Burton Pendants, Tackle and Falls

[BANYAN]

Hi all,

 

I am hoping that someone may be able to provide some definitive information to identify how the mizzen burton pendant would have been constructed in HM Bark Endeavour (1768).

 

Hamilton raised this in his log at: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/3575-lower-mast-tackles-burton-pendantstackles-top-ropes/?hl=%2Bburton+%2Bpendants

 

I am comfortable with Lee's description but Marquardt shows these as rigged in his drawing but without sufficient detail to see the construction of the pendant and the associated tackle/falls.  I see in other logs the advice is to not show the tackle as it would have been rigged as required; however, there is contradictory advice on how the sling end of the pendants are constructed/made up for this period.

 

Anderson also states that up until the end of the 17th century the pendants were constructed with a single block in the hanging end (about level with the carpathans); however, by 1700 this was replaced with a violin block.  I have not found any other reference that provides additional information but note quite a few modellers recommend/used a simple eye or eyering. Is there a reference evidence for this?

 

 It has also been suggested that as these pendants were used for several tasks (including the tensioning of the shrouds etc) that a single block with two part tackle (permanently in place) is valid to allow the required tackle type to be raised aloft forming a double(?) tackle arrangement - sounds a bit un-seaman-like though?).  Some Club members have suggested that the violin block was replaced with two individual blocks (single over double) stropped together in the end of the pendant in a type of reverse violin arrangement?

 

Can anybody please provide any definitive information as to the configuration of the Burton pendant ends/construction for around 1768/1770.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited March 6, 2014 by BANYAN

[BANYAN]

Well, well - I must say this surprises me - I thought there maybe someone out there who could help shed some light on the subject?

 

In the end I looked at the drawings by Ray Parkin and his arrangement was very similar to that shown (in less detail) by Marquardt.  I have decided to go with this even though according to Lees, this arrangement had been superceded by 1700.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[russ]

Pat:

If you want to rig it, I would go with Lees or Steel. They are the two best authorities I know of. Maybe Lever might provide a better illustration, but it really covers a later time period. It is your choice though.

 

Russ

[BANYAN]

Thanks Russ,  I have decided to stay with Parkin as I know he researched fairly thoroughly and I am advised he and Karl had some great "debates' over some fittings etc such as the boomkins.  I ma hoping that as they both agreed on this that they agreed their research on these    I know they based most of their rigging on Steel anyway.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[CAd My Fingers]

Pat, here's primary source info. (added a few cross-ref. definitions for addtl. details) from Blanckley's A Naval Expositor (1750):

 

 

 

 

 

 

Falconer likely will move you closer to your time period and may also shed light as well; sorry, don't have a copy of his work on my shelves (yet!).  Based on Blanckley, Lees, and Marquardt, your approach is sounds appropriate for the period you're rigging.

 

Cheers,

Jay

[Beef Wellington]

Pat, I had the same question and this is how I interpreted the things I saw in various rigging books.  In Lever's book, the pendants are identified as having to go on before the shrouds as they are need to tension them.  What is probably referenced as being 'removeable' would be any blocks attached to the pendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BANYAN]

Hi Jay and BW; many thanks for the feed back.

 

BW - I was almost at the same conclusion as you WRT to the ends where I see you settled on an eye.  What period/year does your model represent please?  Very nice seizing and serving of those pendants by the way.

 

Jay, many thanks and that sort of confirms Parkins and Marquardt.  I will have a look at an on-line copy of Falconer to see what he defines.

 

I am currently using a single block to which the standing end of the tackle was fitted, with a single block at the running end, and which results in the falls being downward from the upper block to provide mechanical advantage.  This is what Parkin shows, and both seem to think that for the mizzen burton pendant, the tackle was permanently rigged with the bottom block secured to an eyebolt on the mizzen channel, slightly inboard of and between the first and second shroud pairs.  I now just need to determine where/how the falls were belayed   My current leaning is towards a shroud cleat, or perhaps the closest belaying pin in the associated rail.

 

Many thanks again, this is quite helpful.

[CAd My Fingers]

Hi Pat, glad that was of help! There was just enough there to go along with Parkins and Marquardt--it's always nice to find those helpful contemporary tidbits. I like your idea of a shroud cleat for the fall--I'm partial to these less seen details!

 

Cheers,

Jay

[druxey]

One reason that the pendants were rigged first was so that they could be used as a kind of crane to raise shrouds, etc, up to the mast head.