Vasa - 1:65 DeAgostini [COMPLETED BUILD]

Hi Paul, for backstays, I am seriously considering using the method shown by @Ab Hoving on his drawing of the Pinas. If you run the backstays from the chain plates you need to add the iron brace and strop which in my case is not a viable way but attached to the hull it works quite well. Was wondering what you and others might think.
 

Attachments

Heinrich said:
Does this help?

View attachment 307940

View attachment 307941

Batavia - 1628!
Click to expand...
Yes, this is even better. Its right in the same time period as the Vasa! The Batavia backstays look like a permanent installation as opposed to a removable one attached with a pully tackle system. I'm on the fence with this only because of my hesitation to use my existing chain plates.
 
Daniel20 said:
Hi Paul, for backstays, I am seriously considering using the method shown by @Ab Hoving on his drawing of the Pinas. If you run the backstays from the chain plates you need to add the iron brace and strop which in my case is not a viable way but attached to the hull it works quite well. Was wondering what you and others might think.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is precisely the question I posed to Fred Hocker without response (again...understandably).

His original email to me suggests that these backstays (one or two for the fore and main, one for the mizzen) ran to the channels (here I am referring to the horizontal wooden board - the chain wale) but were rigged with working tackles rather than deadeyes. The only way I can envision that is to add chainplates (here I am referring to the iron bit that attaches to the hull - my terminology might be flawed) and that doesn't make sense to me. We know how many chainplates are on the ship and I have used them all for shrouds. Were there fewer shrouds and one or two of the chainplates was used for backstays. I am unconvinced and deem that unlikely. That means the backstay must attach to a ringbolt (or other) on the hull right? Anyway, pending an answer from Mr. Hocker I think we are left with no other option. There is certainly a precedent for that arrangement on countless models.
 
Hi Paul, thank you so much for your reply. This backstay discussion is slowly starting to come into focus. I am at fault for not being clear on terminology, yes, the horizontal wood board is the chain wale, and the plate is the irons below. You have just solved my dilemma, since I do have room on the aft end of my fore and main chain wales, I will run backstays from the topgallant and topsail tops, fore and main mast, 1ea. port and starboard. It will take some creative redo to anchor the tackles. I have no extra room at the mizzen chain wales so an eye bolt into the hull will have to do there. Hopefully Mr. Hocker doesn't come back with 'stop the presses we have a new discovery'. Thanks again Paul and thanks again to Hienrich @Heinrich, for all your valuable help. I will give myself a little more time on this while doing ratlines.

IMG_1912.jpg
 
For the record, I'm thinking about not including backstays on the topgallant masts (though I have to see what it looks like without them). FH says they might have been used but can't be sure. You know, this would have been much easier to have just omitted them - that would be a very defendable choice given their historical uncertainty.
 
dockattner said:
For the record, I'm thinking about not including backstays on the topgallant masts (though I have to see what it looks like without them). FH says they might have been used but can't be sure. You know, this would have been much easier to have just omitted them - that would be a very defendable choice given their historical uncertainty.
Click to expand...
I too have considered the omission route but those long running backstay ropes look pretty cool (at least on my HMS Fly. I even have backstay ropes on the top of the flagpole coming all the way down to the chain wale).
 
There is a huge difference and change in rigging on ships between 1550 till 1650. You can't compare a ship of 1630 of the continental with a ship of 1650 from the continental. Or a Dutch ship or English ship of the same time. There was a lot of change every decade in these 100 years. Topgallant was mount, from 2 to 4 mast and back to 3 mast. The number of shrouds increase and decrease in that time by use of backstays. There is a lot of thinking about. Backstays where in their infancy in 1630. Most ships don't had them. So when you choose to attached them use the most simpel form, because the Vasa was most Likely on of the first ships that had backstays. So let it start behind a shroud on the channel (chainplate) on a eye bolt. And let it end on a simple tackel next to it or on a eye on the deck behind the channel. And use the form like this to keep the single block on the pendent high next to the top.
20220504_234210.jpg
 
Steef66 said:
There is a huge difference and change in rigging on ships between 1550 till 1650. You can't compare a ship of 1630 of the continental with a ship of 1650 from the continental. Or a Dutch ship or English ship of the same time. There was a lot of change every decade in these 100 years. Topgallant was mount, from 2 to 4 mast and back to 3 mast. The number of shrouds increase and decrease in that time by use of backstays. There is a lot of thinking about. Backstays where in their infancy in 1630. Most ships don't had them. So when you choose to attached them use the most simpel form, because the Vasa was most Likely on of the first ships that had backstays. So let it start behind a shroud on the channel (chainplate) on a eye bolt. And let it end on a simple tackel next to it or on a eye on the deck behind the channel. And use the form like this to keep the single block on the pendent high next to the top.
View attachment 307946
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct Stephen, I was only referring to the appearance of long running rope work and not the specifics of its rigging.
 
Daniel20 said:
appearance of long running rope
Click to expand...
I love this to. The block high in the sky. Lovely to see.
You know why it's done?
When they brace the sail, the yard will touch the backstay. On this whay they place the part with the tackle too the middle of the ship and the problem is solved. Just on one side of the mast this was done at one time.
 
Stephan,
please tell me, how it possible "...When they brace the sail, the yard will touch the backstay...." I can't imagine such situation at all... when they brace the sail , yard will lay on the first couple of shrouds ... consider the first one could be slacked to gives more sharp angle... but how it will touch backstay???

Screenshot_20220511-204824_Gallery.jpg

Screenshot_20220511-204800_Gallery.jpg
 
Last edited:
Steef66 said:
I love this to. The block high in the sky. Lovely to see.
You know why it's done?
When they brace the sail, the yard will touch the backstay. On this whay they place the part with the tackle too the middle of the ship and the problem is solved. Just on one side of the mast this was done at one time.
Click to expand...
Very interesting, all the more reason to have these lines movable with tackle (I think).
 
kirill4 said:
Stephan,
please tell me, how it possible "...When they brace the sail, the yard will touch the backstay...." I can't imagine such situation at all... when they brace the sail , yard will lay on the first couple of shrouds ... consider the first one could be slacked to gives more sharp angle... but how it will toch backstay???
Click to expand...
Yes I can agree with you as well, so much for my sailing knowledge not to mention my inability to reason this out! Maybe because at the height of the yard the shrouds are so close to the mast that its possible for the yard to hit the backstay???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top