Endeavour by Bill97 - OcCre - 1/54

[Bill97]

Thanks Ian. 

[Bill97]

Ian it has been a while since I asked you a question about rigging. I have one now. The Endeavour had a rigging function called the crowsfeet at the front of each of the three mast tops. They were rigged to the appropriate stay. In the AOTS book they are shown in the Standing Rigging section. OcCre instructions have them being made with the raw or tan thread that is used for running rigging instead of the dark brown thread that the standing rigging is made with. I am thinking they should be made with the standing rigging color. Your thoughts?

[Ian_Grant]

Hi Bill.  Good question and I don't know definitively, but my take is that the purpose of the crowsfeet is to prevent the foot of the sail from being blown under the edge of the top and possibly damaged or abraded by the tarred stay or wood of the top, when taken aback say if heaving to. I doubt tarred rope would be easy to rig through the sharp turns at the euphroe block or the holes in the top. Of course one could tar it afterward, but softer natural rope would be easier on the sail canvas and would not dirty it up with tar. That's my two cents anyway. Perhaps others will comment.......

 

ps I'm not stalking you.....seeing your comment within a half hour HaHa. Just got up and logged on.

 

Keep up the great work!  What wood model is next on your list?

Edited January 25 by Ian_Grant

[Hubac's Historian]

I am pretty certain Ian is correct on all counts.

[Bill97]

Thanks guys. That makes perfect since. I am going to be honest here and show my ignorance. I was actually wondering what the crowsfeet purpose was. Now that I know it makes since to use the lighter thread. 
 

Ian my next wood model which I found under the Christmas tree but have refused to even open yet is the OcCre Amerigo Vespucci. I don’t want to be distracted from giving all my modeling attention to my Endeavour.  I have also purchased an entire electric system to light it similar to the way Daniel (here on MSW) has done his. 
 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/33873-amerigo-vespucci-by-danield-occre-1100/page/11/

Edited January 25 by Bill97

[Hubac's Historian]

The Vespucci is a fascinating vessel, with lots of interesting deck houses and details.

[Bill97]

Yes it is Marc. I think it is a beautiful ship. Being that it is still sailing today there are countless photos available to help with the build. It has a steel hull and the OcCre instructions have them being builder apply a coat of wood putty to the hull after the 2nd planking and then sand it to a smooth finish before adding the paint colors. I am already thinking about being a rebel and throwing authenticity out the window. As a lifelong woodworker I love the look of wood joinery and wood grain. I am thinking of giving the model a wood hull like my Endeavour instead of covering all that beautiful planking with wood putty. I know that will be completely wrong and I will probably be put on MSW probation 😊. But I am excited to see how it might look. 

Edited January 25 by Bill97

[Bill97]

I am working on the mainstay. The instructions have it lead to a heart tackle on a collar near the base of the bowsprit. This results in the stay rubbing against the foremast. I checked my Victory and Soleli Royal and see the mainstay touches the foremast on both those ships. Is that just the way it is?

[Ian_Grant]

Yes, usually on the starboard side.

[Bill97]

Well that is what I have. With both hearts of the tackle forward of the foremast. I had to move the heart tied on the bowsprit out further than the instructions showed so the two stays did not come together. You can see in my photo the heart for the preventer stay. 

Edited January 28 by Bill97

[Bill97]

Have another question for you guys reference the crowsfeet. I have completed the foremast crowsfeet and plan to work on the mainmast crowsfeet next. Following that I will do the mizzenmast crowsfeet. Therein is my question.  The OcCre rigging instructions (pic 2) show it being attached to the mizzen staysail stay. The AOTS book (pic 3) shows it attached to the mizzenstay. The mizzen stay is the heavier stay of the two and the one rigged the same as the fore and main stay. However the mizzen staysail it is rigged below the staysail stay. This would require running the staysail stay through the crowsfeet which does not seem practical. Rigging the crowsfeet to the mizzen staysail stay avoids that issue but rigs it to the weaker of the stays. Which do you think is correct?

[shipaholic]

Hi Bill

I didn't rig that mizzen staysail stay on my Endeavour because, as you say, it doesn't make sense going through the crows feet. The full size replica in Sydney doesn't have it, and its not shown on other rigging plans for ships of this size. There are quite a few mistakes in the AOTS and this is one of them

Cheers

Steve

[alpayed]

Hi Bill.

The crows feet are to prevent the topsail catching under the top. The serve no other purpose. As such the carry very little load.

Steel states that the Fore preventer stay is sometimes carried above the Fore stay. This means that the crows feet attach to the preventer.

So the did not always attach to the larger stay.

Mizen masts rarely carried preventers.

It is most probable that the crows feet were attached to the mizen stayail stay.

Steel states

Bends to the mizen-staysail-stay with hanks and seizings.
THE STAY clinches round the head of the mizen-mast, then reeves through a thimble seized in a collar lashed round the main-mast,

and sets up with a laniard through a thimble turned into the stay, and an eye-bolt in the deck abaft the mast. In small ships, the mizen-staysail bends to the mizen-stay.

 

Keep in mind that a lot of these finer details are conjecture and a matter of interpretation.

 

The conjecture here is what is the definition of a small ship.

Well Steel also gives us a clue as to what his definition is.

 

Steel states  (first paragraph of the section "mast making")

Experience has therefore proved, that, in large vessels, three masts and a bowsprit, in smaller vessels, two masts and a bowsprit, and in the smallest, one mast and a bowsprit, are the most advantageous numbers for nautical purposes.

 

So Endeavour was not classified as small in his work.

However he does not show a staysail stay on his etchings of a 20 gun ship.

 

Karl shows the staysail bent to the miz staysail stay.

You would not be incorrect to omit the Staysail Stay and bend the sail to the Mizen stay.

I think he missed the interference issue with the crows feet. This can easily happen when "standing and running rigging are drawn on separate sheets.

 

 

This is my interpretation of the said stay on Investigator.

However it possible that there was no staysail stay.

 

regards

Allan

 

 

 

 

 

[shipaholic]

Just build your model and make it look good, don't worry too much about the technical stuff that some people want to amuse themselves with

[alpayed]

52 minutes ago, shipaholic said:

technical stuff that some people want to amuse themselves with

In future I shall not try to help when someone asks a question.

Regards Allan.

[Bill97]

Thanks guys. As always I appreciate all the help and advice. 

[Bill97]

Crowsfeet finished on all three masts. For the mizzen I went with attaching it to the the staysail stay. Started the topmast stays and top gallant stays. Working my way up the foremast. 

[Bill97]

Most of the various backstays now in place. Still need to add the mizzen backstay and the topgallant backstay for the fire and main mast. For whatever reason OcCre does not address the top gallant backstays. They are shown in the AOTS so I will fashion and add them as well

[Ian_Grant]

She's a beauty, Bill!  As Marc said, your shrouds and ratlines are outstanding! Great work! I doff my hat to you the master..........

[Bill97]

Thanks Ian. I appreciate your comments. I do have one little area of disappointment I can’t get right.  My wife tells me is my OCD. If you look at one of the photos that shows a side profile, maybe the next to last photo. Zoom in on the foremast shroud chains. You will notice two dark spots between the 6th and 7th preventer plate. I had to move the 6th chain and plate slightly forward to maintain the straight line of the shroud from the mast top down through the channel to the top of the plate. Before I did that the visual line of the chain and plate hooked a bit toward the stern of the ship. After I pulled the nails to move the plate I had two nail holes I had to fill. A short piece of tooth pick glued in worked perfectly. Unfortunately no matter what I do I can not get the tiny plug to stain the same as the planking. I know from years of woodworking that end grain of a piece of wood stained darker than side grain. I guess that is the issue here. 

[Hubac's Historian]

Honestly, Bill, that is such a minuscule detail that it does not draw the eye, in the big picture of the model.  I don’t see, really, how you could have avoided the issue, as the holes had to be filled.  Just remember that the actual ships were always a patch-work of revision and repair 😉

Edited February 8 by Hubac's Historian

[Bill97]

So Marc you would just leave it alone?  I know with other things the more you mess with it the worse it is going to get. 

[Hubac's Historian]

There isn’t much to gain in messing with it, but there’s a lit to lose if you start manipulating your surface finish because the underlying wood has already begun to oxidize.  You don’t want to jump down the rabbit hole of trying to color-match.

[Kevin-the-lubber]

4 hours ago, Bill97 said:

My wife tells me is my OCD

I think your wife is on the money here, Bill. Even zooming in, this is really hard to spot and even harder for a viewer to realise it's a small mistake rather than a natural artifact.

[Bill97]

OK Kevin. I guess I will have to tell her she is correct 😊

[Veszett Roka]

Will you add crew to the ship Bill? Then hang two rope and a crewmember with tiny paintbucket here. He is just repairing the ship, so any different color and wood spot is his fault, not yours

[Bill97]

Perfect idea Veszett 😊

[Bill97]

Alright my friends I am stumped. I can not figure out the correct rigging of the sling for the crossjack yard. The first picture is the drawing from the OcCre instructions. The second photo is from the AOTS book. Which I am not completely sure what is going on there either. I understand the sling. But does any part of the rigging of the sling go down to a point on the deck!  The OcCre instructions show a red line going from a double block on the yard up through single blocks on the top and then down to the deck. Not sure exactly what is going on there with a double block on the yard. The AOTS shows a double block also but does not show if the rigging line goes down to a he deck. The instructions have a parrel on the he yard so I assume it can be raised and lowered like the fore and main yards. I am stumped. Your help, as always, would be appreciated. 
 

Bill

[Ian_Grant]

That is a puzzle Bill. I have little to offer here. 

 

Is that AOTS book specific to Endeavour?  That diagram has #2 pointing to both sides of the rope through the block, suggesting that the sling is just looped round the mast with the running end passed through the spliced eye then seized to itself. Not sure why the block is needed/used. Other than the block it's sort of normal.

 

Not sure what occre wants you to do. They seem to want a halyard on the lower yard, not a sling. Haven't seen that before. Maybe on merchant ships?

Maybe have two halyards; each attached at the heel of one of the single blocks , running through one sheave of the double block, then up through the other single block and down to deck? Not sure what else to suggest.

 

I would tend to trust AOTS over occre, though maybe I'm biased given my past experience with Heller instructions? 😏

 

 

[Bill97]

Yes Ian that is from the Endeavour AOTS. In this method would the cross jack yard not be raised or lowered by a line through a block and down to the deck?  
 

A second new question for you Ian. I have added the lifts to the fore yard. A block arrangement is at each end of the yard and a matching pair tied to the cap. When I run the lift it brushes against the first upper shroud. Expect that should not happen. A similar situation happens at the topsail yard but here I could run the lift through the cross tree. Lines are not permanently tied yet so corrections are certainly possible. Your thoughts?  I could maybe move the block arrangement tied to the mast top forward but that would require using an eyebolt. Eyeballing the mainmast and can tell I will have the same issue. 

Edited Monday at 07:36 PM by Bill97