In the Dutch tradition, one would only expect to see the ties led over the caps on the lower yards, as the lower yards were the only ones with double ties. The topsail yard tie was a single line, usually led through a sheave in the topmast just below the crosstrees. The suviving topmasts of teh so-called Ghost Ship (wreck of a small fluit of c 1665) has this arrangement.
The foremast rakes aft by a little less than 1 degree. THe mainmast rake is between 7 and 7.5 degrees, depending on how you set up the maststep and partners. The mizzenmast is 7.5 degrees. All angles are relative to vertical, rather than then deck.
We have three different sizes of euphroe found on the ship, a 4-hole, 5-hole and 6-hole. The number and find location of the 6-holers indicates that they were used for the martnets on the fore and main courses. The locations of the others are less clear, but could have been used for the dead ends of a number of different lines attached to the stays, or for crowsfeet at the forward edges of the lower tops. There is no sign on the main tos of dedicated holes for the legs of a crowsfoot, but they caould have been tied to the rim or railings.
Dear friends, I would be very grateful if someone could enlighten me on the following question: how the main tie hallyard are working when the main sail knight is located on the center line of the main mast as it could be seen on Vasa??? Considering that with this arrangement the main tie halyard will intersect with the mizzen stay hoist ? As I could see, on Batavia replica, main knight shifted slightly to sbs ,so the mizen stay and main tie halyard don't cross/disturb each other...
but on the William Rex model, the position of the main knight same as on the Vasa -center line of the Main mast,and as I could see ,there is a break in the halyard when they pass through the hole in the grating...seems to me, such things quite acceptable on the model, but how it will work on the real ship...
It would be just great if Fred shared his observations about how this is organized on the replica of Kalmar Nyckel?
Impressive stuff as always, Vlad! One thing you might change is the mizzen stay. We can see the nail holes in the mast for it, and it meets the mast about 2 meters above the deck rather than low down. It also needs to come in offset to port slightly, in order to allow the main halliard to clear it. I think your reconstruction of two four-hole deadeyes is probably correct.
Thanks Reinhard, I didn,t see it... ah,is it clear now,Fred advised to place mizen stay collar block slightly offset to ps to give room for the main halliard...same position I saw on the Clayton model...but still don't understand how it will stay in this position when mizen stay became tightened? than,as seems to me, it will be forced to move to the mast central line and crossed with main halliard...? I mean, on the real ship...or collar need to be nailed to the mast? Fred mentioned nail holes... nails for collar,or for collar stopper? like a piece of wood,to prevent collar vertical movement...?
From the nail holes in the mainmast, it appears that the collar for the lower block on the mizzen stay was nailed to the mast (nails driven driectly through the rope), to resist the rotating force that would try to center the stay on the after side. It is not entirely clear, but there may have been a block or cleat as well (unfortunately, the are in question is now covered by the reconstructed mizzen stay).
An alternative arrangement, if one wants to keep the tye centered behind the mast, is to split the mizzen stay into two legs which angle off to the sides. I think that it is interesting that the knight for the fore halliard fall is offset to starboard to provide clearance for the mainstay. Clearly the forces on the mizzen stay are not as great.
Good day, Dear Fred, Thanks a lot for your explanation...there is the sence if the mizzen stay collar was nailed to keep lower block offset to ps...! We discussed this issue on the other forum, but at the end had only suggestions how it will work, but the only facts ,that on the famous models, such as Wiliam Rex for example, or in Albom de Colbert book, there is clear main halliard knight location straight on the line with main mast...and the same location of the fore halliard knight as we can see on the Vasa -off the line of the fore mast, ps or sbs... And now, on the Vasa - I can see real position of this main halliard knight,this is the fact! I' m risking to suggest that may be there were slings in use ,to keep the main yard in hauled up ( working)position...in such case tie halliard could be slucken a little bit,and stay away from mizzen stay hoist,at least eccessive friction could be avoided...I see on the reconstructed Vasa rigging plan, main sail and fore sail martnets tackles arranged in such way ,that this sails could be furled without lowering yards to the deck,and in such case it is not ness-ry to operate tie halliard very often and keep them st -by/ toghtened... Dear Fred, could you advise how it is arranged on the Kalmar Nyckel replica -location of main tie halliard and how the mizzen stay works with it? Thanks in advance Brgds! Kirill
Indeed, the main halliard arrangement on Vasa seems to be typical for the period. As far as we can tell, there is no provision for slings or jeers to supplement the halliards, which is also typical of Dutch rigging. The elements to which one would attach slings or jeers survive, and there is no sign of the necessary tyes or ringbolts. English ships often had jeers in addition to the halliards. The ramshead block on the halliard tye is set up to be the main carrier of the yard, and the upper sheave in it allows the necessary play for bracing the yard about, so it seems like it was expected that the halliard would bear the weight continuously
The difference between the fore and main rigging probably has to do with the relative sizes and loads of the stays and halliards. At the foremast, the mainstay has to run past the mast to be fixed to the bowsprit or stem, and so it needs to stay on the centerline. The mainstay is also a bigger line than the fore halliard, so the fore halliard "loses" that contest and has to be moved off-centre. At the mainmast, the mizzen stay is smaller than the main halliard, with a lighter load, so it "loses" to the halliard.
Kalmar Nyckel uses a non-traditional solution, with the main halliard bitt/knight offset to starboard, and with jeers to supplement the halliards. The mizzen stay can then lead to the mainmast on the centerline. This has partly to do with the arrangement belowdecks - there is no place for the main halliard bitt below the upper deck, as on Vasa and William Rex (the engine room bulkhead is in the way) and so the bitt has to be on deck. If it were in the traditional spot, it would be very much in the way of handling the rest of the main rigging, especially the topsail sheets, and so offsetting it to starboard gets it out of the way.
In the photo, the shot is taken from just abaft the mainmast, and one can see the main halliard knight at the extreme left edge of the picture.