YUANQING BLUENOSE - Peter Voogt [COMPLETED BUILD]

[Jimsky]

Got to work with the shrouds of the lower mast. To see if my intended rope is in proportion.
A piece wrapped around the top and hanging down clamped:
View attachment 329701

In detail to the mast top:
View attachment 329702
Signed off at the bottom white mast band. Until then, I'm going to cover the rope for this test.

A few months ago I had bought this 'Serving Machine' (RopeWalk) on Ali. Assembled and tensioned the rope:
View attachment 329703
I will be doing a review soon with my findings.

In detail the covered rope:
View attachment 329704

This is what it looks like on the mast stop:
View attachment 329705

As far as I'm concerned, successful. For further editing I really need the deadeyes. Because I will also cover the ropes on the underside around the deadeyes. At the schooners themselves they were there wrapped with canvas. I want to imitate that.
I have to tip some point on the mast head with the white ink ..... , but only when everything if finished there.
Regards, Peter

I love those small details. While small, they still add charm and completeness to the entire appearance. Job well done!

 

[Heinrich]

Beautiful work Peter. Like i said to Stephen now on his build of the LT100 Trawler, I have no idea how you guys conceive going about making these kinds of details that you employ so successfully in your builds. Petje af!

 

[Peter Voogt]

I love those small details. While small, they still add charm and completeness to the entire appearance. Job well done!

Beautiful work Peter. Like i said to Stephen now on his build of the LT100 Trawler, I have no idea how you guys conceive going about making these kinds of details that you employ so successfully in your builds. Petje af!

Jim & Heinrich. Thanks very much for this kind words. It is always a trade-off whether or not to do something. As soon as I arrive at a new item, I remember reading something about it. Then I dive back into the books and drawings, read of see other things etc etc. So far it's still fun and not a 'holy thing' to improve everything.
Regards, Peter

 

[Peter Voogt]

On the Bluenose Main Support entry I had posted this:
With my BN I am at the point for looking to the shrouds on the lower masts. And collecting information about those shrouds on the schooners.
As mentioned by other items, the different drawings shows different options.

Reading Howard Chapelle's 'The American Fishing Schooners' I found on page 614 this interesting lines. The underlining and bold's are mine:
"The lower shrouds were usually three a side on fishing schooners over 70' reg. length. The forward shroud on each mast, the "swifter", was made with a cut-eye-splice. This eye went over the masthead first, with a leg on each side, the lower ends of which were turned over the upper deadeyes of the foremast shroud on each side.
If four lower shrouds were required, the shifters were put on first and last. The shrouds abaft the swifter (fore) were the starboard pair which were cut in one piece, seized to form a loop at the masthead, with the resulting two legs become the second and third shroud on then starboard side. The port second and third shrouds were made the same way and this pair was placed over the masthead last, for the three chain plates.

I don't know yet if I'm going to apply the shrouds in this order, apart from whether it will eventually show. But that in itself is not an issue, because there are more details on my BN that are (almost) not visible. But it's just an interesting detail. Because all the drawing I now know, shows 2x2 pair of shrouds on each side.
I've been looking for information about those 'swifter' with the 'cut-eye-splice' but haven't gotten very far, in relation with the schooners.
Hence the question if someone can provide clarity. An illustration would be nice.

Not much later I came across this image in a book by Orazio Curti:

The top image could be the swifter.

And if you don't know whether it will be on the model, then a test remains.
Made 2 swifters:

I could only close the right side once it has been installed, because the topmast is already on the lowermast.

The 4 shrouds were hung on starboard on the mast in this way, along the hull. Putting the chainplates a bit in the bulwark so that the wires hang behind them in approximately the position as they are applied:

Those on the port side distort the picture a bit, but it's all about the masthead.

Tried the 2 variations:

Left image:
Far right (front) and far left (rear) a swifter. In the middle the double shrouds running around the mast, in 1 piece. The left swifter must be tilt up a little with more tention on the port side.
Right image:
2 pieces of double shrouds running around the mast. Don't mind the sagging button on the right ones. It is a test and must also be able to release.

Left is in accordance with Chapelle's description and gives 'body' to the masttop. Right as it is drawn on the drawings by Jenson, Eisnor and MS/Lankford and gives a more open image. There must be added the 2 double rigging shrouds from de port side on the mast in between. And it also becomes a slightly fuller picture.

It will of course be placed much neater when it is finally placed.
I can now reason in 2 ways, but I don't know what it will be yet. It's fun to make the left option. You may let me know what your opinion is.
Regards, Peter

 

[RDN1954]

On the Bluenose Main Support entry I had posted this:
With my BN I am at the point for looking to the shrouds on the lower masts. And collecting information about those shrouds on the schooners.
As mentioned by other items, the different drawings shows different options.

Reading Howard Chapelle's 'The American Fishing Schooners' I found on page 614 this interesting lines. The underlining and bold's are mine:
"The lower shrouds were usually three a side on fishing schooners over 70' reg. length. The forward shroud on each mast, the "swifter", was made with a cut-eye-splice. This eye went over the masthead first, with a leg on each side, the lower ends of which were turned over the upper deadeyes of the foremast shroud on each side.
If four lower shrouds were required, the shifters were put on first and last. The shrouds abaft the swifter (fore) were the starboard pair which were cut in one piece, seized to form a loop at the masthead, with the resulting two legs become the second and third shroud on then starboard side. The port second and third shrouds were made the same way and this pair was placed over the masthead last, for the three chain plates.

I don't know yet if I'm going to apply the shrouds in this order, apart from whether it will eventually show. But that in itself is not an issue, because there are more details on my BN that are (almost) not visible. But it's just an interesting detail. Because all the drawing I now know, shows 2x2 pair of shrouds on each side.
I've been looking for information about those 'swifter' with the 'cut-eye-splice' but haven't gotten very far, in relation with the schooners.
Hence the question if someone can provide clarity. An illustration would be nice.

Not much later I came across this image in a book by Orazio Curti:
View attachment 330212
The top image could be the swifter.

And if you don't know whether it will be on the model, then a test remains.
Made 2 swifters:
View attachment 330213
I could only close the right side once it has been installed, because the topmast is already on the lowermast.

The 4 shrouds were hung on starboard on the mast in this way, along the hull. Putting the chainplates a bit in the bulwark so that the wires hang behind them in approximately the position as they are applied:
View attachment 330211
Those on the port side distort the picture a bit, but it's all about the masthead.

Tried the 2 variations:
View attachment 330210
Left image:
Far right (front) and far left (rear) a swifter. In the middle the double shrouds running around the mast, in 1 piece. The left swifter must be tilt up a little with more tention on the port side.
Right image:
2 pieces of double shrouds running around the mast. Don't mind the sagging button on the right ones. It is a test and must also be able to release.

Left is in accordance with Chapelle's description and gives 'body' to the masttop. Rechts as it is drawn on the drawings by Jenson, Eisnor and MS/Lankford and gives a more open image. There must be added the 2 double rigging shrouds from de port side on the mast in between. And it also becomes a slightly fuller picture.

It will of course be placed much neater when it is finally placed.
I can now reason in 2 ways, but I don't know what it will be yet. It's fun to make the left option. You may let me know what your opinion is.
Regards, Peter

I think the swifter is, in real life, the less robust of the two options. If the bindings fail in the swifter option, the function of the shrouds is lost, whereas in the other option the shrouds till support the masts.

 

[Peter Voogt]

I think the swifter is, in real life, the less robust of the two options. If the bindings fail in the swifter option, the function of the shrouds is lost, whereas in the other option the shrouds till support the masts.

That could be a good reason, were it not for the fact that the swifters principle became widely used and is still used.
The advantage is that with the front swifter the lower mast is brought into position with 1 shroud on both sides. Then you don't have to compensate for the tension between the doubles and you have to clamp 4 at the same time on the left and right.
Again, you can reason in two directions here. Not to prove my point, just for discussion.
Regards, Peter

 

[Alf in Iowa]

On the Bluenose Main Support entry I had posted this:
With my BN I am at the point for looking to the shrouds on the lower masts. And collecting information about those shrouds on the schooners.
As mentioned by other items, the different drawings shows different options.

Reading Howard Chapelle's 'The American Fishing Schooners' I found on page 614 this interesting lines. The underlining and bold's are mine:
"The lower shrouds were usually three a side on fishing schooners over 70' reg. length. The forward shroud on each mast, the "swifter", was made with a cut-eye-splice. This eye went over the masthead first, with a leg on each side, the lower ends of which were turned over the upper deadeyes of the foremast shroud on each side.
If four lower shrouds were required, the shifters were put on first and last. The shrouds abaft the swifter (fore) were the starboard pair which were cut in one piece, seized to form a loop at the masthead, with the resulting two legs become the second and third shroud on then starboard side. The port second and third shrouds were made the same way and this pair was placed over the masthead last, for the three chain plates.

I don't know yet if I'm going to apply the shrouds in this order, apart from whether it will eventually show. But that in itself is not an issue, because there are more details on my BN that are (almost) not visible. But it's just an interesting detail. Because all the drawing I now know, shows 2x2 pair of shrouds on each side.
I've been looking for information about those 'swifter' with the 'cut-eye-splice' but haven't gotten very far, in relation with the schooners.
Hence the question if someone can provide clarity. An illustration would be nice.

Not much later I came across this image in a book by Orazio Curti:
View attachment 330212
The top image could be the swifter.

And if you don't know whether it will be on the model, then a test remains.
Made 2 swifters:
View attachment 330213
I could only close the right side once it has been installed, because the topmast is already on the lowermast.

The 4 shrouds were hung on starboard on the mast in this way, along the hull. Putting the chainplates a bit in the bulwark so that the wires hang behind them in approximately the position as they are applied:
View attachment 330211
Those on the port side distort the picture a bit, but it's all about the masthead.

Tried the 2 variations:
View attachment 330210
Left image:
Far right (front) and far left (rear) a swifter. In the middle the double shrouds running around the mast, in 1 piece. The left swifter must be tilt up a little with more tention on the port side.
Right image:
2 pieces of double shrouds running around the mast. Don't mind the sagging button on the right ones. It is a test and must also be able to release.

Left is in accordance with Chapelle's description and gives 'body' to the masttop. Rechts as it is drawn on the drawings by Jenson, Eisnor and MS/Lankford and gives a more open image. There must be added the 2 double rigging shrouds from de port side on the mast in between. And it also becomes a slightly fuller picture.

It will of course be placed much neater when it is finally placed.
I can now reason in 2 ways, but I don't know what it will be yet. It's fun to make the left option. You may let me know what your opinion is.
Regards, Peter

Speaking only aesthetically and with no real knowledge to back me up, I prefer the look of the left photo. It is much more along the lines("lines" there really not intended as a pun) of the dwgs in Nepean Longridge's fantastic Victory model book. I've treasured my copy of that now just over 50 years. Anyway, you did ask for opinion

 

[Dean62]

On the Bluenose Main Support entry I had posted this:
With my BN I am at the point for looking to the shrouds on the lower masts. And collecting information about those shrouds on the schooners.
As mentioned by other items, the different drawings shows different options.

Reading Howard Chapelle's 'The American Fishing Schooners' I found on page 614 this interesting lines. The underlining and bold's are mine:
"The lower shrouds were usually three a side on fishing schooners over 70' reg. length. The forward shroud on each mast, the "swifter", was made with a cut-eye-splice. This eye went over the masthead first, with a leg on each side, the lower ends of which were turned over the upper deadeyes of the foremast shroud on each side.
If four lower shrouds were required, the shifters were put on first and last. The shrouds abaft the swifter (fore) were the starboard pair which were cut in one piece, seized to form a loop at the masthead, with the resulting two legs become the second and third shroud on then starboard side. The port second and third shrouds were made the same way and this pair was placed over the masthead last, for the three chain plates.

I don't know yet if I'm going to apply the shrouds in this order, apart from whether it will eventually show. But that in itself is not an issue, because there are more details on my BN that are (almost) not visible. But it's just an interesting detail. Because all the drawing I now know, shows 2x2 pair of shrouds on each side.
I've been looking for information about those 'swifter' with the 'cut-eye-splice' but haven't gotten very far, in relation with the schooners.
Hence the question if someone can provide clarity. An illustration would be nice.

Not much later I came across this image in a book by Orazio Curti:
View attachment 330212
The top image could be the swifter.

And if you don't know whether it will be on the model, then a test remains.
Made 2 swifters:
View attachment 330213
I could only close the right side once it has been installed, because the topmast is already on the lowermast.

The 4 shrouds were hung on starboard on the mast in this way, along the hull. Putting the chainplates a bit in the bulwark so that the wires hang behind them in approximately the position as they are applied:
View attachment 330211
Those on the port side distort the picture a bit, but it's all about the masthead.

Tried the 2 variations:
View attachment 330210
Left image:
Far right (front) and far left (rear) a swifter. In the middle the double shrouds running around the mast, in 1 piece. The left swifter must be tilt up a little with more tention on the port side.
Right image:
2 pieces of double shrouds running around the mast. Don't mind the sagging button on the right ones. It is a test and must also be able to release.

Left is in accordance with Chapelle's description and gives 'body' to the masttop. Rechts as it is drawn on the drawings by Jenson, Eisnor and MS/Lankford and gives a more open image. There must be added the 2 double rigging shrouds from de port side on the mast in between. And it also becomes a slightly fuller picture.

It will of course be placed much neater when it is finally placed.
I can now reason in 2 ways, but I don't know what it will be yet. It's fun to make the left option. You may let me know what your opinion is.
Regards, Peter

The left image (with the swifters) looks a bit cluttered IMO and the right (without them) looks cleaner. So if you go for looks, I vote for the right.
But as we usually say, “your the captain”.

 

[Peter Voogt]

Speaking only aesthetically and with no real knowledge to back me up, I prefer the look of the left photo. It is much more along the lines("lines" there really not intended as a pun) of the dwgs in Nepean Longridge's fantastic Victory model book. I've treasured my copy of that now just over 50 years. Anyway, you did ask for opinion

Thanks for your post, Alf. I really appreciate your opinion. I don't know the book you mentioned, I suppose ‘The Anatomy’, but I do find it interesting based on which image this is. And a comparison with parts of the Victory in new to me. I will have a better look at Grants @GrantTyler Victory
And
Regards, Peter

 

[Peter Voogt]

The left image (with the swifters) looks a bit cluttered IMO and the right (without them) looks cleaner. So if you go for looks, I vote for the right.
But as we usually say, “your the captain”.

Thanks Dean. Much appreciate. The look is indeed a bit cluttered. But that’s because I could not bind the shrouds on the port side. It’s a test fit. When it would become that option, the knots are recreated. I'm getting more experience with it now. Actually. just like the top mast. First a test, experience what is not neat and then make the final version. And luckily it’s not the side of a big 3 mast vessel like the Victory (or a NL) to replace a side with 8 of 10 shrouds.
Regards, Peter

 

[Peter Voogt]

My ordered 1, 2, 3 sheave blocks and deadeyes, in different sizes, have (finally) arrived:

They all look beautiful. Thanks Zoltan @zoly99sask @Dry-Dock Models & Parts for the delivery. It wasn't your fault that it took so long:
July 29: ordered
July 31: they're on their way
August 9 20:22: message that they are in the Netherlands at Customs Clearances
After that .......... nothing .......... nothing ................ nothing ....... ....
September 5 12:32: whether I want to pay the customs clearance fee
September 5: paid immediately
September 5 12:55: you paid
September 6: 04:15: package has not yet been received by PostNL, delivery presumably within 6 days
After that .......... nothing .......... nothing ................ nothing ....... ....
September 16: chat with PostNL: apparently busy at Customs, expected within 6 days;
September 23 11:30: pissed off chat with PostNL: if nothing has happened for 30 days, an investigation can be started. Well: August 8 is more than 30 days. No: new installment after payment on September 5, GGGGRRRRRR
September 23, 18:08 shipment has been received by PostNL
September 23, 6:09 PM: shipment is sorted
September 24, 12:15 PM: Shipment delivered.

Gosh, what a coincidence that after the pissed off phone call, the package suddenly started moving. Customs at Schiphol Airport is therefore also a mess.
Now I can finish the hull with the deadeyes and chainplates.
Regards, Peter

 

[Alf in Iowa]

Thanks for your post, Alf. I really appreciate your opinion. I don't know the book you mentioned, I suppose ‘The Anatomy’, but I do find it interesting based on which image this is. And a comparison with parts of the Victory in new to me. I will have a better look at Grants @GrantTyler Victory
And
Regards, Peter

Allow me to reiterate that I was only speaking aesthetically (as appeals to me) and was in no way inferring that BN's mast tops would look like Victory's. Here is a photo of the book jacket and a photo of one of the drawings in the book. Attributed to The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, C Nepean Longridge, Model & Allied Publ Ltd, 1955.

Please remember, I said I liked the left photo because it reminded me of this dwg because of it's busyness.

 

[Peter Voogt]

Allow me to reiterate that I was only speaking aesthetically (as appeals to me) and was in no way inferring that BN's mast tops would look like Victory's. Here is a photo of the book jacket and a photo of one of the drawings in the book. Attributed to The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships, C Nepean Longridge, Model & Allied Publ Ltd, 1955.

Please remember, I said I liked the left photo because it reminded me of this dwg because of it's busyness.
View attachment 330326View attachment 330327

Thanks, Alf. I remember now the drawing, f.i. in the build-log of Grant's Victory.
And as I replied to Dean, the actual performance is going to look a lot tighter. I couldn't tie them neatly and tightly now.
Regards, Peter

 

[RDN1954]

Customs at Schiphol Airport is therefore also a mess.

 

[RDN1954]

Thanks, Alf. I remember now the drawing, f.i. in the build-log of Grant's Victory.
And as I replied to Dean, the actual performance is going to look a lot tighter. I couldn't tie them neatly and tightly now.
Regards, Peter

While the "stifler" method is esthetically appealing and the research going into this subject commendable and on top of that; it might possibly be historically correct, I will stay with the more usual or accepted method, once I arrive at that stage. I can't convince myself about the reliability/robustness of the "stifler"-concept.
Still, kudos for the execution!

 

[Peter Voogt]

I immediately got to work with the deadeyes to see if what I had planned would work here.

I had already made and blackened the chainplates and brackets:

The chainplates are made of brass strip from the kit.
To the right the row for the mainmast with between the 2x2 longest a shorter one for the topmast shroud.
On the left the row for the foremast that are slightly shorter.
The pieces with the 2 eyes were also in the kit. Those will be the brackets around the deadeyes.

All parts needed per piece, with the 7 mm deadeye:

With from my stock the bolts M0.8x5 and nut.

When tightened, the YQ bracket fits nicely into the groove of the Dry-Dock deadeye.


Placed as a test dry-fit.
On the blank starboard side:

On the painted port side:


For the smaller 5 mm blocks for the topmast shroud I have meanwhile ordered smaller M0.6 bolts. Also with screw thread of 6 mm long instead of 5 mm. That 5 mm just fits, but I've been on my knees twice already to look for the springing nut. Also with painful fingertips from clamping.

I still have to visually see how the putting irons are placed. One author places them at right angles to the waterline. The other in line with the shrouds.
So it will be fine (again).
Regards, Peter

 

[Peter Voogt]

While the "stifler" method is esthetically appealing and the research going into this subject commendable and on top of that; it might possibly be historically correct, I will stay with the more usual or accepted method, once I arrive at that stage. I can't convince myself about the reliability/robustness of the "stifler"-concept.
Still, kudos for the execution!

Thanks, Johan. Nothing is a obligation, (almost) everything is allowed. Many ideas give you just as many possibilities to choose.
Regards, Peter

 

[Dry-Dock Models & Parts]

My ordered 1, 2, 3 disc blocks and deadeyes, in different sizes, have (finally) arrived:
View attachment 330325
They all look beautiful. Thanks Zoltan @zoly99sask @Dry-Dock Models & Parts for the delivery. It wasn't your fault that it took so long:
July 29: ordered
July 31: they're on their way
August 9 20:22: message that they are in the Netherlands at Customs Clearances
After that .......... nothing .......... nothing ................ nothing ....... ....
September 5 12:32: whether I want to pay the customs clearance fee
September 5: paid immediately
September 5 12:55: you paid
September 6: 04:15: package has not yet been received by PostNL, delivery presumably within 6 days
After that .......... nothing .......... nothing ................ nothing ....... ....
September 16: chat with PostNL: apparently busy at Customs, expected within 6 days;
September 23 11:30: pissed off chat with PostNL: if nothing has happened for 30 days, an investigation can be started. Well: August 8 is more than 30 days. No: new installment after payment on September 5, GGGGRRRRRR
September 23, 18:08 shipment has been received by PostNL
September 23, 6:09 PM: shipment is sorted
September 24, 12:15 PM: Shipment delivered.

Gosh, what a coincidence that after the pissed off phone call, the package suddenly started moving. Customs at Schiphol Airport is therefore also a mess.
Now I can finish the hull with the deadeyes and chainplates.
Regards, Peter

Thank you Peter!!

 

[Peter Voogt]

Thank you Peter!!

Your welcom! Hope to show soon more on the main mast.
Regards, Peter

 

[Heinrich]

I know I am late, but you shouldn't build so fast! As to which option to choose - I would always opt for the "cleaner" look like @Dean62 Dean suggested as well. However, seeing that you mention the two configurations and the author/s who subscribe to each, I think you should ask yourself the question on which have you based your build the most and follow that option. It irritates me to no end, that on some aspects of my WB build, I have to follow De Weerdt (because of the kit) while essentially building a Hoving model. Maybe, you can use that as a guideline.