Bermuda sloop bowsprit

[Sceatha]

Hello all.

 

I am looking at plans and try to understand the attachment of the bowsprit in 18th century Bermuda sloops.

Beginning from plans of the Ferret (1711) it appears the bowsprit was attached with gammoning ropes, as was the habit in larger ships.

Bermuda sloops seem in depictions to lack the substantial bow timbers and gammoning ropes, the bowsprit appears to just rest on the bow (or rest right next to it, cutter style).

 

Does anyone happen to have specific any info on this?

 

Many thanks,

George

 

[allanyed]

Hi George,

The Ferret 1711 was not a Bermuda rig, but rather a cutter rigged sloop built at Deptford, not Bermuda, so may not be apropos for your project if you want a Bermuda rig vessel.

Allan

Edited March 22 by allanyed

[druxey]

On a smaller vessel, the bowsprit was sometimes constrained by an iron hoop attached to the bulwark. The heel was secured to the bowsprit step with an iron fid.

[allanyed]

This alternative might help.  https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-86227  The painting you posted appears to have a similar offset sprit that lies next to the stem not on top of it.

Allan

Edited March 22 by allanyed

[Sceatha]

Hello both, many thanks for the replies.

 

The question is more about understanding the bowsprit attachment requirements. While it does seem to depend on the size of the ship, this is not a safe rule.

To compare a cutter rig to a cutter rig and not apples to oranges, Ferret (1711) has quite heavy gammoning holding down the sprit, while Alert (1777), while a bit longer than Ferret, has a much lighter attachment. The difference between the two is the Ferret's somewhat longer sprit (and 66 years of development of course).

 

Is there a rule to this? Could Ferret be rigged like Alert (removing the gammoning)? Would in this case the Ferret's beakhead be unnecessary?

 

George

Edited March 22 by Sceatha

[Gregory]

If you look at my Resolution build you will see that the Corel kit is based on the lines of Ferret.  
Corel forgoes the gammoning and rigs the bowsprit much like what is found on the later cutters.

I have yet to see any ship similar to this.  The Corel kit has many features that deviate from actual practice, so there is no good reason to assume their treatment of the bowsprit is based on good evidence.

 

While the contemporary lines of Ferret says the ship is a cutter rigged sloop, I believe this relates more to the mast placement and sail arrangement and doesn’t account for a moveable bowsprit like found on cutters.

 

PS

FWIW The gammoning you see in the Chapelle drawing is based on educated conjecture and not the drawings he references.

Edited March 22 by Gregory

[georgeband]

George,

 

The book I usually refer to during my build of a schooner is Marquardt's 'The Global Schooner'. On page 169 he shows three alternatives for gammoning and the simplest is one that uses an (iron) ring in the stem, below the bowsprit. He also shows variations of shrouds and bobstays to support the tip of the bowsprit. 

 

Let me know if you want to see the relevant page and I will scan it for you. 

 

Best regards,

 

George (another one)

 

[Sceatha]

Hello all,

 

@Gregory I went through your build of the Resolution and it seems to be a great resource for rationalizing that kit. One question that came up (sorry if I missed it in your log) is how you treated the bowsprit length. Most cutter rigs have short bowsprit and I am not sure how Corel treated that part of the model. Was it a short one and did you opt to extend it?

 

@georgeband it would be great if you could share the relevant page! I think this is the crux of my question. D the alternative gammoning methods assume a different length of bowsprit or foresail size? If not, was rope gammoning (along with the corresponding bow head) just a habit of certain shipbuildings traditions? (assuming the simpler attachment was sufficient to withstand forces to the bowsprit.

 

Again thanks for the interesting input!

George

[Gregory]

43 minutes ago, Sceatha said:

One question that came up (sorry if I missed it in your log) is how you treated the bowsprit length.

I can't say that I used any verifiable reference..   I'm sort of a " if it looks good ( to me ) it is good " modeler.   I think I more or less settled on the length shown in the kit plans.  

The kit shows a jib boom as well as a bowsprit and I feel it has a balanced look, that I decided to go with.

[georgeband]

George,

 

I have scanned the relevant page from Marquardt and here is a crop which shows three alternatives for holding the bowsprit to the hull. The author gives precious little guidance about which was used when or where and I did not see anything which suggests that the choice of method depends on the length of the bowsprit. 

The other illustrations on the same page show variations for bobstays and shrouds. 

This is the key to the pictures (which I cannot make smaller here...)

I hope that some of this helps. 

 

George

 

 

 

 

[cotrecerf]

Hello George,

I cannot contribute to your question of how the bowsprit was fitted to the stem resp. deck, but the pic here shows the dimensions of the bowsprit and  other spars of the Bermuda sloop on plan LVII of af Chapman`s Architectura Navalis Mercatoria of 1763.

The scale is given in Swedish, English and French feet. 

 

Maybe you are able to find the complete illustrated build log of a Bermuda sloop issued in Ships in Scale, if I remember right. Good luck

 

Greetings

 

 

[Sceatha]

Thank you for the images!

 

@georgeband I definitely need to get this book. I had never seen this gammoning with the iron hoop, looks interesting.

 

@cotrecerf I have the Dover edition of Chapman and I never noticed the masts and spars on that plate (maybe there are different editions and they are missing from mine?). I need to recheck, I might have just missed them!

 

 

[wefalck]

In general, when the bowsprit is next to the stem, rather than on top of it, you are likely looking at a running bowsprit. For obvious reasons, in this configuration there is no gammoning, but either an opening in the bulwark or an iron ring to hold the bowsprit down.

 

Gammoning seems to be also associated mainly with galion-style bows. As one can see from the first two illustrations above, a closed bow would requires some akward arrangements for the gammoning as the stemhead is too narrow. When closed bows came into fashion around the middle of the 19th century the gammoning was replaced by wooden clamps or iron straps.

Edited March 26 by wefalck