TB,

Aren't you a plank owner on the USS Monitor?

Bill

missileman2000

I am reserching now for a scratch USS Monitor.

For a full-hull, you have the advantage that Ericsson was no Naval architect, all the shapes are just slanted and not faired curves.

For my 2¢, there's not that much to actually "see" from a full-hull--beyound the recesses for the propellor and the grapnel anchor.  Both would want a mirror to see them.

The upper hull is just a slightly faired raft shape, clad in flat plate.  How thick a plate?  Dunno. 

Is there a toe-rail?  Maybe.  Most plans show a "something."  The simplicity begs for a large scale to properly render the detals.

179 LOA x 49.5 feet is

67 1/8 x 18 9/16" at 3/8"=1'-0"/1:32;

44 3/4" x 12 3/8" at 1/4"=1'-0"/1:48

22 3/8" x 6 3/16" at 1/8"=1'-0"/1:96

Now, those scales do offer 11" bore Parrot rifles, and a decent smattering of period maritime "bits."

You do wind up needing to focus on the incredibly obvious turret.  Which starts begging questions rapidly.  Like how did the top edge of the outer turret armor terminate.  Does the outer edge make a toerail, and the inner armor stop and support the roof top.

Is the turret roof a grating or solid?  It has a square hatch about 24x24" on the after centerline--somewhare. 

Does the turret floor get metal plating, or wood decking?

Until we get some papers published by the folks working on Monitor's turret, we generally get to guess.  As have the kit makers.

This is actually cool stuff in its way.  Right now, until qualified data is published, all the various models of Monitor are "correct."  Which is pretty cool in its way.

I am reserching now for a scratch USS Monitor.  I will build  couple of kits first to get the feel of the monitor, and there is so much research info available!  I will first build a fairly  decent paper kit that I recently downloaded, and the Lindberg kit ( with a lot of extra detailng.

For anyone wanting to try scratchbuilding, I would try the Monitor.  It has very few compound curves to carve. I have done the USS Cairo that was featered in the March/April SiS.

Hi!

      After seeing photos of the Hunley after they brought her up I would say they could probably do a fair model of her. The "Davids" were even simpler as they had smokestacks and could not go lower that a certain point on the hull. Most were a hodge podge of stuff. Steamboats fitted with Wood rail ties and Yes, even vertical rail pieces were not uncommon.

       Even bales of cotton and hay were used as protection many times. Stacked and tossed Furniture sans legs vertically stacked in front ofbales of Cotton, Hay, or even pieces of cut logs weren't uncommon either. Scrap plate steel or iron also were used. There is a story, in one of the old books I read about one boat that even had Laid bricks around her decks for armor! Remember Ball shot from the rifles of the day at the distances involved wouldnt't penetrate that! The craft that were armored or built by the C.S.A and the U.S.N. Were more proffessionally built, but in many instances were crude as well. 

       Did you know that the C.S.S. Arkansas had the reputation as the ugliest thing afloat built by men or beast! T.B.

Yes it is a complex problem.

CapnMac82

 

 

Real G

Too bad the major kit makers don't dip their toes into this untapped market.

 

 

The lack of documentation and/or physical examples probably deters them a bit.

Investing a hundred grand into moulds just to find there's an obvious flaw, that everyone notices right after the splashy kit release.

Also, much of the Union riverboat "fleet" was not built to plan at all, but ginned up in dozens, scores, of boatyards "to need" rather than "to spec."

Many of those were armored  just by spiking in "salvaged" rail in alternating up/down configuration.  That's not really an easy surface to model.

The joining edges were often left to run ragged, too.  Again, not the ideal thing to mould for a model.

Eventually, plate steel replaced "improvised" iron cladding.

The CSN ships/boats were built to even fewer plans and specs.  They were as often armored through heavy (12"/30cm) timber as any other material.  Cotton bales, coal bags, all manner of things were used.

So, a person can, with a bit of gumption, simple scratch a boat-shaped base hull and give it a few rifles or cannon.  There's a tough market to offer model kits to.  You can scratch build to exactly fit your needs (your bookshelf) and is not some arbitrary scale nor size selected by the manufacturer.

 

OK I see the problem now!  I do recall the controversy over the Hunley's hull shape as well as the torpedo and spar arrangement.

We need to send some camera phones into the past with some written instructions, have them photo document everything around them (give them some basic Tiktok tips), and then get them to send the phones back to the present.  

I have a resin CSS David in 1/72, but would like to have one in 1/32 to match the Hunley.  Mikro Mir makes one I think, but it looked really rough.

Here you go.   I think I knocked out a half dozen of these, resized to 192 scale a few years back for an IPMS national group build.   Mike West, of the fore-mentioned Lons Star Models gave IPMS NCT a selection of his ACW product line for a group entry.   

This is available as a free download from the Paper Shipwright

https://www.papershipwright.co.uk/product/mortar-barge-no-10/

I used Evergreen car siding to make the walls.   

Hmmm gives me an idea.   Vargas Scale Models makes a 3D ACW mortar on a rail handcar (1:72).    He will be at the Nats, he gifted me a skeleton tank last year.  Maybe I could talk him into doing a mortar barge

Real G

Too bad the major kit makers don't dip their toes into this untapped market.

The lack of documentation and/or physical examples probably deters them a bit.

Investing a hundred grand into moulds just to find there's an obvious flaw, that everyone notices right after the splashy kit release.

Also, much of the Union riverboat "fleet" was not built to plan at all, but ginned up in dozens, scores, of boatyards "to need" rather than "to spec."

Many of those were armored  just by spiking in "salvaged" rail in alternating up/down configuration.  That's not really an easy surface to model.

The joining edges were often left to run ragged, too.  Again, not the ideal thing to mould for a model.

Eventually, plate steel replaced "improvised" iron cladding.

The CSN ships/boats were built to even fewer plans and specs.  They were as often armored through heavy (12"/30cm) timber as any other material.  Cotton bales, coal bags, all manner of things were used.

So, a person can, with a bit of gumption, simple scratch a boat-shaped base hull and give it a few rifles or cannon.  There's a tough market to offer model kits to.  You can scratch build to exactly fit your needs (your bookshelf) and is not some arbitrary scale nor size selected by the manufacturer.

Pretty cool!

Ironclads at 1/96 scale would be impressive.  Maybe 1/32 or 1/35 for the subs.  I have a Verlinden 1/32 CSS Hunley and it is a nice size.

A CSS David would make a nice companion piece.

They are tiny though.

Lone Star models made a series of resin & brass ACW ships in 1:192!from both sides.  LSM sold the masters to Flagship Models who was working their way through the product line, updating and fixing them.  They were releasing them in onsies-twosies. 

Unfortunately the owner of Flagship died in the past year.  The product line has been picked up by another company but I am not at liberty to name names at this time.   

Verlinden also made some 1:200 ACW craft.   They were very nice, but are OOP

There is another designer on Shapeways who offers printed Monitor turrets and Dahlgren guns

Yes I do believe that they are somewhat neglected by the kit manufacturers.

Civil War ships (ironclads and semi-submersibles) are more fascinating than most people realize.  Too bad the major kit makers don't dip their toes into this untapped market.  I mean, after the entire IJN fleet is complete, and 1950-1960 era US aircraft carriers  are done, where do they go from there?

Yes the lower one is the Virginia and the upper is a later two turret river Monitor.

Yeah those look fantastic!!! 

I think the lower one is the CSS Virginia. The CSS Atlanta and Albemarle were similar but much smaller. Could be the CSS Louisana or Tennesee but neither of those were totally finished. 

The upper one is one of the later model monitors. The Union built a bunch of the twin turret models later in the war. 

What are the names of these two ironclads?  The big one could be the Virginia, but the other one is deffinately not the Monitor.

I think scratching is impressive,I even struggle with kits.