SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Need clipper ship Thermopylae deck plan.

10970 views
29 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Need clipper ship Thermopylae deck plan.
Posted by Ray Marotta on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 7:17 PM

Hi,

I recently won a old Revell 1/96th Ship scale Clipper  Thermopylae kit on ebay.  The kit is a virtual

copy of their 1/96th Cutty Sark with a few modifications.  Dr. Tilly pointed out that the kit has a large

hatch between the raised poop deck and the main mast that is fictional and replaces the Cutty Sark

kit's after deckhouse.  This is bared out in photos of scratchbuit models.  Thus the need for a deck

plan. I've looked everywhere I can think of and haven't been able to find anything.

Any help out there?

Thanks in advance,

Ray

TW...I think I can replace that hatch with evergreen strip to simulate planking the area of that fictional hatch.

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:15 PM

As I understand it, the original builder's plans of the Thermopylae have not survived.  (If they have, I haven't heard of them.)  There is, however, a good set of reconstructed drawings by David MacGregor (who knew what he was talking about).  I believe they appear in two of his books:  Fast Sailing Ships and British and American Clippers.

Be warned:  as soon as you see those plans you'll become much aware of the other differences between the Revell kit and reality.  The kit, of course, is based on the hull of the Cutty Sark.  She and the Thermopylae didn't really look much like each other, except at a considerable distance.  There's quite a bit of difference between the lines of the sterns; the Cutty Sark was noted for her rather heavy-looking, highly bouyant stern, which served her well in the Australian wool trade.  The Thermopylae's stern was noticeably more delicate.  Another rather distinctive feature of the Cutty Sark was the sharp angle at the bottom of her bow - the forefoot.  The Thermopylae had a gently curved profile there.

There are also lots of differences in the rigging.  The Thermopylae had at least one "patent topsail" - a mechanical arrangement that rolled up the sail on a long wood roller.  And for some reason or other Revell deleted the studdingsail booms that were in the Cutty Sark kit.  The real ship had them.

I'm afraid that making this kit into a reasonable scale model of the real Thermopylae would be about like turning an Iowa-class battleship into the North Carolina.  I personally wouldn't try it, but I have a great deal of respect for anybody who does.  Good luck.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Posted by Ray Marotta on Friday, October 12, 2012 12:44 PM

Thanks for the reply Dr. Tilley.  I don't think I'm enough of a ship modeller to make that conversion.

It seems that scratch building would be the only way to go.  I'll build Revell's "shortcut" Thermopylae kit without that hatch and, know in my heart that only a true historian would know the difference...

All the best

Ray

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Friday, October 12, 2012 6:24 PM

The David MacGregor drawings are also in his book The Tea Clippers, along with several photographs of Thermopylae.

The length, breadth and depth dimensions of the two ships are remarkably similar and unfortunately, the Revell kit does not make a very accurate Cutty Sark either..  Among the many errors in the kit is a rounded forefoot, very much like Thermopylae's.

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:59 AM

Steve has jogged my memory; I think the Macgregor Thermopylae plans are in Fast Sailing Ships and The Tea Clippers - not British and American Clippers.

I have to respectfully disagree with him somewhat about the Revell Cutty Sark, though.  It's a mighty old kit, and certainly not up to today's standards, but I don't see the major discrepancies in shape and dimensions that he does.  (The overall length of 36" - including bowsprit and spanker boom - is dead on target according to the George Campell plans.)  Caveat:  I haven't had my hands on one of those old kits for a long time.  But I think you'll find that the sharp "corner" on the forefoot is just about right.  (The curve of the Thermopylae''s forefoot was, if I remember right, just about a 90-degree arc of a circle - and quite large.)  There may be some other errors in the shape of the Revell kit (as the Cutty Sark), but I don't think the forefoot is one of them. 

Here's a photo of a Thermopylae model that, to my eye at least, looks pretty reasonable:  http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.stephens-kenau.com/userfiles/product/20/Thermopylae_Bow_View.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.stephens-kenau.com/thermopylae-product-view-20.html&h=665&w=700&sz=160&tbnid=aPCeW6yrC0BQQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=90&prev=/search%3Fq%3DThermopylae%2Bclipper%2Bship%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Thermopylae+clipper+ship&usg=__C6mHusSoO_ExJzy_s2Gy6IWOZM8=&sa=X&ei=HoR5UObhDoOzqQG9loFw&ved=0CCgQ9QEwAw One

Here's the Revell kit:  http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/l.aspx%3Fk%3D2781848&imgrefurl=http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/561_1_2781848.html&h=392&w=500&sz=35&tbnid=lZ8aYOytRqAk8M:&tbnh=78&tbnw=99&prev=/search%3Fq%3DRevell%2BCutty%2BSark%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=Revell+Cutty+Sark&usg=__izSjDzEKK9YPND76kjgPR_xtJu4=&sa=X&ei=9IR5UM-DBYyCqQG6z4CoBQ&ved=0CCEQ9QEwAg

The Cutty Sark herself used to have a terrific website, complete with lots of fine photos and drawings.  Today I can't find it.  I think it's been altered almost beyond recognition.  When I googled "Cutty Sark" the best I could get was this:  http://www.rmg.co.uk/ .  A faint shadow of the old site.  And I haven't been able to find a good shot of the forefoot.  (The one on that site that comes close actually shows an enormous timber (or is it a steel girder?) that extends beyond the ship's keel - and seems to be sliced off at 90 degrees.)  If anybody has better luck than I did in finding that old website, please do a Forum post about it.

It looks to me like (a) there wasn't as much difference between the two ships' bows as I thought, and (b) the Revell version isn't quite right for the Cutty Sark, but (c) it's a lot closer to that ship than to the Thermopylae.

One thing I think we can all agree on:  the kit is a long, long way from being a scale model of the Thermopylae.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:40 PM

I have seen MacGregor's drawings in The Tea Clippers; they strike me as being as reasonably close as they can be.  I also agree with John about the merits of the Revell Cutty Sark and the equal demerits of their Thermopylae. Even the Scientific Thermopylae was a great deal better than the Revell!

Bill

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Saturday, October 13, 2012 2:44 PM

There is another pronounced difference between the Revell Thermopylae and the real ship that rarely receives mention; the after deck house.  The Revell kit has the house overhang the break in the poop, extending down to the main deck. The real Thermopylae has an after deck house that ends just aft of the break in the poop. There is no overhang.

Bill

  • Member since
    February 2011
Posted by cerberusjf on Saturday, October 13, 2012 3:19 PM

Hi,

I've just uploaded some photos I took of two models in Aberdeen maritime museum.  

The fully rigged one (green with copper bottom) matches the plans closely, but contains a couple of errors like the anchor arrangement.  

www.aberdeenships.com/related.asp

The black one is a prototype model built 1868 and contais some detail differences to the real ship, like the forward deckhouse being further aft and the mizzen pin rail being too far forward.

www.aberdeenships.com/related.asp

I have the book "Fast sailing ships" by David MacGregor, the first edition which is better because the plans are larger and more finely reproduced, I will photo the page when I get my camera back from repair and send it to you.

I agree with Dr (Prof?) Tilley, the Revell kit matches the Cutty Sark well, the Thermopylae not so much.  Look also at where the mizzen goes through the aft deckhouse (Aberdeen house) on the museum models, it is just forward of half way.  On the Revell kit, it is just behind the companionway.  The sides of this deckhouse are parallel in the Revell kit, which is wrong.  There is a large gap between the wheel and the aft companionway in the museum models, they are closer in the Revell kit.  This would suggest to me that the Revell kit has the aft deck house too far aft, but I have not checked it.

Meanwhile, here are the photos

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:03 PM

There are some photos of the Cutty Sark, pre-restoration, on the old SMML website:

http://smmlonline.com/reference/walkabouts/cutty_sark/cutty_sark.html

A couple of them show that the forefoot was a sharp angle with no curvature at all.  The radius of the curve of the forefoot on the Revell model is about  7/16" in radius, or 3-1/2' in scale.  This is not a huge radius, but it is not correct to the prototype. 

Several years ago I did a comparison of the kit hull and the Campbell plans which included enlarging the drawings form 3/32" to 1/8"=1'-0" to match the kit scale.  Aside from the forefoot issue mentioned above I found the following descrepancies:

 The kit hull is about 1", or eight scale feet,  shorter than shown in the plans.

The plans show six freeing ports in the bulwarks, the kit has five.

The plans show four small portholes at the bow, the kit has three.

The plans show a curved billboard or anchor lining, the kit’s is straight and vertical.

The ships stem on the Campbell plans is much more vertical than the stem on the kit.  The difference is about 3 degrees.

Conversely, the angle of the bulwark at the stern, between the bottom and middle taff rails, is more vertical on the kit than in the plans.

The bulwarks are too short on the kit.  The difference in the overall bulwark height is about 1/8 inch or one scale foot.  Most of the error is in the lower iron portion of the bulwark which gives the already incorrectly numbered freeing parts a squashed appearance as well.

I have to say that I was very surprised to find that there were as many inaccuracies in this kit as there apparently are.  I had always assumed that the kit was pretty accurate.  Whether any of this matters is, of course, up to the individual modeler.  Some of these issues are, for all practical purposes, unfixable while others can be corrected with varying degrees of effort.  The bottom line is that if you build a Cutty Sark OOB, and do a competent job of assembly, painting and rigging, you will have a very impressive model that looks like a Cutty Sark. Personally, I love the old kit , hope to build at least one more, and  I would like to try a Thermopylae conversion as well.

By the way, I did not say that I thought the Revell kit was in any way an accurate representation of the Thermoylae, only that the two ships were almost exactly the same size, and that the Revell kit has a rounded forefoot which is more correct for Themopylae than Cutty Sark.  However, I could not help but notice in the photos posted of the Thermopylae model that she has three small portholes near her bow, which is another instance where the Revell kit is actually more correct for Thermopylae.

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    February 2011
Posted by cerberusjf on Saturday, October 13, 2012 4:25 PM

I agree that the forefoot should be a sharp angle and not a curve as in the kit, but I think the curve is much smaller than Thermopylae's forefoot.  Your other observations about the kit's inaccuracies sound correct and I did certainly notice the angle of the bow being wrong.  And I agree, Thermopylae had 3 port holes at the bow and 5 wash ports, like the model.  But I still think overall the Revell "Cutty Sark" is a better model of "Cutty Sark" than their "Thermopylae" is of "Thermopylae".  

I seem to rememmber the best model of Cutty Sark was Imai.  Does anyone know if their plastic kit of Thermopylae was accurate of Thermopylae?  I have a wooden Imai kit of Thermopylae and it shares some of the Revell kit's inaccuracies..

  • Member since
    February 2011
Posted by cerberusjf on Saturday, October 13, 2012 5:16 PM

Here is the deck plan from "The tea clipppers" by David MacGregor.  I didn't remember having this book.. "Fast sailing ships" is really too big to handle on my scanner unfortunately.

 

The David MacGregor plans will be on sale again I believe from the S.S. Great Britain trust, but as there are 1000s of plans and not many staff, it may take some time if they aren't available yet.

Hope it helps,

s229.photobucket.com/.../cerberusjf

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:43 AM

I don't disagree with any of the above.  I confess I wasn't aware of all the mistakes Steve found in the Revell kit - but I did know about a lot of them.  One thing that would really bug me if I were tackling such a project today would be the way the bulwarks are represented.  Not only are they too low (a guy would have to crawl to get under the forecastle deck), but those triangular gussets that supposedly hold them up (in such a way that the deck pieces can be snapped in after the hull halves are glued together) just don't look anything like the iron rod stanchions on the prototype.

I do think it's fair to note that the Revell kit was released before the Campbell plans were published.  I don't know what drawings Revell used; maybe some, at least, of the goofs were on the drawings.  I do know that the ship herself, at the time the Revell designers presumably studied her, was a long way from representing her appearance during her deyday.  The first issue of the kit included the big airports that were pierced in her sides at 'tweendeck level during her days as a schoolship.  I wonder if she also had only three portholes on each side of the bow at that time.

I've always been a big fan of the Imai Cutty Sark.  I don't recall that Imai ever issued a plastic Thermopylae; if so I never saw it.  I never got a close look at any of the Imai wood kits.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Sunday, October 14, 2012 8:26 AM

The Underhill plans in Longeridge's book do show a slightly rounded forefooot, but they also show the four bow portholes and six freeing ports.  And I am not sure that the missing 1" of length was a mistake.  The box for the original issue of the kit measures exactly 28"x13"x3" and the plastic hull halves are 27-7/8" long.  I suspect that Revell shortened the hull by 1" to fit inside the 28" long box.

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    February 2011
Posted by cerberusjf on Monday, October 15, 2012 4:26 PM

There is a fine model of "Thermopylae" here, built with reference to members of her crew.

www.powerhousemuseum.com/.../database

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Posted by Ray Marotta on Tuesday, October 16, 2012 5:11 PM

GREAT HELP!  THANK YOU!  I'm also researching the CSS Alabama and found a great resource at the

University of Alabama.  I've got the 1/96th Revell Kit and I've already got the correct armament for it from

Cottage Industries.  Beautifully done cast resin and metal guns.  Wood deadeyes, blocks, and belaying pins remain to be bought but the planning is well on it's way.

Thanks again

Ray

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2011
Posted by cerberusjf on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:01 PM

If some of your thanks is aimed at me, you're most welcome!  What did you find on the Alabama, if you don't mind me asking?  I have the "Anatomy of a Confederate raider" book and the "Builder, captain and plans" book that includes a fold-out  plan in the back.  

A good-looking ship, but I don't think the Revell kit does her justice..

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Lyons Colorado, USA
Posted by Ray Marotta on Thursday, October 18, 2012 8:00 AM

I've been going through the William S. Hoole collection which is held at Marshall University.

www.marshall.edu/.../plans_menu.asp

It isn't very much but I think it will be a great help.  Of course, I'm still looking.

I got my replacement armament here:  cottageindustrymodels.com/.../Alabama-Guns-Set-for-show.jpg

The guns and carriages are VERY nicely done...

Ray

 ]

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:14 AM

Converting the Revell Alabama into an accurate replica of the real ship is probably a more difficult task than converting the Cutty Sark into an accurate Thermopylae, but it can be done.  Bowcock's Anatomy would be your best source, but it is apparently OOP and pretty expensive these days.  Fine Arts Models offers a model of the ship and their site has some photos you might find helpful:

http://www.fineartmodels.com/fineartmodels.com/Alabama.html:

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Groton, CT
Posted by warshipguy on Thursday, October 18, 2012 10:56 AM

I have aready started my savings account for the Bluejacket Alabama and Kearsarge that will be released in time for the 150th anniversary of the battle.  I tried rebuilding the Revell Alabama into her true self, but the hull shape and dimensions issues stopped me cold.

  • Member since
    June 2019
Posted by mwe056 on Thursday, June 13, 2019 11:47 PM

Hi,

This is a many years late reply and I hope someone sees it. I just started to build a Scientific model of the Thermopylae (kit 182) from 1973 and its now 2019. I am a model train builder and this is my first ship so cut me some slack haha. I am extemely detail oriantated so a few years to do this right doesnt bother me. Please excuse any laymens terms.

I know the original plans for this ship no longer exist and every model has been adapeted from the Cutty. Some not so well. There are very few original photos of the ship that give some detail but most information is all second and third hand with "best guesses" with a lot of it compairing to the Cutty.

I have read throught as many posts and viewed as many photos as I can find. I would like to make this ship as acurate and detailed as possible without putting it in a musuem. So here are my questions to begin with:

Copper hull plating

  • what gauge or thickness should I use for it to be to scale and where can I find it
  • where can I get tacks for the plating that will be to scale
  • what length should each plating panel be

Upper hull

  • Deep, dark green (like algie) or lighter, moss green
  • Smooth or planked
  • If planked, how do I properly simulate that on a carved hull

Main Deck

It doesnt appear I can simulate actual deck planking without actually laying plank. If I need to lay planking, what accomidations do I need to consider to keep the scale correct? Specifically, around the edges of the ship with the railings. Do I need to sand down the top of the deck another 0.5 mm?

Thank for your help. I will be asking more questions along the way

                                 

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 12:53 AM

I can offer a few guesses.

Maybe the scale is 1/100. I couldn't find it, and the drawings have a graphic scale, but lets assume that's it.

Nice model, BTW.

The hull was probably plated with Muntz metal, which is a more yellow brass color than copper. But you'll probably be forced to use a copper color.

If I recall, the plates are on the order of 9" x 48". That'd be 3/32" x 1/2" at scale.

Look for copper tape in the various stained glass supply sites.

I wouldn't bother with the nails. It's a lot of work and there are a lot of them. You can go over the plates with a pin and make little dimples.

Yes, planking the deck would greatly improve the look of the model. You can buy strips of basswood from Blue Jacket Shipcrafters. 9" planking would be 3/32". 6" planking would be 1/16". 

The planking would have a staggered pattern. The joints fall on deck beams, which have an even spacing. The decking at the edges probably terminated at a waterway, it does on Cutty Sark. Thats an iron gutter painted white. Don't worry about the "joggling", where the ends of the planks are fitted into a perimeter plank that has long notches cut into it.

 

 

  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Mordor
Posted by Sauron on Tuesday, June 18, 2019 7:46 AM

GMorrison

I wouldn't bother with the nails. It's a lot of work and there are a lot of them. You can go over the plates with a pin and make little dimples.

 

I use a sewing pattern tracing wheel to make the dimples.  They are cheap and diffenent manufacturers have different spike spacing.  Get one that has about the spacing you need.  Makes quick work of it.

 

"One Ring to Rule Them All, One Ring to Find Them, One Ring to Bring Them All, and in the Darkness Bind Them."
  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:52 PM

Sauron

 

 
GMorrison

I wouldn't bother with the nails. It's a lot of work and there are a lot of them. You can go over the plates with a pin and make little dimples.

 

 

 

I use a sewing pattern tracing wheel to make the dimples.  They are cheap and diffenent manufacturers have different spike spacing.  Get one that has about the spacing you need.  Makes quick work of it.

 

 

That's a good idea. I have something similar for making "rivets" in bare metal foil. Not all that cheap. I'm actually unhappy with it. It is photo etched and try as I can, I cannot get the attachment points to the fret  entirely filed down as they are on the ends of four teeth. The things show up every ten rivets when I use it. Sewing store it is.

To mwe056: your other questions about planking. You can plank the outside of the hull. If you do, you'll need to plank it all the way down to the keel in order to avoid a "step" where the copper starts.

Another easier way is to fill the wood hull and sand it really smooth. That'll look as good as anything.

I would not worry about the extra thickness of the deck planking either. I carefully mark out where all of the deck houses and other stuff like winches go, then cut and install a base in those locations with the same thickness of wood sheet as your planks. It makes the plank job look nice and neat.

It is typical of solid hull sailing ship kits that the bulwarks are way too thick. You can easily fix that with a chisel. Mount the hull solidly and work your way around the inside until the bulwarks are reduced to what you want. Your ship is a composite clipper. That means that the frames are made of iron, planked with wood. If you look at onboard photos of the Cutty Sark, you'll see that the bulwarks are supported by iron stanchions, not thick wood ones.

Here's what your ship would look like "undressed".

That's the Ambassador, which used to be on the beach down in TdF.

Have fun with the model and ask all the questions you have. I don't have too many answers, but other folks will.

  • Member since
    June 2019
Posted by mwe056 on Wednesday, June 19, 2019 8:17 PM

Thats a good idea. Creat the dimples then flip it over, take a rolling pin and lightly roll the top of the dimple to flatten it back out slightly, creating the rivet heads. Hadn't thought of that.  

Thanks for the tips. I will post more pics as I go BeerYes

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Wednesday, June 19, 2019 11:34 PM

Could be but if you use the tape, the sticky side won't let you roll over it and the backer before you remove it is too thick.

The nails used were flat headed anyways.

I look forward to seeing your build. I was a model railroader as well for many years and I like to figure out how to make stuff. It sounds like you do as well.

  • Member since
    June 2019
Posted by mwe056 on Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:22 PM

I bought a 0.005"(0.127mm) thick roll of copper and a star wheel "rivet maker" 24dpi(1.054dpm) because I couldnt find a 12dpi (2.108dpm). I took the edge of my 1x2x3"(25x50x75mm) balsa wood block sanding block(with no sandpaper on it) and smoothed out the test sheet. It came out pretty good (see photo below). 

Unfortunatly my die cutter wont do templates small as 15/64"x15x32"(6x12mm) for the individual panels and when I tried to cut them manualy, I couldn't remove the lip on the edges to get them to fit together properly and look right.

I thought about forming a entire sheet of copper to the contour of the hull but the angles would make it nearly impossible.

I bit the bullet and bought 1100 pcs of hull plating. I would have rather made it myself but I guess it will take some more experimentation. I will figure it out for the next build...

Is there a better way to upload images except crappy PhotoBucket? I tried direct from my hard drive but it wouldnt let me. Seems to only allow a http link???

Test piece

  • Member since
    June 2019
Posted by mwe056 on Sunday, June 23, 2019 11:32 PM

Doing some quick math AFTER I purchased the hull plating I calculated my model is actually 1:82 scale not 1:120. This does not seem to correspond with other info I have found. I have found multiple references to a 1:96 scale at a total length of 35" and a 1:120 scale at 31". Mine is 31". Is my math wrong and I bought the wrong hull plating? 212'x12"=2544"/31"=1:82. There is no stated scale anywhere on the box or paperwork inside

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Monday, June 24, 2019 10:15 AM

It's not your math that's wrong, but I believe your overall length for the ship is incorrect.  I am assumimg the OAL of 31" for the model is to figure the shelf space required and is therefore measured from the tip of the bowsprit to the end of the spanker boom.  Per David MacGregor's sail plan of Thermopylae this should be about 292', not 212'. This produces a scale of 1/113.  The kit could be 1/120, which would result in an overall length of about 29" and they are saying 31" to be safe, or it could be the kit is "box scale" and 1/113 best fit their standard box size.  Anyway, because spar dimensions can change over a ship's life, using OAL is not the best way to calculate the scale.  The length of the hull would be much more usefull.  The length of Thermopylae's hull, again from MacGregor's plans, from beakhead to the stern was about 225'.

HTH.

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    September 2012
Posted by GMorrison on Monday, June 24, 2019 11:08 AM

Yes you need to use a link to a host site. We all pretty much hate Photobucket as they attempted to extort us all for $ 400 a year several years ago. I immediately downloaded all of my images while I still could and moved them to Fotki. $ 24 a year, NO adds.

Others use other sites. I wish I could get Google to work, but it doesn't seem to for that use.

Measure sailing ship dimensions is hard. Didn't your model come with scaled drawings? As pointed out, model companies usuallly state the overall length including any boats at the stern the spars at the bow etc.  simply because it makes you think it's a really big model.

Overall legths in ships can be the waterline length, which can vary depending on the weight aboard; the port tax length, the actual longest hull dimension, etc.

When possible, I try to use the width of the hull at it's widest point. While it's a smaller dimension and therefore has a larger % of error possible, it's usually pretty obvious what to measure.

Assuming you have drawings to scale and the model in hand, measure something on the drawing and measure the model against it and that'll get you what you need. If you measure three things- height from bottom of the keel to the lowest point of the deck; the overall width; and the overall length at whatever points you choose: you will almost certainly get three different scales. Then it's up to you to decide what's the best obne for you, and visually.

  • Member since
    June 2019
Posted by mwe056 on Monday, June 24, 2019 7:36 PM

I appreciate both of yours quick response. I do have scale drawings and they measure out to roughly 1:120 +/- so I'm good. Had one one of those "oh no, did I just screw up?" moments lol

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS

FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.