New member with RC square-rigger experience

Hi, I'm Brooks Martin from Bozeman Montana. I have 4 years experience building and sailing RC pond-yacht-style squareriggers, and Zero experience with RC naval combat. By pond-yacht-style, I mean simple rigging, both standing and running, and no scale details on deck. While I revere the beautiful realism of model squareriggers (such as DanL's brig Syren, or Paratrooper's frigate Surprise), I don't have the patience or skill to make the myriad of detail found on those museum-quality models.
My interest is sailing realistically: sails and masts are scale, rigging is minimal & functional, hulls are simple. In some respects, I think these features would be desireable on rc combat ships. My ships can sail to windward, reach, and run, and heave to. So they are as maneuverable as real squareriggers. If you have any questions about rigging your ship, I'd be happy to help. RC squareriggers are lots of fun, can be easy to build and maintain, and will sail to any point on the pond you wish (with practice).
If you want to see threads about my ships, with building details and operations, you can see 2 of them here. Videos are also posted, urls imbedded in the threads:
Pamir, 4 masted barque:
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=743611
Aldebaran, 2 masted fore&main topsail schooner (also sailed as a brigantine and a brig):
http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1096365

 

Ahoy there, Brooks! Welcome aboard RCNC and the Age of Sail combat club. You and your ships are already pretty famous here. I know I extensively studied your ships when building my small Constitution and Victory, which in turn had a huge effect on this group of hobbyists. I hope your experience will continue to help the hobby grow and evolve.

 

Welcome aboard, Brooks! Nice to have you and the experience you bring to the forums here.

I've read the 4-masted barque thread before, but didn't know about the schooner. I plan on sitting down and reading the entire thread Sunday afternoon. There is no doubt that many things learned in that thread will help get my current project on the water. The part about keel calculations looks very interesting.

Please feel free to chip in anytime.

 

Hi Guys, thanks for the kind words. My rcgroups threads tend to be long, if you get bogged down, feel free to ask questions, and I'll try to answer them.

The best book on learning to sail a squarerigger is John Harland's "Seamanship in the Age of Sail." It was used as a text/reference book on 2 of the real squareriggers I got to crew on: HMBark Endeavour (exquisite Capt. Cook replica built by the Australians and New Zeelanders), and HMS Rose (Revolutionary War British frigate; schoolship US registry; purchased by Hollywood and used for the Master& Commander movie).

On one of my HMS Rose cruises, our 1st Mate was Mr. Beebe-Center, a fine officer and gentleman. He was scheduled to sail as Captain on the Canadian Schoolship Concordia last year - but she suffered a knockdown, and sank off Brazil before he could board (no lives lost, fortunately). I like to think that maybe he could have saved the ship, but it had some design deficiencies, so maybe no one could have kept her afloat, sigh. The naval architects who designed Concordia could have used some of the practical keep-her-afloat knowledge that you RC combat guys possess.

 

I just found out an hour ago that there is a part two to the 4-master thread on RCGroups. Making my way through that even as we speak (type?). Heh.
I've read Boyle's article and trying to incorporate some of the ideas there into my cebek build (www.rcnavalcombat.com/Forum/tabid/5...fault.aspx) such as eyelets for mounting spars to mast. Boyles was a very good read! Yet if you can browse through the build thread and offer any input, it would be greatly appreciated. I realize the cebek is not a square sailor but the next ship I build will be.
The ships we are building will probably be unique in construction and design due to the mandate of not only firing actual BBs but to take damage in return (and possibly sink ... on purpose!). Building open frames to lay 1/32" sheet balsa as hull "planking" will be the norm. I daresay what we are trying to accomplish in building R/C square riggers that actually do combat will be a huge challenge on top of getting the ships to sail in the first place. Not impossible, especially when we meld knowledge between the two disciplines.
So here is a question to get a discussion started: Are backstays really needed? I like the simplicity of not having them. Yet if the stress is enough on these small ships then perhaps they are required. I really don't know how much stress our ships will have.

 

I followed Boyle's ideas (1930's skipper/designer of freesailing squarerig models) for rigging my ships: 1. no shrouds 2. screweye's for the yard hangers (devices to attach yards to the mast) 3. backstays doing double work as shrouds and backstays.

Why Boyle's specific design -

Boyle's 1. allows the yards to rotate as far as possible w/o hitting rigging.

His 2. makes it simple and easy to hang the yards, and allows them to rotate freely.

3. My masts need support side to side, and fore and aft. The "backstays" give both support from aft, and support from the side. Forestays give support from the bow. Note: the forestays are positioned on the mast like on real ships. Namely, they attach to the mast above the yard below far enough above to allow the yard to swing. It takes a little experimentation to see where they need to attach, but it's obvious once you try it. The foot of the sail on the next yard above is cut in a curve to clear the forestay; some cut&fit is needed to get it right.

Why no shrouds - Shrouds limit yard rotation to about 45deg. off hull centerline (I'm measuring the angle between hull centerline and the leeward end of the yard). This 45deg was true for real ships too, up until the age of the steel-hulled vessels, when fancy ironwork let the yards swing to 30deg. To get good performance to windward with squarerigged models, I believe it is necessary to let the yards rotate to 30deg. Any of you guys who've sailed rc sloops (or freesailing sloops) will realize that if you could only sheet in the main boom to 45 degrees, you'd hardly be able to sail to windward at all; such was the case for 1800's squareriggers. Letting the yards swing that extra 15 degrees makes a big difference to the good.

Normally, sloops sheet in the boom to about 15deg for a beat; the best we can do with model squareriggers is about 30 deg. if we follow Boyle. Whereas a sloop can sail upwind at about 45deg to the wind (4pts "made good"), a real squarerigger of the 1800's could make good only about 1pt (11 1/4 deg). Our models can make good 2-2 1/2 pts following Boyle's method. Since about 80% of the time I find myself sailing on a beat with my models, optimizing upwind performance is important .

If you desire to obtain the "weather gauge" in your battles, then upwind performance will be important to rc naval combat sailors too. And, unless you have a pond large enough to complete your battle entirely running downwind, eventually you will need to claw off the leeward shore.
---------------
Need for backstays - I have a couple models w/o backstays or shrouds (a topsail schooner and a brig). They are "bottle" boats (Oceanspray juice bottle for hull, about 10" long). At this size, the masts don't need supporting rigging of shrouds or backstays.

My 2' and 3' hull models do require some mast support rigging, though. Consider the force on the masts in a knockdown: The keel and it's weight is trying to pry the boat upright against the force of the wind, while the sails are trying to pry the boat down. All the force of the keel's moment arm is absorbed by the masts. If you can hold your boat horizontal by the base of the mast, and the mast does not snap off due to the moment force of the keel weight, then you won't need support rigging. Otherwise....

My models are built from the real ship diagrams found on the Internet, or in Chapelle's "History of American Sailing Ships." I find that putting the lines in the same place as the real ships usually works pretty well (except for the shrouds, which I don't install). The physics of models mimics the physics of real ships, so following real ship practice seems to work well. If your plans show support lines, then you'll likely need them. If your prototype did not need the lines, then your model likely won't either. Model materials are stiffer than real-size materials, thus my getting away with no standing rigging on my bottle boats .
------------
Comments on Mike's cebeck build:
My dialup is too slow to get your photos, unfortunately, so my comments are limited to the text. You know a lot more about building hulls than I do, she looks great .

I don't know if your ship will need backstays; it will depend on how stiff your masts are. The cebeck diagram shows some mast support rigging; I'd install it unless it limits your RC capabilities in some fashion. I've not built or sailed a lateen rigged vessel (though I've given it some thought, and made some preliminary drawings, they are neat to be sure).

For the finkeel, since you've already installed the keel box, you won't be able to move the finkeel fore or aft to correct CLR vs COE balance problems. But you could swing it fore or aft if you put a pivot in, say a couple inches below the hull. You might consider this, especially in light of the need to reduce sail (and thus likely change the balance) if you fight in strong winds.

Moving the yard from port to starboard of the mast was done on real lateen-rigged vessels when they tacked or wore. See "Ships and Seamanship - The Maritime Prints of JJ Baugean", by John Harland, pg 11+ for discussion of methods and lateen rig seamanship. I gave thought how to do this with RC, but never built any test models. If you want to get around the problem of shifting the yard, you might rig them on alternate sides, eg. fore to port, main to starboard, mizzen to port. This was done with some French luggers, who, though not lateen, were faced with the same shift-the-yard-on-a-tack problem.
The maritime prints book has many neat engravings of lateen vessels. The masts are more massive in diameter than the squarerigged vessel engravings. There is less mast support rigging than a comparable square rigger.

Your ship will be very elegant, and I bet she sails like the blazes

 

Note on fighting- One of the neat things I've observed with my squareriggers is their great maneuverability. Squareriggers can sail forwards, backwards(!), and stop on command. As fighting sailors you will appreciate how helpful these characteristics will be in keeping on target or escaping a broadside.

Mike's cebec will be fun to watch as he learns to sail her. There were lateen vessels who carried square sails too; I'm guessing it was to allow a primarily fore&aft vessel to mimic the desirable maneuverability of the pure squarerigged ship, while retaining the superior windward ability of the f&a vessel. A Poleacre (by one definition) was a 3 masted ship rigged lateen on fore and mizzen masts, and square on the mainmast. Or, one could simply rig a squaresail or two above the lateen yard; the squaresail mast extention would have the same rake as the underlying lateen mast, making for a strange looking, toppling rig, to our eyes. Or, you could have both lateen yards and squaresail yards ready for a single mast, hoisting whichever you felt would meet the conditions, leaving the other yard(s) stowed on deck.
Now days, a ship is named for it's rig: barque, brig, ship, etc.. Back then, ships might be named for the hull, which could sport different rigs, eg.a poleacre rigged cebeck. Ship engravings from Baugean (Harland) (download, don't know how to post the photo).
barque with squares flying on fore, lateen flying on main and mizzen (but some square yards on the mizzen, too):
www.mediafire.com/download.php
poleacre with squares on main, lateen on fore and mizzen:
www.mediafire.com/download.php

 

Good input! It is too bad you can't see the photos. They are high res and I bet dialup simply balks at any attempt to show them.

Based on input, I will put the backstays on. I like the angled metal anchors on Brooks' ship ... think I'll use it on mine. I don't foresee the backstays limiting the spar (yard) swing at all from where they are placed on the plans.

You are correct that moving the yard from side to side of the mast isn't really possible with R/C. Not sure the original ship even bothered with it either. On the plan set, the yards alternate sides of the masts from bow to stern. I copied the layout into the model.

Been giving the keel lots of thought and I think I can make a shortened keel that will plug in and let me attached a longer adjustable keel for fine tuning. We'll wait on making that until the ship gets on the water and I see how bad (or good) it is. Heh.

I'm also thinking of making another rig set to include a square sail just to try it out on the Le Requin. Although the original ship did not have square sails, it could have carried it during that time period. And it'll be fun to play with.

 

The maneuverability of square-riggers is one reason I think they will remain competitive with fore-and-aft ships like galleys and schooners. Having tried both, I much prefer how square-rigged ships handle. I've gotten myself into trouble with both square-riggers and modern racing yachts. The big difference for me is that, with a square-rigger, I can back off a rock or a tree branch or pond weeds, while a yacht simply remains stuck.

I imagine that combat will be comparable to WWI dogfights: Two combatants meet on the pond, and the windward ship dives down on the leeward ship. They exchange fire, then either break off to fight back upwind or continue fighting, burning sea space for the energy needed for combat maneuvers. When Eric and I fought a mock battle between Victory and Constitution, the better-sailing Constitution regularly outperformed Victory and made many diving attacks, but one failed tack later Victory was upwind, robbing the wind from Constitution's sails and "firing" as fast as I could say "bang! Bang!" Lots of room for seamanship to win the day over pure firepower or sailing performance.

 

Hey. Here's one for you guys. I had a spring loaded cannnon on deck that was set off by a servo arm. The cannon held a three-arm fishing hook with a stem attached to a coil of fishing line. Get that in your rigging and see what happens.