Hounds and Cheeks for Endeavour finished in 1761

[DaveBaxt]

As far as I can see form Lees book" The Masting and rigging of English ships of War" for that period the Cheeks extend from the hounds to midway between the hounds and the partners, however l am unsure where the cheeks finish at the tops. Do they extend to the top of the hounds where the trestle trees sit on top of the cheeks, so that the Hounds fit over the cheeks. Or do the cheeks terminate at the bottom of the hounds so that the trestle trees sit on top of the hounds. One other way which looks to be that the hounds are part of the cheeks (Monfeld "Historic Ship Models) Seems there are a few different ways this can be achieved, but what is the most accurate for this period.Best regards Dave

[allanyed]

DaVE,

Lees describes this for the lower masts on page 2 and for  top masts on page 4.  It is my understanding from looking at his drawings that the trestle trees sit on the cheeks, hounds, and bibs as they all end in the same place.  Hopefully a member more knowledgeable can confirm or correct this.  I am not sure if any of the contemporary drawings would be right for Endeavour, but you can  find a lot of mast and spar drawings on the RMG site.  Some may be more appropriate than others.  There are a number of high res contemporary drawings of spars and masts on the Wiki Commons site as well.   One example can be seen below for a 74 of 1780 which may not be appropriate for a smaller vessel like Endeavour.    There is a high res drawing of lower mast for a 28 on the Wiki site as well.   Allan

 

[druxey]

The cheeks extend up to the hounds (where the mast head begins) and the bibbs are scored with a zig-zag in to the front of them. The trestle trees sit on top of both of these.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by druxey

[DaveBaxt]

1 hour ago, druxey said:

The cheeks extend up to the hounds (where the mast head begins) and the bibbs are scored with a zig-zag in to the front of them. The trestle trees sit on top of both of these.

 

Thank you once again Druxey for clearing that up for me . Best regards Dave

[DaveBaxt]

1 hour ago, allanyed said:

DaVE,

Lees describes this for the lower masts on page 2 and for  top masts on page 4.  It is my understanding from looking at his drawings that the trestle trees sit on the cheeks, hounds, and bibs as they all end in the same place.  Hopefully a member more knowledgeable can confirm or correct this.  I am not sure if any of the contemporary drawings would be right for Endeavour, but you can  find a lot of mast and spar drawings on the RMG site.  Some may be more appropriate than others.  There are a number of high res contemporary drawings of spars and masts on the Wiki Commons site as well.   One example can be seen below for a 74 of 1780 which may not be appropriate for a smaller vessel like Endeavour.    There is a high res drawing of lower mast for a 28 on the Wiki site as well.   Allan

 

Thank you for clearing that up for me and where to get more information. Best regards Dave

[alpayed]

Hi Dave.

This may help.

Here is my reconstruction of Investigators masts and yards.

A bit later than Endeavour but the cheeks/bibs were similar. Endeavour would not have had the front fish. Note also that the trestle trees were set into the mast head by about 1". that is the trestle tree had a groove cut in it to fit around the mast head. this is usually ignored in models.

The drawing shows a made up mast. The cheeks were attached (coaked) onto the spindle along with the side fishes.

The sheaves (for braces) in the topmast tressle trees were unique to a short period after Endeavour so don't copy those.

Regards

Allan

Investigator_masting.pdf

[DaveBaxt]

5 hours ago, alpayed said:

Hi Dave.

This may help.

Here is my reconstruction of Investigators masts and yards.

A bit later than Endeavour but the cheeks/bibs were similar. Endeavour would not have had the front fish. Note also that the trestle trees were set into the mast head by about 1". that is the trestle tree had a groove cut in it to fit around the mast head. this is usually ignored in models.

The drawing shows a made up mast. The cheeks were attached (coaked) onto the spindle along with the side fishes.

The sheaves (for braces) in the topmast tressle trees were unique to a short period after Endeavour so don't copy those.

Regards

Allan

Investigator_masting.pdf 1.66 MB · 4 downloads

Thank you Allan for that drawing which is further evidence showing what the relationship between the cheeks and the hounds. Interesting what that you mention the groove and that most modellers leave it out. I have neither come ocross it in photos or heard it mentioned  by other modellers but interesting all the same and now knowing it is there. Much appreciated. Best regards Dave

[alpayed]

1 hour ago, DaveBaxt said:

Thank you Allan for that drawing which is further evidence showing what the relationship between the cheeks and the hounds. Interesting what that you mention the groove and that most modellers leave it out. I have neither come ocross it in photos or heard it mentioned  by other modellers but interesting all the same and now knowing it is there. Much appreciated. Best regards Dave

Hi Dave

A lot of these details are embedded in the fine print.

As Investigator is smack bang in the time of Steel's Masting and rigging (1794) his work is most valuable. However it has errors in it as well.

 

I have the "Foyle" copy and interesting how often the "C" word is used. All of the modern copies have bee sanitized. IE cut splice.

Hope I didn't offend anybody with that.

 

By the way the cheeks on Endeavour's masts would have been half the distance from the stops to partners not two thirds as in my drawing. (Investigator).

There were quite a few changes in things between the two vessels despite being similar colliers.

IMHO using Karl's ATOS book is the safest route. But then I am biased Ha Ha.

 

Here is part of what he says about fitting the tresstle trees.

https://maritime.org/doc/steel/part1.htm#pg24

 The foremast ends are to drop as much below a square with the middle-line on the mast as the mast is designed to rake aft in the length, that they may be level when the mast is in its place. In this position they are made to bed firm on the stops, being square athwart from the middle-line. One inch and an eighth of the trees-trees to be set into the mast, and marked with compasses on the underside of the chock, and lowerside of the mast from their insides; and from the sides of the mast on the undersides of the trestle-trees. Then race by the upperside of the chock and underside of the mast upon the insides of the trees-trees, and the uppersides of the trees-trees down the sides of the mast. The trees-trees are then lowered down, and one inch set down from the upperside of the mast at the middle of the chock on each side, and one inch and a half at the upperside of the trestle-trees, and that wood taken away to the race upon the upper and fore side of the chock, then set up one inch and a half from the underside of the mast at the stop, and one inch at the upperside of the trestle-tree; strike a line, and cut away the wood square to the race underneath. The same is set off on the insides of the trestle-trees, and the intermediate wood cut away to the depth of the race on the upperside, so that what it is faced in on the mast remains on the trestle-trees.

The trestle-trees are then got into their places, set close, and bolted to the mast-head, with three bolts, one inch to one inch and a quarter diameter, one through the underside next the stop, one through the upperside next the upperside of the trestle-tree, and one through the middle of the chock; the holes to be bored through three times their diameter from the edge. The bolts in the trestle-trees are driven from contrary sides, and are clenched on a ring. It is best not to bolt trestle-trees but when the mast is for present use.

 

 

Regards

Allan

 

 

[DaveBaxt]

Thank you Allan but please forgive my ignorance fornot being able to comprehend your last piece as although I have read it twice I find as yet I am unable to follow that. Perhaps I need more time to follow that but for what its worth I too came up with the length of the cheeks being half the distance between the partners and the stops. I am assuming the stops are the underside of the trestle trees and the hounds are finishing at the same place. 

                             Perhaps you could clear up one matter for me is regarding the top and the cap and allowing for the rake of the mast. I am assumimg these are both parallel with the deck or waterline rather than 90 degs to the mast ?

                     Sorry again for not following your last paragraph (Italics) Hopefully given time the penny will drop but I thank you once again for your effort and patience in trying to help me. Best regards Dave

[alpayed]

Hi Dave. Yes in essence that gobble gook means the tops are level. Not 90 deg to the mast. I have to read and re read this stuff because I too have have difficulty understanding that queen's English, even though it is the only language I speak. There are so many terms used then that are now not easy to comprehend. That paragraph is the bit about the trestle trees being let in to the mast. I started to draw Endeavour's main mast but it got late and I gave up. I will finish tomorrow and post it. 

Regards Allan. 

[DaveBaxt]

3 hours ago, alpayed said:

Hi Dave. Yes in essence that gobble gook means the tops are level. Not 90 deg to the mast. I have to read and re read this stuff because I too have have difficulty understanding that queen's English, even though it is the only language I speak. There are so many terms used then that are now not easy to comprehend. That paragraph is the bit about the trestle trees being let in to the mast. I started to draw Endeavour's main mast but it got late and I gave up. I will finish tomorrow and post it. 

Regards Allan. 

Thanks Allan that is really kind of you to take the time to do a drawing for me and hopefully I will then be able to get my head around it. It is interest how you say that there is a recess in the mast where the trestlle trees fit, that is if I get your meaning. When working out the taper of the mast at that particular and then doing the square on the top the square at that point is 7.1mm wide but the distance between the trestle trees is only 6 mm . So if I want to use the trestle trees supplied by Caldercraft then I will need to make a recess in the mast or make new trestle trees. 

Also the taper of the mast of 7.3 mm is required so that when made flat the cheeks should fit. Hope this makes sense. I have a number of scrap bits of dowel to practice on before I make the real thing from square boxwood stock.

                   When reading the piece you sent me I noticed that a block was mentioned but I am not aware of such a thing or come across this. Perhaps you have an idea as then perhaps I would get what its all about.Best regards Dave

 

 

    

[alpayed]

Hi Dave.

Hang on a bit while i draw this mast.

What scale is your model?

I will draw a mast as I would make it for a model.

BTW the trestle trees have the recess in them not the mast.

Regards

Allan

 

[alpayed]

Here you go Dave. This may help.

Built from 3 pieces. The spindle is 1 piece with a cheek added to each side.

The foremast would be the same just proportionally smaller (x.94) according to the Woolwich dimensions.

The short mizen mast is a whole new discussion. Personally I agree with Karl's argument that the Woolwich mizen length is an error.

The woolwich dimension is 604" (easy to work in inches) which is 0.726 x main mast. Lees says x.86 and Steel x.85 although he lists x.75 for a sloop.

There is a lot of discussion on this point.

 

Regards

AllanEndeavour main mast.pd

 

[DaveBaxt]

13 hours ago, alpayed said:

Here you go Dave. This may help.

Built from 3 pieces. The spindle is 1 piece with a cheek added to each side.

The foremast would be the same just proportionally smaller (x.94) according to the Woolwich dimensions.

The short mizen mast is a whole new discussion. Personally I agree with Karl's argument that the Woolwich mizen length is an error.

The woolwich dimension is 604" (easy to work in inches) which is 0.726 x main mast. Lees says x.86 and Steel x.85 although he lists x.75 for a sloop.

There is a lot of discussion on this point.

 

Regards

AllanEndeavour main mast.pd

 

Thank you Allan for that excellent drawing which I can study at leasure. Regards the length of the Mizzen. I do believe you are correct. It is an error and I previously asked the question on another thread. I had problems with the shrouds clearing the bulwarks which was kindly pointed out to me by Shipaholic that the mizzen cap should reach the top of the main mast . Also Reference to Lees book also says it is much longer than what is suggested by Caldercraft.

                    Thank you once again for efforts and patience for helping me clarify this. Best regards Dave

Edited February 9, 2022 by DaveBaxt

[alpayed]

Thanks Dave. The rule of thumb is that the mizen cap should be level with the main top, not the top of the main mast. But yes that is where I would be heading..

Allan

[DaveBaxt]

10 minutes ago, alpayed said:

Thanks Dave. The rule of thumb is that the mizen cap should be level with the main top, not the top of the main mast. But yes that is where I would be heading..

Allan

Thanks Allan . I think that is what I meant as regards the height of the mizzen mast. I have just had a quick look at the last drawing you sent me and can see how complicated that the mast is put together and would like to try and make them like that in the future but for now ,I am not sure I have skills to build a mast like that. I have only just started trying building masts form square stock for the first time .it has definately given me a better idea of how its all put together though so should be to make a compromised mast ,if that makes sense. For the record the scale I am working to is, 1:64. What scale is the drawing you sent me. Best regards Dave

[alpayed]

OK Dave.

Allan' cheat way of mast making coming up.

Stay tuned.

[alpayed]

OK Dave.

Allan' cheat way of mast making coming up.

Stay tuned.

Endeavour main mast_1.pdf

[alpayed]

That may not be obvious but essentially I would make the mast in 2 pieces. The round lower part and a rectangular upper part. Then dowel the 2 parts together and blend the upper part to the round lower part. The bibs then glued on. Add on the wooldings and battens. A blind man would be glad to see it as the saying goes. I have built many masts this way and almost impossible to see as a completed mast.

Regards Allan.

[DaveBaxt]

5 hours ago, alpayed said:

That may not be obvious but essentially I would make the mast in 2 pieces. The round lower part and a rectangular upper part. Then dowel the 2 parts together and blend the upper part to the round lower part. The bibs then glued on. Add on the wooldings and battens. A blind man would be glad to see it as the saying goes. I have built many masts this way and almost impossible to see as a completed mast.

Regards Allan.

That sounds like a rally easy way to make one and something I will need to do if I make any models larger than the Endeavour. I have just managed to make a practice one, with the help of a miller and lathe. However I am limited to the length I can support the mast when using the miller and lathe. Here is a photo . 

 

Not perfect but only a trial run. I still need to taper mast a bit more and mill the  flats for the cheeks. I have worked out the taper and then I have milled steps and finished off with a file. It worked out pretty well. I haven't had a chance to have a look at your easy way to do the mast but I will report back after I have had a chance to have a look. 

                   Allan you have been more than helpful and I appreciate all that you have done for me.Thank you . Dave

Edited February 9, 2022 by DaveBaxt

[alpayed]

No problems Dave. Keep up the good work. Sometimes I will make something 2 or 3 times before I get 1 that I am happy with. They say practice makes perfect but that's optimistic in my case. I get better with practice and I am sure you will too.

Regards Allan.