporary information to confirm information given with most any kit.  The Anatomy of a Ship series is great, but  again, it is wise to check contemporary sources or "modern" sources based on contemporary information before cutting wood or metal.   It may be that Beagle was 30 years ahead of her time and had chain pendants when built but I would not think so.  Hopefully if you  do some research it will turn up accurate information. 

 

There are very detailed descriptions of both mast tackles and burton tackles in The Masting and Rigging on pages 42 and 66-67.  Far too much to copy here without violating copyrights.  In short though I believe the two are very similar with the mast tackle on the lower masts and the burton tackle on the topmasts but keep in mind that at least the burton tackle was rigged differently depending on if it was actually in use or not.  Hopefully some member can give you more information. 

 

Allan

 

 

Hi Allan

I think Anatomy of the Ship's plans come from a description of the rigging used for the Beagle by Robert Fitzroy around the time of the second voyage (1831). Admittedly, the quote is a little vague 

 

The Beagle was rigged with extra-strong crosstrees and heavier rigging “than is usual in a vessel of her tonnage. Chains were used where found to answer and in no place was a block or sheave allowed which did not admit the proper rope or chain freely.... Our ropes, sails and spars were the best that could be procured.”

 

It may be some speculation on the part of the author (Marquadt) but there is at least some evidence. I can't really think of anywhere else chain would need to pass through a block, but my understanding of rigging is extremely limited and I may not have studied the plans enough.

 

But my understanding of how the pendant actually worked is still unclear. Did the pendant really just hang there? I somehow have an easier time imagining that the Burton and mast tackles would just dangle as they were used to hoist up heavy items (I'm assuming that would be the lower yards?) If my understanding of the truss is correct, tightening the truss tackle would pull the yard one way and giving it some slack would let it fall the other way. This explanation seems unsatisfying to me as if the truss were loosened, wouldn't the yard be free to fall in either direction? Should there be another set of truss tackle on the other pendant? 

 

These diagrams were posted in another thread.

image.png.b55a4baa5886471c22943bb2db87f361.png

 

The one on the right makes more sense to me than the one on the left. I'm imagining that there is a set of tackle for each rope at the deck in the right diagram and they can be loosened or tightened to turn the yards one way or the other. The right one is more similar to AOTS, but makes less sense, it also does not have a dangling truss pendant though...

 

 

 

Previous builds: HMS Bounty's Launch (Model Shipways), USS Albatros (OcCre)

 

Current build: HMS Beagle (OcCre)

 

Future builds: HMB Endeavour (Caldercraft), De Zeven Provinciën (Kolderstok), HMS Victory (Caldercraft/De Agostini/Artesania Latina/Corel)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I'm thinking now that I may have got the purpose of the truss all wrong. Is it just to let the yard move away from the mast? If so, the dangling pendant still bothers me. If the yard were blown too far with the port side forward, would the pendant be at risk of slipping out of the block? Also, how would you then bring it back if you can only tighten the starboard side?

Edited by LucienL

 

Previous builds: HMS Bounty's Launch (Model Shipways), USS Albatros (OcCre)

 

Current build: HMS Beagle (OcCre)

 

Future builds: HMB Endeavour (Caldercraft), De Zeven Provinciën (Kolderstok), HMS Victory (Caldercraft/De Agostini/Artesania Latina/Corel)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Lucien,

Truss pendants and falls replaced parrels and sometimes were actually  called truss parrels.   It holds the yard to the mast just as the parrels did.  They moved up and down  when the yards were moved up and down.  I THINK the falls of the truss pendants were to move the truss with the yard more than to  lift or lower the yard itself which I believe was  the job of jeers or ties. The Zu Monfeld drawing shows pendants as they were from 1760 to 1810.  From 1810 to 1850,  (according to Lees) the pendants rove UP towards the after end of the trestle trees where there were a series of block connected to eyebolts hanging from the trestle trees.  The Peterssen drawing matches that of Lees for the Cro'jack.  The falls in the Monfeld drawing  are not dangling, they just don't show the series of blocks that were part of the falls rigging.   

Allan

Edited by allanyed

PLEASE take 30 SECONDS and sign up for the epic Nelson/Trafalgar project if you would like to see it made into a TV series.   Click on http://trafalgar.tv   There is no cost other than the 30 seconds of your time.  THANK YOU

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, allanyed said:

Hi Lucien,

Truss pendants and falls replaced parrels and sometimes were actually  called truss parrels.   It holds the yard to the mast just as the parrels did.  They moved up and down  when the yards were moved up and down.  I THINK the falls of the truss pendants were to move the truss with the yard more than to  lift or lower the yard itself which I believe was  the job of jeers or ties. The Zu Monfeld drawing shows pendants as they were from 1760 to 1810.  From 1810 to 1850,  (according to Lees) the pendants rove UP towards the after end of the trestle trees where there were a series of block connected to eyebolts hanging from the trestle trees.  The Peterssen drawing matches that of Lees for the Cro'jack.  The falls in the Monfeld drawing  are not dangling, they just don't show the series of blocks that were part of the falls rigging.   

Allan

Okay, thanks Allan, that's making a little more sense. In the Monfeld drawing, would there be two sets of tackle, and would this be a similar situation for the Beagle diagram? The reason why I ask, is I'm trying to figure out how many eyebolts I need to have at the base of each mast for each line that is attached to tackle, I know of two for the topgallant and royal yard ties. There are another two for the topsail yard (although they don't tie off at the mast base according to AOTS), one for the flag halyard and then one or two sets of truss tackle. There are also some stays that tie off at the base of the mast (one mizzen at the main mast and two main stays at the foremast)

 

Previous builds: HMS Bounty's Launch (Model Shipways), USS Albatros (OcCre)

 

Current build: HMS Beagle (OcCre)

 

Future builds: HMB Endeavour (Caldercraft), De Zeven Provinciën (Kolderstok), HMS Victory (Caldercraft/De Agostini/Artesania Latina/Corel)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the rigging diagram has just omitted the tackle for the other pendant for clarity. It is often the case that rigging plans only show one side and you just assume the duplication on the other side.

 

The function of the truss, or parrels was to confine the yard in to the mast. Slacking the truss would allow you to either brace the yard hard around or allow the yard to come away from the mast for lowering. 

 

Regards,

 

Edited by popeye2sea

Henry

 

Laissez le bon temps rouler ! 

 

 

Current Build:  Le Soleil Royal

Completed Build Amerigo Vespucci

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, popeye2sea said:

Perhaps the rigging diagram has just omitted the tackle for the other pendant for clarity. It is often the case that rigging plans only show one side and you just assume the duplication on the other side.

 

The function of the truss, or parrels was to confine the yard in to the mast. Slacking the truss would allow you to either brace the yard hard around or allow the yard to come away from the mast for lowering. 

 

Regards,

 

Hey Henry, I was hoping that would be the case, but wasn't sure if there was something I was missing. Looking at it again, it does seem like they've only included some of the rigging for one side, so you're probably right. That does put me more at ease, thank you.

 

Previous builds: HMS Bounty's Launch (Model Shipways), USS Albatros (OcCre)

 

Current build: HMS Beagle (OcCre)

 

Future builds: HMB Endeavour (Caldercraft), De Zeven Provinciën (Kolderstok), HMS Victory (Caldercraft/De Agostini/Artesania Latina/Corel)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are speaking about the single pendant and falls shown in the Peterssen drawing for the crossjack, from what I could find there should only be one fall as shown,  not a pair of them.   The Monfeld drawing for the lower yards (not the crossjack) matches Lees.   

 

From about 1806 to the end of the sail period, the topsail yards and the topgallant yards truss parrels  were set up differently and had no falls at all.   The topgallant truss parrel was sometimes set up the same as the topsail yard truss parrel, or sometimes with two strops, but again, there were no falls.   

 

Detailed drawings and written descriptions can be found on pages 84 and 95 in Lees' Masting and Rigging.    Too much to copy here without violating copyrights, but perhaps someone has redrawn these and can post.   

 

Allan

 

Edited by allanyed

PLEASE take 30 SECONDS and sign up for the epic Nelson/Trafalgar project if you would like to see it made into a TV series.   Click on http://trafalgar.tv   There is no cost other than the 30 seconds of your time.  THANK YOU

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good Evening Jacek;

 

Those do indeed look like mast tackle pendants, which were the first item over the masthead when dressing the mast with the standing rigging. The wooden thimbles in the end are unusual, though. From what I have seen and read, most of them were fitted with a metal thimble seized in an eye-splice. The pendants were permanent, whereas the tackles were un-rigged when not in use. 

 

I would strongly suspect that when not in use, they were fastened to the shrouds with a temporary seizing, to stop them flailing around in any kind of wind or rolling of the ship, when they would chafe against other items, causing wear. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Previously built models (long ago, aged 18-25ish) POB construction. 32 gun frigate, scratch-built sailing model, Underhill plans.

2 masted topsail schooner, Underhill plans.

 

Started at around that time, but unfinished: 74 gun ship 'Bellona' NMM plans. POB 

 

On the drawing board: POF model of Royal Caroline 1749, part-planked with interior details. My own plans, based on Admiralty draughts and archival research.

 

Always on the go: Research into Royal Navy sailing warship design, construction and use, from Tudor times to 1790. 

 

Member of NRG, SNR, NRS, SMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mast or Burton pendants usually had a block rather than a bullseye spliced into the legs at each end. They were indeed lashed to the shrouds when not in use.

Be sure to sign up for an epic Nelson/Trafalgar project if you would like to see it made into a TV series  http://trafalgar.tv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, I think that perhaps the make-up of the pendants had begun to change in this era.  Certainly the Rigging Warrant for HMCSS Victoria (1855) listed wire mast pendants with thimbles in lieu of blocks.

 

Druxey, sorry,  I am not trying to be contentious; I agree blocks had been the usual practice, but I think in the era of chain and wire this may have started to change?

 

cheers

 

Pat

If at first you do not suceed, try, and then try again!
Current build: HMCSS Victoria (Scratch)

Next build: HMAS Vampire (3D printed resin, scratch 1:350)

Built:          Battle Station (Scratch) and HM Bark Endeavour 1768 (kit 1:64)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mark P said:

Good Evening Jacek;

 

Those do indeed look like mast tackle pendants, which were the first item over the masthead when dressing the mast with the standing rigging. The wooden thimbles in the end are unusual, though. From what I have seen and read, most of them were fitted with a metal thimble seized in an eye-splice. The pendants were permanent, whereas the tackles were un-rigged when not in use. 

 

I would strongly suspect that when not in use, they were fastened to the shrouds with a temporary seizing, to stop them flailing around in any kind of wind or rolling of the ship, when they would chafe against other items, causing wear. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Hi, i took the pic from James H prototype of the Vanguard HMS Sphinx, although the plans themselves show them with just a spliced rope. Do you know of any reference on how they would be lashed/Secured when not in use ?

Jacek

 

Current Build: HMS Sphinx 1775 - Vanguard Models 1/64 

On Hold/Parallel: Lady Nelson - Amati/Victory Models 1/64

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Evening Jacek;

 

I have no information on the lashing of the pendants; it seem logical that they would not be allowed to flap around, and if Druxey confirms that they were lashed, I would take this a certainty, and lash them as you think best.

 

James Lees, in his book on rigging, states that until 1780 a single block was spliced into the end of the pendants; after that date a metal thimble was used instead. As your model is from 1775 (launch date, presumably) she would have had the pre 1780 version with a single block in each end. According to Lees, in ships with 2 pendants per side (which was those with over 50 guns) the after pendant was 1 foot longer than the fore pendant. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

Previously built models (long ago, aged 18-25ish) POB construction. 32 gun frigate, scratch-built sailing model, Underhill plans.

2 masted topsail schooner, Underhill plans.

 

Started at around that time, but unfinished: 74 gun ship 'Bellona' NMM plans. POB 

 

On the drawing board: POF model of Royal Caroline 1749, part-planked with interior details. My own plans, based on Admiralty draughts and archival research.

 

Always on the go: Research into Royal Navy sailing warship design, construction and use, from Tudor times to 1790. 

 

Member of NRG, SNR, NRS, SMS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...