I'm starting to make the fore- and mainstays on my Billings model and I have a question. On both stays, the few photos I can see of Clayton's model and the real ship show the lower deadeye having four holes and the upper one having six. If both have the same number of holes, running the lanyard between them is straightforward - how does it work when the number of holes is different?
I would have expected the lower with five and the upper four (or six/fice). As far as i know, standard practive in -at least the netherlands) was stropping the lanyard to the stay, go to the lower block, up to the upper block again, etc, and finally belay the lanyard on the stay, just above the upper block)
The lower deadeye in the pair has four holes, the upper six. Both deadeyes survive for the forestay, but only the six-hole deadeye for the mainstay. The lanyard is rigged with one end tied off to the lower deadeye collar, then led to the upper deadeye, then the lower, and so one. The last turn goes through the sixth hole in the upper deadeye, and the end is made fast back on the collar of the lower deadeye. This was a common setup. I have not heard of the arrangement mentioned above by Jam.
Thanks for the answer. Read the one i metioned somewhere. Can't remember where, apparently not a source to be trusted. . But wheni try to visualize the setup you describe, i keep coming back to the point that I only need five (in stead of six) holes in the upper block. (One more than in the lower one). how can you rig your setup iwhen the lower has four, and the upper six holes. Or is one hole left empty? (Or do i miss so ething very obviuous??
Ah, I realize that I left out an important detail. The lanyard is in two parts; it is taken through the end of the strop on the lower deadeye and seized in place, which effectively makes it two separate lanyards. One end is reeved as follows (see drawing below for clarification)
1. From the becket on the lower (L) deadeye to hole U2 (center outer hole) on the upper (U) deadeye, leading from the top to the bottom. 2. From U2 to L3 on the lower deadeye underside. 3. From L3 to U4 on the upper side. 4. From U4 to L1 on the lower side. 5. From L1 to U1 on the upper side. 6. From U1 back under the lower deadeye to belay on the collar below the deadeye (hatched around the collar and then seized to itself).
The other end follows a mirror path: 1. From the becket to hole U5 on the lower side. 2. From U5 to to L4 on the upper side. 3. From L4 to U6 on the lower side. 4. From U6 to L2 on the upper side. 5. From L2 to U3 on the lower side. 6. From U3 back over the lower deadeye to belay on the collar below the deadeye in the same manner as the other lanyard.
I think the complexity is probably related to the size of the component parts. The mainstay is a rope over 11 cm in diameter, and a lanyard in proportion for a normal three-hole deadeye would be too stiff and unworkable. By using more holes and thus more turns of the lanyard, a smaller and more manageable lanyard could be used. We see in 16th-century ships a profusion of such multihole deadeyes for the stays especially. The double arrangement here could also be considered as deliberate redundancy, since the two parts are effectively independent, so that if one fails or is cut, the other might hold long enough to allow repairs without risking the mast.