Young America 1853 by EdT - FINISHED - extreme clipper

[Dowmer]

Oh my goodness Ed, look what I started 😁

I must admit, its facinating stuff and the input from everyone is excellent at the risk of straying from Ed's masterful build.

 

By the way, for what its worth...less than .02 pence if that...........I'd go for the dark brown color for all the reasons stated, but I think Ed was edging that direction anyway.

 

 

 

[EdT]

Did you start this, Dowmer?  Oh, my.  Also, I'd like to put in a vote for not quoting entire posts - takes up space and makes it harder to follow a conversation.  We are already at 106 pages.

 

I'm glad to see we are on the same page with dark brown, Druxey - maybe or maybe not exactly the same shade, but......not black.

 

Ed

[Dan Vadas]

1 hour ago, EdT said:

Also, I'd like to put in a vote for not quoting entire posts - takes up space and makes it harder to follow a conversation.

Fixed . A tip for those who don't know - don't simply hit the "Quote" button when replying as it copies the ENTIRE post to the reply. If you want SOME of the original post in your reply - highlight the appropriate passage (Shift + Left or Right Arrow or drag with your Mouse) and click the little "Quote Selection" button that appears. BTW - you can Edit your OWN posts if needed.

 

Back to you Ed , Danny

[rwiederrich]

That's what makes it all so magical.  One persons brown is another persons black.  So who is more accurate....I wonder?

One thing is for sure......I have pages of data from your build and it aids me continually with my own.  And that....my friend is wonderful.

 

I wonder if these folks might think they are correct.

Edited October 11, 2018 by rwiederrich

[Bob Cleek]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:14 AM, wefalck said:

The story about taking the slack out of shrouds probably comes from the pre-wire rope days, when ships on long equatorial passages stayed for weeks on the same tack. This may have stretched the windward shrouds and slack had to be taken out of the leeward ones because, if a sudden change of tack for whatever reason would be needed, the mast would come over like a whip, risking to snap it.

With wire rope this is not an issue.

Rope shrouds would stretch to some extent when new, but this was no surprise to them. As you may know, they used "shroud-laid" cordage for standing rigging before metal cable came into use. (And metal cable stretches, too.) Shroud-laid cordage is laid up with four strands around a heart, or central, strand. Shroud-laid rope doesn't have the tensile strength of three-strand hawser-laid cordage, but it is designed to be much less liable to stretch, hence its use as standing rigging. When a gang of rigging was made up, the shroud-laid cordage was often wet down and "pre-stretched" beforehand. By the time shroud-laid rope is properly wormed, parceled, and tightly served, and all of that impregnated with white lead paste and pine tar, it's a heck of a lot closer to an iron bar than a rubber band!

 

I can't imagine a "sudden change of tack" causing a mast to "come over like a whip" in a vessel of the size of Great Republic. Coming about in any square-rigger, and especially a larger one, is a slow, gradual, and rather complex evolution. There's nothing "sudden" about it. Their masts don't "whip."

 

Lee shrouds and stays will always be slack when the vessel is under sail. That is meant to be. Taking up the slack in lee shrouds while under sail results in seriously over-tensioned shrouds when those lee shrouds become windward shrouds on the opposite tack. A lower mast section might survive such abuse, but such tightening of a smaller upper mast section could even snap it on the opposite tack.  I've never heard of a sailing ship heaving to in mid-ocean to take up slack in its standing rigging.

 

The purpose of the standing rigging isn't simply to "keep the masts from falling down." It's more important function is to distribute the energy loads evenly throughout the vessel's structure. Every part of a vessel moves to a certain extent, and particularly wooden vessels. They are engineered to move so as to minimize shock-loading. Shroud tension is widely misunderstood modernly. We see many modern Marconi (jib-headed) rigged sailboats exhibiting structural damage from shrouds and stays being cranked down with turnbuckles until they sing like violin strings. The mechanics are the same as those of a bow and arrow. Tight shrouds push the heel of the mast downwards like the pointed end of an arrow while pulling up on the chainplates and we frequently see cracked frames and opened garboard seams in wooden boats and even catastrophic chainplate failures and hull fractures in fiberglass boats as a consequence. Shrouds and stays really only need to be tight enough to not be slack when the vessel is at rest. When it is under sail, the windward shrouds and stays tighten up and lee shrouds go slack. Their masts may bend a bit to leeward on each tack until the windward shrouds take up, but that is as it's intended to be.

 

The "long equatorial passages" by square-rigged sailing ships were almost exclusively made in the Trade Winds because that put the wind at their sterns. The sailing was all reaching and they would do as much as possible to avoid windward work which was certainly not a square-rigger's best point of sail. Reaching put most of the stress on the backstays which in many instances designed as running rigging, particularly those run to the lighter masts aloft. That arrangement accommodated stretch to the extent necessary.  Reaching doesn't put a lot of stress on the shrouds, relatively speaking.

[Bob Cleek]

11 hours ago, EdT said:

All these great comments.  I can hardly keep up, but let me try.  Bob Cleek raised a number of good points worthy of comment. 

 

At 1600 sq ft, the spanker was Young America's 7^th largest sail on the original single topsail rig, with the main and fore topsails being the largest at 2840 and 2600 sqft respectively, followed by the courses.  With double topsails it ranks 3^rd or 4th in size depending on the crojack size which is not specified on the original sail plan.  It was still a lot of canvas.  I do not know the method or methods used to take in this sail, but I installed brail blocks on the mizzen mast as well as the other lines shown or those that will be shown in succeeding posts.

Hereafter, in the interests of saving bandwidth, I'll put EdT's comments in bold italics and intersperse my comments in the regular font.

 

Color of lanyards is a subject that I hesitate to engage in because it is one of those hot buttons that invite many strongly held opinions.  I would suggest that someone – not me – create a topic on this subject.  I will gladly participate there with my admittedly limited knowledge.  I will, however, at the risk of inviting more comments on this build log, contribute here what I believe are some facts:

 

The color of deadeye lanyards shouldn't be a hot button topic at all. It's really just a matter of historical fact. Some of the modern confusion probably results from 1) a lack of experience and 2) the fact that the color changes over time in use. Also, in small craft, where deadeyes were employed, they may have been designed to be frequently reeved and unreeved, such as the case with a ship's longboats. In that case, line that was not as heavily tarred would have been used. Tarred hemp (not to be confused with "manila" or sisal cordage) is naturally light brown, the darkness of the brown being dependent upon how heavily it is tarred. The more tar, which would be thicker and darker, is applied, and that tar picks up dirt, they quickly darken, eventually to black, or darn close to it, the dirt and tar builds up. The yarns are soaked in thinned tar when the rope is made and that doesn't impart a lot of color, but when tar, and then, often, black paint are applied, the lanyard becomes black.  As mentioned in another post in this thread, the tar we are talking about is pine tar or "Stockholm tar," not roofing tar. Additionally, tarred line attracts dirt like a magnet, or so it seems. Much of its darkening is attributable to dirt. The tar will wear, or perhaps more accurately, break down from UV exposure and must be reapplied regularly. However "tan" a tarred lanyard might be, it will be very dark brown, if not black, in a very short while in use.

 

1.      Deadeyes and lanyards were used not only on shrouds but also on backstays.

 

Yes, that is true in some cases. In others, the backstays were rigged to be tightened with tackles and called "running backstays." These were generally lighter than the "standing backstays" which weren't designed to be tightened, or cast off on the leeward side.

 

2.      On a 3-4 month voyage around Cape Horn, upper masts would be struck down, probably more than once, requiring re-rigging of their stays and shrouds at sea.

 

Yes, something of a routine task. Their rigging was designed to accomplish this as easily as possible. A good crew could accomplish it easily. A crack naval crew could accomplish it with amazing speed and efficiency, or so it is written. Their deadeyes and lanyards were lighter than the lower deadeyes and lanyards and easier to handle. They needed only to be set up tightly enough not to hang slack when no load was applied to them.

 

3.      Climate variations between say a New York summer at the start of a voyage, equatorial conditions a month later, and semi-arctic conditions at the Cape a month after that, followed by a repeat of those variations up the Pacific, as well as the case described by wefalck, would certainly alter the tension in the standing rigging essential to the support of masts.

 

The variable factor is not so much temperature, which did have some affect the consistency of the tar to some extent, but rather moisture. This is why standing rigging was wormed, slurried in white lead paste, parceled in tarred canvas, and tightly served with tarred serving line, tarred again, and regularly slurried after being set up using what amounted to black paint in order to keep it dry under all weather conditions. This minimized changes in the properties of the cordage and prevented decay (rot) of the material in the elements.

 

4.      All hemp strands were tarred as part of the rope-making process – hence the straw-color (see Luce, Seamanship 1868).  No doubt the effects of sun, salt and weather would lighten this over time.

 

That's true. New cordage is "straw color," because the strands are soaked in thinned or "diluted" tar, which soaks into the strands easily. That "tar" would be the consistency of water. Un-thinned pine tar is the consistency of motor oil, or even a bit thicker. Weathering does "bleach" tarred line, but it actually tends to turn it grey more than anything else, which is as much dirt as anything. To counteract weathering, tar would be reapplied to lanyards as part of routine maintenance (and often painted black as well.) That and the collection of dirt stuck to the tarred surface, turned them progressively darker and ultimately black or very near so. There is a difference between applying thinned tar to the strands when making up rope and "tarring" lanyards with thicker tar or "slurrying" them with paint to protect them from the elements.

 

5.      The treatment applied to standing rigging discussed in earlier posts, according to primary documentation widely used at the time (again Luce, 1868), can only be described as thick, black, tarry paint. – black due to the carbon black content, thick due to the addition of letharge (lead oxide), tarry due to the pine tar.

 

Yes, but the "tarry" or "slurry," used on standing rigging is something different from the pine tar used to condition "tarred" cordage. It is indeed "black paint," although I don't believe they added any driers to it, so it remained somewhat flexible and didn't chip and flake much. As with all oil-based paint of the time, its primary ingredient was pine tar, thinned "to taste" with turpentine, litharge, which is another name for lead oxide, red or white, but usually white, which was the primary solid in all paints of the time (later replaced with zinc oxide or "whiting" which was simply talcum or chalk powder,) and "lamp black," (carbon) for color. This paint was cheap and effective. It was applied to the standing rigging to protect it from the elements.  (It was also used on ironwork to inhibit rusting. Most all of the iron fittings would have been wrought iron and so already rather resistant to rusting compared to modern steel.)

 

6.      The relatively complex lanyard/deadeye apparatus is obviously designed to add mechanical advantage (6 to 1) to force applied to the lanyard.  It was clearly intended for applying tension as the following well known diagram shows.

 

Yes and no. Lanyards are not "running rigging" per se and while there is a "mechanical advantage" present in the physics of it, it certainly wasn't to provide ease in setting them up! (They look like a block and tackle, but they don't work that way when setting them up because the friction quickly overcomes any mechanical advantage that theoretically existed.) The real purpose of deadeyes is to make it possible to attach a shroud or stay to a fixed point when it couldn't be tied in a knot. There really isn't any other way to set up a thick and somewhat rigid length of standing rigging, except to turn it round the deadeye and secure it with lashings, applying the tension "a bit at a time," distributed through the several turns of the lanyard. The evolution of this piece of rigging is interesting. Originally, a simple lashing served the purpose, but that arrangement created friction which made it more difficult to tighten and chaffed the line as the shrouds alternately went slack or tightened up  depending upon whether they were on the windward or leeward side. A "bigger hole" was tried, with large bullseyes, and later with heart-shaped bullseyes with three indentations in the bottom inside of the hole, and, ultimately, the deadeye, which was originally heart- or lozenge-shaped to accommodate more flexible standing rigging, ultimately evolved into the round deadeye which more easily accommodated the thicker and stiffer wormed, parceled, and served shroud-laid standing rigging. The deadeyes and lanyard are essentially an tensionable coupling mechanism that permits the attachment of the standing rigging.

 

7.      Methods and practices have evolved over time.  Even early 20^th century practices were different than those of the 1860's - and wire was different from hemp.

 

Of course, but as long as deadeyes were used, they were "mature technology" that wasn't improved upon until the advent of wire cable and turnbuckles. Deadeyes always had tarred hemp lanyards, at least until the advent of synthetic line, which those who used it on yachts often painted black to retain the traditional appearance. Curiously enough, in recent years far stronger synthetic line with negligble stretch has become available and is replacing metal cable standing rigging and turnbuckles, as well as other heavier fittings (e.g. metal sail luff piston hanks) on state-of-the-art racing sailboats. (Dyeema is one well-known brand.) This new line is used with modern "deadeyes" and bullseyes because it is much lighter than the older metal rigging and so increases performance.

 

So, if I accept the above as facts, I ask the following questions:

 

1.      Why install a large number of contraptions like deadeye/lanyards if they would rarely if ever be used?  Why not just seize shrouds/backstays to chains  after initial tightening?

 

As mentioned above, the primary purpose of the deadeyes and lanyards was to provide a way to connect thick and stiff shrouds and stays which could not be tied in a knot to a fixed point while maintaining the tensile strength of the shroud or stay. Three turns of thin line equals one thick one. Secondarily, the arrangement was easily set up and, if necessary, adjusted, and had a certain shock-absorbing ability in distributing the load. 

 

2.      If these were needed to re-tension or re-rig backstays or even shrouds, why would one clog up this friction-prone device with a thick, tarry paint?

 

The tar and/or paint served the purpose of protecting the exposed lanyards from the elements. If re-rigging or re-tensioning were necessary, the cheap tarred hemp lanyards are simply cut away and the deadeye holes cleaned out and greased and new greased tarred hemp lanyards are rove through the deadeyes anew.

 

3.      If greasing rigging with galley slush or other lubricant was common at the time, why would this not be used on deadeye lanyards, at least when needed?

 

The lanyards and deadeye holes are indeed greased, traditionally with tallow, the all-purpose marine lubricant of the time. (And still damn good today, if you can find it. This is not "galley slush," but a refined animal fat lubricant.) It does not, however, have the weathering abilities of pine tar and remains greasy until it weathers away in the elements. It makes things slippery, but it doesn't last as long as tar or paint and protect things from weathering. Pine tar forms a flexible coating, somewhat akin to varnish. Adding solids (white lead, or chalk) to create a paint keeps the tar where you put it, rather than having it get sticky and thin in hot weather. Dripping tar turned the decks of sailing ships black in short order and, of course, was tracked all over everything and everyone. Naval vessels which, in most navies of the time were kept "Bristol fashion," "holy stoned" their decks regularly. This was essentially sanding the deck back to bare wood with abrasive stone blocks to clean the tar off of them.  Painting the standing rigging instead of just adding more raw tar lessened the need to "stone" the decks. 

 

4.      What does all this mean to the color of model lanyards?

 

Well, considering the "scale viewing distance" of a model, and the assumed desire to depict the model as realistically as possible, it means black lanyards. If one were to be building a masted longboat with deadeyes and lanyards which were rove and un-rove each use, it means light brown lanyards, if one is so inclined. "Straw-colorerd" would be too light unless one wanted to show a pristine brand new longboat. Moreover, as a matter of opinion and not historical fact, the contrast of light colored lanyards on a larger vessel have the effect of drawing the viewer's eye to them in a way that distracts from the overall impression of the model. Consider what a real full sized version of the model would look like if you looked at it at full-scale distance and saw "straw colored" lanyards.

 

I am sure others will approach this issue differently, but this has been my rationale and my reasons for dark, but not black, lanyards.

 

Of course they will and if they enjoy doing so, that's what it's all about, isn't it? So long as everybody's having a good time. However, if one wants to run with the big dogs, they'd better be black.

 

Rob, I believe Hervey Garret Smith's comments on deadeyes apply to 20^th century yachts, and his description of tar is different than the tar coating described in Luce for application to the "standing" parts of standing rigging.  What he describes as a "thin liquid pine oil" would not be black.

 

Oh, absolutely Hervey Garret Smith was writing for a yachting audience, but he was speaking from his own working experience with deep-water square sail. That said, there were, and still are, some rather large traditional yachts rigged with deadeyes and lanyards and a deadeye and lanyard is a dead eye and lanyard. There's no difference between a yacht and a sailing ship in the way they work or are set up and maintained..

 

As I explained above, Luce's "slurry" paint is a different coating than pure pine tar. Pine tar thinned with turpentine to a "thin liquid" would not be black, but leave a lanyard made of yarn soaked in "thin liquid pine tar" out in the elements, coat it regularly with thick pine tar "out of the can" the consistency of motor oil and let it get good and dirty, and then "slurry" it with black paint, and those lanyards will be black in no time. It's sort of like if one were building a diorama of an old fashioned gas station on a model train layout: What color is the motor oil that has leaked on the ground? It was "straw colored" when it came out of the can, but it's black when it drips out of the engine.

[Bob Cleek]

12 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

It is unarguable that lanyards are for tightening the shrouds/back stays.  Their appropriate tension is the goal to maintain erect, stable masts....and to counter the actions brought upon these members.  One can say they are part of an immovable (set) system....others say they are available for adjustment due to warpage and or stretchage.  I believe both notions are true.  I also believe they had to be preserved in some fasion....to what extent can only been known by time travelers.  ...

Rob

For the moment at least, not only by time travelers. Some of us "of a certain age" who grew up around deep-water ports, had fathers in the shipping business, and from earliest memory had an abiding interest in and infatuation with all things maritime, were lucky enough to be able to explore rotting sailing ship hulks on the mud flats without getting caught, make the acquaintance of "old timers" who for a living actually rounded the Horn in the last of the cargo carrying square-rigged sailing ships, informally "apprentice" themselves to master wooden boat builders and shipwrights, sail small gaff-and square-riggerd boats with real deadeyes and lanyards, and generally learn a lot of the "old ways."

[Bob Cleek]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

... I wonder if these folks might think they are correct.

 

Is that the Morgan? It looks to me like they are using nylon, or some other synthetic line for their lanyards and metal cable for their standing rigging. (if it's the Morgan, I'm sure that's so for the shrouds.) It looks like they haven't finished setting them up, because the bitter ends of the lanyards are hanging free instead of being lashed up against the running part. That one blue line in the shroud gang certainly isn't "period correct." I can't imagine who took the time to do that fiddly cutting in work to paint the metal bands around the lower deadeyes white. Maybe some seaman figured he could skylark for a bit before climbing down to do some work he found more onerous. I can't imagine a bosun putting up with such gimcrackerie back in the days of working sail! 

[EdT]

Well, my instincts about raising this opinion-charged topic appear to have been correct, so if there is still energy to debate this, please someone start a new topic.  I suggest we move on.

 

Ed

 

ps. Thank you, Danny.

[rwiederrich]

7 hours ago, Bob Cleek said:

For the moment at least, not only by time travelers. Some of us "of a certain age" who grew up around deep-water ports, had fathers in the shipping business, and from earliest memory had an abiding interest in and infatuation with all things maritime, were lucky enough to be able to explore rotting sailing ship hulks on the mud flats without getting caught, make the acquaintance of "old timers" who for a living actually rounded the Horn in the last of the cargo carrying square-rigged sailing ships, informally "apprentice" themselves to master wooden boat builders and shipwrights, sail small gaff-and square-riggerd boats with real deadeyes and lanyards, and generally learn a lot of the "old ways."

Bob....my own experiences mimic yours in but a smaller degree.  I too spent many youthful days at the docks and yards talking to and getting information from old salts.  My own travels abroad lent itself to gathering much on the subject.

 

Thank you for being so clear and depictive.  Personally, I have never rigged any vessel I have ever built with anything less then black lanyards......I used the time traveler analogy...because there are very few modelers who actually are aware factually of what you so accurately pointed out.  The point is the truth could be readily identified by going back in time and seeing it for our selves.

One other note....most of the time a ship being driven hard in heavy seas will keep her in bound deadeyes and their lanyards submerged...if they were not preserved they would not last.  One good long voyage around the Horn could leave a vessel looking as if it had been sand blasted and painted with rust and decay.  No wonder captains drove their crews to paint and tar the ships fittings, rigging prior to entering their destinations harbor.  it was all about appearance.....to say, *look at how smart we look after sucha hard voyage*, and to impress the owners with the skill and prowess of the ship and her master. 

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

On 10/11/2018 at 10:21 PM, Bob Cleek said:

 

Is that the Morgan? It looks to me like they are using nylon, or some other synthetic line for their lanyards and metal cable for their standing rigging. (if it's the Morgan, I'm sure that's so for the shrouds.) It looks like they haven't finished setting them up, because the bitter ends of the lanyards are hanging free instead of being lashed up against the running part. That one blue line in the shroud gang certainly isn't "period correct." I can't imagine who took the time to do that fiddly cutting in work to paint the metal bands around the lower deadeyes white. Maybe some seaman figured he could skylark for a bit before climbing down to do some work he found more onerous. I can't imagine a bosun putting up with such gimcrackerie back in the days of working sail! 

The image does show rigging in many stages of completion...however....it is the depiction of the black lanyards that drew my attention to point out that even these hired naval rigging architects understood these items had to be identified...even if it meant using modern synthetic material to mimic tarred rope.

When they re-rigged the Constitution...their Naval architects deemed it necessary to rig the lanyards with black rope.  I can't imagine they could get that detail incorrect, if it were not so.

 

Rob

Edited October 13, 2018 by rwiederrich

[EdT]

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 303 – Boom Topping Lifts Revisited

Let me politely try again.  Please start a new topic.  Meanwhile, back to the business of this model.

 

The first installation of the spanker boom topping lifts was not correct.  I was not completely satisfied and others noticed the problem.  I wanted to fix it, but the question was how to do that without dismantling more than two day's work.

 

First, some discussion of these lines is appropriate.  The purpose of the topping lifts was to hold up the outer end of the spanker boom when the sail was furled or for reefing.  The sail itself supported the boom at other times when set.  During reefing, the gaff was lowered to allow the sail to be shortened by tying off reef points to the boom, so the boom needed support.  The amount of lift required at the end of the boom was probably in the range of 5 to 10 feet – not a lot.

 

Different configurations were used.  A single lift from the end of the boom through a sheave at the end of the gaff to a block at the top was often used.  Single pendants on either side of the boom were also common.  To distribute the lifting force over more of the boom-end, a doubled span through a single pendant block was also used.  There may have been other arrangements.  Lacking any specific YA design data, I chose the third option based on the large size of the boom and relying - as I often did in matters like this – on Bill Crothers' drawings.  He showed this arrangement for both Young America and Lightning and showed two single pendants on his Challenge drawing.

 

With the length of the doubled span and of the pendant specified at 48' and 24' respectively, the lengths of the tackles would be correct – if the forward span connection was correctly located on the spar.  It was not – a drawing mistake by me. 

 

The first picture, of the original installation, shows the movement of the band and shackles required to correct the error.

 

 

To make this correction and to avoid dismantling the entire spar, I decided to try and do it in place.  In the next picture the two shackles have been pulled out of the band with pliers and are hanging just above the spar.

 

 

 

Sliding the tightly fitted band along the spar was the most risky and difficult part of the job.  It was done mostly by pushing with pliers while firmly holding the end of the spar as shown in the next picture.

 

 

In the picture the final position has been reached with the only damage being the (usual) bending of the iron railing.  The wheel enclosure and binnacle were removed for their safety.  New holes for the shackles were then drilled into the spar through the existing band holes.  In the next picture the starboard span shackle has been fitted and re-glued into the relocated band.

 

 

And in the next, both spans have been re-rigged.

 

 

To allow relocation of these connections, the belaying points had to be cast loose and the tackles lengthened.  The next picture shows the two topping lifts with the falls pulled down. 

 

 

The length between the two tackle blocks has been increased from about 54" to about 86" – a satisfactory correction.  The fall on the port side had just enough length to permit re-belaying on the spider band.  The starboard fall was left short, however.  Rather than re-rig the tackle, a splice was put into the line as shown in the next picture.

 

 

 

When the glue holding this splice together has dried, the excess ends will be clipped and if the appearance is OK, the line will be belayed.  If not it may be replaced or redone.  There are two such splices in other parts of the rigging so far – perhaps no one has noticed.  Some cosmetic repair to the spar itself will complete the job.

 

I hate rework, but my nature seems to generate it on occasion.  And, oh yes, the drawings will of course be corrected.  Other boom/gaff rigging shown in the above pictures will be described in a later post.

 

Ed

 

[Dowmer]

Delicate work Ed, nice job.  What are you going to do about the holes left in the boom from the previous position?

 

I saw a few pictures of a topping lift on an actual working sailing ship "Niagara" like yours set up.  I thought you might enjoy the pics.

 

 

 

 

Below was on their facebook page last week.  They are currently removing the spanker boom. Here we can see how the crew uses the main yard like a crane to lift the spanker boom before they swing it over the side of the ship. 

 

 

Hope you enjoyed it.  Your setup looks pretty close to the placement on the boom with the exception of you have the extra tackles on the pendants.

 

 

 

 

[EdT]

Thank you for the pics, Dowmer - nice to see.  I have filled the old holes with a glue/sanding dust mix and have painted them over with some color matched acrylic that I hope will obscure the fix.  If it does I will swab the area with the wipe-on poly I am using on all spars.  We'll see.

 

Ed

[rwiederrich]

Exceptional rework Ed...I was floored to see the bent railing...but you repaired it masterfully as well as the entire redo

 

Rob

[Bob Cleek]

I know you will probably hate me forever for this, Ed, and I feel terrible about it, but, then again, I feel somehow responsible for it all and can't let it go without a passing mention.

 

I had written:

 

Also, note the forward mast band to which the forward topping lifts are attached. It appears to be too far aft to be of any use. Imagine that the topping lift is hauling up the boom. With the forward band where it is now, rather than further forward, the angle of the "pull" is really only pulling the boom forward against the gooseneck and not upwards, as a topping lift should. If the band were placed forward so that the direction of pull of the forward topping lift line were in the other direction, the pull of the pendants would be "up" instead of "forward."  If so, they would also better serve as lazy jacks to control the gaff as it came down.

 

The photos of Niagra posted by Dowmer show the correct lead of the spanker topping lifts. The forward leg of bridle leads from the pendent block at an angle running forward of the angle of the pendant. The band needed to be moved forward on the boom, not aft.

 

I am truly sorry for any confusion I may have caused. With that, I'll say no more.

[EdT]

Bob, please do not apologize for making comments or suggestions.  That is the purpose of the forum.  Most of the comments I receive are constructive and helpful.  I welcome them, though I may not always agree or adopt.  

 

There was no confusion in my mind with your suggestion.  It was very clear.  I am aware that my correction differs.  I will try to explain that and then offer some comments on my general research/design process.

 

When I noticed the shortness of the tackles, before your comments, I went back to my sources and found that I had incorrectly placed the forward lift band.  My design  for the topping lifts is based on the William Crothers drawing for Young America.  This drawing is my backup when primary sources are not sufficiently definitive.  I believe that his design for the lift - and many other things - was based on meticulous examination of the photographs of the ship as well as other primary sources.  So I went back to the photos to determine if there was a basis for his boom lift design.  There was.  These photos, taken in the 1870's show a shorter boom than the original sail plan, but the forward lift band is clearly visible, as are the lift tackles.  Proportionally, the forward band is well aft and the tackles angle toward a midpoint consistent with the placement of the lift bands on the Crothers drawing - and now on my drawing as well.  So, your comments and the Niagara replica pictures notwithstanding, I am comfortable with my current configuration.  

 

Because my interpretations of many design aspects will be cast into the concrete of my books, I need to be careful about having documented sources wherever possible.  I owe this to the readers.  While I cannot claim exhaustive research, the order for this is: primary YA documents first, then primary general documents, then secondary sources in order of their credibility, then finally my judgement as a last necessary resort when there are conflicts or unknowns.  All the applied sources are listed in bibliographies.   There is no single or perfect interpretation of history, especially of the minutiae we are dealing with.  We do the best we can.

 

Thanks for your input - truly.

 

Ed

[druxey]

Well played, sir! 

 

I have occasion to splice lines in place. A fairly imperceptible way is to fray the ends to be joined by separating out the strands and 'combing' them, them cutting them diagonally. A small wood block in one hand and a sharp scalpel blade in the other achieves this. A small amount of white glue on one end and (with clean, dry fingers) roll the two ends together to make a nice tapered together faux splice. Once you have the technique down, it is a reliable and surprisingly strong method of 'splicing' at small scale. I use this technique extensively for eye splices as well: they hold nicely under tension.

[EdT]

A good method Druxey.  The three that I have done on the model so far were done in place in some fairly inaccessible locations and/or among other lines.  The method I used was to pass a needle with the one rope end through the other rope at an angle, soak the joint with  Titebond glue,  roll it between fingers and wait until completely dry, then clip off the excess ends.  The lines were Nos. 60 and 40 DMC cotton.  I use the same method on DMC 80 ratline eyesplices.  You are right, the pva glue holds well - if you wait for it to completely dry.

[druxey]

Exactly, Ed. Stressing the joint before it is fully dry invites failure. How do I know this?

[Bob Cleek]

 Ed wrote:

 

I went back to my sources and found that I had incorrectly placed the forward lift band.  My design  for the topping lifts is based on the William Crothers drawing for Young America.  This drawing is my backup when primary sources are not sufficiently definitive.  I believe that his design for the lift - and many other things - was based on meticulous examination of the photographs of the ship as well as other primary sources.  So I went back to the photos to determine if there was a basis for his boom lift design.  There was.  These photos, taken in the 1870's show a shorter boom than the original sail plan, but the forward lift band is clearly visible, as are the lift tackles.  Proportionally, the forward band is well aft and the tackles angle toward a midpoint consistent with the placement of the lift bands on the Crothers drawing - and now on my drawing as well.  So, your comments and the Niagara replica pictures notwithstanding, I am comfortable with my current configuration.  

 

Ed, you certainly must have far more information on Young America than I will ever have, and, as clippers go, there's a fair amount of documentation on her. What caught my eye was simply the incorrectness of the topping lift rigging, specifically the angle of the forward end of the bridle which, as a matter of physics, has to be in line with, if not preferably forward of the vector of the pendant. If it isn't, the bridle really does nothing mechanically useful. This isn't to say that she might not have actually had the forward end of the bridle attached to that forward band, but unlike yourself, I don't have immediate access to any contemporary photos or drawings which would illustrate that. It was a puzzlement to me that any rigger would rig a topping lift like that, but your comment that her boom was shortened answered the question.

 

Early contemporary illustrations clearly show that her spanker boom had considerable overhang. Your model depicts her original boom length with a footrope to access the overhang.  That boom length is evident in early contemporary illustrations.

 

 

I think it's safe to assume there are no photographs of Young America early in her life. Photography wasn't widely in common use at that time. However, when we look at later photographs of Young America, notably those taken at North Point wharf in San Francisco in 1873, we see that her spanker boom had been "bobbed," with the previous considerable overhang removed.  

 

This photograph (you can enlarge it considerably with your browser's "tools" feature) clearly shows the shortened boom with a boom band slightly ahead of the end of the boom where the spanker sheets are attached and another boom band slightly forward of the wheelbox. It does not appear, from the resolution of the on-line photograph at least, that there is any bridle or lift attached to the aftermost boom band at all. The boom band immediately forward may have a topping lift attached to it, but there is no indication in the picture of any topping lift bridle on the shortened boom and it does not appear to be in the same place as either of the forward two boom bands that you have on your model depicting the original longer boom. Granted, the photo is not razor sharp on my screen and the photo, most likely from a glass plate negative in the J.Porter Shaw collection of the San Francisco Maritime Museum, would probably be much sharper.

 

Additionally, looking at the photo taken at North Point wharf, if my eyes don't deceive me, it appears that the taper of the boom indicates that the boom in the photo is the original boom cut shorter at its aft end, as the thickest part of the boom appears to be aft of the center of the boom's length.  I suggest for your consideration that what in fact occurred was that when the boom was shortened, doing away with the aftermost mast band to which the after end of the topping lift bridles were attached, the riggers simply did away with the bridles entirely and connected the topping lifts to the single band shown in the photo.  The bridle would have been intended to spread the lifting tension to two points on the boom and prevent the long boom from bending at its narrow end when being lifted. With a shorter boom, a band at the thicker portion of the shortened boom would have been sufficient to lift the boom without unduly straining it.

 

If a bridle was retained after bobbing the boom, the after end of the bridle would have been attached to the spanker boom sheet band, thereby moving that point of attachment forward, and, correspondingly, the attachment of the forward bridle end would have had to have been moved forward as well in order to provide for its being angled forward of the vector of the pendant in order to do any work.

 

We have to recognize, of course, that the photo shows the vessel with all sails sent down (probably sent to Simpson and Fisher, the sail loft nearby at the time, for repairs after a long voyage around the Horn or across the Pacific) and there's no knowing what running rigging they might have sent down for repairs as well at the time the photo was taken. There does not seem to be any boom gallows rigged and her spanker sheets are taken up tightly amidships, so it would appear the topping lift, attached to the forward boom band is doing its job of holding the boom up off the deck.

 

As for Crothers, I don't have his plans for Young America, but he says in his book, The American-Built Clipper Ship, speaking generally of the spanker boom topping lifts on American clippers:

 

"The topping lift, which went double, flat against each side of the sail, was made up of a span (bridle,) a pendant, and falls. The span was set up with one point approaching the midpoint of the boom, giving support to its considerable slender length; the other end was set up to the after stop of the boom after the span had been rove through a block which had the pendant turned in. ... Each topping lift was a complete assembly port and starboard, and together they controlled the height at which the boom hung. (See Figure 30.2)" [Op.cit.: p.484]

 

Figure 30.2, on pages 480 and 481, shows the running rigging of a "representative" clipper ship. That drawing shows a boom with considerable overhang, though not as much as in contemporary illustrations of Young America, with the forward end of the bridle, or span, as Crother's calls it, attached slightly after of the middle of the boom's length and angling forward of the vector of the pendant.

 

In summary, I entirely agree with Crothers description and drawing of the running rigging of a "representative" clipper ship and would feel safe in assuming such was the arrangement on Young America as she was built, but I would find reliance upon photographs of the vessel when she was long past her prime and cut down for employment in less glamorous enterprises than originally intended suspect authority for rigging details present when she was originally built. Is it possible that your perceived error in the placement of the band you moved aft discovered when examining photographs taken later in her life wasn't an error at all, but rather simply confusion created by the fact that the plans depicted the placement of the band as built and the photo depicted the placement of a band installed in a different place on the boom after her spanker boom was shortened?  One would expect that the original band would have been moved forward because the shortening of the boom caused the point of attachment of the after end of the bridle to have been moved forward significantly.  Logically, the forward band would have to had been moved forward on the boom about the same distance as the after bridle attachment was moved forward if it were originally attached to the boom end that was cut off. That would have been absolutely necessary to get the bridle angles correct in relation to the pendant's angle. I presume you are modeling her as built, given her original full length boom. In that case, I'd say you'd be safer to rely on Crothers' description in his book than photos taken long after she was built and when her rig had been cut down and place the forward band ahead of where you originally had it so that the forward end of the bridle angled forward of the vector of the pendant when attached to it. 

 

Unfortunately Crothers is apparently no longer with us, so we don't have the luxury of asking him about his plans.  If Crothers' rigging plan for Young America does indeed have the forward end of the bridle angled aft of the pendant vector, contradicting his own commentary in his book (not to mention the physics of the arrangement,) there's also always the possibility that he erred in drawing it the way he did. It's certainly not the first time that's happened in published model plans. I hope that possibility doesn't make you too crazy!

 

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Bob Cleek

[EdT]

Bob, all this is not making me crazy - but I confess to getting weary.  At the same time I rejoice that the other 700 or so lines on the model are not getting this kind of oversight.  I am comfortably going to stick with my current configuration. 

 

I am tempted to take issue with a number of points in your latest post where I disagree, but in the interest of time will instead focus on your final point, one item that  I believe we agree on:  The location of my span shackles are almost precisely proportional to Crothers' representative drawing in his first book, which you "entirely agree with" as well as his model drawings.

 

Ed

[Bob Cleek]

I am tempted to take issue with a number of points in your latest post where I disagree, but in the interest of time will instead focus on your final point, one item that  I believe we agree on:  The location of my span shackles are almost precisely proportional to Crothers' representative drawing in his first book, which you "entirely agree with" as well as his model drawings.

 

My copy of Crothers' book has the forward end of the span fastened ahead of where the vector line of the pendant crosses the boom, of that I am sure.  No matter, though.  I know the "weary" factor well. About forty years ago, early in my adult model building "career," I built a kit model of the Mary Taylor in 1/8" scale. When all was said and done, I belatedly realized that I'd put all the deadeyes in upside down, with the middle hole on the bottom instead of the top. I have no idea why I did that, and it was intentional at the time. I just did one that way and made the rest the same, without giving it a second thought, even though at that time  I owed a full-sized boat rigged correctly with deadeyes and lanyards! Just your basic brain fhart, I guess. I never re-did them. The model, in a nice glass case, has sat in my office since then and many have complemented it. Nobody's ever noticed the upside down deadeyes!

[Dowmer]

16 minutes ago, Bob Cleek said:

belatedly realized that I'd put all the deadeyes in upside down

 

 

Bob, oh the horror !!!!!!!!!!   😁  

 No worries Bob, sometimes you just have to pick your battles. 

 

 

 

[EdT]

Bob, I really wanted to get off of this.

 

You said:

My copy of Crothers' book has the forward end of the span fastened ahead of where the vector line of the pendant crosses the boom, of that I am sure.  No matter, though.

 

With the span running through a block on the pendant, the vector of the pendant will always fall between the two legs of the span regardless of where the ends of the span are fixed. 

 

Ed

Edited October 16, 2018 by EdT

[EdT]

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 304 – Spanker Boom 2/Gaff 1

 

Done with rework, back to moving the ball forward - hopefully.  This post describes completion of the boom rigging.  Gaff rigging seen in these pictures will be covered in a later post.

 

The first picture shows the corrected topping lift spans as well as cosmetic repair to the boom at the old band position.  The foot ropes and the boom sheets are also shown in this picture.

 

 

The three lines running vertically to the gaff in this picture will be described later.  The boom sheets are luff tackles with lead blocks, one on each side of the boom just aft of the wheel enclosure.  Each consists of a double block shackled to the boom band, a single block hooked to a deck eyebolt, a second lead block also hooked to a deck eye, and finally a cleat in the deck to belay the fall.  The next picture may show this more clearly.

 

 

The sheets control the sweep of the boom.  The boom is also fitted with an inhauler and outhauler that attach to the clew of the spanker sail.  In the absence of sails, the outhauler is stopped at the gooseneck, runs aft over the boom to a sheave near the end, back under the boom to a cleat near the foot, with the remaining line coiled on the roof of the cabin.  The line and boom sheave may be seen in the above photo and the inner end in the next.

 

 

The inhauler is a very short line on the no-sails model.  It is stopped at the end in a block strapped to the gooseneck and belayed just below on the spider band, where most of this line will be coiled on the model.  This line would also be secured to the clew and run out by the outhauler when setting the sail.

 

The next few pictures show fabrication of the gaff.  In the first, the spar has been shaped by the usual methods. The 40' spar is 9" at its maximum diameter, which occurs 1/3 in from the outer end, as on the boom.  Five inch thick wood blanks have been cut to form the jaws of the yoke that will secure the gaff to the spanker mast.

 

 

The jaws were first glued and clamped to the sides of the gaff, then shaped.

 

 

Cross bolts were then added using black monofilament.  In the last picture an iron band around the jaws has been fitted and the necessary blocks have been lashed to the spar and to eyebolts in the band.  After the addition of lashing eyes on the jaws and clipping of the excess block lashings, the gaff will be ready to go up.

 

 

Ed

[rwiederrich]

Masterful job Ed, as usual.

Talking about gaffs...will you be adding the pennant gaff between the mizzen spreaders?  I'm wondering...what era have you decided to model YA...I don't recall...I'm sure you mentioned it earlier?  If later...she didn't possess either fore or main gaffs from what I gather?

 

Rob(2 thumbs waaay up)

[EdT]

To answer your questions, Rob, there will be Spencer gaffs on the fore and main and a monkey (pennant) gaff on the mizzen, all per the original Webb sail plan.  I am modeling the ship roughly as configured after the addition of double topsails in 1854, one year after launch, and before the conversion to single-stick topgallant/royal/skysail pole masts at an unknown later date, but before the two photos taken in the 1870's.  So, I believe the period would be mid to late 1850's.

 

I should add that this would be during her "extreme" period.

 

Ed

Edited October 16, 2018 by EdT

[wefalck]

Double top-sails already in 1854 ? This must be then a very early example. I thought that they were only introduced in the early 1860s - or maybe this applies to Europe only.

[EdT]

Robert Bennett Forbes of Boston began fitting double topsails in 1844.  His design featured an extended masthead with a collar on the topmast below the cap to support the yard.  By 1853 people began fitting what became the Howes type truss to a boss on  the lower masthead cap to support an upper topsail.  These were generally fitted to the standard masthead, sometimes with a strut from a collar on the topmast below the cap.  Using the existing, standard masthead made the conversion easier.  Frederick Howes of Yarmouth, Mass. patented this rig in 1854.  This basic type of truss was fitted to YA's 3 masts about a year after launch in 1854 and is the type fitted to my model.  Perhaps these were adopted later in Europe as you suggest.

 

Ed

Edited October 16, 2018 by EdT