tapering masts

Thank you Prof. Tilley,

I am glad to hear some positive feedback concerning some of my ideas. along with possible drawbacks. This is what I need.

because of the need for better information, I ahve put on hold going any further with SM until my books arrive. I would like to do this right as I can.

Concerning bamboo. The ones for BBQ are a yellow/white color. My idea was to stain a few and see how that looked. if the grain was too straight, I may paint them outright and create a grain texture. at this scale, I can do that I think.

The wood here for the masts that I can find is birch. other woods are difficult to come by. I could order it in, but I will stick with local stuff for now. When I complete this model and get into another one, than I will decide what to do.

I just saw the Kearsarge and Nippon Maru at my LHS. Ummm, which to choose? I'll wait, I still have a lot to do with my Pamir.

happy Modeling

I made the spars of my Bounty and Hancock models out of degama (known in England, I believe, as lancewood), and in general I liked it.  It's easy to turn, easy to give a nice, smooth finish, and - from the modeler's standpoint - takes stain well.  (That is to say, the grain is so fine that it scarcely absorbs stain at all.  A furniture maker wouldn't like that, but it makes it easy to control the depth of the color.)  It has two drawbacks.  One - it's hard to find, and expensive if you can find it.  Two - it doesn't bend easily - but oh, brother does it ever break!  The fore topmast of the Bounty snapped right in the middle after I'd installed almost all the running rigging on it.  Thank heaven for the then-just-introduced "superglue."  (I offer that superglued butt joint as evidence to those who say the stuff doesn't last.  That joint has been intact for about twenty-five years now, and shows no sign of coming loose.)

The dowels sold in most American hobby shops and home centers these days seem to be of two species:  oak and birch.  (The suppliers, unfortunately, don't seem to distinguish between them.  The buyer has to check.)  Forget about oak for ship models; the grain is too coarse.  I've heard lots of stories about birch dowels being cross-grained, and I've looked carefully at every one I've bought, but I have to say the vast majority of birch dowels I've seen have had nice, straight grain.  Birch isn't a bad spar material.  It turns nicely, the grain is tight, and it's more springy than degama (springier than some grades of styrene, as a matter of fact).  It soaks up stain quicker than degama, but not so much so as to be problematic.

On my last model, the Phantom, I made the spars out of cherry dowels.  (Cherry dowel can be bought from woodworking supply firms, such as Woodcraft.)  I'm pretty happy with the result, and I think I'll use the stuff again.  Cherry is one of my favorite modeling woods:  close grained, easily turned, and capable of holding nice, sharp detail.  Its grain isn't as straight as birch or degama, so you do have to pick the dowels carefully, but I've never seen a piece of cherry warp significantly.  The one major drawback to it that I can see is that the relatively dark color limits options for the color of the finished product somewhat. 

One or two of the dealers have been advertising maple dowels lately.  I haven't bought any of them yet, but I think maple would be a good mast material - if carefully chosen.  There's maple and there's maple; some of it has grain that's plenty straight enough for this purpose, but other boards have grain that runs all over the place.

I suspect those Chinese BBQ skewers may be bamboo or something similar.  (East Asia has all sorts of woods that I'm not familiar with.)  Bamboo isn't a bad wood for such purposes.  The grain is almost guaranteed to be straight (as long as your spar isn't longer than the distance between the joints in the bamboo - which it probably isn't), and it can be split and shaved down to remarkably small diameters.  (Lots of American and European modelers use it for treenails - tiny pins for holding other pieces of wood together.)  The drawbacks are the texture, which tends to be a little fuzzy, and the color.  Some of the bamboo I've seen is a rather sad greenish grey, which I don't think I could live with.  I've never tried to stain bamboo; I suspect it would take some practice.  But with care it might work pretty well for a project like this.

I've been reading for years about the alleged virtues of making spars from square stock.  I've tried it both ways, and in my opinion - at least on the smaller scales that I normally work on - there's no noticeable advantage to the planing method.  If I were building an rc model on 1/48 or 1/24 scale I'd probably start with square stock.  But for spars that are to be less than 1/4" in diameter - sometimes less than 1/16" - and the rounded parts are to be four inches long or less, I can see no reason not to prefer turning.  The degama I used for the spars of those two models came in rough rectangular billets; I sawed them down to manageable size, whittled round spindles on the ends, and turned them. 

What's most important, irrespective of method, is to get a clear concept in mind of what the finished product is supposed to look like.  On a ship prior to the late nineteenth century, few if any of the spars are round from end to end.  There's almost invariably a section that's either square or octagonal.  In the real thing those sections happened naturally.  The carpenter started with a square piece of wood, planed off the corners to make the octagonal parts, and kept on planing to make the round parts.  When you're turning a spar for a model, those non-circular sections have to be left oversized and planed, scraped, or otherwise trimmed to shape after the turning is complete. 

It's also vital to understand how the tapering works.  Rarely is a mast tapered consistently from end to end, or a yard from the middle to both ends.  (Again - I'm talking about the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries.  Practices in 1492 may well have been different).  The upper and lower extremities of a topmast, for instance, in most cases would be untapered (and either square or octagonal), and several feet at the center of each yard would be untapered (and either round or octagonal).  All that needs to be kept in mind.  A decent set of plans, or a reference book, will sort it all out pretty clearly.

good day,

looking over this thread again and am commenting on Prof. Tilley's idea for simulating the channel deadeyes, chain and connection.

The whole process you mentioned is doable except the last part. The hole through which the chain would have run into is visible when looking at the top deck. Therefore I will need to come up with something else. I will of course wait for my columbus book and other reference materials.

As for the mast and spars. I am not making any decisions yet on that either. again the books. As for the smallest spars, I can see now that I amy have as much flexibility in the plastic as I would witht the wood. But, I have found that the Chinese BBQ scewers are very stiff. I am working these down to see how they look at this scall and what happens with some tension put on to them.

Doing this on a scale model is very informative. The real beauty of it is that I am trying to be acturate to what would have been done on the real thing. Those guys were creative to say the least. To read how they did things and why they did it this way is truely amazing. While in todays world we have access to computers to assist us in all of this and are creating some amazing things. All of the ships which I am building was done with brute force, logic and experience. absolutely amazing. THis si why I got into ship modeling.

Since I have the hull together and painted and am now working on the other parts I can truly say that I am the slowest modeler out there. How long has it been now that I ahve been working on the Santa Maria. 3 months? And I haven't even gotten to the the masts yet. but as the saying goes, if you are in a rush, you are not modeling.

thanks all.

 

FYI,

Many of the builders of wooden ship models don't use dowels for their masts-- they make them from square stock.  The key is to start with a nice straight-grained piece of square stock, and then make a mast or spar from that.   The problem with dowels is that they aren't often straight-grained, which makes them more prone to warping in one direction. Also, dowels are not available in many of the more esoteric woods used by wooden ship modelers.  (Degame is a wood that many favor for masts and spars.)

I'm in the planning stages for my big Revell Constitution (still have to decide about planking the main deck),  and using square stock is what I am planning on doing to replace the topmasts and t'gallantmasts.

Hope this helps...

-Bill

Didn't mean to step on Dr. Tilley's lines but, at least, we're not at cross purposes here.  I agree and support the reference to pendants.  I don't know that they existed in the fifteenth century and, in any event, would be redundant on so small a ship.  I also agree that, if the model is well-designed for plastic spars and masts, a wood substitute may introduce unforeseen problems!

Best,

Ron 

Thank you Prof. Tilley and Rod,

Yes, it is hard to keep going on this model until I do get my books. I do not want to do anything which is a big mistake and cannot be fixed. Hence my post on here. Youof course have created a load of other questions which I must mull over. I am in no rush to finish her. She is looking better all the time. I will see if others having built the Santa Maria may have further, accurate advice as to the masts and rigging of the SM.

I still have my Pamir. Still depainting. I think you see that I am a very slow worker on this. I  will wait if need be to get the information I need as to the way either of these ships were rigged.

Side note: I have purchased some black telephone lone and am taking out the wires. I am going to see if I can thread a .9 thread through this. If this works, I may have 1 option for the rigging of the Pamir and it bolts. Thanks for the suggestion Prof Tilley.

For Rod: WHy information was so much help. It of course brought up these issues as well. I am glad I am on to this. My finished SM may not be perfect. but it will be the best that I can do at this time. If all of this was easy, than we wouldn't do it is my take on it. It is this learning that gets us going. I went and looked at the spars again. I jsut don't like them. Maybe the wood will be just as plyable, but as I think about future builds, I can see making spelnty of spars, so might as well go in on the deep side.

PS did you get the package Rod?

 

happy modeling

 

Morning.  Yesterday I responded to your "wooden masts and yards".  Please see response at that heading.  It references part of your present question.  The truck (top) of the mast was not necessarily square but probably "made up" with cheek-like devices to hold the sheaves needed for rigging. (Now it occurs to me that it was sort of "squared" to accept these cheeks.) This is the easier method,  The "running boards" you mention are "channels" which spread the shrouds to provide better support to the masts.  The links to the sides of the ship were of iron and actually fit in slots on the outer edge of the channel, the slots then covered with a finishing piece.  These links are the "chains" which hold the deadeyes.  The deadeyes will be "face out" to the ship (parallel).  It will be helpful to consult a book on rigging the period ship at this point.  The configuration of chains, channels, deadeyes, lanyards, shrouds, etc. is clear in drawings but not so clear in written description.  A german author (Wolfram Zu Mond...?) has a good reference.  I expect that the good Dr. will weigh in on this with more clarity so I'll close here with this caveat: it's not at all certain that any of Columbus' ships had channels to spread the shrouds but, since no one really knows, they're expected, very nautical, and fun to work with  so I say put 'em on.  (but don't add foot ropes or jackstays!)

Best,

Ron 

PS  If  Dr. Tilley has not solved your question by tomorrow I'll get back to you with more specifics, but I'll be surprised if it's not all done by tomorrow morning! 

First of all (though I suspect this may incite some disagreement from other Forum members), I really question whether it's necessary or appropriate to replace all those plastic spars.  I've never built the Heller Santa Maria, but I've built several from the very similar Revell kit - the first one when I was about six years old.  I never replaced any of the spars, and never came close to breaking any of them.  I suspect that styrene main lower mast, at least, is plenty sturdy. 

Remember that the whole purpose of standing rigging is to support the masts.  The old boys who figured out how to rig real ships knew what they were doing.  If the stays and shrouds are set up properly they counteract each other's tendency to pull the masts out of line.  When you rig the shrouds, for example, the mast may lean back a little, or you may find it hard to get all the shrouds tight.  But as soon as you rig the stay, everything will be fine.  The running rigging does the same thing for the yards. You'll learn pretty quickly just about how much the mast ought to lean back in order for the stay to straighten it out again.  That's part of the skill of rigging - whatever the spars are made of. 

Making a spar out of wood is no guarantee whatever against bending or breakage.  I don't know what wood dowels are made out of in Taiwan, but in the U.S. they're usually birch.  A birch spar with a diameter of less than 1/16" is, if anything, a little more flexible than a plastic one of the same size.  (That, admittedly, depends to a large extent on the particular styrne the manufacturer used.  Styrene varies quite a bit in terms of flexibility.)

When I was a kid I built dozens of plastic sailing ship kits and never replaced any of the spars.  (I'm sure the finished models were, by adult standards, pretty hideous, but for plenty of reasons other than that one.)  The last model I built from a kit, the Bounty, has wood spars - but my reason for replacing the plastic ones was that they weren't accurate. 

If you do want to make wood spars, and you don't have any references, the best advice I can offer is to make them look as much like the kit parts as you can.  I have no idea whether a fifteenth-century nao would have square mastheads - and I question whether anybody else knows for sure.  The Heller designers may have made some mistakes in the kit parts, but if I were you I'd hesitate in trying to outsmart those folks - especially in the absence of any reference material.

I'm a little confused by the reference to pendants.  In the seventeenth century lines with that name (sometimes called burton pendants) were sometimes rigged permanently on the lower masts of big ships.   They were part of the gear for tightening the shrouds.  I've never seen any reference to such lines prior to the sixteenth century, at the earliest. 

The board sticking out horizontally from the side of the ship is called (in English) a "channel."  That's thought to be a corruption of the original "chain wale."  (A wale is an unusually heavy timber comprising part of the side of the hull.)  The purpose of the channel is to give the shrouds a little additional mechanical advantage by spreading their lower ends apart a bit further, and to keep them from chafing on the rail or other hull projections.  Just how the system of fastening the lower ends of the shrouds evolved is a matter of some debate, but a likely explanation is that the deadeye originally was connected to the hull by a piece of fairly heavy chain.  The uppermost link of the chain would be connected to the iron strap of the deadeye.  (The strop would start out as a circular ring, and be pinched into a shape like a distorted figure 8, with a large loop enclosing the deadeye and a smaller one engaging the link of the chain.)  The lower end of the chain would be stapled or otherwise fastened to the hull a few feet below the channel.  The edge of the channel would have a series of notches cut it it to receive the strops of the deadeyes.  (The deadeye would go above the channel; the small part of the strop, with the chain hooked into it, below.)  I don't know just how it was done in 1492, but in later periods a wood molding would be nailed on the edge of the channel to make sure the deadeye strops stayed in place.

By the late sixteenth century that system started to get simplified.  Brian Lavery, designer of the replica ship Susan Constant, thinks a medium-sized merchantman of that time (1607) would have "chain plates" in the form of simple iron bars.  The lower end has an eye forged into it for a spike holding it to the hull, and the upper end is flattened, bent over into a hook, and hooked into the deadeye strop.  In later centuries the chain evolved into two or three elongated iron links, forged individually to fit the ship.  By the mid-nineteenth century it had, in many ships, become a single iron bar.

What Heller has done, apparently, is to omit the deadeye and use a single piece of thread to represent the shroud and the chain.  The holes in the channels apparently represent the notches in the edge, with the edge molding formed integrally with the channel.  Rather than fussing over the fastening of the chains to the hull, Heller is telling you to run the lines through holes in it (and, I assume, secure them inside).

A good, fairly easy method of faking the real thing on this scale might be to get hold of some fine-link chain (either from a hobby shop, a mail order supplier, or a cheap jewelry dealer).  Run a piece of black thread around the deadeye to represent the strop.  Pass both ends of the thread through the hole in the channel and tie them to the upper link of the chain.  Reinforce the knot with adhesive (this is a good job for superglue), and trim the ends of the thread off.  Cut the chain to length.  Then take a piece of copper or brass wire,double it over, run it through the bottom link of the chain, and shove both ends of the wire through the appropriate hole in the hull.  Inside the hull (I assume you still have access to the inside), spread the ends of the wire apart and secure them to the inside of the hull with superglue or epoxy.  (There are other ways to fasten the chains to the hull, but this one makes it easy to get the chains nice and tight.)  Now your deadeyes are securely fastened to the hull and ready to take the lanyards and shrouds when the time comes.

All this is far simpler in reality than it sounds.  Describing the rigging of a ship without pictures isn't easy.  You really need some sort of reference book to help with the rigging of this model.  Have you tried the local bookstores, or is there a public library nearby?  Or a college or university library?  It would be a shame to put a great deal of time and effort into the rigging and find out when your books arrive that you've made some major - and easily avoidable - mistake.

Good luck.