• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

Lees rope size

Don Case

Don Case

Joined
Jul 10, 2021
Messages
1,718
Points
438

Location
Vancouver Island
Seems everywhere I turn today I run into a dead end. I'm trying to figure out what size deadeyes to use on the main topmast shrouds. Lees explains it quite nicely saying " the deadeye should be 1.6 times the size of the rope". What does he mean with "size of the rope"? I've read that rope is supposed to be measured by the circumference but a lot of authors use diameter. Does anyone know what Lees does? He probably mentions it somewhere but I haven't found it.
 
I found the following post on the MSW site:

According to Lees (The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War), the diameter of the deadeyes were 1.5 times the circumference of the stay or shroud and their thickness slightly more than half the diameter.

Deadeye Diameter and Thickness based on Shroud Size?

I have a set of plans and pages of tables for all the rigging used on a ship I want to model. Problem is that there is no mention anywhere of the dimensions (diameter and thickness) of the deadeyes. I could measure the deck level deadeyes on the hull plans, but that's not reliable and doesn't hel...
modelshipworld.com modelshipworld.com
 
Thanks Jack. It's funny. I have a copy of that book and it says "1.6 times the size of the rope". The guy on MSW must have a different reprint than me. Anyway that works. If you work everything through on Mondfeld or Lees you get more or less the same answer which is good but you have to work it right through with one or the other.
 
Don Case said:
Thanks Jack. It's funny. I have a copy of that book and it says "1.6 times the size of the rope". The guy on MSW must have a different reprint than me. Anyway that works. If you work everything through on Mondfeld or Lees you get more or less the same answer which is good but you have to work it right through with one or the other.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it was a typo. Not sure.
 
The 1.6 and 1.5 are not a big deal and could be a typo. The "rope size" and "circumference" is important. Circumference nails it right down but rope size is kind of vague. I knew that circumference was correct but other authors use diameter. Confusing. I had worked it out before you posted but it took me almost an hour of figuring things out both ways. Thanks for the reply
 
Don Case said:
The 1.6 and 1.5 are not a big deal and could be a typo. The "rope size" and "circumference" is important. Circumference nails it right down but rope size is kind of vague. I knew that circumference was correct but other authors use diameter. Confusing. I had worked it out before you posted but it took me almost an hour of figuring things out both ways. Thanks for the reply
Click to expand...
No problems. I had to think twice about it too. I was going to send you a spreadsheet for calculating block sizes, but it is for normal blocks and not deadeyes. To be honest with you, I just use whatever comes with the kit.
 
I don't have a kit, or much in the way of plans for the Discovery1789. I'm just starting the rigging and it's looking like every rope is going to require at least a day or two of research.
 
Don Case said:
I don't have a kit, or much in the way of plans for the Discovery1789. I'm just starting the rigging and it's looking like every rope is going to require at least a day or two of research.
Click to expand...
that's impressive. Good luck with your research
 
Reading your start and the answers of Jack I got a deja-vu. By making a list for the correct sizes of the shrouds and lines for my Bluenose. When comparing the data of 2 authors I got big differences. Until a third one was clear about the different measurements.
After that there were almost no major differences.
Regards, Peter
 
Peter Voogt said:
Reading your start and the answers of Jack I got a deja-vu. By making a list for the correct sizes of the shrouds and lines for my Bluenose. When comparing the data of 2 authors I got big differences. Until a third one was clear about the different measurements.
After that there were almost no major differences.
Regards, Peter
Click to expand...
It's very confusing because the arithmetic is completely different when you start with the circumference rather that the diameter. Once you sort it all the differences are minor.
 
Don Case said:
The 1.6 and 1.5 are not a big deal and could be a typo. The "rope size" and "circumference" is important. Circumference nails it right down but rope size is kind of vague. I knew that circumference was correct but other authors use diameter. Confusing. I had worked it out before you posted but it took me almost an hour of figuring things out both ways. Thanks for the,
Click to expand...

Don Case said:
The 1.6 and 1.5 are not a big deal and could be a typo. The "rope size" and "circumference" is important. Circumference nails it right down but rope size is kind of vague. I knew that circumference was correct but other authors use diameter. Confusing. I had worked it out before you posted but it took me almost an hour of figuring things out both ways. Thanks for the reply
Click to expand...
0.1 mm = 0.008", which is quite a lot when working to small scale, methinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top