Stunsail Booms

[DaveBaxt]

Hopefully I am correct in thinking that these were carried on both lower and top yards on main and fore masts. In 1761. However on my Caldercraft Endeavour she only has the stunsail booms on the lower yards fore and main  .However there are I think are spare booms attached to the outer main mast channels. Could this be where the top stunsail booms would be carried if not in use or are these just spares for the lower yards . If I am got this wrong what would be the criteria for deciding if the ship would have stunsail booms on the top yards or not. Also that my first model the Bounty did have these but wonder why the Endeavour model has not but both of a similar time. Best regards Dave

[allanyed]

Hi Dave,

You bring up an interesting subject.    Doing some independent research on items like this rather than relying on information from a kit might be a good idea and probably fun to boot 😀.  The replica of Endeavour does not carry stunsails from the topsails yards.  The items on the channels  are probably the lower stunsail booms.  In addition to booms there are also stunsail yards to consider.  Lees goes into great detail on the booms, yards, sails and rigging for the stunsails, but my apologies, way too much to copy here. 

Allan 

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by allanyed

[DaveBaxt]

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

Hi Dave,

You bring up an interesting subject.    Doing some independent research on items like this rather than relying on information from a kit might be a good idea and probably fun to boot 😀.  The replica of Endeavour does not carry stunsails from the topsails yards.  The items on the channels  are the lower stunsail booms.  In addition to booms there are also stunsail yards to consider.  Lees goes into great detail on the booms, yards, sails and rigging for the stunsails, but my apologies, way too much to copy here. 

Allan 

 

Thanks once again Allan  for your quick response. That is what I think I was trying to say but why has one ship and not another carry the stunsails from topsail yards for a similar period. Was this down to the captains discresion or some5hing else. Please forgive my ignorance for I am not sure what the stunsail yards are if not just the yards which carry the small diameter spars, called the stunsail booms. Looks like I need to go back to Lees book and read some more and hope the penny finally drops. There is still so much to take in and the more I continue to learn the more I realize I don,t understand. However frustrating it becomes all I can say is that I am a willing student and hopefully one day it will all fall into place.

                       I have just done some  reading form Mondfeild book which explains what the Stunsails are and a very good picture of the difference between the stunsail booms and stunsail yards. however I still don,t know why the Endeavour does not carry a topgallant stunsail boom, where as the Bounty does. Another question has arisen which is, where are the stunsail yards kept if  the model is not carrying the sails? Best regards Dave 

Edited December 30, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[allanyed]

 

Dave,  I was confused on what was what as well, but Phil helped me a lot in his responses on this very discussion back in March.  He provided some really good details including the below based on information from Lever's The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor   

On 3/24/2021 at 2:56 AM, Dr PR said:

Note the difference between a stunsail boom and a stunsail yard. Stunsail yards are the spar the the head (top) of the sail is bent (laced) to, and it is not attached directly to anything but is hoisted by the halliard. Or, as in figure 352 the foot (bottom) of the "flying" stunsail is attached at the clews to an unattached yard that has a guy to haul it down. The yards are essentially free to swing on the halliards and guys.

 

The booms are definitely attached to the course, topsail and topgallant yards, or in the case of the lower stunsail the (swinging) boom is attached to the hull, typically in the channels. The booms are held to the yards with irons and there are several ways to rig them with the booms stowed or extended. In some cases the booms were permanently attached to the yards, and on some ships they were stowed below (to reduce tophamper weight) and hauled aloft when the stunsails were set. In all cases except the "flying yard" the foot of the stunsails were attached to the booms with tacks (outboard clew) and sheets (inboard clew).

[Mark P]

Good Evening Gentlemen;

 

Just to add a bit of further information on studding sails, when these were set, the windward ones were set aft of the 'main' square sail; and the leeward studding sails were set forward of it. This was to prevent the wind escaping between the sails. 

 

Changing tack must have been a really time-consuming business! Presumably, the studding sails were only set when there would not be a need for regular changes of course. 

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

[Dr PR]

Dave,

 

I am not familiar with the Endeavor so I suggest you find whatever you can that was published about the ship.  But here is a guess as to why there were no studding sail booms on the topsail yards.

 

First, the boom spread the foot or bottom of the sail. The top of the sail was laced to a (relatively) small studding sail yard which was hoisted to the end (yard arm) of the spar above. So if you have booms on the course (lowest) yards they are for studding sails that are raised outboard of the topsail.

 

The booms stowed on the channels hooked into fittings on the hull or channel, and were used to spread the lower studding sails outboard of the course (lowest sail) and the studding sails were raised on studding sail yards that were hoisted to the yard arms on the course yards.

 

This arrangement would provide studding sails for the lowest two spars on the mast. I would guess that there were no studding sails for the topgallant or royal, if the ship had these sails. Therefore there would be no studding sail booms on the topsail or topgallant yards.

 

Mark's comment about changing tack must be spot on. There were enough other lines and sails to be messed with. Raising and lowering studding sails would have added a lot of work. One thing to remember about sailing ships is that nothing happened very fast. Eight to ten knots was a good speed for most ships (but clippers often moved twice as fast). Changing tack took quite a bit of time, especially on merchantmen with small crews. So the studding sails would be used only when the wind was right and the ship would be on the same tack for quite a while. Period paintings often show studding sails rigged only on one side.

 

For what it is worth, I knew little about sailing ships when I started modelling, and I still know a lot less than some of the "old salts" on this forum. But I am learning, and that is a big part of the enjoyment of model making for me!

Edited January 1, 2022 by Dr PR

[DaveBaxt]

22 minutes ago, Dr PR said:

Dave,

 

I am not familiar with the Endeavor so I suggest you find whatever you can that was published about the ship.  But here is a guess as to why there were no studding sail booms on the topsail yards.

 

First, the boom spread the foot or bottom of the sail. The top of the sail was laced to a (relatively) small studding sail yard which was hoisted to the end (yard arm) of the spar above. So if you have booms on the course (lowest) yards they are for studding sails that are raised outboard of the topsail.

 

The booms stowed on the channels hooked into fittings on the hull or channel, and were used to spread the lower studding sails outboard of the course (lowest sail) and the studding sails were raised on studding sail yards that were hoisted to the yard arms on the course yards.

 

This arrangement would provide studding sails for the lowest two spars on the mast. I would guess that there were no studding sails for the topgallant or royal, if the ship had these sails. Therefore there would be no studding sail booms on the topsail or topgallant yards.

 

Mark's comment about changing tack must be spot on. There were enough other lines and sails to be messed with. Raising and lowering studding sails would have added a lot of work. One thing to remember about sailing ships is that nothing happened very fast. Eight to ten knots was a good speed for most ships (but clippers often moved twice as fast). Changing tack to quite a bit of time, especially on merchantmen with small crews. So the studding sails would be used only when the wind was right and the ship would be on the same tack for quite a while. Period paintings often show studding sails rigged only on one side.

 

For what it is worth, I knew little about sailing ships when I started modelling, and I still know a lot less than some of the "old salts" on this forum. But I am learning, and that is a big part of the enjoyment of model making for me!

Thank you for taking up your time to explain this to me and  it very much now makes sense . I also read somewhere that the studding sails higher up were not introduced until 1771 which was after the Endeavour was built but don't quote me. Interesting that when I built the model of the Bounty of similar period there were no studding sail booms attached to the channels or kept inboard on the deck ( according to the kit) but that is not to say there weren't  any. There were however studding sail booms on the lower yards on the Bounty .

                        Unfortunately I do not own the AOTS Endeavour so it is difficult to find the exact layout for this ship, so  i am just having to go with general layout for this period.of ship and using books by Mondfeld, Lees etc. Although the Lees book is very precise in explaining just about every piece of rigging there is. For me it assumes that you already know quite a bit. Best regards Dave

                 

[popeye2sea]

I think it is important to note that stuns'ls were only used in light airs and probably not used when a lot of tacking or maneuvering was anticipated.  Also, since they are bent on to separate yards it should not have been too difficult to dip one end of the yard around to the other side of the plain sail when changing over on to the opposite tack. All you would need to do is slack the halliard until the yard lowered to the point where a seaman on the lower yard could hand the stuns'l yard around.

 

Regards,

[Dr PR]

Dave,

 

I kept thinking Endeavor sounded familiar to me. When you mentioned the AOTS book I had one of those "duh!" moments. Sure enoough, I picked up a copy at a used book store years ago and it has been collecting dust on the shelf!

 

The book shows studding sails outboard the course and topsail on the fore and main masts. There was a "driver" similar to a studding sail on the end of the gaff on the mizzen mast.

 

The Anatomy Of The Ship book "Captain Cook's Endeavor," Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, 1995. It is very well illustrated with a tremendous amount of detail. I recommend you get a copy if you can find it.

 

If I can answer any questions from it for you just send me a personal message.

[DaveBaxt]

3 hours ago, Dr PR said:

Dave,

 

I kept thinking Endeavor sounded familiar to me. When you mentioned the AOTS book I had one of those "duh!" moments. Sure enoough, I picked up a copy at a used book store years ago and it has been collecting dust on the shelf!

 

The book shows studding sails outboard the course and topsail on the fore and main masts. There was a "driver" similar to a studding sail on the end of the gaff on the mizzen mast.

 

The Anatomy Of The Ship book "Captain Cook's Endeavor," Karl Heinz Marquardt, Naval Institute Press, 1995. It is very well illustrated with a tremendous amount of detail. I recommend you get a copy if you can find it.

 

If I can answer any questions from it for you just send me a personal message.

Thank you Phil for that kind offer and I might take you up on that, especially when I come to putting the masts together. I have been searching for that AOTS book for Captain Cooks Endeavour a long time but even second hand, the prices are somewhat scandalous . I have managed to get a copy of the HMS Diana and have been considering using this for my next build. Although I have not been using that book comparison and there are a lot of similarities but I have not used it for sizes etc.