Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Ok thoughts, opinions, recommendations. Here is a mock up of the main topgallant mast height and the corresponding shroud spread. Also I am looking at an aggressive cut of 5mm off each side of the cross trees and the aft side of the trestle tree. That will be the same as the distance between the cross trees. 
 

Pictures 1 and 2 are using a 3 5/8” topgallant

Pictures 3 and 4 are using a 4 1/2” topgallant

Pictures 5 and 6 are the height of the Heller included topgallant of 5 1/4”. 
 

Thoughts and opinions. Do any of these seem satisfactory or go back to drawing board?

IMG_3658.jpeg

IMG_3659.jpeg

IMG_3660.jpeg

IMG_3661.jpeg

IMG_3662.jpeg

IMG_3663.jpeg

Posted
6 hours ago, Hubac's Historian said:

Ahhh, I was not aware of 4H.  I did an image search and pulled that extract from Souvenirs from the first site I found.  That is the cardinal rule around here, so I will delete the post.  It served its purpose for the discussion, anyway.

I will delete mine. Cheers!! 

Posted

Marc see if this helps. I took card stock and cut out the shape of the shroud spread for the fore and main topgallant. All three have 1/8” cut off the cross trees. Photo 1 is with the topgallant unaltered from the kit size. Photo 2 is the topgallant at .5 of the top mast. Photo 3 is the topgallant at .4 of the top mast. 

IMG_3664.jpeg

IMG_3665.jpeg

IMG_3666.jpeg

Posted

I think what it boils down to, reading Anderson, is that 0.5 is a good ratio if the topsails had no reefs; 0.4 is better if the topsails had reefs (and hence the topmast got longer). What with my personal confusion with three Soleil Royales' in different eras I have no idea if this ship kit should have reefs. Perhaps Marc or John know when topsail reefs came to be with respect to the purported date of this "model" ship.

 

I'm taking notes for my eventual build....

Posted

Ian looking at the card cutouts I did to represent the shroud spread which of the three topgallant heights look the best regardless of the area. I want to build my ship with a combination of both authenticity and visual appeal. 

Posted

By the time of the refit, in 1688, First rates would have been single-reefed on the fore and mainsail, and double-reefed on tue topsails.  Aesthitically, I might strike a balance between .4, which seems a little short, and .5.

We are all works in progress, all of the time.

Posted

New fore and main topgallants. I kept all the plastic joint pieces, even the silly cylinder pieces. Drilled everything out and replaced with dial rods I turned to fit. Based on our discussion I made the foremast 4” and the main 4 1/2”.  Surprisingly after it is too late to do anything about it I found both the fore and main topmasts were the exact same length if 9”. The bottom section of the mast is where some big difference is and now another 1/2” on the topgallant. 

IMG_3675.jpeg

Posted

Ladies and gentlemen please take a moment to recognize this historic moment in time!! Today, the twenty-first day of September in the year 2023, I did in fact reach the summit or the highest point of my Heller Le Soleil Royal. This is truly an auspicious occasion. Proud to say looking at the ship from the stern I see all three mast, and all 3 sections of each, line up behind one another! I did aggressively trim back the cross trees and trestle trees of the fore and main mast as well as remaking all 3 topgallant masts with wood dial rods. The very fragile trestle tree on the mizzenmast did suffer some damage and I will need to repair it before I can add the topgallant shrouds. 

IMG_3681.jpeg

IMG_3683.jpeg

IMG_3684.jpeg

IMG_3682.jpeg

Posted

Henry back a page or two around comment 1000 you gave me some advice on bracing the yards I believe you called it if I wanted to turn them a bit on the mast. You said that the yards will have parrals to hold them to the mast. The Heller instructions do not show, unless I am missing it, the installation of any type attachment apparatus for the yards. Is this another Hellerism?  I planned to make and use parrals. Was surprised not to see anything suggested for attachment. 
 

On that same subject especially referring the yards being braced. I held the the bottom yard (nautical term) up to the mast where I planned ti secure it. If I brace it even a small amount it rubs up against the lower shrouds. Would this be correct?  

IMG_3685.jpeg

Posted

Bill, as in their "Victory" kit, Heller did indeed omit any means of attaching the yards to the masts.

 

You have discovered the perennial problem with square rig - the shrouds limiting the swing of the yards which limits how near the ship can sail up to the wind. In the 19th century the clippers and windjammers employed iron "trusses" which held the yard forward of the mast and could swing the yard centres out off the ship's centreline thus allowing them to be braced up sharper.

 

In this case for these old ships I think they were just limited to staysails (the fore and aft ones) if they truly needed to get up into the wind (to claw off a lee shore, say). I suppose they could also loosen the parral to allow the yard to move forward of the mast, like they could loosen the truss pendants in later centuries, but I do not know if this was the practice in the 1600's.

Posted

As I am looking ahead I am trying to decide if I should turn my own wood dial rods to make the yards or just encase a wood rod inside the Heller plastic halves to strengthen it. I understand from you guys that the topgallant yards are too long so I will be making new ones shorter. I think the easier route would be to just add wood to the inside of the halves, but am up to the challenge to just make the new yards. 

Posted (edited)

You need to use your own parrels, Bill. This is a Hellerism I can't stand. Definitely use an adjustable parrel design so you can at least partially jam the sails around the mast. If you want, you can check out what I did on my galleon. 

Edited by Ferrus Manus
Posted (edited)

What they would do is loosen the parrel if they wanted to brace the sails around the mast, so the center of the yard could leave the mast, solving the shroud issue. I would rig the braces first, right after you rig the lifts, and then do the parrel after that. That's what i did. 

Edited by Ferrus Manus
Posted

The lower yard should be hung right at the level of the catharpins.  In fact, that is one of the functions of the catharpins. To swifter in the shrouds to allow the yard to be able to brace up to its maximum extent.

Also, the foremost shroud would not be placed so that it lies before the mast. Not something you can correct for the Heller kit.

 

Regards,

 

Henry

Henry

 

Laissez le bon temps rouler ! 

 

 

Current Build:  Le Soleil Royal

Completed Build Amerigo Vespucci

Posted (edited)

Thanks Henry. Would parrels have been used on the lower yard?  On my HMS Victory I used them on the top yard and topgallant yard but I don’t think I did on the lower yard. I remember Longridge directing a different rigging method for the lower yards.

Edited by Bill97
Posted (edited)

Ian and Marc are definitely the ones you need to be listening to, here. However, I do have a not-insignificant amount of experience with galleons and their rigging. If you need any help, let me know. If you properly execute my technique, you can probably get the yards as much as 45 degrees off of true. You're essentially pivoting the yard around the lee shroud instead of the mast.

Edited by Ferrus Manus
Posted

It also might be possible to excise the offending pair of shrouds from the main mast, and do some surgery on the channel. MAYBE. It might simply be impossible or too much effort and risk to be worth it. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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