PEGASUS Block placement

[Knocklouder]

Hello my Pegasus friend's, I need help with block placement on my Foremast.  The plan shows 2( L ) single blocks and one

(O)  double block. When you look at it face on the blocks look like they are on the front trestle tree . The two single ones are on the outside edge, when turn sideways the blocks look like the are on both  trestle trees. I drew green circle around the blocks in question.  I can not see what kind of blocks they are, one hole or two. 

Main mast picture.

 In the second  picture you can see the foremast blocks  on both peices # 75.

 Thanks for your help.  

[allanyed]

These plans show the single blocks upside down,  

Sketch below shows what they have and on the right what I think is the proper way to rig the blocks.  As Amati shows them, the line would pass under the would-be sheave, not over it.  

Allan

Edited December 29, 2023 by allanyed

[Knocklouder]

Thanks @allanyed. but I did notice the blocks were not right. I just can't  figure out the row of blocks on the back trestle tree, on the foremast. Being looking around and saw @flyer  has some on his Pegasus, post number 35, I will reach out to him. . But I can't tell how many and how many holes in each. I'll figure it out  lol. As soon as somebody on MSW tells me lol. 

[popeye2sea]

These look like leading blocks for the bunt and leech lines.  The double blocks will probably be for inner bunt lines.  It may be that they are rigged in the following manner:

The various lines pass up the front of the sail , through jewel blocks on the yard , through the first leading block on the fore cross tree, back to the corresponding block on the aft cross tree and thence down to the pin rail abaft the mast.

You will have to confirm by looking at your belaying plan and seeing if the lines belay before or after the mast.

 

Regards,

 

Henry

[allanyed]

13 hours ago, Knocklouder said:

. But I can't tell how many and how many holes in each. I'll figure it out  lol.

The blocks under the tops are described in detail for Swan class sloops like your Pegasus on pages 63 and 64 in Volume Four of TFFM by David Antscherl.  There was more likely two sets of double blocks on each side of the tops if there were two leech lines.  The two buntlines on each side shared double blocks and the two leech lines shared double blocks.  There were no single blocks in this case.

 

There were exceptions though.  From James Lees Masting and Rigging, page 74 if the sail was rigged with a single leech line the inner buntlines ran through a set of single blocks and the outer buntline and single leech line shared the double blocks on each side of the mast.  There are good drawings in both these sources that may be more clear.

 

Allan

 

 

[Knocklouder]

To all those  who replied thank you. Great advice, @flyer sent me an  email with advice on what he did Thank you Peter. And a thanks to @David Lester who also dropped me a note and gave me great advice, I now know the difference between crosstrees and trestle trees. The blocks go on the crosstrees fore and aft , a double on the inside and two singels on each side. The trestle trees run fore to aft, the crosstrees run port to starboard.. 

 Thanks again everyone.  I now can start drilling  holes in my model,  in the right place.

MSW comes through  again. What a great form. Happy New Year  to all.   

Edited December 30, 2023 by Knocklouder
Typos

[Keith Black]

18 hours ago, allanyed said:

These plans show the single blocks upside down,  

Sketch below shows what they have and on the right what I think is the proper way to rig the blocks.  As Amati shows them, the line would pass under the would-be sheave, not over it.  

 

 In my limited rigging experience, the rule of thumb I go by is the sheave opening is always on the anchored end. for those who have been rigging for 40 years I can hear you saying, 'duh' but for those of us with limited experience this is one of those 'light bulb' moments. 

[allanyed]

18 hours ago, Knocklouder said:

a double on the inside and two singels on each side.

I cannot find any information based on contemporary sources that give this configuration.  What is the advantage of having three sets of blocks versus two sets? This is very interesting and hope that Flyer and Dave Lester can share the source for this configuration?  Era aside, as with so much in rigging there seems to be variations a lot of the time within any given era. Thanks in advance for your help.

Allan

[popeye2sea]

3 hours ago, allanyed said:

I cannot find any information based on contemporary sources that give this configuration.  What is the advantage of having three sets of blocks versus two sets? This is very interesting and hope that Flyer and Dave Lester can share the source for this configuration?  Era aside, as with so much in rigging there seems to be variations a lot of the time within any given era. Thanks in advance for your help.

Allan

I believe the advantage comes from the lead of the line down the front of the sail.  A double block works for paired bunt lines because they lead in relatively the same angle down to the foot of the sail.  If you have a bunt line and a leech line passing through a double block one of those lines is going to bind on the block because they are leading off in two very different directions.

 

Regards,

Henry

[allanyed]

2 hours ago, popeye2sea said:

A double block works for paired bunt lines because they lead in relatively the same angle down to the foot of the sail. 

Understood, and that makes sense, but why then is the configuration alternative the James Lees has found in his research that has both a single leech and a buntline in the same double block?  All very confusing to me.😕

Allan

[Dr PR]

Allan,

 

I am fairly new to the study of sailing ship rigging, having started on a topsail schooner about five years ago. But one thing I have discovered is that it is probable that no two ships were ever rigged the same way! So Lees (Lever, Marquardt, zu Mondfeld, Chapelle, McGregor, Peterson, Underhill, Biddlecomb, Steel ...) may show the way a particular ship was rigged, but that doesn't mean every ship was rigged that way!

 

There is only one rule that I have discerned that applies to every ship - a line must not foul other lines, spars, masts, etc., and when possible it should be routed so it doesn't chafe against other parts. Given this rule you have to attach lines and blocks wherever necessary and find a place to belay them to clear as much of the other rigging as possible. I suspect it was the Captain, Mate or Bosun who decided how things were rigged on their ships, and that might change with time and experience.

 

There are some general trends for belaying that I have found:

 

1. Lines that originate lower down in the rigging generally belay forward on pin rails, fife rails and cleats. Lines from higher points belay farther aft.

 

2. Lines descending from near the mast belay near the bottom of the mast (partners). Lines descending from yard arms belay along the bulwarks or deck edges.

 

3. An exception to 2 is that lines from very high in the rigging, whether from yard arms or from near the mast, may belay along the bulwarks or near deck edges.

 

The prime rule is that lines must not foul other lines. They may be led through fairleads on crosstrees or the bowsprit, through thimbles/trucks on shrouds, or running blocks attached where necessary to lead them around obstacles.

 

How all of this is accomplished depends upon the configuration of the masts, spars and rigging on the particular vessel. For example, I have found three different ways the fore course (spreader) yard braces were routed on topsail schooners, and there may well be other ways.

 

Perhaps the most frustrating thing I have encountered is that almost every "authority" I have read that describes ship's rigging says for every line that it was "belayed below" or "on deck." Very few books show where the lines were belayed "below." I eventually figured out that this is because no two ships were rigged the same. So unless you have the original rigging and belaying plan for a particular ship you are pretty much on your own to figure it out for yourself!

Edited January 1 by Dr PR

[allanyed]

6 hours ago, Dr PR said:

Lines that originate lower down in the rigging generally belay forward on pin rails,

You are right that no two ships seem to have been rigged exactly the same, especially belaying points, and the era made a difference.  Regarding  pin rails it depends on the era.   One of the mistakes seen in some kits is the use of pin rails before the mid 18th century.  On British ships there were no pin rails until about 1745 when they were lashed to the shrouds on small vessels.  Larger ships had no pin rails until later in the 18th century.   I have no information on other nations and would be curious to know when belaying pins came into common use on Danish and Spanish ships.

Allan

 

 

Edited January 1 by allanyed

[druxey]

Some pins and rails are seen on Vasa's beakhead.

[Dr PR]

Allan,

 

Good point! Lines couldn't belay to pins unless there were pins to belay to! Before pinrails, fife rails and such, lines were belayed to kevels (cavels), cleats, bitts, knight heads, timberheads and such. Whatever was available it seems.

 

Over the last few hundred years of sail the ships became larger, with more masts and more sails, all with more and more complex rigging. I suspect fife rails and pin rails came into use as a necessity to deal with the ever growing number of lines that had to be belayed, and organizing them in a rational way.

 

There is another exception to the general "rules" I mentioned above. On some vessels some lines, like halliards and bowlines, were run forward of the mast, and the higher they originated the farther forward they were belayed. Again, it was whatever worked to avoid fouling lines.

Edited January 2 by Dr PR

[flyer]

The question I tried to answer was about the green circled blocks in the 2nd picture of #1:

I took those as indication of having two identical rows of blocks on the forward and aft crosstree. The lines then are going through the identical blocks on each crosstree thus leading free of and above the fore yard, perhaps to give some space to brace the yard.

 

In Lees' book you find on page 73 top right an illustration for the buntlines, installed that way. (BTW on Bellerophon I used a similar arrangement also for the main yard.)

 

The two outboard single block pairs were thus used  for the buntlines and the inboard double block pairs I used for spritsail and sprit topsail braces. This is confirmed by Lees again on page 101 respective page 105.

[allanyed]

 

4 hours ago, flyer said:

In Lees' book you find on page 73 top right an illustration for the buntlines, installed that way.

Hi Flyer, Happy New Year!

 

This was getting a little confusing for me then I read further.   On page 73 Lees  describes the double blocks on the crosstrees for the buntlines and the leech lines.  These blocks can be seen clearly on the drawings on page 72-74.   I read the passages you mention and indeed Lees gives a description of the spritsail brace blocks, but these blocks are hanging from the foremast trestletrees, not the crosstrees.  This can be seen on all six drawings that he uses to cover from 1700 onward on pages 100-102.  Assuming Lees is correct, it appears that blocks for the leech lines, buntlines, and spritsail braces are all there under the foremast top, the latter hanging from the trestle trees, but are not shown in the kit drawing above.  I am curious to know if they show the blocks for the spritsail braces in another drawing.

Allan

 

[flyer]

Hi Allan,

 

And a happy new year to you too!

 

Yes, Lees mentions '...through blocks under the fore top...' several times and the drawings show those blocks fixed at the extremes of the trestle trees - except on page 102 where a 'double block is seized to the crosstree'.

 

I wonder if regulations in those times really went as far as to specify the exact locations of those blocks. Lees, in his introduction, mentions that his written sources mainly deal with size and dimensions. I guess that the actual run of the lines of the running rigging he shows is an average of the many but still limited number of models he studied.

 

I'm always tempted to follow kit instructions if they are not directly contradicted by e.g. Lees. Respectable kit designers may use Lees or their own research for the rigging plans and certainly try to be as historically accurate as possible. But even somebody like Chris Watton may have to use approximations sometimes to construct a practicable and sellable kit. And then sometimes I'm just lazy and tempted to take the easy way out.

 

Cheers

Peter

[allanyed]

22 hours ago, flyer said:

I wonder if regulations in those times really went as far as to specify the exact locations of those blocks.

I am pretty sure there were no regulations, but I would love to see any contemporary charts, scantlings, detailed plans, or text on rigging, especially from the 18th century.  Other than The Elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship 1794 by David Steel, are there are any similar contemporary books or other sources?   Other than Steel, the most comprehensive seem to be modern works from authors such as Lees, Marquardt, Anderson, Harland, et al.

Allan

Edited January 4 by allanyed