Ratline spacing - 1/96 Constitution

CapnMac82's analysis makes as much sense as any.  I would, however, caution against putting too much stock in how the rigging of restored an reproduction vessels looks.  As we discussed above, in this day of durable synthetic fibers scarcely any restorer/conservator uses old-fashioned hemp rope or old-fashioned tar.  In view of the astronomical costs of maintenance these days, to use anything other than durable, modern materials would be fiscally irresponsible.

I don't think there's enough authentic documentation to serve as a basis for a book on the changing colors of rigging line - and if there were, I'm not optimistic that anybody would publish it.  (I'm also not sure I'd want to read a book-length study of that subject.  Sounds like a cure for insomnia.)  But an article on the subject, summarizing the available contemporary documentation and trying to separate the reliable information from unsupported traditions is one I've been batting around in my head occasionally as a possible retirement project, for a few years down the road.

jtilley wrote:

Ships' logs and other documents are full of references to "tarring the standing rigging" while the ships were at sea and in port; it seems to have been a standard part of the maintenance process.  Logically, the "tar" must have been applied with some sort of crude brush.  Applying the substance to the shrouds and keeping it completely away from the ratlines would have been quite a trick.  I suppose it's conceivable that some poor schlepp had the job of detaching the ratlines, tarring the shrouds where the ratlines had been knotted or seized to them, and then putting the ratlines back after the tar dried, but somehow I doubt it.  My guess is that the people now in charge of the Victory have it about right:  the ratlines got "lightly tarred," whether deliberately or by accident.

That is a supremely interesting question (and one I wish had occured to me earlier when I had some extant relatives who had been under sail).  A military vessel usually has a larger crew, and therefore often has no end of "busy" work to set them to, so military practice often differs from merchant vessels. 

My "ah hah" moment though, in reading your responce was when I started to think about what a shroud "is."  A shroud is coradage of a specified dimension "made up" into a specific configuration.  That configuration includes worming, turning and serving.  Now, I know from refernece photos, and from having been to Mystic, that a very black "tar" is often put over the standing rigging.  That, though, could be an artifact of the manpower and budget available to museums, too. 

See, I want to remember that the Aylissa, down in Galveston (only 4 hours drive away) is a very medium brown "stokholm tar" over all of her standing rigging (which is constantly being "fussed" with, as she's available (many $$$$) for hired cruises as well as being a tourist attraction there on the Strand.

Putting two and two together makes me wonder if just "soaked" gives us that "lightly tarred" medium sort of brown for lines.  Tarring the parcelling (which makes a bit of sense) would make for a much darker color over that.  What I can't get "right" in my head is if it makes any sense to tar the serving, too.  The headaches of un-serving tarred-on line for ordinary maintanence starts to fail a sense of what is practical to me.  Not that what I think is practical matters <g>.

I wish somebody would conduct and publish a really thorough study of the color of rigging line through the centuries.  Modelers and marine artists make a lot of assumptions about it - assumptions that may or may not be right.

There's a tome that would move quickly of the shelves.  It'd also be like any great academic work, praised and lambasted in equal measure, I imagine.  Publisher's dream, that <g>.

 

(PS, you are correct, I did fail to include a "not," mea culpa.)

What is the cost of maintaining the Wasa, I wonder.

Regarding the Phantom - my strong recommendation (one I don't make often) is to trust the plans.  They were drawn by George M. Campbell, one of the best in the business.

Jtilley,   That's good enough for me! I know enough about the topic to realize that if there is an opinion to be trusted, it would be yours. Thankyou sir.

  I was in USS Newport News CA-148 in 1970, I remember how much work went into keeping her up, and looking good. I'd be happy to get one week's worth of her maintenance cost deposited in my acount!

Amen.  The McGowan/McKay book on the Victory contains some interesting figures regarding the number of man hours that have been put into her restoration and maintenance in recent years.  The figures are soberingly large.

Many people, I'm afraid, don't realize what an enormous and expensive task the preservation of an old ship is.  The problem is at least as severe - maybe more so - in relation to preserved twentieth-century warships.  It's quite easy to criticize such projects, and lament the compromises they make with historical accuracy.  The critics, I'm afraid, often forget that when these vessels were in service they had cheap labor sources numbering in the hundreds (or, in the case of a modern battleship or carrier, thousands) working full-time on their upkeep.  Too many ship preservation projects fail because the people responsible for them don't realize in advance how expensive they are - and the expense never stops.  The people in charge of H.M.S. Victory don't try to conceal the inaccurate or questionable features.  They acknowledge that, given the constraints of time and money, it just isn't practical to make the ship look like she really did in 1805. 

The next major historic ship to go "under the knife" of major preservation is the Cutty Sark.  I was lucky enough to visit her several times while virtually all of her original fabric was still present.  (Her rigging line has, of course, long since been replaced, as has her deck planking, but until recently virtually all the hull planking was original.)  I'm sure the preservationists - who clearly know precisely what they're doing - will have to make some compromises.  But we need to acknowledge that such things are just about unavoidable - and to be grateful that we have the ships at all.

When I was working at the Mariners' Museum we got phone calls and letters fairly frequently from people who thought it would be a good idea for us to take on the preservation of a real ship.  The most common recommended subjects were the cruiser U.S.S. Newport News and the liner S.S. United States.  We came up with a standard response, to the effect that the museum's charter and bylaws wouldn't allow such a project.  That was true; it was also true that such ideas were utterly impractical.  The idea of restoring and maintaining an ocean liner....

John is correct most of Victorys rigging both standing and running has progressively been replaced by polypropylene, in many cases of a reduced size. For instance the lower shrouds were reduced from 11" circ to 9.5" circ when they were replaced.

Looking at the ship today her broadside paintwork does look too smooth and glossy to my eye and in relation to modelling the ship that sort of satin finish just doesn't look right.

We are lucky to still have her but as with your 'Constitution' a large part of the ship of necessity has been replaced over the years and in Victorys case much of the original elements are in the lower part of the ship.

The quote from the Victory's website is from the page labeled "for model builders."  Though it doesn't say so in so many words, it's pretty clear that it's talking about the conclusions the researchers have come to regarding her 1805 configuration - which in some respects differs from her present one.  I'm pretty sure the Victory's present rigging is made of some modern synthetic fiber, which doesn't require tarring or anything else.  That's one of the many concessions the people in charge of restored ships find themselves making in the name of practicality - and money.  The ship's management freely admits that the paint on her today, which is pretty glossy, was chosen on grounds of durability rather than authenticity, for instance. (Captain Hardy could order a fresh coat of paint applied whenever he felt like it - which probably wasn't often, because he didn't care if it looked a bit shabby.  The current shipkeepers can't take that attitude.)  And her lower masts are steel tubes; they don't sit on the keelson, but are supported by heavy steel rods that pass through the ship's bottom on either side of the keel and are imbedded in the concrete of the drydock.  That arrangement greatly reduces the stress on the old wood fabric of the hull.

Regarding the Phantom - my strong recommendation (one I don't make often) is to trust the plans.  They were drawn by George M. Campbell, one of the best in the business.  (He was, among other things, the naval architect in charge of the restoration of the Cutty Sark.)  The Phantom was built at a time when  ironwork for ships' rigging was rapidly becoming more sophisticated, and rope rigging was giving way to wire.  Many of those improvements showed up in smaller vessels before they did in big ships.  The fittings Mr. Campbell shows on his plans are pretty firmly confirmed by photos of other pilot schooners from the period.  (I've never seen a photo of the Phantom herself, but there are good shots of other, similar ships.)  Lots of plans in ship model kits - especially those from the HECEPOB companies - are extremely questionable. (The old Marine Models ones varied from decent to awful.) But in the Goode Olde Dayes of Model Shipways (when the Phantom kit originated) that company took great pride in the research that went into its plans.  The drawings by such people as George Campbell, Ben Lankford, and Erik Ronnberg can be trusted about as much as any documents about the history of marine architecture can.

  Some years back, when I had a small solid hull model of "Constitution" under construction (Lowest Bidder Movers, thoroughly destroyed her during a move, right after all the standing rigging was done), I had aquired a set of plans from Marine Models. These plans show ratlines at exactly 12" intervals, and every fifth going to the aftmost shroud. Go figure. There are times when there are no sure references to go by, in which case there are no "right answers". Rigs, Rigging, and fittings varied constantly, as ships evolved. I still haven't found a reliable source to show me how the shrouds were rigged in the schooner "Phantom". The plans call for the eyes of the shrouds to pass over bolts in the iron cap at the top. All my research indicates that the practice of the time was to pass the eyes of the shrouds over the top, alternating in pairs, side to side.  So, for ratline spacing, unless there is firm documentation, it would seem that ratlines would be spaced at a distance that any crewmember could safely negotiate. It would also seem that ratlines were replaced fairly regularly, as they wore from use, and would be spaced where the "replacer" felt comfortable. I suspect that over a period of time the spacing varied considerably. If you want to know how far apart ratlines should be, climb the ratlines. If you are reaching too far, they are too far apart. If they are too close, it takes too long to climb. Stair risers generally are 8", ladder rungs are generally 12". 12"-15" would be the logical distance for ratlines.

The Victory's website says her ratlines currently are "lightly tarred."

The "Victory's" ratlines aren't used as regularly now, as they would have been. Tarring would probably be used now, for preservation. There was, most likely, many things the "specification writers", and "regulation makers", required, that the working seamen modified for their comfort, safety, or ease and efficiency of operation.

That is an interesting question - with, so far as I know, no simple answer.

A couple of years ago we had a Forum member who was quite emphatic in his assertion that ratlines NEVER got tarred, because the tar would make them slippery.  The Victory's website says her ratlines currently are "lightly tarred." 

The best suggestion I can offer is to think logically of how rope was treated on board a ship, and when.  An Act of Parliament sometime in the late eighteenth century specified that all rope supplied to the Royal Navy be soaked in Stockholm tar.  I've never seen Stockholm tar, but I'm reliably informed that it's a rich medium brown in color.  That would be the normal color of running rigging in the eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century British Royal Navy.  (For other navies I don't know.)  In addition, the standing rigging was "tarred" after it was set up.  I've seen a couple of recipes for mixtures that were used for that purpose (though I'd have trouble laying hands on them now); they included lampblack, tar, and sulphur.  If the resulting concoction wasn't pure black, it must have been pretty close.  It certainly would have been applied to the shrouds.

Ships' logs and other documents are full of references to "tarring the standing rigging" while the ships were at sea and in port; it seems to have been a standard part of the maintenance process.  Logically, the "tar" must have been applied with some sort of crude brush.  Applying the substance to the shrouds and keeping it completely away from the ratlines would have been quite a trick.  I suppose it's conceivable that some poor schlepp had the job of detaching the ratlines, tarring the shrouds where the ratlines had been knotted or seized to them, and then putting the ratlines back after the tar dried, but somehow I doubt it.  My guess is that the people now in charge of the Victory have it about right:  the ratlines got "lightly tarred," whether deliberately or by accident.

I wish somebody would conduct and publish a really thorough study of the color of rigging line through the centuries.  Modelers and marine artists make a lot of assumptions about it - assumptions that may or may not be right.  My own general practice, for the time being, is to make the running rigging a dull, medium brown and the standing rigging a slightly greyish, slightly brownish black.  Quite a few other modelers do it that way too, but I'm not a hundred percent confident about it.

Here is another question.   Should the ratlines be tarred like standing rigging?   I would think not, since the ratlines would bend and flex a great deal under the weight of sailors moving up and down the shrouds; and tarring them would probably make them stiff and easy to break in cold weather.     But I've seen it done both ways on the modern restorations..

This vocabulary argument isn't worth having.  The phrase "masts and spars" does indeed appear in plenty of contemporary and modern documents.  Just as the term "rigging" gets used a little differently in different documents (sometimes it clearly includes the wood or metal components; sometimes it doesn't), so does the word "spar."  George W.'s quote from the Oxford University Press volume is quite appropriate; I'll add one from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: 

Spar...1. Nautical.  A wooden or metal pole, such as a mast, boom, yard, or bowsprit, used to support sails and rigging.

I've seen more documents labeled "Spar Dimensions" than I can count, from the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries - sometimes contemporary documents, sometimes tables drawn up by modern scholars.  They invariably include the dimensions of the masts.  I can't think of a single exception.

CapnMac82 - I think the word "not" may have gotten left out of your first sentence, but I agree with you.  That line about leaving out ratlines because "the crew didn't need them" just doesn't make sense.  If that line of reasoning were actually followed, we'd see a big difference in the ratline layout of American nineteenth-century merchant ships compared to British ones.  (The Flying Cloud had a crew of over 100; the Cutty Sark, in her tea clipper days, had a crew of 28 - including officers and others who rarely if ever went aloft.)  And the "they just didn't need them" line doesn't explain why, in Mr. Lees's description of the post-1773 configuration, the lowest and highest ratlines didn't go all the way across, whereas those between did.

The explanation I got from that fine gentleman at Mystic, about 40 years ago,  continues to be the most sensible one I've encountered - though I've never encountered it anywhere else.  We had a discussion of this point some months back here in the Forum; at that time I mentioned that, somewhere or other, I'd seen at least one contemporary rigging plan for a nineteenth-century warship whose foremost shrouds on her fore and main masts were set up with block and tackle, rather than deadeyes - presumably to facilitate the option of slacking off the shroud when the ship was working to windward.  Since then I've looked through several books in an effort to find that drawing, without success. (I thought it was in one of the Chapelle books, but it isn't.)  But I don't think I imagined it.  I'll take another look.

jtilley wrote:

"the number of men climbing the ratlines was such that they just didn't need ratlines that stretched all the way across the whole gang of shrouds."  I don't buy it.  Any judgment about how many ratlines were necessary to accommodate a given crew would have to take into account the size of the crew, and we'd see the ratline configuration vary directly with the size of the crew.

I'm glad there's some one else who does "buy in" to the "size of crew" argument.  It's never quite "jibed" with the contemporary descriptions of who was going aloft and when to me--merchant or warship.

By the "crew size" arguement, the clippers should have had more shrouds, as thos eshipe had a lot more sail to manage on twice as many spars.

Now, it is true that military vessels had "fighting" tops, which put more hands aloft--but, the contemporary accounts dow not have Marines going aloft at the same time as sail-handling crews generally (which would be a tad exciting, to my thinking, topmen & marines hauling muskets & pikes & swivels & the like would make for a tricky trafffic jam there at the futtocks . . . 

To my thinking, "we" have to go back to the unique situation of military sailing.  Redundancy and control are evident in all of the contemporary data we have.  There are very few lines that are not either duplicated, and also lashed to another line nearby.  I have had a suspicion that the "every sixth" is not a ratline at all, but a convenient way to "mouse" the very large after shroud on fore & main.  Having said line be shot loose to drop on crew or guns below would not have been a favorable outcome.

But, that's conjecture on my part.

GeorgeW wrote:

The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, a nautical dictionary, defines 'SPAR' as; "a general term for any wooden support used in the rigging of a ship; it embraces all masts, yards, booms, gaffs, etc."

If that were really the case for normal word usage of the era, then the very frequently encountered expression "Masts and Spars" would be somewhat unaccountable, wouldn't it?

The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea, a nautical dictionary, defines 'SPAR' as;

"a general term for any wooden support used in the rigging of a ship; it embraces all masts, yards, booms, gaffs, etc."

ps; 3.5 - 4mm is about right for the space between ratlines at1:96 scale.

jtilley wrote:

The generic term "spar" includes all the pole-shaped wood (or, in later periods, metal) components of a ship's rigging.  A yard is a spar; a mast is a spar; a boom is a spar; a gaff is a spar.  A full set of "spar dimensions" includes the dimensions of all of them, and a "spar plan" shows all of them.

To properly exhibit the layout of the yards it is necessary to clarify the dimension of the masts upon which they are hoisted.    Thus the presence of mast details in a "spar plan" is by particular necessity of the a particular purpose, and does not automatically indicate that masts  typically fall under the term "spars" for conventional nautical usage.    By extension, many spar plans also often include the dimensions of the channels on the sides of the hull in order to outline the extent of the shrouds, and thus illustrate the clear swing the yards, yet no one has said channels are  included under the term "spar".

In the British naval dispatches from Napoleonic war era through mid-Victorian era, one finds numerous separate and distinct references to "Masts and Spars", as in "Masts and Spars were renewed", "The mast was sprung", "the ship was taken aback and the spars were much agrieved", "masts and spars were wounded", "Storm proved injurious to Masts and Spars".   So it appears to me that, at least in official operational usage, masts were not, by default, included under the term "spars".    Perhaps in inexact slang of seamen, everything that were stowed across the booms under the boats, spare topmasts included, were flippantly referred to as "Spars", but official dispatch clearly distinguishes the masts and spars.

I took a look at those pictures a few hours ago and came to a slightly different conclusion, but on looking at them again I think Mr. Gonzales is right.  (My undersized monitor doesn't help with such things.)  It's awfully hard to sort out the rigging details in those shots, though.

Sometime back I bought a beautifully-illustrated paperback book published by a museum in Holland and dedicated entirely to a single, enormous, seventeenth-century ship model that's located in a prominent public building there.  (I'm going to have to dig the book out; I don't remember the ship's name.)  The pictures include closeups of virtually every part of the model, and the text goes into depth about its provenance.  The Peabody-Essex Museum really ought to publish a book like that about the Hull model.  It's a priceless primary source about (arguably) the most famous naval vessel in American history, it's directly connected with an individual of historic importance (Captain Hull, as I understand it, presented it to the museum), and the model itself has an unusually interesting history of its own.  I have the impression, though, that the museum in recent years has de-emphasized its superb maritime collections in favor of the anthropological side of the operation.  I haven't been there since the building was expanded some years back, but it's my understanding that virtually none of the expansion and remodeling dealt with the maritime collections.  If the museum isn't interested in that model, perhaps the management should consider loaning it to some other institution - the Constitution Museum in Boston, for instance.

Hello all,

I just brought a previous topic up to the front, which contains excellent photos of the Hull model of the Constitution. Upon close inspection, I see that the ratlines do not appear to touch the foremost shrouds of the fore or main mast. Further, the aftermost shroud appears to be touched by every 6th ratline. The mizzen shrouds have the pattern somewhat reversed, with the foremost shroud on that mast touched by every 6th ratline; I cannot see what's happening on the aftermost shroud of the mizzenmast.

Jose Gonzales

The generic term "spar" includes all the pole-shaped wood (or, in later periods, metal) components of a ship's rigging (broadly defined to include everything from the weather decks up).  A yard is a spar; a mast is a spar; a boom is a spar; a gaff is a spar.  A full set of "spar dimensions" includes the dimensions of all of them, and a "spar plan" shows all of them.  (The more common "sail plan" also shows the sails.)

Several sets of spar dimensions for the Constitution at various points in her career are extant, and are reproduced in various sources - including the new Anatomy of the Ship volume.  All of them are different.  In 1803, for instance, the main lower mast was 105' 6" long and the fore lower mast was 96' 0"; in 1815 the main lower mast measured 104' 0" and the fore lower mast 94'0".  By 1826 the official USN dimensions for those two masts in a 44-gun frigate were 105' and 95', respectively.  Not enough difference to matter much for any practical purposes - but enough to change the "ratline count" by one.

Sure, you can work out the spacing of ratlines by counting the ones on a good drawing.  The ones in the Anatomy of the Ship series generally are quite reliable.  But, with the exceptions of those that are reproductions of old documents, they're reconstructions by modern draftsmen on the basis of the same sources that people like James Lees consulted.  (In most of the volumes in the series that deal with British sailing warships, the Lees book will be found in the bibliographies.)  Since what's actually being discussed, in practical terms, is the spacing of a set of lines on a piece of paper, doesn't it make more sense to use the dimensions in a book like that (or a contemporary one, like Steel's Elements of Mastmaking, Rigging and Seamanship) than to take the trouble of counting the ratlines on a drawing?

The question of ratlines that don't go all the way across the full gang of shrouds is an interesting one.  Lees tries his best to deal with it systematically:  he says that "about every sixth ratline was taken to the swifter or aftermost shroud on some ships.  [He uses the term "swifter" to describe the aftermost shroud in the gang when the total number of shrouds is odd.  Note the wise use of the word "about" and the phrase "on some ships."]  On some ships between 1733 and 1773 the first six ratlines started from the second shroud from forward, the rest of the ratlines being rigged as before.  After 1773 the first six ratlines and the upper six ratlines started from the second shroud from forward and finished at the second shroud from aft: the remainder covered all the shrouds."  At that point, unfortunately, Mr. Lees drops the subject.

R.C. Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast, 1600-1720 (first published in 1927; lots of other sources have become available since then) has this to say:  "In English ships the ratlines on the fore and main usually stopped short of the aftermost shroud; on the mizzen and the topmasts they ran across the whole rigging.  Foreign ships do not seem ot have followed the English example in this respect; their ratlines are always shown running right across."

The photos of contemporary models in Mr. Lees's and Dr. Anderson's books conform to those descriptions.  I'm not convinced, though, that the matter was quite as straightforward as those fine scholars imply.  And neither of them mentions merchant vessels.  Contemporary paintings a photos suggest that in nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century merchantmen it was common for every sixth ratline (or maybe every fifth, or every seventh) to stop short of the foremost shroud.  Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport in which I asked him why the ratlines of the Charles W. Morgan were rigged that way.  His answer was that the foremost shroud in the gang wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener," and was slacked off when the ship was working to windward, in order to give the lower yard a little more room to swing.  The ratline configuration was designed to discourage people from putting their weight on the "stiffener," while preventing it from sagging awkwardly when it was slacked off.  I can't recall having bumped into that explanation elsewhere (neither can anybody else with whom I've discussed it), but it makes as much sense as any.

Whatever the arrangement, it generally seems to have been applicable only to the fore and main lower masts.  I imagine there were exceptions, but it appears that the ratlines on the mizzen lower mast normally went all the way across the gang of shrouds - as did those of the topmast shrouds.

What Mr. Lees and Dr. Anderson don't discuss is why the ratlines in British warships were rigged that way - and why the arrangement changed in 1773.  When I bring up the question with seaman and other modelers, the usual answer is something to the effect that "the number of men climbing the ratlines was such that they just didn't need ratlines that stretched all the way across the whole gang of shrouds."  I don't buy it.  Any judgment about how many ratlines were necessary to accommodate a given crew would have to take into account the size of the crew, and we'd see the ratline configuration vary directly with the size of the crew.  The photos and artwork make it pretty clear that it didn't.

In terms of the Constitution, this is one of the many instances where my strong inclination would be to rely on the old Isaac Hull model in Salem.  The hull and fittings of that model are pretty crude, but the rigging appears to have been done by a sailor who was intimately familiar with the ship - and willing to take infinite pains to get it right.  The photos I have in front of me aren't quite clear enough for me to be sure, but it looks to me like the ratlines on the fore and main lower masts stop short of the aftermost shroud.  If I were building a Constitution in War of 1812 configuration, that's how I'd probably rig her.

jtilley wrote:

Counting the ratlines on a drawing will work IF (a) the draftsman actually counted the ones on the real ship (unlikely), and (b) the spar dimensions of the drawing match those of the model (also unlikely - given the number of spar dimension changes that ship has gone through, and the number of mistakes that have crept into both drawings and kits).

It's the mast dimension that governs the height of the shrouds, not the spar dimensions.   Mast dimensions are usually standardized by rate and gun count.    The standard is not frequently changed.   Drawings from sources such as AOTS generally feature correctly drawn rateline arrangements and spacing.

As important as the spacing of the ratlines are the arrangement of the ratlines.   Carefully note that on  many masts of many ships not every ratline extends from the foremost shroud cable to the aftmost shroud cable.   Many of the top most shroud lines typically stops 2-3 shroud lines ahead of the aftmost shroud line.   There are locations where only every other shroud line extends the full width of the shroud.

Great idea!

For future reference, here's an item for your wish list:  http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type=Product&ID=14421

I've had one like it for about twenty years; it's one of the most frequently-used tools in my shop - for all sorts of jobs beyond model building.  The centering feature comes in handy for all sorts of jobs, and I particularly like the fact that the 1/32" increments are not only marked but numbered.  (Having "17/32" clearly marked on the ruler eliminates at least one potential source of careless error.)  On one edge the 1/32" increments are further divided into 64ths - not marked individually, but even my notoriously careless brain usually can make the necessary interpolation.  Highly recommended - and on sale at the moment.

Yes, 5/32" does fit the bill, as does 9/64", or 4mm. My difficulty did lie (or is that "lay") in actually executing the lines on a piece of paper. There aren't many rulers that split an inch 64 times- the smallest increments I could find were 1/16".

Leave it to my better half, who is much more adept at computers than I ever will be. She used MS Word, drew a table with only a single column, and specified 9/64" spacing for each row, then printed it out. Voila! A page of printed lines that are just a touch further apart than a scale foot. She even checked the spacing with a ruler.

Now the fun begins.

Jose Gonzales

Well, 5/32" matches my definition of "a little over 1/8"," which is what I said in my post above.

Counting the ratlines on a drawing will work IF (a) the draftsman actually counted the ones on the real ship (unlikely), and (b) the spar dimensions of the drawing match those of the model (also unlikely - given the number of spar dimension changes that ship has gone through, and the number of mistakes that have crept into both drawings and kits).  In any case, I imagine what you're talking about, in practical terms, is the spacing of the lines you're going to draw on the sheet of paper or carboard that's going to serve as your guide for setting up the ratlines.  If you draw those lines 9/64", 5/32", or, if you prefer, 4 mm apart you should be in fine shape.  In the grand scheme of things, we're talking about a pretty trivial distinction here.  I find it hard to believe that any USN regulations nailed down the spacing of ratlines to the inch.

 

Couldn't you just count the number of ratlines on one of the many line drawings of the constitution available from numerous sources?

Jose:

At that scale, 5/32" intervals would work better, I think. That would be 15".

Russ

 

 

 

You're quite right:  different sources give different dimensions.  The one I happen to have in front of me is James Lees's Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860, which is as good as any.  Lees says "ratlines were spaced 13 to 15 inches apart."  I tend to space mine about 12" apart, which I guess is a little close.  On 1/96 scale an inch is about .010 - not much.  If you keep your ratlines a little more than 1/8" apart you should be fine.