sail plan for Ballahoo (Fish class) topsail schooner

[georgeband]

Sail plans for schooners are poorly documented with little information about the varied combinations of sails that they carried. I am building HMS Whiting (Ballahoo or Fish class) and in the absence of any useful drawings have taken to reading log books. There is one by sub-Lieutenant John Roach that I photographed at The National Archives in Kew, London and have now partly transcribed. (Wikipedia calls him George Roach and gets it wrong. They refer to Rif Winfield and I think the original mistake is from the Naval Chronicle in 1806 which erroneously put George on Whiting. The log book clearly states John Roach.) 

 

There are lots of mentions of sails and sailing in Roach's log and I have noted which ones are present or missing. He also mentions some of the spars such as the jib boom which answer other questions. 

The sketch below is a summary of what I found. The drawing itself is based on one by Phil (Dr PR) and the proportions are not quite right for Whiting. https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25679-topsail-schooner-sail-plans-and-rigging/

 

Fore and aft sails, starting from the bow

Flying jib. Several mentions. 

Jib. Comments such as 'took in the jib boom set the reefed jib' show that there was at least one row of reef points. There is no mention of a fore stay sail. There is one mention of a bonnet on the jib, 

Fore sail. This was used a lot and could be double reefed. 

Main sail. Like the fore sail this could also be close reefed. It was replaced by a try sail in bad weather. 

Main top sail. Several mentions. 

Ring tail sail. Several mentions. 

 

Square sails, starting from the deck

There is no mention of a course or lower square sail in all the time from April to October. However, there is a curious reference to a 'lower' studding sail which might be alongside the (missing) course. 

Fore top sail. This was reefed and the mention of a 'first reef' suggests that there were probably two rows of reef points. Lots of mentions of studding sails (starboard and lee are two variations) which I presume are next to the top sail. 

Fore top gallant. This went up and down several times so was probably set flying. 

 

The log book does not give the mast arrangements. The main mast would have had a lower and a top section and I am fairly confident about that. The fore mast could be made from two or three sticks and Roach does not solve that problem for me. The top mast and top gallant mast could be one long pole, or they could be in two separate sections. At present I tend towards a combined top and top gallant mast, largely because the top gallant sail was (probably) set flying and would be relatively small. Later and larger schooners as shown in Peterssen had separate sticks. 

 

I might have to visit Kew again and photograph some more log books to get more snippets of information. I will include detailed interpretations in my build log for Whiting, but welcome comments on this post too. 

 

George

 

 

 

[Dr PR]

George,

 

Your sail plan looks quite reasonable for a topsail schooner. The jib in your illustration is probably riding on the fore stay, so it might also be a called fore stay sail. Also, there is some ambiguity in the term jib boom. On some schooners a short boom was rigged at the head for the foresail nearest the fore mast, but I think this was a late 1800s or early 1900s configuration. For your vessel it would be the jib boom riding on the bowsprit. They were often hauled inboard in port so the vessel would fit into a smaller berth of moorage.

 

When I first saw your post I wondered if the HMS Whiting was a topsail schooner?

 

Howard Chapelle ("History of the American Sailing Navy," Norton & Company, New York, 1949, page 282) has a bit to say about the Ballahou, "The Ballahou and Landrail were ... tiny schooners 55' to 56' long on deck and about 18' beam, on a Bermuda design." Both ships were captured by the Americans, but later the Ballahou was recaptured by the British.

 

In "The Baltimore Clipper" (Edward W. Sweetman Company, New York, 1958, page 60) Chapelle says "A favorite class of schooner was called the "Ballahou." These had "fore-and-aft sails of great hoist and no topsails." "This type of masting was also called the "Bermuda Schooner rig," at a later date."He has an illustration (Figure 14) on the next page that shows both gaffs hoisted almost to the tops of the single pole masts, one jib sail, and a loose footed fore sail (no boom).

 

 

 

Harold Underhill ("Sailing Ship Rigs and Rigging," Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd.,Glasgow, page 11) shows a very different sail plan for a Bermuda rig:

 

 

 

 

Underhill illustrates several Bermuda rig varieties, but the key feature is the tall triangular main sail. I respect both authors, so the definition of "Ballahou rig" and "Bermuda rig" is a bit ambiguous.

 

However, your descriptions from Roach's log clearly describe a different sail plan, so theBallahou class HMS Whiting apparently was not a Ballahou rig! Figure that one out!

 

A search for the definition of "ballahou" comes up with a schooner rig with the fore mast raked forward and the main mast raked aft. But Chapelle's illustration shows the fore mast raked slightly aft, almost vertical, and the main mast raked sharply aft. Fincham apparently said the same.

My go-to book for schooners, especially topsail schooners, is Karl Heinz Marquardt's "The Global Schooner" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 2003). It is the "Lees" for fore-and-aft rigged ships. It has very detailed drawings of masts, spars, sails and rigging, and agrees with James Lees "Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" (Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland, 1984) in most details of mast, spar and rigging dimensions. In Marquardt's book on page 47 he has good drawings of the Ballahou or Fish class of schooners. He says there were 17 of this class built in Bermuda, and another 12 copied in the Cuckoo class. He says these were of the "pilot boat model."

 

Chapelle (The Baltimore Schooner, page 58 and 59) describes the 1805 Haddock class 75 ton schooners, saying the HMS Whiting was captured in 1812. He says pretty much what Marquardt says about the Ballahou or Fish class. On page 62 he says the pilot boat model rig was "probably a regular fore-and-aft schooner, without square topsails of any kind. They may have carried a square-sail yard when fitted for long voyages and may have had square topsails too, but this was not the regular rig."

 

Unfortunately, none of the books I have give sail plans for the Ballahou/Fish class ships!

 

There were small schooners of 80-90 tons and 55-60 feet on deck that were topsail schooners (I am modeling one) but they apparently did not carry a fixed topgallant. But, as you noted, they could carry a "flying" topgallant that was fixed to the spar on deck and hoisted aloft, controlled by the topsail braces and lifts.

 

The fore course wasn't fixed in place on topsail schooners, but could be hoisted to the fore course yard when needed. There were a variety of configurations, pretty much like everything else on schooners!

 

If the ship had stunsls (studding sails) as Roach says, it certainly had square topsails and a fore course.

 

I will be interested to see what you find in the National Archives in London.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Dr PR

[georgeband]

Phil,

 

Thank you for your extensive comments which save me a lot of typing! I also hold Marquardt's Global Schooner in high regard and am sure that we have recommended this book to each other several times.

 

I like that Marquardt quotes his sources though many of them are secondary and not primary. Books from 1800 are not necessarily correct (as with the Naval Chronicle for John Roach) and if the errors are repeated many times over the years they come to be regarded as fact and not an author's interpretation. Similarly, Marquardt's modern drawing of a Fish schooner has differences from the Haddock and Cuckoo drawings at Greenwich which I have studied extensively, and which makes me question the fine detail he includes in other illustrations. It is a great book, but apply some caution if you choose to follow it. 

 

Marquardt presents a lot of options in extensive detail but leaves open many decisions about which variety of rig was carried on any particular schooner outside his list of examples. The information from a log book for Whiting is historical evidence of the highest calibre and provides clear answers to some questions (eg top gallant sail was carried) but still leaves others open. One of these is about the fore sail / jib sail which was carried, but we do not know if the stay itself was tied to the stem post or the end of the bowsprit. This is where judgment comes into play and I rely on opinions from people like you to guide me. The decision in the end is mine and the mistake is mine if I get it wrong though in many cases the matter will remain unproven and we have a balance of probabilities. 

 

The next stage of modelling Whiting for me is to build the furniture on the hull. This includes pin rails around the masts and inside the chains and for them I want to know how many belaying pins are needed. To get that I have to know the rigging plan, which comes from the sail plan and the mast arrangements, which is why I am looking at this now. Building the masts and yards and sails is probably a year away at my build rate. 

 

More opinions please!

 

George

 

[georgeband]

I have picked up on a comment in Marquardt Global Schooner, page 186, where he discusses studding sails. He says that the water sail which hangs below the boom at the stern can be regarded as the 'lower studding sail'. The ring tail sail above it is the matching upper studding sail. This can explain the entries in John Roach's log about a lower studding sail and the absence of anything about a square sail on the fore mast. The sail plan should have the lower (fore) studding sails removed and a water sail added. 

 

George

 

[Dr PR]

George,

 

I am hardly an authority for schooner sail plans, but just a student!

 

With respect to the fore stay, it seems to me that the position of the fore mast determines whether the stay attaches at the stem post or at the end of the bowsprit. Some schooners had the fore mast very close behind the stem. The schooner in Petersson's "Rigging Period Fore-and-Aft Craft" (based upon the Experiment) has the fore mast forward almost at the base of the bowsprit, and the fore stay and preventer running through the bees behind the bowsprit cap.

 

The Prince de Neufchatel had the fore mast farther aft and the fore stays attached to the stem posts. Looking through Chapelle's The Baltimore Clipper it seems the stay attached to the bowsprit behind the cap (bees) is more common, but there were a couple of examples where the fore stay was attached to the bowsprit about half way between the cap and the stem!

 

I guess the question I would ask is whether or not the fore stay was positioned far enough ahead of the mast to allow the sail to have a useful area? If the mast was positioned near the stem, and the forestay attached to the stem, a fore staysail wouldn't make much sense, so the first headsail would be the jib, and the jib stay likely would be attached to the bowsprit at the bees.

 

I would certainly base my work on the plans at Greenwich. Marquardt's book has the greatest detail for schooners of any book I have found, but much of it is based upon his experience with the Australian schooner Enterprize. Some of his terminology leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out what he is talking about. Wefalck on the Forum has said Marquardt was from Germany, and was more familiar with northern European vessels and their terminology before migrating to Australia.

Edited December 29, 2021 by Dr PR

[georgeband]

Phil,

 

Thanks for your analysis of the position of the fore stay which sounds quite logical and reasonable. It is backed up by John Roach's use of the phrase 'jib sail' which points to a forward location on the jib. People have reminded me occasionally that 'the clue is in the words'. I find that Marquardt's Global Schooner does not have quite enough information about the bowsprit and jib boom and I turn to another favourite of mine, Petrejus' Irene. Petrejus is thorough with his sources and writes extensively around a subject. His focus is the Cruizer class brig but so much transfers to a schooner. 

 

I have looked in Steel and found an entry for sloop's water sail on page 127. 

 

SLOOP'S WATER-SAIL.

This sail is quadrilateral, cut square on the head, and made of canvas No. 7. It is occasionally spread under the boom of the main-sail in fair winds. The leeches are either cut square, or have one gored cloth. The depth of this sail is from one-half to three-fourths of the length of the boom, and it is 4 or 5 cloths wide.

The bolt-rope, on the head, foot, and leeches, should be one inch and a half in circumference.

*** When sloops have lower-studding-sails, they are similar to the water-sail: the leeches are square, and they are one yard deeper than the leech of the cross-jack, or square sail.

 

Steel's words are quite clear about the location of the water sail and it being called a lower studding sail on a sloop. What is less clear is the illustration in plate 24 which suggests that the water sail is taller than it is wide - the head rope and foot rope are labelled on the drawing. The best interpretation that I can make is that 'head' and 'foot' refer to features of the sail as it is made and not as it is used. I suspect that Marquardt came to the same conclusion (or found another source) because his drawing on page 185 shows the water sail lying sideways with the cloths horizontal. 

 

 

I am still a student and thoroughly enjoy researching a topic to understand 'why'. Fortunately I have now retired from full time work and can devote more time to pursuing my studies. 

 

Best wishes for the New Year

 

George

 

 

 

[wefalck]

On 12/24/2021 at 8:47 AM, Dr PR said:

 

 

I cannot really contribute to the actual substance of the discussion, but I think one should keep in mind that until at least the early 19th century it was more common to denominate ships by their hull shape than by their rigging. A particular hull type could have different rigs and the rigging layout, indeed, may change over its life-time. So the first example above refers to an 18th or early 19th century type of ship that was constructed on the Bermudas or other (British) islands in the Caribbean. Sometime in the early 20th, I think, perhaps through the so-called Huari-rig (a very steep gaff, almost parallel to the mast), on yachts and pleasure boats they began to do away with the gaff altogether - resulting in a triangular sail called a 'Bermuda'-sail. This is what Underhill illustrates here, an early- to mid-20th century schooner-yacht. The underlying reason for this development probably is that 'Bermuda'-sails are less top-heavy and require less power/crew to hoist them.

 

OK, the log-books are probably authoritative, but it seems somewhat strange that no square fore-course should have been foreseen. Many contemporary illustrations show them, but they would have been definitevely fair-weather sails and mainly used on suitable courses, when top-speed was called for. They seem to have been also common on commercial schooners (even, when not having top-sails) in northern European waters right to the end of the sailing-ship period. They may not have been permanently bent and in the HMS WHITING, there may not have been an occasion/need to bring up such large sail, hence it was not mentioned in the log-book.

 

Concerning the flying-jib: I wonder, whether it would have been really set that high up on the mast. I seem to have seen this only on more modern vessels (such as the North American fishing schooners) and in combination with an outer jib. The term 'flying' basically refers to fact that it was not attached to the stay, but only to the outhaul and halliard - in this way it could be quickly set or stroke without crew laying out on th jib-boom.

 

Yes, Marquardt was German and only went to Australia in the 1980s in search of more gainful employment in the car-industry for his drafting skills, I seem to remember. His terminology seems to be contaminated at times by his native language (I am not judging, as this happens to me as well). In addition, to his books, he also published numerous topical articles in relevant English and German journals, that may be worthwhile perousing.

 

Nice piece of research, btw. 👍

[Dr PR]

Wefalck,

 

Good point about the hull shape determining the type of ship and not the rigging, at least before the early 1800s.

 

Also a good question about the flying jib. There is some ambiguity about the term "flying jib."

 

Lees (page 126) says it was introduced after the "flying jibboom" was introduced (but doesn't say when). He states further that it was secured to the "flying jibstay" with hanks. So in this case "flying" does not mean hoisted without attachment to a stay. But he is talking about English square rigged warships, and there is little of anything in his book about schooners or other small craft.

 

Marquardt (page 181) says the jib and flying jib can be rigged to a stay or set flying. He says the jib boom was introduced about 1695 and became official in the Royal Navy in 1705. He doesn't mention a flying jib boom. So perhaps a "flying jib" precedes the flying jibboom.

 

Mondfeld (page 226) says the flying jib boom was introduced in the late 18th century. So that puts  the advent of the flying jib as likely sometime in the 1700s.

 

I looked through Chapelle's "The Baltimore Clipper" for examples of a jib or flying jib set high. On page between 70-71 there is an image of a watercolor of the hermaphrodite brig Diomede ,built in 1809, with what appears to be two sails on a stay from the end of the jib boom to below the topgallant. The lower sail would be a second jib (there is also a jib and a fore staysail) and the upper sail appears to be a flying jib. And that is the only illustration of a high flying jib in the book. The vessel is also flying top sail studding sails, a fore course, and a main gaff topsail - it has just about as much sail as it can get aloft.

 

Marquardt (page 127) shows the sail plan of the American centerboard schooner Vigilant (1843) with a fore staysail, a jib on a jibstay rigged to the end of the jib boom, and a third jib rigged to another stay running from the end of the jib boom to the top of the fore topmast. This third "flying jib" is hoisted to the top of the stay at the mast top, and the foot is more than  half way up the foremast. This is a clear example of the high hoisted jib. There are  a number of oddities about this sail plan, including a fore course with a bonnet but no fore topsail, and a spar gaff topsail on the mainmast with the spar horizontal (European style).

 

Leather's "The Gaff Rig Handbook" shows many examples of high flying jibs. On page 48 he describes a "jib topsail" that is similar to the high flying jibs in the illustrations. The tack is rigged to the bowsprit or jib boom with a pendant. He shows drawings with this sail on pages 92 (a government cutter ca. 1840), 100 (a fruit carrying cutter ca. 1853), 112 (the cutter Santanita ca 1893)113 (the Valkyrie III ca 1895), 115 (cutter Lily Maid ca 1904), 153 (schooner Andrew M. Lawrence ca 1885), 176 (ketch Cariad 1896),188 (schooner John Feeney 1885), and several other vessels of the 20th century. Several of these were racing vessels with a lot of sail.

 

So there are many examples of vessels with jibs/flying jibs hoisted high on ships of the mid to late 1800s and one from the early 1800s.

 

Personally, I think that any way you can imagine a ship could possibly be rigged was probably tried by someone at some time. If I had to guess I'd bet that the head sails would be adjusted to take best advantage of the existing wind. And in many cases there is a stronger breeze high off the water than on the surface. That's what topsails, top gallants and royals were used for, and on schooners you could haul up  main top stay sails, main gaff topsails, studding sails for the fore topsails and a topgallant. Since the leech of jibs were often much shorter than the stays they were hoisted on, if necessary the halliards could be hauled in while the tacks (see below) and downhauls were let out, raising the sail high on the stay.

 

And that give me an idea as to the nature of "flying jibs." The tacks of jibs were usually attached to a traveller or directly to the jib boom. Perhaps a "flying" jib's tack was just attached to a tack line that ran through a sheave and back to the foc'sle. That would allow the height of the sail to be adjusted with the halliard and tack. This is apparently what Marquardt is showing on page 127 on the Vigilant. But that is the only place I have seen anything like it.

 

****

 

Marquardt (page 185) does show the water sail or lower studding sail hanging horizontally below the main boom. It is rigged to a spar at the aft end, just as ordinary studding sails are rigged to a yard that is hoisted by the halliard. So it is easy to see how the water sail might also be called a sudding sail - as the ringtail is also similar to a "studding sail."

 

Like George I enjoy the research as much or more than building the model. That's why my CAD model of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 took 14 years to complete (well, almost complete). I had to research everything along the way, and even post a web page with the results of the research. I guess I am in it more for the chase than for the kill.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Dr PR

[wefalck]

Nomenclature and terminology can be discussed for hours without conclusive results. People in the old times seem to have been much less preoccupied by this than modern ship-modellers and -historians. One should rather focus on the function.

 

Sail-plans before the end of the 19th century tended to be much more flexible. Wooden spars and the necessarily installations could be changed much more quickly and even at sea, compared to the later ships with steel spars. In desperation, every piece of available canvass could be set somewhere on the masts. The rigging details were also the prerogative of the master, at least on commercial vessels, who would observe the vessels performance and have alterations made, if needed.

 

Concerning the description/definition of a 'flying-jib', I think there are two possibilities: it could be the head-sail that is set from the 'flying-jib-boom' or it could be an outer head-sail that is set flying. I am not certain about the actual time-frame, but I think around the middle of the 18th century the jib-boom was extended with another spar, the flying-jib-boom. As the term indicates, it was not rigged all the time and in consequence may not have a stay attached to it. Around the second quarter of the 19th century it tended to become a permanent feature, at least on larger ships, and merged into one spar with the jib-boom. In consequence, the jib-boom now had two stays attached to it, namely the fore-topgallant-stay around its middle, and the fore-royal-stay at its outer end. This now allowed the once really flying jib-sail to be attached with hanks to the fore-royal-stay.

___________ 

 

I have some reservations towards Marquardt and Mondfeld, which are not meant to diminish their merits in anyway. However, one should always try to corroborate their information with other sources.

I think after the 1980s, when his writing activities really began, Marquardt did not have access anymore to much original European sources, so he draws on the observations he made in the decades before and on the models he restored between the end of WW2 and his emigration to Australia. The good thing is that he did not venture much outside the 18th century.

To the contrary, Mondfeld began for commercial reasons to cover periods and regions in his later works on which he seems to have had only limited knowledge. It would be quite difficult for a single person to have a real in-depth knowledge of the whole sailing-ship era in all countries, but this is what his modelling encyclopedia seems to attempt. To be honest, I do not own any of his books, but looking over them occassionally and what I hear from others seems to support this perception.

 

[georgeband]

Thanks Wefalck and Phil for your further comments. My sketch of a sail plan was to indicate the names of the sails and I apologise if I caused confusion by drawing the flying jib sail so high. From my observations and your comments it is much more likely that this sail was just above the jib boom. I would guess that the tack was tied to a traveller on the jib boom while the halyard went up somewhere, probably to the top of the lower section of the fore mast so that it did not depend on the top mast being fitted. But I can be convinced either way. 

 

The picture below is of a model in the NMM Greenwich collection, Flora, dated 1825. This link should take you there but I have attached one of the three pictures. https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-66109 This is how I imagine Whiting was rigged, pretty much, though there will be some differences. On Flora the fore top gallant is fully rigged.

 

 

I am reconsidering whether the fore top gallant was set flying on Whiting. The log book by John Roach has one entry which states 'PM Light Breezes Inclinable to Calm  sent Down the Top Gallant Yard...'

This contrasts with others such as 'at 7 all Sail Set  Strong Breezes  Took in the Gaff top Sail Flying jib sail top Galt Sail'.

Perhaps I am reading too much into the words and he was describing the same thing, or it could be that the top gallant could be 'taken in' as well as being 'sent down'. If the meanings are the same then the top gallant was set flying, if they are different then it was rigged. I think I need to visit The National Archives again and photograph some more log books. 

 

George

 

[wefalck]

'Taking in' a sail would mean to clew it up or fasten, if it is rigged permanently. Otherwise ii would mean sending it down. For instance, the main top-sail with square head would be sent down, as it is always set 'flying'. In later years, when triangular top-sails were used, these could be clewed up to the top-mast.

 

BTW, an indication, whether a square fore-sail could be set would be the presence of foot-ropes on the lower yard. In order to manage this sail there would need to be foot-ropes.

 

At least in the Baltic many, if not most gaff-rigged schooners as well the sloop- or cutter-rigged smacks (whatever they may actually be called) could set a large square fore-sail flying. They did not have a parrel or similar, but were shackled to a stay that ran down the mast. Sometimes they only had a halliard and braces, sometimes only topping-lifts and braces, and sometimes all of them. As crewing was expensive and you probably needed at least three crew (including the skipper) to manage such rig, rather being square this sail was triangular with a single tack fastened to somewhere near the mast. When going about, one needed to attend only to the braces, as there were no sheets. Such schooners seem to have been run sometimes just by the master and a mate or even only a boy. When rigged with top-sails, one would need a crew of at least four. This is talking about the merchant navy.

[georgeband]

After a pleasant diversion when I have actually been making the deck furniture on Whiting I return to the sail plan. The reason is that I have to understand the rigging plans so that I can put eyes and pinrails and cleats in the right places. I have read through my transcriptions from John Roach's log again, and expanded them, and old doubts and uncertainties have resurfaced. 

 

Log book Remarks for September 16th 1806
Fresh gales and squally  close reef'd the foresail, got the jib boom in and reef'd the Jib
At 4 Do.W. [same weather] sent? down the jib took the mainsail in & set the main try sail
at 6 Fresh breezes reef'd the main topsail…

 

 

The log book often refers to a 'fore sail'. My assumption was that this is the large gaff sail on the fore mast and not the course or lower square sail. I now realise that this was an assumption and that 'fore sail' could be the course, or the gaff, or either depending on what Sub-Lieut Roach thought at the time. The fore sail could be double reefed and this is consistent with a course. It is also consistent with a gaff sail if it has hoops around the mast so it can be lowered, and according to Marquardt this was less common for the fore gaff which did not have a boom. In an earlier post I mentioned the lower studding sail which could be a water sail, or it could sit next to the course. So was the 'fore sail' a gaff, a course, or either?

 

Reefing the jib is quite understandable if it rides on a stay and many illustrations show reef points on a jib or stay sail. The entry for 19 September says put the Bonnet on the Jib which I was not expecting because it seems to ask a lot of the jib sail to reef it and extend it. But who am I to judge with zero experience of sailing a schooner? 

 

I am puzzled by reefed the main topsail. There are other references to a gaff top sail which I take to be on the main mast and I have not seen illustrations of one with reef points on it. Even if it did have reef points it would be suicidal for a crew to try to reef it unless the sail and yard were properly set up for this activity. Was there another, square topsail on the main mast? Or did Roach make a mistake in his hurry to complete the log? Or have I misread it? 

 

Help!

 

George

 

 

[Gregory]

1 hour ago, georgeband said:

Even if it did have reef points it would be suicidal for a crew to try to reef it

I think 99% of the work the sailors did aloft would be suicidal for any of us today..😁

[druxey]

Just found this interesting thread. The handwriting and ink splotches on the log page attest to rough weather! I take my hat off to you, George, for being able to decipher and transcribe that writing.

[georgeband]

I have chosen the sail plan for my model of Whiting and it includes a lot of canvas. Working from fore to aft:

• Flying jibsail
• Jibsail riding on stay from foremast top to end of bowsprit
• Gaff fore sail (no boom)
• Square topsail on topmast
• Studding sail to starboard of the topsail
• Flying, square top gallant sail on the same topmast
• Gaff main sail with gaff and boom
• Gaff topsail on the main topmast
• Ringtail sail aft of the gaff mainsail

I might well change my mind by the time I get to making these sails... 

 

The sizes of the masts and yards must wait a while because the more pressing task is to design the belaying plan for the deck. The belaying plans for schooners depend a lot on where and when and who used it and we do not have 'standard' plans as for ships. Marquardt frequently says that some rope or method might or might not have been used so there is a lot of judgement here. I will describe my method which might help others with this detailed operation. 

 

My approach has been to use an Excel spreadsheet to organise the information. So far it has three tabs (sheets) and the first (Sail-yard-rope) is a list of all the ropes that I could think of. I started at the tip of the jibboom and worked aft and up, adding more ropes in a fairly sensible order, until the list stopped growing. That's about 150 ropes for Whiting. The extract below shows the column headings. 

• Sail/ mast. This is the title of a group of ropes.
• ID #. Reference number that links to the other tabs. Don't put these numbers in until you are confident that you have included all you want. 
• Rope. Name of the rope(s). Mostly single ropes, but not always. For example, I used one line for a group of shrouds that went to the same mast from the same side of the schooner.
• Rope size. To be filled in later and I will use the traditional circumference in inches. 
• Extra bits. Do I need to buy blocks (1xS = single block; 1xD = double block) or eyes or thimbles...
• Belaying points. This is summary description of the route that a rope follows. 
• References. I used three main books for reference and they have their own columns where I put page numbers and drawing references. 'Other' has the less frequently used references. 
• Notes. These explain to myself why I made a particular decision, because I will forget later.

The lines with a grey background are for ropes which I will not include on my model. Two of them, the main mast tackles, 85 and 86, might yet become part of the plan. 

The second tab (Belaying) expands the 'belaying points' into one line for each location where the rope makes contact. They are grouped by the locations such as 'Bowsprit cleats' or 'Fore fife rail' which are in column A. I enter the ID # reference number in column B and then a =VLOOKUP formula fills in the other columns for me. One reference number will often appear in several groups if it has a complicated route. The extract below shows that I need three cleats on the bowsprit (I counted them manually, it's not some clever formula) and seven on the fore fife rail. The fife rail is not big enough for this so I have to look at putting pins or cleats on the mast as shown in Petersson's book. 

The third tab (Deck) is still somewhat embryonic. My intention is to arrange the ropes in their belaying groups so I know which to belay where. Petersson does this well in his book but unfortunately I cannot apply his plan directly to Whiting. I will use the same =VLOOKUP function to add details to this sheet. The reference numbers, ID #, are key. 

I guess that others have been through the same process and combined snippets of information into a coherent belaying plan. Any comments or suggestions? The spreadsheet is copied below if you want to play with it. 

 

sail rigging plan.xlsx

 

George

 

 

 

[tkay11]

That's not only excellent, George, it'll be enormously useful to many. Thanks.

 

Tony

[Dr PR]

George,

 

Very nice. I am following this with interest. I have worked out a preliminary belaying plan for my topsail schooner build, but I am not happy with the belaying point plan I have for the fore mast. Too many lines are crowded onto fife rails around the base of the fore mast.

 

I have been considering a belaying pin ring or cleats around the mast to take the running ends of some of the tackles. Also I could use cleats on the shrouds for lines that do not have much strain on them when sails are set (clew lines bunt lines).

[wefalck]

Topsail-schooners tend to be smaller ships that were sailed with small crews, perhaps a maximum of eight or even less. So the question is, whether they actually bothered with clew- or bunt-lines on topgallants at all, or rather struck them completely, as they may have been set 'flying' anyway. This would depend on time-period and region, of course.

[georgeband]

Thank you all for your likes and comments. 

 

Phil: I am going through the same thoughts about pinrails and cleats on the masts (Petersson shows two examples) and shroud cleats. I have expanded the second tab to show these additional belaying positions explicitly even though no ropes are assigned to them, yet. 

 

Wefalck: Whiting had a crew of 20 so there were enough men and boys to do the work. I have made the fore topgallant flying so there are only a few ropes to raise and handle it. 

 

The third tab on the spreadsheet has expanded now. I show which ropes go to which belaying point using coloured symbols on the deck plan. Some on the mast pins or shroud cleats have not been assigned. I have not attempted to put the ropes in order at their belaying point for the moment. There are, for example, seven ropes belaying at the fore, port pinrail in some undefined order. It is enough to let me continue adding the deck furniture. 

sail rigging plan.xlsx

 

Questions and comments always welcome, that's what lets me improve. 

 

George

 

[georgeband]

The deck belaying plan has evolved and reached a state where I am prepared to use it for my model. There were quite a few judgement calls along the way and some might have chosen a different path. There is a very slim chance that someone documented it 200 years ago but realistically I think we will never know what was done on one vessel at one period in her history. 

 

The Excel file below shows the steps I went through. First was to make a comprehensive list of ropes. After that the list expanded and was grouped to show which ropes ended or passed through a particular location. Then came the tricky part of assigning belaying points. The spreadsheet does not show the arrangements at mast heads or on the yards; I do not need them yet and they can wait for another year...

 

sail rigging plan.xlsx

George

 

[Dr PR]

George,

 

Thanks for posting your spreadsheet. I had completed a preliminary belaying plan for my topsail schooner, but I am not happy with the crowding around the base of the fore mast. I will study your plan and try to come up with something better than I have now. Maybe a mast band with either pins or cleats would help.

[georgeband]

Phil,

 

Thanks for your comments. 

 

Petersson shows a ring with belaying pins on the main mast and I am copying this approach for my fore mast. Eight pins would have a spacing of about 3mm which gives enough space for rope coils to hang from them. For the main mast there are not so many belaying points (on Whiting) and I will probably put cleats there if only to make it different from the fore mast. 

 

Petersson's drawing of the fore mast has a curious arrangement of pins that sit horizontally in a vertical rack. I cannot understand how this would work because the rope coils from the higher pins would tangle with those below them. It looks wrong to me but I do not have practical experience of sailing and rely on engineering 'what-if' judgement. Any ideas?

 

George

 

[Dr PR]

I have wondered about the vertical rail with pins. I suppose you could belay lines that don't get changed often to the lower pins, and more frequently used lines to the upper pins. But it does look like things could get tangled. He is supposed to have made the drawings from a period model. I do not recall having seen this arrangement anywhere else.

 

The horizontal circular pin necklace around the main mast has a couple of issues. It could be above or below the boom, but if above it would interfere with the mast hoops if they are used. Below the boom the after most pins could not be used to belay lines coming from above.

 

I am thinking of using a necklace near the base of the fore mast to belay some of the tackle. This would free up some pins on the fife rail. I have not decided whether it has pins or cleats.