Recently, I have been looking at my venerable Revell 1/96 CSS Alabama kit and comparing it with the drawings in the book CSS Alabama, Anatomy of a Confederate Raider by Alexander Bowcock, currently the recognized standard of authority on the ship. I have long been curious just how far off from Bowcock's drawings the old kit might be, and if it has any potential to be used for a reasonably accurate model of the ship.
I began with the hull as it is the most significant component of the kit and one that could require considerable effort to correct, if major correction was warranted (or feasible). It is well known that the Alabama hull is derived from the Revell Kearsarge, which preceded the release of the Alabama by several months back in 1961 and the two hulls are, in fact, virtually identical below the waterline. The model Alabama therefore shares the same dimensions as the model Kearsarge, although according to most published data the two ships were not the same length. Comparing the dimensions of the Revell hull with the dimensions of the actual ship would be an important indication of how far from the real ship the kit is.
According to Bowcock (and other sources), the as-designed length of the Alabama was 210', however she was constructed slightly longer than her design specifications and her as-built length was 213'-8". The length of the Kearsarge, as given in both Donald Canney's book The Old Steam Navy, Vol 1 and in Arthur Roberts' series of Nautical Research Journal articles on the ship, is 198'-8". The extreme beam given for both ships is the same at 32'.
From these figures, it would appear that the Alabama was from 11'-4" to 15' longer than the Kearsarge, and if the Revell hull is properly scaled for the Kearsarge then it should be between 1-3/8" and 1-7/8" too short to accurately represent the Alabama. This would be a significant and noticeable amount in my opinion and lengthening the kit hull to correct for it would not be an easy task, especially if one hoped to maintain the very nice molded sheathing detail below the waterline.
Both Bowcock and Canney define a ship's length as the dimension between the fore and aft perpendiculars. Perpendiculars are vertical lines drawn through the intersection of the line of the main deck with the lines of the stem and sternpost. Bowcock specifically defines the perpendiculars as the "intersection of the fore side of the stem with the upper deck to the aft side of the rudder post" and they are shown on his drawings of the Alabama. Scaling the drawings from the book, which are stated to be at 1/192 scale, gives a dimension between perpendiculars of about 214', which is very close to her as-built length of 213'-8". Measuring the Revell hull using this method, the length between perpendiculars is about 26-1/8", or 209' in 1/96 scale. Now 209' is almost exactly the Alabama's as-designed length of 210', but would make the kit hull over 10 scale feet, or 1-1/4 actual inches, too long for the Kearsarge. I wondered if Revell had somehow made the hull for the Kearsarge too long.
There are no drawings of Kearsarge in Canney that show her perpendiculars, but there are drawings of other ships in the book that do show them. In each case the aft perpendicular is drawn, not at the aft side of the rudderpost per Bowcock, but at the aft side of sternpost, at the forward end of the propeller opening. There are also drawings of Kearsarge in Roberts' articles which clearly show her AP forward of the propeller, not aft of the rudderpost. When using these perpendicular locations the kit hull measures 24-3/4", or 198 scale feet, almost exactly what it should to accurately represent the Kearsarge.
It would seem that the two ships were measured using different reference points For 19th century wooden ships with screw propulsion, the definition of "stern post" as applied to the aft perpendicular, may have varied between British and American practice. The British appear to use the aft end of the rudder post, the Americans the aft end of the stern post where the propeller shaft exits the hull. When measuring the kit hull using the British method it is one scale foot short (1/8 actual inch) of the Alabama's designed length, but when using the American method it is accurate for the Kearsarge's length.
I do not know if I have made a silly error or overlooked something obvious here (not at all inconceivable), but assuming I haven't, it appears the two ships were actually very close, practically the same overall length and width. By the numbers, depending on whether you use Alabama's as-designed or as-built length, the Revell hull appears to be between 1/8 to 5/8 inches too short.
But they may be even closer in actual length than that because the Alabama's forward perpendicular is shown slightly forward of Kearsarge's by about a foot. This makes the actual overall as designed waterline length of the Alabama, measured from the rear of the rudderpost to the front of the stem, virtually identical to Kearsarge's when she is measured the same way. As built, Alabama would have been about three feet eight inches longer on the waterline, or less than ½" in 1/96 scale. This, in my opinion, would be an acceptable discrepancy in a 30" long model.
This is not to say that the hull of the Revell kit is an entirely accurate representation of the Alabama's hull by any means and, in fact, there are still many other issues. Among them are the profiles of her forefoot, aft end of the keel and rudder, gun ports and other hull openings, shape of the bow and stern and lack of hammock stowage along the rails, etc, but those may be fixable without too much trouble. I have not compared their hull lines and probably won't, because to fix those would likely require a new scratchbuilt hull which would defeat the whole purpose. My view is that the Revell hull can be used, with some apparently feasible modifications, as the basis for an acceptably accurate model of the Alabama as depicted in Bowcock's book. Even built oob it will at least be dimensionally very close to the real ship.