Endeavour . Back stays and Running Breast backstays

[DaveBaxt]

According to Caldercraft drawings there are two standing back stays on both the fore and main top masts and topgallant  masts and the channels have two small dead eyes port and stbd for these. However according to the Royal museum at Greenwich ( via wiki) there is only one dead eye on each channel for backstays. some modellers have had the forsight to fit as such.

The Caldercraft drawings also shows Running Breast Backstays on both Fore and main top masts. However Lees Book ' The Mast and Rigging of ships of war' states that Breast Back stays are usually not fitted on English ships. Can I therefore assume that Running Breast Back stays are also not fitted.

I am finding this a bit confusing to say the least and perhaps someone can shine a bit of light on this , I wonder what configuration Steel has or AOTS  Endeavor out of interest. Thank you  Bwst regards Dave

[allanyed]

Hi Dave,

It is great to see you doing this research, especially looking at multiple sources.  It seems nothing is 100% for sure in this hobby of ours, but I would think that it is better to trust the information you found that is based on contemporary sources.

Allan

[DaveBaxt]

Yes I agree Allan so will probably go down the Lees route so will probably end up missing them out. A shame really as the recesses for the dead eye chain plates have allowed for these so now there is a gap in the shrouds. Oh well I live and learn and next time I will work all this out before I fit the channels. Thank you once again for your early response. Best regards Dave

[DaveBaxt]

Just came across this thread and thanks to Blue Ensign who staes that Lees is actually differentiating between Breast Back stays and Running breast backstays so perhaps the latter were carried on the Endeavour afterall.

 

[mgdawson]

On 3/9/2023 at 10:10 PM, DaveBaxt said:

 Lees Book ' The Mast and Rigging of ships of war' states that

Hi Dave,

As 'Endeavour' was built as a collier, 'Earl of Pembroke', not as a warship for the Admiralty I'm not sure Lees book would be relevant. When the navy bought her they refitted her below decks for her new role but they may have left the masting and rigging as is if it was in good condition and there was no good reason to change it. Presumably the 'Earl' would have been rigged for a much smaller crew than the navy would carry for a ship of that size and a smaller crew would also suit the planned voyage.

Mark

[DaveBaxt]

9 hours ago, mgdawson said:

Hi Dave,

As 'Endeavour' was built as a collier, 'Earl of Pembroke', not as a warship for the Admiralty I'm not sure Lees book would be relevant. When the navy bought her they refitted her below decks for her new role but they may have left the masting and rigging as is if it was in good condition and there was no good reason to change it. Presumably the 'Earl' would have been rigged for a much smaller crew than the navy would carry for a ship of that size and a smaller crew would also suit the planned voyage.

Mark

Thank you Mark and you have made some very good points and worthy of consideration. For the record, I was under the impression that the Caldercraft kit is deemed by a number of modellers as one of  the better kits in terms of the accuracy of the rigging but I am not sure if this is true. Caldercraft calls them Breast back stays which Lees states were not fitted on English ships. Running Back stays I believe are something different. It would also be interesting if the AOTS Endeavour has running back stays fitted. Its altogether confusing.