Vasa - 1:65 DeAgostini [COMPLETED BUILD]

I don't think we did it wrong...why?
first , there is not posible to turn main yard on such sharp angle that it will cross back stay on leeward side...
second, even if it will be the case, we allways could make good slack of this backstay and keep tight backstay on the windward side... when wind went from one of the side,but not straight from aft, only one of the backstays on the windward side works as a rule...
standing part of the backstay whip on my model secured to the ring bolt outside hull ,on the fenders, not on the shain plate - this is designed too short on the kit model and I had to find better location for standing part of the whip... running part of the whip secured on the small inner knight after passed trough sheeve in it, it could be fast pay out when necessary thus gives slack to the backstay when need it.
this knight placed opposite of the ring bolt where secured standing part of the whip.... this is my interpretation of simple form of backstay which consists of pendant and whip... both sides backstays have same arrangement on my model...
I try to reproduce this variant of english running backstay... don't ask me why it should be on spanish galleon :000!!! :)))20220505_220938.jpg
 
kirill4 said:
I don't think we did it wrong...why?
first , there is not posible to turn main yard on such sharp angle that it will cross back stay on leeward side...
second, even if it will be the case, we allways could make good slack of this backstay and keep tight backstay on the windward side... when wind went from one of the side,but not straight from aft, only one of the backstays on the windward side works as a rule...
standing part of the backstay whip on my model secured to the ring bolt outside hull ,on the fenders, not on the shain plate - this is designed too short on the kit model and I had to find better location for standing part of the whip... running part of the whip secured on the small inner knight after passed trough sheeve in it, it could be fast pay out when necessary thus gives slack to the backstay when need it.
this knight placed opposite of the ring bolt where secured standing part of the whip.... this is my interpretation of simple form of backstay which consists of pendant and whip... both sides backstays have same arrangement on my model...
Click to expand...
I just follow a Dutch seamanship that gives an explanation how this was done on page 93
books.google.nl

Praktikale Zeevaartkunde en theoretische Kennis

books.google.nl
The picture I show is from that book.

edit: it is in old Dutch written and not easy to read. but it gives a well description how the rope was belayed.
 
kirill4 said:
I don't think we did it wrong...why?
first , there is not posible to turn main yard on such sharp angle that it will cross back stay on leeward side...
second, even if it will be the case, we allways could make good slack of this backstay and keep tight backstay on the windward side... when wind went from one of the side,but not straight from aft, only one of the backstays on the windward side works as a rule...
standing part of the backstay whip on my model secured to the ring bolt outside hull ,on the fenders, not on the shain plate - this is designed too short on the kit model and I had to find better location for standing part of the whip... running part of the whip secured on the small inner knight after passed trough sheeve in it, it could be fast pay out when necessary thus gives slack to the backstay when need it.
this knight placed opposite of the ring bolt where secured standing part of the whip.... this is my interpretation of simple form of backstay which consists of pendant and whip... both sides backstays have same arrangement on my model...
Click to expand...
Understood. But there is not a knight in that location on the Vasa. I could run the inboard line to a cleat... Plus, the Wasa was Dutch built - not English and the page from Anderson is describing an English configuration (???). What am I missing?
 
Last edited:
Paul,
there is one moment regarding first shroud protection... most probably it need to be protected all along its lenght... when main yard sharp braced , parrels maximum slacked and yard moves on aside and lays on the first shrouds, for that they need to be protected - worming,parcelled,etc... I don't know how it was done on the real galleon but I decided to imitate such protection on my model...03 spritsail lead block.jpg9fa9a6d9-b219-4e38-a505-2a8cfabdf5fa.jpg
 
Last edited:
Paul another question. Do you plan sails on you ship? because this backstay will only be attached when on sea with full sail. In the harbour or with all sails reef the shifting backstay will not be seen.
 
dockattner said:
Understood. But there is not a knight in that location on the Vasa. I could run the inboard line to a cleat... Plus, the Wasa was Dutch built - not English and the page from Anderson is describing an English configuration (???). What am I missing?
Click to expand...
knights was my pure improvisation... imagine this whip is quite solid ropes compare to human figure... I thought there must be something more solid than kevel or ring bolt... I decided to fitt small knights
 
kirill4 said:
Paul,
there is one moment regarding first shroud protection... most probably it need to be protected all along its lenght... when main yard sharp braced , parrels maximum slacked and yard moves on aside and lays on the first shrouds, for that they need to be protected - worming,parcelled,etc... I don't know how it was done on the real galleon but I decided to imitate such protection on my model...View attachment 307034View attachment 307036
Click to expand...
Agreed. I regret omitting that detail but it really can't be corrected at this point!
 
kirill4 said:
I don't think we did it wrong...why?
first , there is not posible to turn main yard on such sharp angle that it will cross back stay on leeward side...
second, even if it will be the case, we allways could make good slack of this backstay and keep tight backstay on the windward side... when wind went from one of the side,but not straight from aft, only one of the backstays on the windward side works as a rule...
standing part of the backstay whip on my model secured to the ring bolt outside hull ,on the fenders, not on the shain plate - this is designed too short on the kit model and I had to find better location for standing part of the whip... running part of the whip secured on the small inner knight after passed trough sheeve in it, it could be fast pay out when necessary thus gives slack to the backstay when need it.
this knight placed opposite of the ring bolt where secured standing part of the whip.... this is my interpretation of simple form of backstay which consists of pendant and whip... both sides backstays have same arrangement on my model...
I try to reproduce this variant of english running backstay... don't ask me why it should be on spanish galleon :000!!! :)))View attachment 307033
Click to expand...
OK. So, how about an eyebolt on the chainwale and an eyebolt on the deck. If I do that then how are the ends of the fall rigged? I assume lashed to a block with a hook on it??? I think I'm getting more and more confused as this has gone on.
 
dockattner said:
OK. So, how about an eyebolt on the chainwale and an eyebolt on the deck. If I do that then how are the ends of the fall rigged? I assume lashed to a block with a hook on it??? I think I'm getting more and more confused as this has gone on.
Click to expand...
That's perfect, so it's described in the rigging books. One end a hook on the rope and the other rope a knot to the eye bolt
 
Good day Paul,
If it would be me, I will just follow FH explanation, he mentioned what kind of backstays(with tackles in a holland style), how many them need to be fitted, where to fitt them... but i think i already advised to follow his recommendations :)))
From your previous post I could see that You already planned what to do with this backstays , and I think You planned it right!
Running end of the tackle fall could be secured on itself on the lower or upper blocks ,in the same way as You did on your mast tackles , and remains of coiled fall could be suspended nearby with help of thin line...

Vasa - 1:65 DeAgostini [COMPLETED BUILD]

That last post topic tired me out. ....think I'll take a nap. What do you think you are on - the 12-4 watch? ROTF
shipsofscale.com
Dear Paul,

We currently think that the fore and main topmasts had backstays, as did the mizzen, that led to the chainwales, but were probably set up on tackles rather than deadeyes. The angle of some of the chins, which can be measured accurately from the surviving chainwales and bolt holes, indicates that there was at least one backstay on each mast leading higher than the head of the lower mast, and the angle is good for the topmast head. The fore and mainmasts may have had two backstays each, the mizzen only one. As far as we can see, there is no evidence for topgallant backstays, although it is not impossible.

The backstays are not set up on the aftermost chain as in later ships. On the mizzen, the backstay looks to be between the third and fourth shrouds, while on the mainmast and foremast there appears t be a backstay between the last and next to last shroud, and possibly one farther forward.

Fred Hocker
Forskningsledare Vasamuseet, fil. dr / Director of Research, Vasa Museum, Ph.D.

I think general arrangements of the fall of this tackle will be the same as You did for mast tackles falls... and in general, this backstays will looks same as mast tackles as well the difference where to secure their pendants and tackles , there will be difference... and there need to be separate futtok chain for the ring bolt , same as shrouds lower deadeyes have them..

20220506_071053.jpg
 
Last edited:
Summary:

Steef: Paul, you're a complete ninny. Those aren't backstays, they're halyards.
Kirill: Yup. They're halyards. What a ninny.
Paul: Well, then how do I do backstays.
Steef: Do them this way...
Kirill: No, do them this way...
Paul: That's the same way.
Kirill: Right, do them like Steef says.
Steef: Hold on, Kirill is right, do them like he says.
Paul: How about I do them like Fred Hocker says?
Steef and Kirill: That's what we said.
Paul: I don't think so...
Steef and Kirill: What a ninny.

I believe that pretty much covers it.
 
Last edited:
:)))
Heinrich,
Please please don't start it again! :))) it was so much water about one line only ,but there are planty more could be discussed... and we already saw version without backstays , why can't see variation with them fitted? :)))
Paul,
I was laughing a lot reading that your "summary..." briliant !!! :)))
But what is your final desigion? to fitt them or omit them :)))
 
Hubac’s Historian said:
How can it not - as a rigging novice, I think this is all an uphill climb.
Click to expand...
Hi Marc,
I thought most of discussion took place because of our amateur opinion that location of belaying points of running rigging is important... but looks like - not so, they just need to be logical.
and we paying too much attention to forum members opinions , but I think first priority need to be given (with great attention to details they are talking about)to professional opinions, in our case - R.C.Anderson and Fred H.
If we accept this, "half" or even more of discussions could be ommited...at least regarding discussion of backstays on the Vasa model... :)))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top