H.M.S.Victory preventer stays

I've looked at photos of Victory and drawings and they clearly show that the forstay and preventer for the main mast both run on the same side  (right hand) of the fore mast. 

Here's a shortened version of what James Lees's "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860" (the nearest thing I know to a definitive source on the subject) has to say about this particular detail:

"Rigging to the Mainmast. The stay was secured in the same way as the forestay....The stay led to the starboard side of the foremast....A preventer stay was fitted at the upper end in the same way as on the foremast. The lower end had the usual heart seized in it but only came abaft the foremast until 1793 when, by Admiralty order, it led, like the main stay, to the bowsprit. After 1810 it led either to the bulwarks or to the deck on the opposite side to the main stay. The preventer stay was introduced in about 1700. When taken to the bowspit, the preventer stay led to the same side of the [fore]mast as the mainstay."

Regarding the sizes of the lines in question - Mr. Lees says the lower preventer stay should, in each case, have a diameter 0.7 times that of the appropriate stay. (For the topmast preventer stays, the ratio is 0.75.)

Mr. Lees's book is an outstanding piece of modern scholarship; it contains enough information to rig a model of virtually any British ship from the period it covers - including the Victory. An easier-to-use source for that particular project is C.N. Longridge's book, "The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships." The wonderful drawings in John McKay's "Anatomy of the Ship: The 100-gun Ship Victory," also contain all the necessary information, but they're a bit harder to follow than either Lees or Longridge. In any case, though (as you've probably already figured out), any modeler working from the Heller kit (as I assume is the case here) needs to get hold of SOME book that shows the ship's rigging in correct and understandable form. The Heller rigging diagrams are a hopeless, incompetent mess.

Hope that helps a little. Good luck.

P.S. I originally typed this post late last night; when I proofread it this morning I found several really stupid - and, conceivably, confusing - typos in it. I apologize - and I hope Gordon didn't read it before I fixed them!

Hmm. Okay, since we're on the subject of Victory's standing rigging, the forestay and mainstay. In 1:100, what size line should be used? I'm lousy at math, so help me out here. I'm assuming I'm going to have to make a ropewalk in order to get it right... Grymm

All actual rigging sizes are given in inches circumference.

For the Victory the sizes are as follows :

Forestay: 18" = to 1.46mm scale diameter

Fore preventer Stay 11.50" = to 0.93mm scale diameter

Main Stay 19" = 1.54mm scale diameter

Main Preventer Stay 13" = 1.05mm scale diameter

As far as I know all commercial rigging line is sold in 'diameter' sizes.

Taking the Main Stay the calculation is as follows:

19 divided by 3.142 (to convert to diameter) = 6.047" x 25.4 (to convert to mm) =153.60 divided 100 (scale size) = 1.54 diameter line.

I use commercial line and round up or down  to the nearest available. In practical terms minor variations cannot really be detected by the eye.

Hope this helps

Grymm - I believe you mentioned that you'd gotten a copy of John McKay's book on the Victory for Christmas.  Unless I'm much mistaken (certainly a possibility), that work contains a table showing the sizes of all the lines in the ship's rigging.

The math involved in determining the scale sizes of rigging lines doesn't need to be intmidating.  It's nothing but simple arithmetic.  The problem has two stages.

1.  As George mentioned, rope sizes are usually expressed in terms of circumference.  When we're dealing with thread, circumference isn't very useful; the diameter of the thread is a more helpful measurement.  To find the diameter of a line, divide the circumference by pi, which is 3.1416.  For model-building purposes, if you figure the diameter is 1/3 of the circumference, you'll be more than close enough.

2.  The model is on 1/100 scale, so to get the diameter of thread to use on the model, divide the actual diameter by 100.

In practical terms, just take the dimension in Mr. McKay's book and divide it by 300.  That will give you the diameter of the thread you need.

One extremely useful model building tool is a calculator that measures in feet, inches, and fractions of an inch.  Such gadgets used to be hard to find, but nowadays you can pick one up at Lowe's or Sears for less than $20.00 - and it probably will have keys to convert between the English and metric systems too.  The math involved in ship modeling is actually quite simple (if it wasn't, I couldn't do it), but a calculator is invaluable in reducing the number of potential mistakes. 

A simple for measuring the diameter of thread:  make two fine marks on a piece of wood (dowel, basswood strip, or whatever) exactly an inch apart.  Wrap a piece of the thread around the stick, lining it up exactly on one of the marks.  Continue winding the thread around the stick, shoving each "layer" gently against the adjacent one.  Count how many times you have to wind the thread around the stick before you reach the second mark.  If it takes 100 turns, the thread is 1/100" (or .01") in diameter.  If it takes 500 turns, it's 1/500" (or .002") in diameter.  Etc.

Sorry Grymm,

Hope I haven't confused you with my calculations, forgot that you in the Colonies still work in imperial. Obviously using 25.4 to convert inches to millimeters is not necessary in the calculation.

John Tilley's reference to a divisor of 300 is probably close enough.

Well, that's probably worth figuring out. Let's see...19" (the circumference of the Victory's mainstay) divided by 3.1416 = 6.03941451" (the diameter of the Victory's mainstay). 6.03941451" divided by 100 (the scale of the Heller kit being 1/100) = 0.063941". So that's what the diameter of the mainstay on the model should be.



Using the rough-and-ready formula I suggested, we start with 19" and divide by 300, to get 0.0633333". The difference between those two figures amounts to .0028543". (See why that pocket calculator comes in handy?) That's an error of less than 3/1000 of an inch, or the equivalent of 9/32" in the real ship - if we assume that the Victory's mainstay actually was exactly 19" in circumference, which is highly questionable. (Hemp rope isn't exactly stable. It stretches and shrinks with changes in the weather - and the tar coating on it increases its size slightly.) It's also worth remembering that, with the exceptions of the anchor hawsers, the mainstay is the fattest line in the ship. So if you use the rough-and-ready formula, that error of 9/32 scale inches is the BIGGEST error you'll make in the entire rigging process.

Given the limited number of different diameters of thread available, the less-than-perfect precision of "rope-making machines," and the limited time left to me on the Orb, I'll stick my neck out and declare that, for my personal purposes, on 1/100 scale dividing the actual circumference by 300 is close enough. To my notion, such mathematical calculations are less important than the two golden rules of rigging: 1. when in doubt as to size, err on the small side; and 2. When in doubt as to color, err on the dark side.

Well said Sir, well said, your reasoning is impeccable, but over here we still have to convert to metric, as most of the commercial rigging line is European. Fortunately the range of rigging thread from 0.1mm - 2.5mm diameters is more than sufficient to realistically rig the Heller Victory.

Yep, you're right John. Found it on page 17. Blind again... And yes, math was never my strong point. For some reason though, I'm good with stats. I can never figure that out. I believe my TI 84 will do the necessary calculations. Let me dust it off... This is all good stuff. I'm busy gathering materials for the eventual day that I undertake Victory. It's still a year or two away, but it's coming. I just have 2 or 3 other projects to tackle first... Thanks again guys... Grymm

Just been to the Victory.  Both preventer and main stays are on the same side of the fore mast. 

Hi Chuck, I hope you enjoyed your visit to Victory, was this your first?

If so were you surprised how small she is actually is:  but impressive none the less, she has an impact on first sighting that can't really be repeated.

I made two visits in 2006, and was pleased to get access to the Poop and the Gunroom on the lower deck, I am planning a third for the spring this year.

It is interesting to compare the Victory with the Warrior, and the immensly improved conditions on a warship of the mid 19th century to one of the mid 18th century. Crew of Nelson's time would have been amazed at the spaciousness and Headroom of the Warrior.

ps: did you get any answers to your query about stowage of spare masts and yards?

GeorgeW wrote:

Hi Chuck, I hope you enjoyed your visit to Victory, was this your first? If so were you surprised how small she is actually is:  but impressive none the less, she has an impact on first sighting that can't really be repeated. I made two visits in 2006, and was pleased to get access to the Poop and the Gunroom on the lower deck, I am planning a third for the spring this year. It is interesting to compare the Victory with the Warrior, and the immensly improved conditions on a warship of the mid 19th century to one of the mid 18th century. Crew of Nelson's time would have been amazed at the spaciousness and Headroom of the Warrior. ps: did you get any answers to your query about stowage of spare masts and yards?

 

Hi, George.

Yes, it was my first visit.   I've visited the Cutty Sark at Greenwich and the reconstructed Batavia in Holland before, so I was reasonably accurate in my expectation of her size.   I was actually slightly surprised by how open, flat and expansive her upper decks were compared to the small, steeply sheered decks of the Dutch East Indiaman.   I was somewhat surprised by how low the decks were, how inconvenient the accesses were, and the difficulties and possible causalties that must cause the gun crews during action.

I did not get an answer to the question of the yard storage.   But it does look like the gaps in the lower rung of the thwartship railings at the back of the mid-ship well aligns with the the circular indentation at the front, as well as the gaps between the boats when the boats are stowed 3 abreast as they are now.   So it is a possibility.   

Some of the windows pillars in the Admiral's great cabin is undergoing repair, so the cabin is roped off.

The interior of the Warrior was clearly from a different age.   The standard of accommodation is quesi-modern.    Men living in a machine, tending the machine.  The accommodations of the Victory, although designed well into the modern age, still has a faintly medieval air to it.   It is a accommodation for collecting the maximum amount of human muscle power.