Lynx 1812 by SaltyScot - Manuta-Panart - 1:62 - building as Mosquidobit

[Dr PR]

Trevor is right about the instability of the heavily rigged American topsail schooners. The British originally had more conservative rigs, but the American vessels could just run away from them to avoid a fight. When the Brits did start using the larger tophamper they learned just how dangerous it was. I think it was in one of Chapelle's books he repeated a British captains story of a topsail schooner that was passing his ship running with the wind in heavy seas. The schooner rode up on one swell, dove down bow first into the next, then cartwheeled stern over bow and dove out of sight in seconds taking all hands with it!

 

I looked at Chapelle's drawings of the Lynx in "The Search For Speed Under Sail" and in both the hull drawing on page 217 and the sail plan on page 219 the fore mast rake was about 13 degrees and the main mast was about 14 degrees. The drawing says the vessel was built in Baltimore in 1812 and the lines were taken at Portsmouth, May 1816, and the plans are at the U.S. National Museum, Smithsonian Institution. These rake angles are common for Baltimore clippers, and usually the greater rake is on the main mast! If you look at the photo of the Lynx model at the U. S. National Museum on page 216 it looks as if the main mast has a bit greater rake than the fore mast.

 

However, if you look at his drawings of the Musquidobit on pages 84 and 85 of "The Baltimore Clipper" the rake angles are 17 degrees for the fore mast and the main mast is 14 degrees! This "draught" is labeled as taken at Portsmouth Yard, May 1816!!

 

Note: In both cases I measured the angle to the waterline marked on the drawings. But the hull plan "waterlines" are drawn parallel to the bottom of the keel. The keel had greater draft at the stern than at the bow.

 

And to confuse things even more, in Chapelle's "History of the American Sailing Navy" Plate X after page 74 (a photo of an original sail plan drawing) shows an 80 foot schooner named Lynx with a foremast rake of 10 degrees and the main mast at 11 degrees. He says (page 292) this schooner was built in 1814 at Washington or Georgetown, and was lost in 1820 in the West Indies (page 354) while still in American service!!

 

If you figure this one out let me know!

Edited yesterday at 08:45 AM by Dr PR

[Kenchington]

My best guess is that the explanation lies in Chapelle having an enormous field to explore and only one lifetime in which to do it. He worked fast, covered a lot of ground but in process made mistakes, which fall to us of later generations to correct. No criticism there: Where would we be today if he had spent his time perfecting "American Sailing Ships" at the cost of never publishing his other works at all?

 

I suspect (1) that only the one Lynx / Musquidobit had her lines taken off, (2) that that job was done in Portsmouth (England), where they seem to have had a dock set up for the purpose, (3) that the original draught is still in the Admiralty collection in London (probably now in Greenwich), (4) that a copy of that draught (either a photo reproduction of some kind or else Chapelle's re-drafting) is in the Smithsonian, and (5) that when he re-drew the plans at smaller scale for his books, he was not as careful as he might have been. If so, anyone building a model (or a full-size replica!) has the option of raking the masts as seems right, given what is known of other, similar vessels, or paying for a copy of the original draught. 

 

Trevor

[SaltyScot]

4 hours ago, Dr PR said:

Note: In both cases I measured the angle to the waterline marked on the drawings. But the hull plan "waterlines" are drawn parallel to the bottom of the keel. The keel had greater draft at the stern than at the bow.

 

Thank you, Phil. I will remeasure the rake on the Musquidobit plans using the base of the keel as a waterline and see what I get. I am planning on getting this as historically correct as I can but, that being said, I doubt anyone visiting our home will have a protractor with them  

[SaltyScot]

16 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

If so, anyone building a model (or a full-size replica!) has the option of raking the masts as seems right, given what is known of other, similar vessels, or paying for a copy of the original draught. 

 

At least we have a window to work in. From what Phil has said here and in other conversations, it would appear we are looking at numbers between 11 and 15 degrees. You made a good point, Trevor, about the scaling down of the plans for the Chapelle book and the inherent errors therein, quite valid. To be 100 % correct here one would really need to get their hands on the plans you mentioned that might be at Greenwich at this point.

[SardonicMeow]

I grabbed the low res image of the plans from https://prints.rmg.co.uk/products/lines-plan-of-musquidobit-1813-j7636

 

Brought them into Fusion, and made a quick measure of the angles.

I get 13.4 degrees for the foremast and 10.1 degrees for the mainmast.  These might be off by a few tenths of a degree since I was just eyeballing my drafting lines in Fusion.

 

I've done this for a few other schooners, and the masts are never parallel.  There is always some difference in the angles of the rake.

 

[SaltyScot]

2 hours ago, SardonicMeow said:

I get 13.4 degrees for the foremast and 10.1 degrees for the mainmast.  These might be off by a few tenths of a degree since I was just eyeballing my drafting lines in Fusion.

 

 

Excellent, thank you, Peter. I think I will go with those figures and be done with it. I recently looked into Fusion with regards to 3D designs. I have the "home use only" free version. Maybe I should spend some time getting to know it better. Up to now I have used Tinkercad more than anything else which, since they added the new sketch tool, has gotten a lot better.

[SaltyScot]

On with the build then.....

 

I measured and shortened the base of the transom then glued it in place:

 

 

 

 

By the way, there is A LOT of char on anything I cut out of the laser cut boards. I have to take them outside to sand away all the really black edges. Nasty stuff, it looks and smells like soot. Next up I glued the knees in place:

 

 

And the lower deck was planked and fitted. I know planking wasn't necessary here but it served two purposes - 1. It is always good to practice and 2. I will know it is there  You will be able to see it if you happen to look into any of the hatches too. I did realize the scale of the planks I used was a bit off (after the fact) but this is not the main deck so I left it as is.

 

 

Once the lower deck was dry I did a 50/50 glue and water wash on all the bulkheads to tighten them all up before the planking starts:

 

 

The transom itself was then clamped in place and left overnight to conform to the correct contours. The next morning I glued it in place too:

 

 

 

 

I fabricated the counter and did a dry fit. This is where I am veering off the Panart plans and actually doing something related to the Mosquidobit build plans. It will need some fine tuning but I am happy with the way it looks:

 

 

The Panart plans suggest planking the boat with both layers before adding the cross beams that the main deck will sit on. Because I am intending to put some fillers in between some of the bulkheads and I don't want to have to sand or chip them away when the bulwark stays are cut off once the planking is done, I wanted to know the height of the deck. I intend to stop the fillers below deck level. I hope that all made sense. Image to follow once I have it done.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by SaltyScot
Text added

[SardonicMeow]

Mark, I've been looking at the last few pictures in your last update, and I fear that the shortening that you've done at the stern will cause some issues.  To my eyes, it looks like the transom and sternpost are too close together and this won't allow enough room for the rudder stock to come up between them. 

[SaltyScot]

56 minutes ago, SardonicMeow said:

Mark, I've been looking at the last few pictures in your last update, and I fear that the shortening that you've done at the stern will cause some issues.  To my eyes, it looks like the transom and sternpost are too close together and this won't allow enough room for the rudder stock to come up between them. 

 

Peter,

 

Wow, that is something I had sadly overlooked and thank you for pointing it out. I am going to be out all day tomorrow and will probably not be back in the shipyard until Tuesday some time. That will be the first thing I will tackle, sir. 

[Dr PR]

Peter,

 

Thanks for the measurements. They are close to what I got from one of Chapelle's drawings. And it dpes seem to confirm that the foremast had a greater rake than the main mast.

 

Mark,

 

I like what you have done for the stern counter, but I agree with Peter that you might not have enough room for the rudder post. You can do two things:

 

1. If you are confident about your deck measurements and overall length of the hull you can carve off a bit from the rear of the false keel/center piece to move the rudder post forward sufficiently.

 

Note: The "length between perpendiculars" that is often used to measure hull length of wooden sailing vessels is from where the front of the bow cuts the water at the normal load waterline (Fore Peak) to the normal load waterline at the center of the rudder post (After Peak). If you have this dimension for the Lynx you can check where your rudder post should be.

 

 

2. Or you can remove the transom, extend the framing a bit and reinstall the transom.

 

Before you start any planking on the hull or the deck I advise you to check the side-to-side (transverse) dimensions from the center line to the outside of the frames, especially at the stern. On my schooner build (started in the 1980s) I somehow got the distances port and starboard at the stern unequal by a bit. When I was planking the deck and came to the part for nibbing the planks into the margin board/waterways a few years ago I discovered the mistake. That left me scratching my head for a solution.

 

Fortunately I was able to cut the nibs into the margin board a little deeper on one side so the ends of the planks were aligned on both sides. Unless you know to look you would never notice the difference - especially now that a lot of this area is covered with the boom, sails and rigging.

 

But it is a good idea to stop, take a deep breath and recheck all of the dimensions before planking. You can always make corrections by sanding off a bit from the outsides of the bulkheads before starting the planking. After you have installed the planking it is too late.

[SaltyScot]

5 hours ago, Dr PR said:

2. Or you can remove the transom, extend the framing a bit and reinstall the transom.

 

Before you start any planking on the hull or the deck I advise you to check the side-to-side (transverse) dimensions from the center line to the outside of the frames, especially at the stern.

 

That was my intention, Phil, but the idea of basically shortening the false keel is a valid one. I will be sure to get those measurements before I do any cutting or sanding. Thank you for the graphics.

 

As far as the transverse dimensions go, I am so very glad you pointed that out. It was something I believe I had read somewhere when I first joined MSW but, with everything else I read, it got lost in the hubbub. Measurements will be taken, sir, of that I can assure you. What @SardonicMeow said about the transom being too short was the first lucid thought I had this morning and, like I mentioned last evening, it will be taken care of as soon as I am back in the yard.