SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark

121993 views
200 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2005
Posted by caramonraistlin on Monday, June 21, 2010 2:22 PM

Geoff:

I checked Amazon.com and they have 3 used copies for 33, 35, and 39 dollars respectively. All copies are newer than mine which is a 1949 reprint. The book was 1st published in 1946. Once again as I've said this book is a treasure trove of information for rigging a steel or wooden hulled clipper or ocean carrier. While it is true it does not cover one unique ship it does cover all full rigged ships in general and even provides tables for the diameters/sizes of masts/spars/rigging for steel or wooden hulled vessels. He also touches on smaller coastal craft and so called unusual rigs. Lastly he provides a pullout plan of the belaying pin layout for a full rigged ship. If you get the chance pickup a used one for any future projects. I know I will be using mine if I ever build Heller's Preussen.

 

Michael Lacey

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Monday, June 21, 2010 2:52 PM

caramonraistlin

I checked Amazon.com and they have 3 used copies for 33, 35, and 39 dollars respectively. All copies are newer than mine which is a 1949 reprint. The book was 1st published in 1946. Once again as I've said this book is a treasure trove of information for rigging a steel or wooden hulled clipper or ocean carrier. While it is true it does not cover one unique ship it does cover all full rigged ships in general and even provides tables for the diameters/sizes of masts/spars/rigging for steel or wooden hulled vessels. He also touches on smaller coastal craft and so called unusual rigs. Lastly he provides a pullout plan of the belaying pin layout for a full rigged ship. If you get the chance pickup a used one for any future projects. I know I will be using mine if I ever build Heller's Preussen.

 Michael Lacey

Michael,

Thanks for your advice, although I have not seen any pages of this book I note that is continually being recommended.

I really have to draw a line, for the time being, on my outlay on my rediscovered hobby.

When I get back home I intend asking my local library if they would be prepared to order it for me. I'm not holding my breath though, in the light of all the current budget cuts.

As I said earlier, I am going to spend time studying the Campbell plans when they arrive. I think that will keep me occupied for a while.

Geoff

  • Member since
    July 2005
Posted by caramonraistlin on Monday, June 21, 2010 2:53 PM

Geoff:

To answer your question Underhill's book describes lifts as running rigging that was used to hold the yard horizontally to the mast or skew it to one side such as when approaching a dock. Evidently they were used to turn the yard and hence the sail as needed. The jeers appear to be heavy tackle used to lift or lower yards. Lifts were used on fixed as well as yards that were raised/lowered. I don't believe any of the yards on the Cutty Sark were raised or lowered but were fixed in their location via yard trusses and held from above with a chain sling. The Cutty Sark then would have lifts but no jeers.

 

Michael Lacey

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: San Diego
Posted by jgonzales on Monday, June 21, 2010 3:18 PM

Hi all,

I'v e had this model sitting in my stash for a couple of years (along with the Heller Victory) while I'm working on the Constitution. I can't wait to get started on it!

The two lower yards on the masts (the courses and lower topsails yards) were at fixed heights, while the remaining yards above these (the upper topsail, topgallant, and royal yards) were able to be raised and lowered. The yards were raised and lowered by means of both halyards and lifts, halyards being attached to the midpoint of the yard, while lifts were attached to the ends.

Cheers,

Jose Gonzales

Jose Gonzales San Diego, CA
  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Monday, June 21, 2010 3:34 PM

jgonzales

Hi Jose

The two lower yards on the masts (the courses and lower topsails yards) were at fixed heights, while the remaining yards above these (the upper topsail, topgallant, and royal yards) were able to be raised and lowered. The yards were raised and lowered by means of both halyards and lifts, halyards being attached to the midpoint of the yard, while lifts were attached to the ends.

Jose Gonzales

I understand that but it does not explain the lifts in the rigging diagram. (They can also be seen in photographs).

My only thought is that, although the yards were fixed they did need to be lifted into position in the first place and, maybe lowered and raised for maintenance?

Geoff 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:09 AM

Mr. Gonzales has laid out the basic system.  I'll take the liberty of adding a little bit, in the hope of clarifying things slightly.

Prior to the mid-nineteenth century it was customary for all yards to slide up and down the masts as part of the process of setting and furling the sails.  The exceptions were the lowest yards on the three masts:  the fore lower yard, main lower yard, and crossjack yard.  (The latter normally didn't have a sail on it during that period.)  Each yard was raised and lowered by means of a tackle rigged to its center.  That tackle was called the jeers in the case of the lower yards, and the halyard in the cases of all the others.  By the end of the eighteenth century it was also common, especially in warships, for the lower yards, once they'd been hoisted into position by the jeers, to be secured semi-permanently by another, non-adjustable tackle called the truss. 

The lifts were separate, lighter pieces of gear secured to the yardarms (i.e., near the tips of the yards.  Each yard has two yardarms - one at each end.).  The purpose of the lift was to keep the yard horizontal - or, under some circumstances, to tilt it one way or the other.  The lower yards could, by means of the lifts and the braces, be used as derricks for handling cargo and the ship's boats.  And certain sailing evolutions called for the upper yards to be tilted, so only a triangular portion of the sail would be exposed to the wind.

By the Cutty Sark's day the system had evolved considerably - and, in general, simplified.  She, like most other good-sized ships of the period, has double topsails.  The double topsail was conceived as a labor-saving device.  (Some people have the notion that its purpose was to increase the amount of sail the ship set; in fact it did precisely the opposite.  All other things being equal, a ship with double topsails has less sail area than one with single topsails.  Most of the big American clipper ships switched from single to double topsails as their careers went on.)  The old single topsail was, in effect, cut in half, each half being reasonably convenient for a relatively small group of men to handle.  A new yard, the lower topsail yard, was inserted into the picture.  It was generally mounted with a permanent iron truss to the lower mast cap (the iron or wood fitting at the head of the lower mast).  The former topsail yard became the upper topsail yard; it slid up and down the topmast on a parral, as in earlier generations.  And by this time the lower yard also was fixed vertically by an iron truss. 

The lower yard continued to be used as a derrick for handling cargo.  In the case of the Cutty Sark (according to you-know-who's drawings), the lower yard lifts were heavy pieces of wire, leading from the lower yardarms through blocks at the lower cap.  The end of each lift was hooked to a heavy rope tackle that, in turn, was hooked into an eyebolt in the deck at the foot of the mast.  (My guess is that when the "yard and stay" operation was in progress for handling cargo, the sailors would take the hauling end of that tackle through the sheave at the base of one of the fiferail stanchions, in order to get more purchase on the line.)

The lower topsail yards don't have lifts.  There is, however, a tackle called a downhaul on each side leading from the upper topsail yardarm to the lower topsail yardarm; that, in combination with the sail itself, would have kept the lower topsail yard horizontal.  The upper topsail yards have "fixed lifts" - simple, one-piece wires running from the yardarms to the topmast caps. They go slack when the yard is raised (by means of the halyard) and the sail is set.

Lowering a yard to the deck, in a ship like the Cutty Sark, was a major operation that wouldn't be attempted at sea except in dire circumstances.  The lower yards, in particular, were extremely heavy.   (They were made of steel; the other yards were wood.)  I doubt that the lower yards were sent down more than a handful of times in her entire career - and then only when she was tied up to a pier. 

By the end of the nineteenth century the topgallants had been "doubled" as well.  So in the last generation of square-rigged sail a large ship would have six sails on each mast:  course, lower topsail, upper topsail, lower topgallant, upper topgallant, royal.  (The Cutty Sark  was built with double topsails; so far as I know she never "divided her topgallants."  She did, however, initially have a main skysail above the main royal.  The skysail was removed midway through her career - by the time the first surviving photos of her were taken.)

Again, the Campbell drawings will make most of this clear.  (Rigging is far easier to explain through pictures than through words.)  But I hope the above helps a little.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2009
Posted by britjeff on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:25 AM

you guys must have the patience of saints to rig a sailing ship, i have enough trouble with ww1 planes.lol the with wants me to build her a pirate ship, might have to give it a while. lol anyone know what sort of ship would make a pirate ship? sorry for the slight thread highjack.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:07 PM

jtilley

The lower yard continued to be used as a derrick for handling cargo.  In the case of the Cutty Sark (according to you-know-who's drawings), the lower yard lifts were heavy pieces of wire, leading from the lower yardarms through blocks at the lower cap.  The end of each lift was hooked to a heavy rope tackle that, in turn, was hooked into an eyebolt in the deck at the foot of the mast.  (My guess is that when the "yard and stay" operation was in progress for handling cargo, the sailors would take the hauling end of that tackle through the sheave at the base of one of the fiferail stanchions, in order to get more purchase on the line.)

The lower topsail yards don't have lifts.  There is, however, a tackle called a downhaul on each side leading from the upper topsail yardarm to the lower topsail yardarm; that, in combination with the sail itself, would have kept the lower topsail yard horizontal.  The upper topsail yards have "fixed lifts" - simple, one-piece wires running from the yardarms to the topmast caps. They go slack when the yard is raised (by means of the halyard) and the sail is set.

Dr Tilley,

Thank you, once again, for your very lucid, detailed description. It makes perfect sense now. I just could not figure out why they would have such heavy tackle if it was only for occasional use.

I am now back home after a very frustrating week away having to rely on the battery of my laptop when passing near a hot spot for my internet connection. I admire the people who put up with this frequently!

The Campbell plans were delivered while I was away. Guess what I will be doing tonight?

Geoff

 

 

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:43 PM

To expound, the lest bit, on Professor Tilley's explanation, in military use, the lifts of all but the lowest (course) yards are a form of standing rigging, meant to support the yard in its lowered position.

Military practice was to only use the course yards and the burton pendants for cargo handling. 

In military use, you have a lot of crew, except when cleared for battle.  So, rather  than brailing and clewing a sail to reduce the canvas set, naval practice began with just lowering the halyard  to douse the sail.  Which had a concurrent advantage of being able to increase sail with similar speed.

So, with sails set, lifts ought to be slack (if with some debate on whether they ought be slack before or abaft the yard; or my gut feeling, made up with marline along the after edge).

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:54 PM

britjeff

you guys must have the patience of saints to rig a sailing ship, i have enough trouble with ww1 planes.lol the with wants me to build her a pirate ship, might have to give it a while. lol anyone know what sort of ship would make a pirate ship? sorry for the slight thread highjack.

Britjeff,

I guess we must! I think we are driven by a desire to model, as close as possible, an exact replica of the real thing but in miniature. I have never fully understood the mentality of the kit manufacturers who seemed to go to extreme lengths regarding attention to detail of Hull, Deck Fittings etc yet provide scanty, and in some cases misleading, information about the rigging. Almost as if it is an afterthought.

Revell have just the model for you with their Caribbean Pirate Ship #85-0386

You can examine their instructions here:

http://manuals.hobbico.com/rmx/85-0386.pdf

You will see that they don’t even include thread for the rigging. They tell you to use ‘Household Thread’ (whatever that is).

Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:02 PM

CapnMac82

To expound, the lest bit, on Professor Tilley's explanation, in military use, the lifts of all but the lowest (course) yards are a form of standing rigging, meant to support the yard in its lowered position.

Military practice was to only use the course yards and the burton pendants for cargo handling. 

In military use, you have a lot of crew, except when cleared for battle.  So, rather  than brailing and clewing a sail to reduce the canvas set, naval practice began with just lowering the halyard  to douse the sail.  Which had a concurrent advantage of being able to increase sail with similar speed.

So, with sails set, lifts ought to be slack (if with some debate on whether they ought be slack before or abaft the yard; or my gut feeling, made up with marline along the after edge).

Well I didn't know that! Amazing what I'm picking up here, all being stored for future reference.

Geoff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:46 AM

CapnMac82

To expound, the lest bit, on Professor Tilley's explanation, in military use, the lifts of all but the lowest (course) yards are a form of standing rigging, meant to support the yard in its lowered position.

Military practice was to only use the course yards and the burton pendants for cargo handling. 

In military use, you have a lot of crew, except when cleared for battle.  So, rather  than brailing and clewing a sail to reduce the canvas set, naval practice began with just lowering the halyard  to douse the sail.  Which had a concurrent advantage of being able to increase sail with similar speed.

So, with sails set, lifts ought to be slack (if with some debate on whether they ought be slack before or abaft the yard; or my gut feeling, made up with marline along the after edge).

As I mentioned earlier, we have to be mighty careful when generalizing about stuff like this.

Through most of the eighteenth century the lift was clearly regarded as a piece of running rigging; it ran through blocks that let it by slacked off when the yard was lowered and hauled taut when the yard was raised.  For a long time the only yards that had lifts were the lower and topgallant yards.  (Until the late eighteenth century there were no royals - or if they were rigged they were "set flying," with almost no running rigging.)  For many years the topsail yard lifts also functioned as the topgallant sheets.  When the topgallants weren't set, the ends of their sheets were shifted from the clews of the sails and secured to the topmast cap.  (James Lees, in his book The Masting and Rigging of English Warships, says that practice ended in about 1790.  When I was working on my little model of the frigate Hancock I found a couple of contemporary inventories that implied pretty clearly that some of the American Revolutionary War frigates were rigging separate topsail lifts and topgallant sheets in 1776.  I'm not sure what the practice in the merchant service was, but it typically would have lagged a few years behind what the navies were doing.)

The practice of fixing both ends of the lift permanently, so the line drooped down behind the sail when the sail was set, was certainly common in merchant ships shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century - in ships like the Cutty Sark.  But I don't think it would have been seen in either naval or merchant vessels much earlier than that.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:04 AM

GeoffWilkinson

Revell have just the model for you with their Caribbean Pirate Ship #85-0386

You can examine their instructions here:
You will see that they don’t even include thread for the rigging. They tell you to use ‘Household Thread’ (whatever that is).
Geoff

Building models on instruction from spouses is a challenge.  As a matter of fact it's one I'm confronting at the moment, with a generic, 1900-vintage tugboat named the A.M. Tilley, after my wife.  I ran the idea by her before I started.  She liked it - but imposed some requirements.  One was that there be a figure of a buxom woman, a "Tugboat Annie" type, somewhere on the model.  (Preiser, the big German HO railway figure manufacturer, to the rescue.)  I've discovered that I really like that approach to model building. One of these days I may build a generic, early-twentieth-century fishing schooner and name it after my father.

It sounds like the Revell "Caribbean Pirate Ship" may indeed fill Britjeff's requirements.  In the interest of full disclosure (a concept unknown to Revell's current management, of course) it might be well to clarify just what the kit is.

It's a reissue of a kit originally released in 1960 (the date is from Dr. Thomas Graham's fine book, Remembering Revell Model Kits) under the label "Peter Pan's Pirate Ship Jolly Roger."  It is in fact a remarkably (for its age) detailed scale model of an amusement park set:  the "Jolly Roger" that initially stood at the original California Disneyland.  That...thing...was the fruit of the fertile imaginations of the animators who were responsible for the wonderful Disney feature-length cartoon from the 1950s.  I believe it was firmly attached to the bottom of the lake in which it sat; I don't think anything that looked like that ever actually floated.  (It certainly bears no resemblance to any of the ships in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.)  As I understand it, the "ship" got removed from Disneyland quite a few years ago and spent some time as a restaurant in the L.A. area; I don't know whether it still exists or not.

The current reissue is kind of interesting as a commentary on the state of the plastic kit industry.  It obviously was intended to draw on the public interest generated by the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.  But there's no mention of them in the accompanying publicity, or on the box of the kit (and no photo of Johnny Depp).  Back in the old days of models as movie tie-ins, the box would have been plastered with such stuff.  But apparently Revell didn't pay any licensing fee to Disney this time around.  (Disney presumably has copyright on the phrase "Pirates of the Caribbean"  - but can't copyright the word "Caribbean."  So nobody can stop Revell from calling it a "Caribbean Pirate Ship.")

I have to confess to a long-standing prejudice against models of "pirate ships."  (It's been suggested to me more than once that said prejudice is somehow related to the fact that the athletic teams at the joint where I work are known as the "ECU PIrates."  I hate big-time college sports.)   But I suspect that old Revell kit may serve Britjeff's purposes perfectly. 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    March 2013
Posted by Marcus.K. on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:10 AM

Hello Geoff, Gentlemen,

I followed this discussion with growing interest and fun!

Geoff, as mentioned before by others: do not hesitate to ask and reask if necessary. Your questions are good ones - and so are the answers by our experts here! Thanks to you all!

Because of this thread I began to look for pictures and information about the old clipper. I onced build the Revell 1/144-Version - and I hated it.

First because of my missing abilities to do it in an adequat way - it was awfully bad done! The rigging ridiculus. But o.k. - I was 15 years (about) in those days and it was my second or third sailing ship.

And second because I did not like the ships shape and look. This almost steel-ship hull with its sharp bow (I did not know that these ships were on the edge to steelships - and today I believe I even understand why this special and different shape was possible then - and not before, in the ages of only-wooden-hulls). The mountains of sails which - in my thinking - in those days were bizarre oversized ..

Its strange - but it seems that decades of lifing change many things - for example the preference for .. the age and type of women, of wine and food, of music, of furnishing, of cars or motorcycles .. and of ships?!

Today I have to say: well - the ship IS sexy.

And I begin to play with the idea of getting the kit - just to have it  in hold - to prevent that I need to buy it in E-bay for horrible prices if its not available in the stores.

A question concerning the rings, eye-bolds and chains for the ancors and the rigging of the bow sprit:

Is there any available table with the sizes (thickness of the steel, diameter of the eyes, etc.) of those parts?
Or which diameters do you use mostly (could you give me the dimension in mm??)?

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:47 AM

Marcus.K.

Its strange - but it seems that decades of lifing change many things - for example the preference for .. the age and type of women, of wine and food, of music, of furnishing, of cars or motorcycles .. and of ships?!

Today I have to say: well - the ship IS sexy.

And I begin to play with the idea of getting the kit - just to have it  in hold - to prevent that I need to buy it in E-bay for horrible prices if its not available in the stores.

A question concerning the rings, eye-bolds and chains for the ancors and the rigging of the bow sprit:

Is there any available table with the sizes (thickness of the steel, diameter of the eyes, etc.) of those parts?
Or which diameters do you use mostly (could you give me the dimension in mm??)?

Marcus,

When I was a young boy I was fascinated by steam locomotives. All those connecting rods etc. moving together in harmony. You could see the thing working. At that age the word ‘sexy’ was not part of my vocabulary and, probably, not even a concept I could understand. I could not think of a single Steam Locomotive that I would want to describe as ‘sexy’ because once streamlining  was applied it ruined the visual impact that gave me pleasure.

I think you are right in that time does shape our perception of things.

As far as getting hold of a kit, unless Revell get the idea that they have something ‘priceless’ in this kit, you do not have much option other than to acquire one off ebay.

I have just bought a copy of the George F Campbell plans and all the dimensions you ask about can be found there. Of course, they are in inches, however, a very simple spreadsheet will convert inches to scaled mm.

Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:01 PM

Question about Shrouds

The Cutty Sark has five shrouds on each side of all the masts. I can, just about, see on the Campbell plans that they are arranged in two pairs and one single. What is not clear is how the single shroud is rigged. None of the photographs I have seen are clear enough to show this either. The only guidance I have is from the book ‘Historic Ship Models’ by Wolfram zu Mondfeld ( a wonderful book that can be picked up online for just a few dollars!)

I am thinking that the foremost shroud is a single spliced eye arrangement installed first in the sequence.  Below is and image from the Campbell plans and one from Wolframs book.

It may seem like a ‘picky’ detail but I would like to know anyway.

Geoff

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:51 PM

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

An equally interesting question is whether the odd-numbered shroud (the one treated differently from the others) is the foremost or aftermost one in the gang.  My impression is that it was normally the foremost one, but I've seen references to its being the aftermost.

I have no idea which system was used in the Cutty Sark.  But Mr. Campbell's drawing appears to show the two last shrouds as a pair - i.e., a single line starting at a deadeye on one side, running around the masthead, and coming down again to the next deadeye on the same side.  If that's the case, the foremost shroud on each side obviously is the "odd man out."

The good news is that on a finished model it will be just about impossible to tell the difference.

Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport and asked him why only one out of every five ratlines on the Charles W. Morgan ran across the whole gang of shrouds.  (The others stopped short of the foremost shroud - like those of the Cutty Sark.)  His answer was that the foremost one wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener."  When the ship was working to windward the stiffener on the lee side would be slacked off, giving the lower yard a little more room to swing.  That does make sense, but I've never seen that explanation anywhere else.  And no other square-rigger sailor I've ever met has ever heard of it.

Be careful with the Mondfeld book.  He's a knowledgeable author and a good draftsman, but the scope of the book is so broad that it can't get down to the nitty-gritty of details that are relevant to an individual model.  (I also have big problems with some of his pictures, which quite obviously are copied from other books - and not acknowledged.)

 

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:38 PM

jtilley

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

Left to my own resources I would have applied the third example, however, thinking about it, I can't imagine the shipbuilders doing this. The most logical would be the first option, which is my choice at this point.

This opens yet another question that has been bugging me - did the shipbuilders 'pre-fabricate' the shrouds with their deadeyes, seizing etc.?

jtilley

An equally interesting question is whether the odd-numbered shroud (the one treated differently from the others) is the foremost or aftermost one in the gang.  My impression is that it was normally the foremost one, but I've seen references to its being the aftermost.

I have no idea which system was used in the Cutty Sark.  But Mr. Campbell's drawing appears to show the two last shrouds as a pair - i.e., a single line starting at a deadeye on one side, running around the masthead, and coming down again to the next deadeye on the same side.  If that's the case, the foremost shroud on each side obviously is the "odd man out."

The good news is that on a finished model it will be just about impossible to tell the difference.

It was not too clear on my copy of the plans but that was the impression I got.

As far as the finished model goes - I agree, however, with the wonders of modern digital cameras and closeup photographs I am sure there wold be one eagle eye on the forum who would pick it up :)

jtilley

Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport and asked him why only one out of every five ratlines on the Charles W. Morgan ran across the whole gang of shrouds.  (The others stopped short of the foremost shroud - like those of the Cutty Sark.)  His answer was that the foremost one wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener."  When the ship was working to windward the stiffener on the lee side would be slacked off, giving the lower yard a little more room to swing.  That does make sense, but I've never seen that explanation anywhere else.  And no other square-rigger sailor I've ever met has ever heard of it.

That sounds like far too much work to me. If that were the case I think they would have come up with an alternative arrangement. Anyway were the shrouds not carefully tensioned to all take an equal strain?

Geoff

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:40 PM

At some time in the past I dealt with this question of the order of setting up the shrouds; but I could not come up with a definitive answer. Underhill in Masting and Rigging gave the generic approaches, p81, which Dr. Tilley outlined. Longridge in The Cutty Sark seems to think that the port and starboard shrouds were spliced together, p68; but no mention of which end to start making pairs, fore or aft. I have the feeling that Mr. Longridge was taking an educated guess! So, I guess we can get away with doing the same.

On the Bench:

Revell 1/96 USS Constitution - rigging

Kinetic 1/48 YF-104A 5-2957

Trumpeter 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8

Revell 1/48 B-1B Lancer Prep & Reasearch

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:28 PM

GeoffWilkinson

 

 jtilley:

 

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

 

 

Left to my own resources I would have applied the third example, however, thinking about it, I can't imagine the shipbuilders doing this. The most logical would be the first option, which is my choice at this point.

This opens yet another question that has been bugging me - did the shipbuilders 'pre-fabricate' the shrouds with their deadeyes, seizing etc.?

 

 jtilley:

 

An equally interesting question is whether the odd-numbered shroud (the one treated differently from the others) is the foremost or aftermost one in the gang.  My impression is that it was normally the foremost one, but I've seen references to its being the aftermost.

I have no idea which system was used in the Cutty Sark.  But Mr. Campbell's drawing appears to show the two last shrouds as a pair - i.e., a single line starting at a deadeye on one side, running around the masthead, and coming down again to the next deadeye on the same side.  If that's the case, the foremost shroud on each side obviously is the "odd man out."

The good news is that on a finished model it will be just about impossible to tell the difference.

 

 

It was not too clear on my copy of the plans but that was the impression I got.

As far as the finished model goes - I agree, however, with the wonders of modern digital cameras and closeup photographs I am sure there wold be one eagle eye on the forum who would pick it up :)

 

 jtilley:

 

Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport and asked him why only one out of every five ratlines on the Charles W. Morgan ran across the whole gang of shrouds.  (The others stopped short of the foremost shroud - like those of the Cutty Sark.)  His answer was that the foremost one wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener."  When the ship was working to windward the stiffener on the lee side would be slacked off, giving the lower yard a little more room to swing.  That does make sense, but I've never seen that explanation anywhere else.  And no other square-rigger sailor I've ever met has ever heard of it.

 

 

That sounds like far too much work to me. If that were the case I think they would have come up with an alternative arrangement. Anyway were the shrouds not carefully tensioned to all take an equal strain?

Geoff

Was the Victory ever a prison hulk?

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:14 PM

Shipwreck

At some time in the past I dealt with this question of the order of setting up the shrouds; but I could not come up with a definitive answer. Underhill in Masting and Rigging gave the generic approaches, p81, which Dr. Tilley outlined. Longridge in The Cutty Sark seems to think that the port and starboard shrouds were spliced together, p68; but no mention of which end to start making pairs, fore or aft. I have the feeling that Mr. Longridge was taking an educated guess! So, I guess we can get away with doing the same.

It seems like we are all taking an educated guess, at least it's educated ;-)

One thing that really suprises me is that there are so few detailed photo's posted on the internet. She had so many visitors, someone must have taken some decent photo's

Anyone out there?

Geoff

  • Member since
    December 2009
Posted by britjeff on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:31 PM

cheers guys for the reply, going to be watching this thread, really enjoying it. the revell pirate ship is cool, suprised that there isn't a black pearlor something like that. but , really looking for something that looks like a reall pirate ship/ freebooter. think they were usually ordinary ships put to other use.

 

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:33 PM

bondoman

Was the Victory ever a prison hulk?

I think not. I belive there was talk of her being converted into a hospital ship around 1800 but, fortunately, it never happened.

She became flagship of the Comander of the Royal Navy and remains so today.

I have only visited her once in my life and I have only one word to discribe everything about her - Awesome!

If you ever get the chance - GO.

Geoff

  • Member since
    March 2013
Posted by Marcus.K. on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:16 PM

jtilley:

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

Isn´t there a fourth possiblity??

In E.W. Petrejus´s beautiful book "the model of brigg irene" he shows how shrouds could be used in case of five shrouds ... the first line could be combined with the burton pendants. The end, which usually would go down from the mast and be the ´corresponding partner of the first (single) shroud would not go down completly - and would have an eye which could be used as a crane.

Here is a sample in which a sketch is shown:

http://www.modellboard.net/index.php?topic=16996.75

Look at answer/post  #80 - there is a sketch - and look at the beautiful model of Jaerschen. Great thing!

Petrejus says, that this technique was possible in war ships - but as well in commercial ships - if the number of shrouds was 3, 5, 7, 9 ... He also mentions version two and three of Prof. Tilley´s proposals as possible variants.

Wether this special technique has been used at the Cutty Sark ... I have no idea.. What do you think?

 

Concerning the question in your first post: there is a sketch in Petrejus´s book - page 184, pic. 424 in my german version of the book. The sketch is copied from "Middendorf". It clearly shows that there are two or three steel eyes, but not - as it might be necessary for the injection moulding technique - in horizontal direction - but downwards, versus the deck. Their purpose is not described. But I think you can see their use in the photo you posted in your fourth post. There is something attached from below the spar - into eyes which are welded to the steel bands .. This must be it!

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:06 PM

Several interesting questions have come up in this thread recently.  For the sake of time and space, I'll take the liberty of responding (albeit not with any definitive answers) to several of them in one post.

I think we can rule out the possibility of the Cutty Sark's shrouds being combined with burton pendants.  The burton pendant had passed out of use - especially in the merchant service - long before this particular ship was built.

There's plenty of evidence to show that passing the foremost shroud all the way around the lower masthead, and down to the foremost deadeye on the other side, was pretty common practice.  But that doesn't mean that's how the Cutty Sark was rigged.  (In any case, the difference between that method and the various others we've been talking about would be just about indetectable on a finished model.)

The whole purpose of the deadeye-and-lanyard arrangement is to make the shrouds adjustable.  They had to be, in order to take out the inevitable slack that would develop in them.  So no - the deadeyes and lanyards couldn't be "prefabricated."  The lower deadeyes of the lower shrouds would be permanently fixed to the channels.  The upper deadeye of each pair would be seized in the bight of the shroud.  (The old textbooks, such as David Steel's Elements of Rigging and Seamanship, go into some detail about how to figure out - approximately - where to seize the deadeye.)  Then the shroud would be gotten over the masthead and the lanyard would be rove and hove taut.

It would be perfectly feasible to slack off that "stiffener" that my acquaintance the Mystic Seaport rigger talked about, simply by easing the deadeye lanyard.  As a matter of fact I think I've seen at least one contemporary sail plan in which the foremost "shroud" was set up with blocks rather than deadeyes.  But at least one other discussion in this Forum sent me looking for that drawing and I couldn't find it.  It may be a product of my senile imagination.

Another question that came up in the Forum some time ago:  would the deadeyes of a real ship actually be in a nice straight line, as the drawings invariably show them?  Or would they get out of line as the shrouds were adjusted?  The answer seems to be - yes, they were somehow kept in line with each other.  From the late eighteenth century onward they had some help, in the form of the "sheer pole" - a wood or iron pole that was lashed to the shrouds just above the upper deadeyes.  Just how the whole assembly was kept lined up neatly I'm honestly not sure, but the evidence from contemporary paintings and, later, photographs is pretty decisive.  I can't recall ever having bumped into a photo of a sailing ship (even one coming into port after a long voyage) whose deadeyes weren't lined up.

I once happened to stumble upon the schooner Bluenose II when her crew was "setting up" her lower rigging.  They hauled the deadeye lanyards taut, thereby tightening the shrouds.  Then, one shroud at a time, they took off the seizings above the deadeyes, slacked off the lanyard, pulled the shroud around the deadeye a bit, and rerigged the seizing so the deadeye sat six inches or so higher than its neighbors.  Then they rerigged the lanyard, hauled it taut so the deadeye came down to exactly the right height, tied off the lanyard, and moved on to the next shroud.  Maybe that's how it was typically done.

All that makes an impressive argument for the replacement of old-fashioned rope standing rigging with wire (which scarcely stretches at all after it's had a little time to settle into its job).  Those twenty-eight guys on board the Cutty Sark probably didn't spend much of their time setting up the shrouds.  Gawd knows they had enough other stuff to keep them busy.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Thursday, June 24, 2010 1:56 AM

Well, finally made a decision! Having studied all the evidence and listened to the advice on the Forum, tonight  I found the photo below.

All those molded rings on the yards and spars have to go and be replaced with tiny eyebolts in the correct place.

At least the opening question on this thread can be closed. Just got to keep working on all the others!

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Friday, June 25, 2010 6:44 PM

jtilley

All these details are shown in the Campbell plans.  I wouldn't recommend trying to work on this level of detail without them.

John,

I have been pouring over the Campbell plans for many hours the past couple of days. The first thing that struck me though was the scale, 3/32” to 1 inch. I dug out my old, antique, architectural scales from when I was at college in the UK. None matched this scale. I have been trying to concentrate on the drawings but I can’t get this question out of my head – ‘Why did they come up with that scale?’

OK, 1/32 on that scale equals 4 inches or 1/3 foot (who works in thirds?). 1 inch equals 10’8” and so on.

Now this takes some pretty deft mental arithmetic on the part of the ship builders.

A while ago I made a very simple spreadsheet to convert from imperial measurements in millimeters on the scale of 1/96 i.e. a 10” deadeye on the ship would need a 2.5mm for the model.

I was contemplating and extension to this so I could take measurements from the plans and convert those to mm at the 1/96 scale.

Then I noticed something odd. The rigging sheet and sail plans are to scale, however, in the infinite wisdom of marketing people (something I never did understand) they have taken the original drawing of the ‘General Layout’, digitized it and reduced by about 10% so the scale is now meaningless.

A little bit of thought later I came to the conclusion I just needed a scale to apply to measurements on the plans to measurements on the model.

The number I came up with – 1.375

Now I’m not sure why I did all this in the first place!

Little things are sent to try us.  

Geoff

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Roanoke, Virginia
Posted by BigJim on Friday, June 25, 2010 6:48 PM

Now this takes some pretty deft mental arithmetic on the part of the ship builders.

There are scale calculators available for online ( http://www.stanstrains.com/SoftwareHandyConverter.htm )

and work bench use (http://www.albion.edu/mathcs/MBollman/CI/modelcalc.htm ) . Very very handy.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, June 25, 2010 7:26 PM

I have to confess that this inconsistency in the scale of the Campbell prints is news to me.  I'm glad Geoff noticed it.  I've heard of such things happening elsewhere; it seems the good people who are assigned the job of actually running off the copies aren't model builders, and honestly don't realize what a heinous sin they're commiting when they change the scale of scale drawing - even slightly.

I used to have a copy of the set that I bought many years ago from Model Shipways (when it was a little tiny firm operating out of a little storefront in Bogota, New Jersey).  Those were old-fashioned blueprints - blue ink on white paper and a faint smell of ammonia.  I imagine all of them were to the same scale (though I don't know that I actually ever checked).  The blueprint process normally produces prints at full-size.  (I wonder if anybody bothers with genuine blueprints any more.)

I studied those old blueprints so much, and exposed them to light so often, that they eventually became illegible.  A couple of years ago I ordered a replacement set from the ship's gift shop.  They're printed in black ink on a stiffer, sort of cheap-looking white paper.  I'm not going to complain about the quality of the paper in view of the price, but if somebody's changed the scale of one sheet so it doesn't match the others....

Suggestion one:  take the offending sheet to a local printing firm that has a photocopy machine that can do enlargements and reductions, and have a print made to the right scale.  Some such places have self-service machines.  (One used to have to worry that proportional distortions would creep in, but I think the copier manufacturers have solved that problem.)  If the guy running the machine raises a stink about the copyright notice, white it out and take the sheet someplace else.  (I guarantee Mr. Campbell, who was a model enthusiast himself, wouldn't mind.  And he'd be furious at the person who changed the scale.)

Suggestion two:  buy a pocket-sized electronic calculator that works in feet, inches, and fractions.  You'll find it's one of the most useful tools on your workbench (and it will save you the trouble of having a web-connected computer in your workshop).  The one I use is a Radio Shack "Decimal/Fractional Yard-Foot-Inch Calculator" that I bought for about $35 more than twenty years ago; it still works perfectly.  But there are lots of others on the market.  You can pick up one at Lowe's, Sears, or Home Depot that will, in addition to all those functions, convert from English to metric, make stair riser calculations, solve rafter slope problems, work out materials estimates, and do all sorts of other things that are involved in the engineering and construction trades - for less money than I paid for my old Radio Shack one.  And some time back I found a bright yellow calculator at Wal-Mart that does all the basic dimensional calculations (down to 1/64"), and makes English-metric conversions.  Price:  $7.95. 

I have no idea why Mr. Campbell picked 1/128 (3/32"=1') for those drawings.  (It does happen to be a scale that I like - or used to like.  It's the one I used for my model of the frigate Hancock.  That was a long time ago, though; I'm not at all sure my 59-year-old fingers and eyeballs are up to that sort of thing now.)  If you can get access to a self-service copier, or if the guy running the non-self-service one isn't too uptight about copyright law, you can quite easily - and not-very-expensively - get the three sheets enlarged to 1/96.  And I'd recommend doing that.  There's just no substitute for having easy access to a set of plans on the same scale as the model. 

That's one of the big advantages we enjoy in living in this age of cheap, electronic copies.  The time was when just about every book on model building included a terrifying set of instructions on enlarging plans by drawing a grid over them and making the enlarged copy by hand on an appropriately scaled-up grid.  Good gawd....

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Saturday, June 26, 2010 12:03 AM

jtilley
I once happened to stumble upon the schooner Bluenose II when her crew was "setting up" her lower rigging.  They hauled the deadeye lanyards taut, thereby tightening the shrouds.  Then, one shroud at a time, they took off the seizings above the deadeyes, slacked off the lanyard, pulled the shroud around the deadeye a bit, and rerigged the seizing so the deadeye sat six inches or so higher than its neighbors.  Then they rerigged the lanyard, hauled it taut so the deadeye came down to exactly the right height, tied off the lanyard, and moved on to the next shroud.  Maybe that's how it was typically done.

That is the process they use on Galveston's Elissa.  New volunteers seem to comment on just how much is completely "taken to bits" in sailing practice.  But, that's often the only way to combat salt water and its ill effects on the artifices of Man.

Now, Elissa is a very late example from the sailing era, 1877.  But, the photos on the site

http://www.galvestonhistory.org/1877_Tall_Ship_Elissa.asp

Show just how many lines are in use on a working ship, and give a great sense of just how much "more" than "less" is, too.

 

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.