Variations/errors in Endeavour running rigging

[johnlattanzio]

Hi All
I am working on a very simple (1:120 pl;astic) model fo the Endeavour, as my intro to doing ship models properly. I got a simple set of rigging blocks - for clew, lift, sheet and braces only. Because I have no idea what I am doing, I tried to understand and then compare to detailed models to see if I had it right. In doing this I found one (minor) difference between what I found and what I saw on models. I dunno if people are interested but Ithought I would post it here anyway.

I was trying to figure out the Fore mast Top Gallant braces (I am learning the lingo!) and the diagram in Marquardt's "Anatomy of the Ship" . See attached figures.

I checked this with Peterrson's book, and it agreed (althoug this book is not specifically The Endeavour).

But when I looked at models on Endeavour online the braces were slightly different...going straight to the deck after passing through the block on the forestay. Again, a picture is attached.

I guess ships canbe rigged in slightly different ways at different times? Anyway, I checked with the Master ofr the Endeavor replica in Sydney and he confirmed the rigging as being what is in the Marquardt and Peterrson books.

I think I saw the same thing in the Main Top Gallant too. BUt I need to check,. I think I saw it somewhere else, in any event.

So...just for those who are pedantic or can explain why it might be rigged differently at different time?

Thanks!
John L

 

[Corsair]

Different Captians want it done differently.

 

[johnlattanzio]

I checked with the Master of the Endeavour replica in Sydney...he pointed out that the variation (in the photo, as opposed to the disagrams) would foul the sail when full of wind. I guess that is a good reason for following the Marquardt plan!

 

[AllanKP69]

Hi John,
Keep in mind that as is explained in the forward, the Petersson book is based on ONE contemporary model of a 38 gun ship. The drawings are very well done, but should not be trusted for anything other than a fifth rate warship circa 1785 without checking additional sources based on contemporary information. Your resourcefulness in contacting the replica captain was a great idea!
Allan

 

[Norgale]

I read somewhere years ago, before I started building any sailing ships, that you have to always remember that every sail has to be able to move up and down and back and forth and every spar has to move back and forth and occasionally up and down. The masts do NOT move at all. That info helped me a lot when I finally got up the courage to build the Revell Cutty Sark in plastic back in 1972. Those plans were the clearest plans of how to rig sails and lines that I have ever found and I still have and use them today. Once you get the right rigging in your mind you'll have a much easier time with rigging although it gets monotonous after awhile. I should also add that every line to Port has an opposite line to Starboard. but there are a few lines not rigged that way. This is especially true of standing rigging. Norgale.

 

[AllanKP69]

The masts do NOT move at all.

This is partially true. Foremasts and mizzen masts were fixed in place on English Ships of War, but not the main mast. The shift to bolting and other methods for securing the main mast started with the transition to iron masts and steam-powered warships. At least in the 18th and first half of the 19th century, the main mast on English ships of war was wedged in place so it could be adjusted fore and aft on the keel to change the rake. The mast was square on the end to fit the mortice in the step so could not twist, but fore and aft adjustments were made via the wedges. I have no idea if this was done on merchant ships or on any ships of other nations.

Allan

Wording in typical English ships of war contract.

The main Step to be sided 1 ft 11 ins and 15 ins deep on the Keelson and of a length to slide easy by the Stantions of the Well.

 

[johnlattanzio]

Hi John,
Keep in mind that as is explained in the forward, the Petersson book is based on ONE contemporary model of a 38 gun ship. The drawings are very well done, but should not be trusted for anything other than a fifth rate warship circa 1785 without checking additional sources based on contemporary information. Your resourcefulness in contacting the replica captain was a great idea!
Allan

Agreed. My main ref is the Marquardt book, which is specific to the Endeavour. The Petterson book has breat diagrams but yeah, it is more generic (or specialised to different ship, as you say). Nice diagrams though...I used it to clarify stuff that was nmot so clear in Marquardt's book.

 

[AllanKP69]

I have always relied on David Steel and James Lees for English ships rigging and Chappelle for schooners from the later 19th century but Marquardt seems to get a lot of praise. Just ordered a used copy to see how it compares with Lees and Steel. Thanks for mentioning Marquardt, it triggered the buy
Allan

 

[RussF]

I checked with the Master of the Endeavour replica in Sydney...he pointed out that the variation (in the photo, as opposed to the disagrams) would foul the sail when full of wind. I guess that is a good reason for following the Marquardt plan!

That's an interesting comment from the Master. Of course, I don't dispute his word on how the ship was rigged, but the photo shows so many other lines (and sails) that would foul the sails on the mainmast when full of wind that the brace seems almost inconsequential. Unless, of course, they are all rigged incorrectly.

 

[Short John Bronze]

This is partially true. Foremasts and mizzen masts were fixed in place on English Ships of War, but not the main mast. The shift to bolting and other methods for securing the main mast started with the transition to iron masts and steam-powered warships. At least in the 18th and first half of the 19th century, the main mast on English ships of war was wedged in place so it could be adjusted fore and aft on the keel to change the rake. The mast was square on the end to fit the mortice in the step so could not twist, but fore and aft adjustments were made via the wedges. I have no idea if this was done on merchant ships or on any ships of other nations.

Allan

Wording in typical English ships of war contract.

The main Step to be sided 1 ft 11 ins and 15 ins deep on the Keelson and of a length to slide easy by the Stantions of the Well.
View attachment 554138

Interesting. There was clearly a reason for such a mechanism and presumably the movement of the mast foot would be amplified at the mast head. But what effect would altering the rake make? The wind pressure on the sails is ultimately transmitted to a driving force on the hull via ropes: shrouds, braces stays and sheets.

 

[RussF]

Interesting. There was clearly a reason for such a mechanism and presumably the movement of the mast foot would be amplified at the mast head. But what effect would altering the rake make? The wind pressure on the sails is ultimately transmitted to a driving force on the hull via ropes: shrouds, braces stays and sheets.

From G00gle:

Mast rake affects a sailboat's balance by shifting the sail's center of effort (CE) forward or backward, which in turn alters the helm balance. Raking the mast aft (tilting it backward) moves the CE aft, creating a tendency for the boat to turn into the wind (weather helm), which helps the boat sail upwind but can make steering heavy. Raking the mast forward moves the CE forward, causing the boat to turn downwind (lee helm) and making the rudder feel light, which is good for downwind sailing but can be dangerous if it causes the boat to power up uncontrollably.

Effects of mast rake
Helm balance:
Weather helm: Caused by raking the mast aft. The CE is behind the center of lateral resistance (CLP), forcing the bow up into the wind. The helm feels heavy, and the boat will steer into the wind if the helm is released.
Lee helm: Caused by raking the mast forward. The CE is ahead of the CLP, causing the bow to turn downwind. The helm feels light, and the boat will bear away if the helm is released.
Sail power and performance:
Aft rake: Can help the boat go upwind, especially when combined with adjustments to other rig components. It can also push more load on the stern, helping to keep the bow up.
Forward rake: Can help the boat turn downwind more easily.
Efficiency: Adjusting rake can smooth airflow around the sails and reduce turbulence, improving performance.
Structural and rigging effects:
Increased tension: A raked mast can affect the tension on the forestay and other stays, which can be used to further tune the rig for different wind conditions.
Maneuverability: A raked mast can make it harder to get away from the wind if the boat stalls.
Boom height: The height of the boom can change depending on the rake, which can affect sheeting angles and how the sail interacts with other parts of the boat.

 

[AllanKP69]

There was clearly a reason for such a mechanism and presumably the movement of the mast foot would be amplified at the mast head. But what effect would altering the rake make?

Russ, I found a very similar description as well. Thank you for posting this.
Learned something new today, so a good day.

Allan