Mondfeld v Lees Masting and rigging

[DaveBaxt]

With my new found knowledge of working out the sizes of thread ie rope is the circumference and the masts are diameters I have attempted to use both the above books to work out the diameter of the main mast . I have used Mondfeld in my last build but unsure if this is the best book to use so I am now trying to use Lees book instead. The information I have at hand is the beam of the model which is 145mm from which I calculated the mast to be 2.23 x 145mm =323mm. Depending upon which figure you use, ie  1771 or pre 1771. When attempting to work out the diameter of the mast using Lees 9/10" for every three ft, of mast, which I thought should be easy to work out . Changing everything from metric to imperial and getting the full size as the model is 1;64 scale for some then working backwards changing it back to metric for some reason its not working out. The model in question is the Endeavour from Caldercraft and the dowl used for the main mast is 10mm so would expect it to be somewhere near this.

                I have also worked out the sizes using the Mondfeld book and this seems to work out a bit better and think this book may have been used by Caldercraft but would like to compare the numbers. By the way the figure for Mondfeld is 2.25x145mm for the same period so very little difference. The diameter of the mast is based on the 0.026 x length which is again easy to work out but is a bit under 10mm at 8.393mm. So quite a bit under 10mm.I am hoping someone could point me out where I am going wrong with my calculation. Hope all this makes sense, best regards dave

Edited December 16, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[druxey]

I'm sure that in practice the actual masting, sparring and rigging varied a little from the ideal, especially in  wartime with shortages. As long as you are reasonably close, no-one will fault you!

[DaveBaxt]

Thank you for your reply and I have been thinking this myself so will probably go with the kit sizes for the mast diameters and Mondfelds sizes for lengths for now as reading other build logs I haven't come across anyone that has used anything other than 10mm for the main mast when building the Endeavour in kit form. I am not sure I have enough sizes of rope either so just taking the nearest I have such as 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1 and 1.3 mm. I could really do with some 1.5 or similar for the main stays.Hopefully all turns out ok as it did for building the Bounty.

                       One day I might go back to using a windows computer and run the free spreadsheet on here to get the figures as I am still unable to get it to work on a chrome book and a few tech savi guys on here have tried to help me out with this in the in the past. Oh well back to the drawing board. 

[allanyed]

Dave,

 

Just remember that the Vadas spread sheet is completely wrong for the period between 1670 through 1710 and should not be used if your vessel falls into that time frame.    

 

Allan

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by allanyed

[DaveBaxt]

17 hours ago, allanyed said:

Dave,

 

Just remember that the Vadas spread sheet is completely wrong for the period between 1670 through 1710 and should not be used if your vessel falls into that time frame.    

 

Allan

 

 

Thank you Allan.

[Thunder]

Hi, don't know if helps but in the Anatomy of the ship book the diameter at the deck level is 6mm. Scale of book is 1/8" to the foot. My maths may be out but i get this as 9mm at 1:64 scale.

[DaveBaxt]

23 hours ago, Thunder said:

Hi, don't know if helps but in the Anatomy of the ship book the diameter at the deck level is 6mm. Scale of book is 1/8" to the foot. My maths may be out but i get this as 9mm at 1:64 scale.

6mm seems way to small and for the record I too am getting 9 mm with my calculation so perhaps I am getting something right for once and then wonder what size this would make the smaller spars on the model. So I will work out the size of the smallest and see if these are possible to work with and then make a decision which way to go. Thank you for your input and I am always interested to hear what the AOTS  Endeavour has to say, however I am lead to believe that the book holds a number of errors. 

[DaveBaxt]

Sorry to return to this subject but as I now approach the building of the masts I need to get their sizes nailed down. Using the breadth of the model as  145 mm the main lower mast for that period 1758 to 1761 For a 6th rate ship equates to 330.6 mm. Although this is longer than the Caldercraft drawing mast of 293 mm ,they woulld be pretty much the same height above the partners . Using the Main lower mast length as the datum pretty much all the other masts and yards work out ok until I come to the main and fore topgallant yards.According to Caldercraft drawing these are both 150mm each. Now according tp Lees calculations these are calculated as 0.5 of the main topsail yard which is 0.5 x 198.36 = 99.2 mm Quite a bit under. the 150 proposed by Caldercraft , I would have thought. Then we come to the fore topgallant yard , also 0.5 x fore topsail yard which is 0.5 x 178.5 mm which is 89.2. This is smaller but this I beleive to be expected but still too short. 

                      The only thing I think I could be going wrong with this is using the comparison  of a 6th rate ship. As I understand it the HMB Endeavour is not rated so where do I go from here regards the topgallant yards. Interestingly enough the length of the mizzen mast is much higher than proposed by the Caldercraft drawing and therefore the shrouds will then be clear of the rail. Which was why I raised the initial question. One answer would be if some one was kind enough to work out the sizes for a scale of 1: 64 from the AOTS book just for the main and fore topgallant yards would be fantastic and I would be more than gratefull for their help. 

                          For the record I also worked out the sizes from the Monfield book and again the Topgallant yards are pretty much the same as the Lees 6th rate ship.but still a bit on the small size I would have thought and also worked out from the breadth of the ship. I am almost at the point of just using the sizes from the Caldercraft drawings apart from the length of the mizzem mast. as they will all probably look ok  and hopefully not top heavy.

Thank you for your continued patience. Best regards Dave

                                  

                     

[DelF]

Hi Dave

 

If you're treating Endeavour as a 6th rate built before 1773 then I would have no reason to doubt Lees. Half the topsail yard may sound small for the topgallant, but it actually looks OK on models of the period. The length of topgallant yards changed in 1773 from half to two thirds of the topsail yard which would make yours about 132mm if Endeavour had been built at this later date. Still well short of Caldercraft though.  Personally, I would trust Lees.

 

Derek

[allanyed]

David

1. Caldercraft- a toy model ship kit maker.  They were actually awarded awarded a gold medal at the Nuremberg Toy Fair in 1984.  

2 Lees and Monfeld - Researchers. 

In the end it is up to you to choose any of the above, but I have never seen kit makers quoted as a source of accurate information.

Allan

 

[DaveBaxt]

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

David

1. Caldercraft- a toy model ship kit maker.  They were actually awarded awarded a gold medal at the Nuremberg Toy Fair in 1984.  

2 Lees and Monfeld - Researchers. 

In the end it is up to you to choose any of the above, but I have never seen kit makers quoted as a source of accurate information.

Allan

 

Wow Allan if these are Toy models I wonder how difficult the real models are.I think they might be beyond my scope!

[allanyed]

Toys maybe, maybe not, but I think you get my point.   If you are going to spend the time and expend the effort to build a model, why not make it as good as possible, be it scratch or bashing the kit by replacing out-of-scale and otherwise inaccurate items like belaying (bowling) pins, gratings, and copper sheathing.

Just one opinion.

Allan

[DaveBaxt]

7 hours ago, allanyed said:

Toys maybe, maybe not, but I think you get my point.   If you are going to spend the time and expend the effort to build a model, why not make it as good as possible, be it scratch or bashing the kit by replacing out-of-scale and otherwise inaccurate items like belaying (bowling) pins, gratings, and copper sheathing.

Just one opinion.

Allan

Thank you once again Allan for your time. I am indeed getting the general idea and I am beginning to understand why people kit bash or even build from scratch and wonder if I would ever have the skill to get to that level. It must take a few years to learn every thing there is to know without considering the level of skill required. The latter being something which I believe I have left too late in life. Best regards Dave

[allanyed]

NEVER too late.  I think that you or anyone can wind up with a beautiful model if one does not rush or settle.   For many members, it is better to build one really good model over several years than pump out a mediocre model every year or so.  Keep in mind that do-overs are a part of this hobby for both the newest and most experienced and there is nothing wrong with that.  Needing a do-over and ignoring it is what yields models that are not so nice.  

Most members and of course the builders of the contemporary models that we see never had the training aids we have today.  Any member that wants to improve can do so with the help of so many people and so much information right here.

Allan

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by allanyed

[DaveBaxt]

6 hours ago, allanyed said:

NEVER to late.  I think that you or anyone can wind up with a beautiful model if one does not rush or settle.   For many members, it is better to build one really good model over several years than pump out a mediocre model every year or so.  Keep in mind that do-overs are a part of this hobby for both the newest and most experienced and there is nothing wrong with that.  Needing a do-over and ignoring it is what yields models that are not so nice.  

Most members and of course the builders of the contemporary models that we see never had the training aids we have today.  Any member that wants to improve can do so with the help of so many people and so much information right here.

Allan

I know what you mean Allan there are already many things I would do again and even a complete rebuild of the Bounty. Taking ones time is something I have needed to learn too and knowing when to stop instead of doing just that one more thing late in the day  but I amhopefully getting there. Best regards Dave

 

[mtaylor]

It is indeed a learning process.  No one ever knows everything about building a model.  Even old hands sometimes forget what they've learned.  As such, much of our learning seems to be OJT style.  We learn as we do and many times pick up from others.  Which is one of the values of MSW and build logs.  Many times, you won't find a method in the "tech" forums but in the logs.