Questions about the masting and rigging of British cutters found in Lennarth Petersson's Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft

[vossiewulf]

I have reached the point where I am venturing into rigging my Lady Nelson, my first rigging effort and I want to get it reasonably right. As such have been reviewing Chuck's Cheerful instructions as well as the cutter rig found in Rigging Period Fore and Aft Craft. With respect to the latter, I have some questions:

 

Here I'm assuming those are iron bands around the top of the mainmast. However, what are the projections going aft from the hoops? Also, the mast cap appears to be iron as well or maybe iron and wood together. It looks like there is a square-section part of the cap that goes on the top of the mainmast and a simple hoop shape for the base of the topmast. Is that correct?

 

On this page, first there is the hexagonal center section of the lower and topsail yards. I've seen octagonal sections before but not hexagonal. Is hex correct? Also the pic shows the lower yard oriented so a point of the hex pattern is forward, while the topsail yard is rotated 60 degrees so a flat of the hex is facing forward. Is this correct?

 

Further, there are two sheaves shown let into the lower yard, but he shows only one in use with the clue line/sheets drawing. What was the second sheave for?

 

Finally there is the clue line/sheets drawing. This one I'm finding confusing, are the clue line and the sheets two ends of the same line? If not, I don't understand this drawing at all, as it seems the clue line and sheet both go through the same single blocks on the topsail yard.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice, as noted this is my first project so my knowledge is minimal.

 

[Dr PR]

The "projections"  on the mast bands are eyes or metal rings for the gaff peak halliard rigging to attach to (Petersson page 33).

 

Look at some of the other cutter builds on the Forum to see what others have done for the mast cap. It could be a metal band that fits round the square main mast top and the round topmast. Or it could be wood with a metal band around it.

 

Both the sheet and the clue line connect to the clue (lower outboard corner of the sail). They are not the same line. However, if the sail isn't rigged the ends of the clue line and sheet will be hooked/tied together in preparation for adding the sail. I think this is what he shows on page 29 with the "V" in the clue line from the topsail yard down to the end of the sheet and back up through the block under the topsail yard and then down to belay on deck.

 

The sheet hauls the clue of the sail out to the end of the yard. The sheet passes through the inboard sheave in the yard arm. The clue line hauls the clue of the sail up when reefing the sail.

 

I don't know why he shows two sheaves on the yard arm. He only shows one being used - but he doesn't show all of the sails rigged. If the lifts were doubled the outer sheave could be part of the tackle. Doubled means passing through two blocks as part of a tackle. It was common to crate the lift tackle this was so there was less clutter at the deck level (instead of putting the tackle on deck at the base of the mast). On page 28 he shows a "fiddle" block (block shaped like the body of a violin with two singe sheaves) at the mast top. The lower yard passes through the upper sheave and is shown tied to the yard arm. It could be that the second sheave in the fiddle block and the inner sheave at the yard arm made up a type of luff tackle with the fixed end of the lift tied to the tard arm and the line passing through the upper sheave of the fiddle block, back to the inner sheave on the yard arm, back up to the lower sheave in the fiddle block and down to the deck. This seems to be an awkward arrangement for the line passing through the inner sheave on the yard arm.

 

I suppose the inner sheave on the yard arm might be for a reef tackle on a fore course (main square sail) - he doesn't show rigging for a reef tackle in the cutter section (see page 105 for the reef tackle on a schooner's topsail). The lower sheave on the fiddle block could be part of the reef tackle running from a cringle on the outer edge of the course, up through the inner sheave in the yard arm, up to the lower sheave in the fiddle block and then down to the deck. I would guess this is the most likely explanation for the two sheaves in the yard arms.

 

However, I am just guessing. I looked at several references and found no examples of tard arms with two sheaves - blocks attached to the yard arms were more common. Maybe someone more familiar with Engkish cutters will provide the answer.

[vossiewulf]

Thanks Phil!

 

With respect to the eyes on the mast bands, bah, I should have seen that, thanks. 

 

Ok on the clue line and sheet, I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying.

 

I think I'm mostly following you on the mystery sheave in the lower yard at least in that you also don't see an obvious use for it, although I also wondered about the fiddle block on page 28 (in fact I was proud of myself for knowing it was called a fiddle block☺️) . You're right that that is another unaccounted for sheave that may be related to the one in the lower yard. The real question I have is do I make the lower yard with two sheaves and attempt one of your suggestions or do I make it with only one sheave?

 

Also, do you have any ideas on the hexagonal center yard sections vs. octagonal? The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War shows only octagonal yard center sections, and I'd really prefer going with octagonal since it would be considerably easier to do.

[Gregory]

There have been several  errors pointed out in this book, and I am in no position to critique it with any expertise, however,  as I have pointed out before , Petersson is an artist and not a rigging authority.   He drew what he found on a model with no apparent reference checking.

I could be wrong but I have to believe what looks like a stay on top of that metal strap has to be wrong compared to actual practice.   Who knows why the model builder did it that way.

 

[vossiewulf]

10 hours ago, Gregory said:

There have been several  errors pointed out in this book, and I am in no position to critique it with any expertise, however,  as I have pointed out before , Petersson is an artist and not a rigging authority.   He drew what he found on a model with no apparent reference checking.

I could be wrong but I have to believe what looks like a stay on top of that metal strap has to be wrong compared to actual practice.   Who knows why the model builder did it that way.

 

Well, it wouldn't be any fun if we had 100% accurate knowledge of everything, that would reduce building to simple execution😊

 

I agree with you that the forestay on top of a sharp iron strap looks more like the modeler got lazy than anything else, I won't rig mine that way.

 

Another question which I probably should have started with is that Cheerful and Petersson have spreaders for topmast shrouds and no topgallant, while Chris with Lady Nelson has no spreaders and a lower, middle, and upper yard (that's what they're called in the plans). Spreaders for me seem necessary to stabilize the topmast and a topgallant sail on a cutter with all that sail area seems like something you could only use in very light weather, like studding sails. I could be wrong though, as mentioned my knowledge is slim.

 

Anyway, basically if I follow Cheerful/Petersson I'm pretty much abandoning the rig in the plans entirely, and I have to wonder if the topmast as shown in the plans needs to be shortened. I'm ok with that if it gets me greater accuracy, but I'm wondering why Chris went with three yards when I haven't seen another model of a cutter with more than two.

 

 

Edited December 5 by vossiewulf

[Dr PR]

I agree about the stay over the metal band. It would be much more common to lay the stay over the shrouds. However, I found at least a half dozen drawings showing the forestay located higher up on the mast head, held in place by a thumb cleat on the back side of the mast. I also found one instance where the forestay was located very high just below the mast top, with a lashing looping over the top to secure the stay. So there was a lot of variation in the positioning of the stays. It is not impossible that the stay did loop over the mast band, but I think there would have been some additional material between the stay and the band to prevent chafing.

 

The stays seem to have been located higher up in order to avoid interference with rigging for the fore course yard. If the mast had an extreme rake the stay would lay against the yard if it (the stay) was just looped over the shrouds. I had this problem with the rigging on my topsail schooner build.

 

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=1020038

https://modelshipworld.com/topic/19611-albatros-by-dr-pr-mantua-scale-148-revenue-cutter-kitbash-about-1815/?do=findComment&comment=1029254

 

[Gregory]

8 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Well, it wouldn't be any fun if we had 100% accurate knowledge of everything, that would reduce building to simple execution😊

........

 

 

 

I am certainly no rivet counter.

I'm more of a " what looks good, is good" modeler. Too many "accurate " details can look cluttered and detract from the fine detail of model like yours.

 

You are the captain of your ship, just make sure the rigging will work.

[vossiewulf]

13 hours ago, Dr PR said:

The stays seem to have been located higher up in order to avoid interference with rigging for the fore course yard. If the mast had an extreme rake the stay would lay against the yard if it (the stay) was just looped over the shrouds. I had this problem with the rigging on my topsail schooner build.

 

 

Thanks for that bit of understanding. The Lady Nelson masting plan shows a pretty significant rake so I'll watch out for that.

 

5 hours ago, Gregory said:

I am certainly no rivet counter.

I'm more of a " what looks good, is good" modeler. Too many "accurate " details can look cluttered and detract from the fine detail of model like yours.

 

You are the captain of your ship, just make sure the rigging will work.

 

Ok. I guess I will simply have to make some decisions and take some of the rig from Cheerful and some from Petersson and some from the contemporary cutter models in the gallery. It seems even Chuck's Cheerful rig varies from the contemporary model, I saw a bobstay on the NMM version that I haven't seen on the Cheerful models being built.

[Gregory]

Here is the information I posted in Oakheart's Speedy log.

 

I found the model that Petersson derived his drawings from:

  Rigged model of a late 18th century naval Revenue Cutter .   The pictures are very high resolution and provide some interesting detail.

As we discussed above, It looks like the main stay does go over that collar as shown in his drawing but it looks more robust than the apparent band in the drawing with the actual band being below the collar.  The stay itself has a lot of  parceling and serving, so it looks workable as shown on the model.

The double sheave on the lower yard is apparent, but the Petersson drawings doesn't  show the purpose of the outboard sheave.

 

I traced the line to a block at the top of the mast, and can't really tell where it leads down  at the mast.  I can't make out where it goes from there.  I will take a closer look.

The other end of the line is hooked through an eyebolt at the channel.  I'm at a loss as to the function of this line.

 

I questioned Chuck about this tackle shown by Petersson on the backstay  when I was using the Cheerful rigging for my Resolution.  Chuck said it was just wrong and didn't belong, and indeed it's not present on the Cheerful model.

However, it is clearly present on this model, and I'm thinking it may a working/loading tackle.

 

There is a lot of detail to be gleaned from those images at the Science Museum, and gives the opportunity to be a little different from all the other cutter models, while still being accurate as far as the contemporary model builder was accurate.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 13 by Gregory

[vossiewulf]

The first thing I see (and thanks again Gregory for posting this link) is that this cutter bears a rig almost identical to that captured by Petersson in his book. In fact I think we can use model to correct Petersson's oversights, like the lower yard with two sheaves, only one of which was shown in use. On this model we have the two sheaves present in the lower yard and both are in use. It has five stays a side like Petersson with the excess rope on the third/sixth pairs going to Burton pendants. It has a single wide spreader for the topmast shrouds, very unlike the top and spreaders and topmast shrouds on Cheerful. Then we have the odd tackle on the backstays and the forestay looped over a hard metal strap, just like Petersson showed. That still doesn't make sense to me.

 

Hoping that we can figure this out for my and Tim's sakes and it would be good to have a topic beginner cutter builders can be pointed to that answers questions about cutter rigs.

[Gregory]

I think the extra tackle on the backstay adds a little bling to a relatively sparse rig.

It doesn’t seem illogical that it could provide extra tension when adjusting the stay.

[Gregory]

I managed to find that the model of cutter Trial in the Gallery has the two sheaves in the lower yard.  I’ll post a snip later.

 

I wonder if Chris modeled this in his kit?

[oakheart]

1 hour ago, vossiewulf said:

this cutter bears a rig almost identical to that captured by Petersson in his book.

On page 11 of his book he say's his drawings are based on the fully rigged model in the London Science Museum, which is the one featured on their website.
So I guess we can use the photos of the Science Museum model in conjunction with the drawings in the book to get a better understanding of the overall rigging. 

 

Tim

[druxey]

That backstay tackle appears to be a tensioning one as it has a double/single purchase.

[Gregory]

1 hour ago, Gregory said:

I managed to find that the model of cutter Trial in the Gallery has the two sheaves in the lower yard.  

 

Cutter Trial 1790

The lines don't appear to be leading the same as with the subject model.

[vossiewulf]

7 hours ago, Gregory said:

The lines don't appear to be leading the same as with the subject model.

Not to mention Trial has studding sails and the lower yards don't seem to be in a square section where the sheaves are, like they are in Petersson and the model you linked. The only conclusion I've been able to reach is that there was very little consistency between cutter rigs, unless we're seeing time period differences that we're not recognizing due to the vague dates of most of the models involved.

 

I'm still pretty stumped on a coherent plan to move forward. I have to choose one of these rigs and I'm still not sure which one is most right for my cutter. The plan Chris put together for LN shows a mast farther forward, taller, with more rake, with three yards on two masts, and it's more simplified than what I want. But I'm not sure either Cheerful or Petersson/the linked model would be more correct.

[oakheart]

Over my coffee this morning I went though all of the pages and counted up the blocks etc. that are required for the cutter rigging.

This will help when ordering parts.

From Fore and Aft book by Lennarth Pettersson ( note I have the Kindle version of the book so page numbering may be different from the print version )

page	name	single	single	double	triple	Fiddle	sheave	deadeyes
		4mm	5mm
16	Channels							16	5mm
17	Shrouds		4
18	Toprope	4					2
19	Topmast shrouds		4
20	Forestay			1
21	Forestay							1	9.5mm
22	Backstay	1	3	1		1
23	bowsprit guys
24	Jib in/out		1				1
25	jib halliard		3
26	Lower yard sling		2				4
27	TS yard Halliard			2			1
28	Lifts					2	2
29	Clueline & sheets	4
30	lower yard braces	2
31	ts yard braces			2
32	throat halliard			2
33	Peak Halliard	6		1
34	topping lift	2		2
35	mainsheet				2
36	Jib
37	foresail		2
38	Hoists	1					1
	totals	20	19	11	2	3	11	17

 

Tim

 

 

 

[Gregory]

13 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

I'm still pretty stumped on a coherent plan to move forward.

I think the inconsistency is a matter of method for the riggers of the time and how a model builder chose to model it.

The mechanics of sail handling are well established across the type of sail whether cutter or frigate. It remained the same for a couple hundred years.  The details that changed was mostly about where a block was tied off or how long a pendant was, etc..  The rake/height of a mast  the length of a yard and the number of yards could be changed by the master of the boat.  Paintings are probably a good source for what worked in that regard.

 

There is a lot of variation across the several cutter models in the gallery, but the necessary ropes/lines are all there.

 

I don't think you can go wrong by mixing the features you like.

 

I like the simplicity of four shrouds (Cheerful), but I also like the look of the extra tackle on the backstay.

I think the two sheaves in the lower yard  add extra work that I can do without, and the instances of one sheave are well documented.

 

My council would be to not get bogged down in minutia that has several different, right ways of doing it, as it can really take the joy out of the journey.

 

The answer to those who say Petersson got it wrong, is that whoever rigged the model got it wrong, if indeed they did.

 

 

[Gregory]

Here is another curious observation about the images in the Science museum.

The image on the far left has water line markers and you can see shot in the shot garlands.

The other two images show no waterline markers, and instead of shot you see a powdery residue and there is also a chip out of the keel that has been repaired in the first image.

FWIW , I suppose we are looking at some restoration work in the first image.  I think the first image has an over-all cleaner appearance.

[oakheart]

1 hour ago, Gregory said:

The other two images

This is like one those spot the difference games, the brass items on the lid of the companion way have also moved..........

 

The photos have got to be from different sessions / times

 

Tim

 

 

[druxey]

That whole companion unit has been reversed between the time the two photos were taken. Also, one rarely sees staples holding the false keel in place.

[Gregory]

23 minutes ago, druxey said:

That whole companion unit has been reversed between the time the two photos were taken.

Good catch..  I was thinking the skylight looked different also.

[Gregory]

@vossiewulf

I think this recent post by DrPr gives a good idea about how rigging and mast/yard dimensions was established by the riggers.

It doesn't help with the configuration of spreaders and other details, but I think following what you see on a contemporary model is a safe bet.

If they are different, it doesn't necessarily mean one is wrong.

 

 

[Tonphil1960]

Wow, the research you do and knowledge you guys have is astounding ! 

[vossiewulf]

2 hours ago, Gregory said:

@vossiewulf

I think this recent post by DrPr gives a good idea about how rigging and mast/yard dimensions was established by the riggers.

It doesn't help with the configuration of spreaders and other details, but I think following what you see on a contemporary model is a safe bet.

If they are different, it doesn't necessarily mean one is wrong.

Thanks Gregory!

[SardonicMeow]

On 12/4/2024 at 11:52 PM, vossiewulf said:

I'm wondering why Chris went with three yards when I haven't seen another model of a cutter with more than two.

The Cheerful model at the US Naval Academy museum has three yards.  I have lots of pictures, if you're interested.

 

[Gregory]

10 minutes ago, SardonicMeow said:

I have lots of pictures, if you're interested.

I would really enjoy seeing those.  For some reason, the pics of Cheerful in the gallery suffered from poor lighting.

 

Perhaps you could post yours in the Gallery?

[druxey]

Even contemporary models can be misleading. Some have had extensive 'restorations' over time that may not be accurate.

Edited Tuesday at 03:20 AM by druxey

[zxjiaomohuol]

4 hours ago, SardonicMeow said:

The Cheerful model at the US Naval Academy museum has three yards.  I have lots of pictures, if you're interested.

 

huge intrest! Picture of Naval academy museum shipmodels are always shed light on my model-buiding!

[Dr PR]

One other consideration is that the upper yard might not be permanently mounted on the mast. It was a common practice on topsail schooners to rig the topgallant yard with the sail and rigging on deck and then hoist it to the top when needed. At other times the yard was not raised on the mast. This practice allowed most of the work to be done on deck by a small crew and didn't require a lot of sailors to go aloft. The sail could be hoisted up and hauled down quickly.

 

I also learned that this practice was used on some large square rig ships for the royal yards. Somewhere I found photos of a royal yard and sail being raised on a clipper ship.

Edited Wednesday at 05:12 AM by Dr PR