 | | | | | | |
| |
|
The parts I have seen discussed look pretty complete, so I will only add my
support for the lashing idea.
The tallest mast I use on the Agamemnon starts with the tall mast base, a
main mast, the the smallest of the top mast, to which I have attached one of
the longer topmasts (just snapped together like normal blocks), and lashed
around with a small rope and stud piece, and a lance in the very top. That
gets me around 52cm (20"). Even if I could figure out an elegant way to go
higher, I'm not sure I would bother. At that size the proportional all seem
to work out nicely.
Not only does this work, and look good, its also historically justified.
Lashing mast elements together was quite common on the big ships. Trees
that were tall enough and strong enough did not abound, and even then, a few
minutes with a scurrilous Frenchie, and you might have to be rebuilding your
mast anyway. It was always easier to lash a new mast to the salvageable
section of the old, than to try to remast the ship down to her keel.
If you flick around the site, and focus on the mainmasts of the Agamemnon
and Sutherland, you'll find pics that show the lashing well enough.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Speak to the Governor at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
PI[so,ig+++ pi++ is,ia-]++ AD++ NI+ TO---- S+ LS- A+ LM- YB66m :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Richard Parsons (<FJDJDo.DLJ@lugnet.com>) wrote at
06:44:24
> The tallest mast I use on the Agamemnon starts with the tall mast base, a
> main mast, the the smallest of the top mast, to which I have attached one of
> the longer topmasts (just snapped together like normal blocks), and lashed
> around with a small rope and stud piece, and a lance in the very top. That
> gets me around 52cm (20"). Even if I could figure out an elegant way to go
> higher, I'm not sure I would bother. At that size the proportional all seem
> to work out nicely.
I was playing about last night, and discovered that the tall mast base
is a firm fit on *top* of the thick mast section. So if you've got two
of the bases, you can add an extra 7 1/2" in height at the thick end,
rather than lashing bits to the top. Subject to aesthetic approval, of
course :-)
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tony Priestman wrote
> I was playing about last night, and discovered that the tall mast base
> is a firm fit on *top* of the thick mast section. So if you've got two
> of the bases, you can add an extra 7 1/2" in height at the thick end,
> rather than lashing bits to the top. Subject to aesthetic approval, of
> course :-)
Hey hey! Something new!
This seems to work a treat _and_ gives you a stable base for building an
extra platform part way up the mast.
I like it. I like it fine. I have a suspicion that Mr Priestman may have
enhanced shipbuilding in the legoverse. Top marks!
Richard
Still baldly going...
Speak to the Governor at http://www.hinet.net.au/~guinan/
PI[so,ig+++ pi++ is,ia-]++ AD++ NI+ TO---- S+ LS- A+ LM- YB66m :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:59:19 GMT, Tony Priestman
<Tony@you-rang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I was playing about last night, and discovered that the tall mast base
> is a firm fit on *top* of the thick mast section. So if you've got two
> of the bases, you can add an extra 7 1/2" in height at the thick end,
> rather than lashing bits to the top. Subject to aesthetic approval, of
> course :-)
Arrrr. So now I know there are other mast-parts in existence, which I
don't have. And if I had them, I could make more really cool ships, with
more varied masts. And all I have to do to get these bits is to buy one or
more copies of the either of the biggest and coolest pirate ships ever (it
looks like only the BSB and SES have the base-column), which go for premium
on auction. Arrrr, indeed.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.pirates, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 09:59:19 GMT, Tony Priestman
> <Tony@you-rang.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I was playing about last night, and discovered that the tall mast base
> > is a firm fit on *top* of the thick mast section. So if you've got two
> > of the bases, you can add an extra 7 1/2" in height at the thick end,
> > rather than lashing bits to the top. Subject to aesthetic approval, of
> > course :-)
>
> Arrrr. So now I know there are other mast-parts in existence, which I
> don't have. And if I had them, I could make more really cool ships, with
> more varied masts. And all I have to do to get these bits is to buy one or
> more copies of the either of the biggest and coolest pirate ships ever (it
> looks like only the BSB and SES have the base-column), which go for premium
> on auction. Arrrr, indeed.
>
> Steve
The 6274 Caribbean Clipper has a base-column, as does 6270 Forbidden Island.
You'll find either a lot cheaper than the BSB or SES. Forbidden Island can
have it stripped out of the existing set the easiest.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Steve Bliss (<380233d0.354140113@lugnet.com>) wrote
at 19:04:49
>
> Arrrr. So now I know there are other mast-parts in existence, which I
> don't have. And if I had them, I could make more really cool ships, with
> more varied masts. And all I have to do to get these bits is to buy one or
> more copies of the either of the biggest and coolest pirate ships ever (it
> looks like only the BSB and SES have the base-column), which go for premium
> on auction. Arrrr, indeed.
Well, you could try a bit of marauding :-)
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 06:44:24 GMT, "Richard Parsons" <rparsons@hinet.net.au>
wrote:
> The parts I have seen discussed look pretty complete, so I will only add my
> support for the lashing idea.
>
> The tallest mast I use on the Agamemnon starts with the tall mast base, a
> main mast, the the smallest of the top mast, to which I have attached one of
> the longer topmasts (just snapped together like normal blocks), and lashed
> around with a small rope and stud piece, and a lance in the very top. That
> gets me around 52cm (20"). Even if I could figure out an elegant way to go
> higher, I'm not sure I would bother. At that size the proportional all seem
> to work out nicely.
Ahhh, that does look quite nice.
Steve
| | | | | | |
