USS Susquehanna

Captain--

I just finished a 1:196 scale USS Constitution, and faced the same issue of very very basic rigging guidance.  I did a couple of things--I downloaded the instruction set to the much larger 1:96 USS Constitution, which had extremely detailed sail plans; and, I found a copy of Lennarth Peterson's book, The Rigging of Period Ship Models.  You can find free downloadable versions online.

I'm not familiar enough with side-wheel steam frigates to know if that would solve your problem completely, but it's a start.

Good Luck!

Charles

It is indeed harder to find rigging info on steam frigates. I believe it was changing very rapidly.  Pure sail vessels remained the same for about a century or so, typically, but the fashion in the hybrid steam-sail vessels seemed to be changing by the decade.  I think some of this may have been due to new materials and mfg technology- like big increase in making wire cables and such.  Best thing is to search for pictures of the ship with something like a google image search.  Fortunately, the camera had been invented and it surprises me how many pics there are for Civil War and later vessels.

The Monogram kit is, as you probably know, a reboxing of an original from the Japanese company Imai. Imai sailing (and sail/steam) kits were among the best ever produced. I haven't built that one in particular, but my recollection is that Imai's rigging instructions were indeed simplified - but not distorted beyond recognition, like so many of Heller's.

If you Google "USS Susquehanna" and click on "Images," you'll get quite a few old engravings and a few contemporary photos. These suggest that her rigging wasn't much different from sailing ships of the period. (That's not surprising. She was built at the very beginning of the steam warship era, and probably used her sails as her primary means of propulsion.) That site also has quite a few model photos.

Be warned: a lot of those pictures aren't of the Susquehanna. I've never been able to figure out how images get on those Google pages, but some of them are pretty bizarre.

Somewhere there may be an original sail plan of this ship, but I'm inclined to doubt it. I suspect those old lithos and photos are about the best you're going to find.

They give a good idea of the leads of the major lines (backstays, stays, braces, lifts, etc.), but they aren't of much help with belaying points. For them, you best bet is to get hold of a belaying point plan for a clipper ship of the period.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

Hello Jtulley

Thanks for the info,

I have managed to find a few photos but the quality in the 1800 was not the best.

I have the rigging plan for the Cutty Sark built 1869, Susqehanna built 1850 this should then give me an idea of the belaying points.

Yes some of the photos on Goggle are a bit odd to say the least.

As you say there does not seem to be any rigging plan son Google.

Thanks again for your help.

Colin

Canadian captain

Charles,

Thanks for the info, I have the rigging plans for the Costitution and the Cutty Sark, and have found the  book The Rigging of Period Ships this should give a general idea for the rigging.

Regards

Colin anadian Captain

Hello Don,

I did a search for the photos but the quality is not the best, but they give me an idea for some of the riggin but not the balaying points.

Thanks

Colin

Some thoughts for you:

When I built this kit in 1990, was able to get some sail plans for the Susquehanna from the US Navy Archives.  I'll look around and see if I can get them scanned and reduced so can post to the internet.

Revell produced relatively detailed  rigging plans for their Alabama and Kearsarge kits - assuming that they are reasonably accurate (which may be a big assumption) they may give you a better picture of the standing and running rigging.

Check Google - they scanned a copy of "The Naval and Mail Steamers of the United States," an 1853 book by Charles Stuart who was then the Engineer-in-Chief of the United States Navy, and the book has details on the Susquehanna and her near-sister, Powhatan.

I still have doubts about the accuracy of the armament provided for the Susquehanna - sixteen thirty-two pounders on broadside trucks may not be right.  Most descriptions indicate that the ships had eight 8" shell guns on the quarterdeck (four per side) and three 10" shell guns on pivots on the focs'l.  At the time, I was able to cobble together a representative mix of guns for 1861 (9" Dahlgrens and 4.2" Parrots) but don't think that those fittings are still available from Model Shipways.

Great kit though, still one of my favorite builds and the Susquehanna was held the fireplace mantle ever since.

Mike

That's cool about the plans Carmike got from the Navy. Those probably are the very best source.

The Cutty Sark plans, I'm afraid, won't help much. She was built about thirty years later, and she had double topsails, along with a good deal of wire and chain rigging. But maybe the belaying point plan will come in handy.

I built the Revell Alabama and Kearsarge a long, long time ago, and I don't remember much about the rigging diagrams. (I was about twelve years old at the time.) The last time the Alabama was reissued, by Revell Germany, I did take a look at the instructions online. The rigging diagrams were utter garbage. The leads of many of the lines were irrational. Many of the most important lines were omitted, and the guy who built the model in the photos couldn't even figure out where the vacuum formed sails were supposed to go. I recommend avoiding those drawings at all costs.

The best contemporary source for rigging in this period probably is Capt. George Biddlecomb's Th Art Of Rigging. It was published at just the right time.

Hey! Proff !

   You are right about her being an old IMAII kit .I just went through my stash in storage and I have ALL the Imaii vessels in doubles ,even up to the modern smaller scale ones .

   Did You know after figuring out some things , that the"  Susqui " ( my shortened nickname ) could be rigged for sail or power? A false keel to compensate for the masts ( Birch, on mine ) and the battery boxes would compensate for the same on power  .A smaller keel was still needed for power but not as heavy . Yeah , I know , what a dumkopf ! That's what the client wanted !       T.B.