Constitution Rigging Question

I'm having a little trouble visuallizing the problem on the basis of your description. Generally speaking, a topgallant shroud - like any other shroud - starts at the bottom. The end is seized to a deadeye then the shroud is taken around the masthead, seized there, and taken down to the next deadeye or bullseye aft. The upper deadeyes are connected by lanyards to the lower deadeyes, which are fastened to the ends of the topmast crosstrees. The fastening method may take one of several forms. There may be a metal strop arrangement, or the lower deadeye may be seized into the end of a piece of line called a futtock shroud, which simply passes through a hole in the crosstree. The futtock shroud then runs under the futtock stave, a piece of wood seized to the topmast shrouds below the crosstrees, across behind the topmast, under the other futtock stave, and up to the opposite lower deadeye.

There are numerous possible variations on this theme. One common one - especially in smaller ships - is for the pairs of deadeyes to be replaced by simple bullseyes seized into the ends of the futtock shrouds.

Another variant has the ends of the topgallant shrouds running down to the top - as the Revell instructions show. In many cases I don't trust kit rigging diagrams, but in this case I think the person responsible knew what he was talking about. The kit is based on a model commissioned years ago by the Smithsonian; it was designed by George Campbell, one of the best. In the rigging he was guided, I believe, primarily by the "Isaac Hull Model" of the Constitution, which was built for presentation to Captain Hull and is now in the Peabody Essex Museum, in Salem, Massachusetts. In terms of deck and hull details it's pretty crude, but the rigging is extremely detailed. It gives the impression of having been done by a sailor who was intimately familiar with the actual ship. I'd be inclined to follow the diagram - though it's entirely possible that many of the rigging details changed during the ship's career.

The Bentinck shroud arrangement, to my knowledge, was just used for the topmast shrouds. I don't think I've encountered anything similar on topgallant rigging - but I could be mistaken.

There are several ways to solve the problem of Revell plastic deadeye-and-lanyard assemblies. If you want to do a really thorough and accurate rigging job, the best approach is to throw them out and replace them with either wood or metal ones. (Several companies, notably Bluejacket and Model Expo, sell good replacements.) That entails rigging the lanyards, which is tricky and takes some practice. It can, however, be done - and scale deadeyes and lanyards look tremendously superior to the plastic ones. In this particular job, as in so many others related to sailing ship models, there's a steep but short learning curve. The first pair of lanyards will take a long time to rig, and may not come out right; you may have to start over more than once. But once you get the hang of it, they go pretty fast. You might want to give it a try.

Good luck. It's a nice old kit representing a great ship.

Here is a nice diagram of the topgallant shrouds, which gives you a picture of what John is describing..

http://www.all-model.com/wolfram/PAGE65.html

If you click on the " previous page " icon, you can see how all the shrouds are set up..

There most likely would have been some variation on the Constitution as she sailed, but following the linked diagrams should keep you out of trouble as far as gross error is concerned..

thanx,

The rigging instructions on this kit are pretty good, but the way it is comming together there seems to be something missing here, there just isn't any way to get much control on the tension of the shrouds, and the shrouds here just use the cross trees to much advantage. It is almost like there should be some catharpins that don't show on the instructions.

That site you posted is amazing. It has everything you could possible want! I added it to my favorites.

Jake

One question comes to mind: what are you using as a material for the shrouds? If you're trying to make those gawdawful plastic-coated-thread objects that come with the kit work, you're fighting a losing battle. There's just no way they can be made to resemble the real thing, even remotely. If you want the shrouds to behave like the real thing, you'll have to make them out of scale rope and set them up like real shrouds - i.e., with deadeyes and lanyards. Those fake plastic ones, as you've found out, just don't take the strain well enough to allow for a really authentic job of rigging.

If, as I hope is the case, you threw those things out before you got out of the hobby shop, part of the trouble may be the masts. It's generally agreed, I think, that styrene plastic, though a wonderful material for many purposes, is not a good one for spars - especially thin ones. (Incidentally, these comments do not originate with an Olde Phogey who doesn't believe in plastic kits. I'm an Olde Phogey who does believe in plastic kits. The Revell Constitution is one of the very best. But plastic does have its limits.)

Lots of modelers replace the upper masts and yards in plastic kits with wood. That certainly isn't absolutely necessary; plenty of folks have built nice, successful models with plastic upper masts and yards. But if you do go that route you'll probably have to live with a certain amount of flexibility and fragility. It's tough to get all the rigging associated with a thin plastic spar tight without bending the spar out of line.

I long ditched the kit shrouds and ratlins, They just don't look right and if used to scale, the ratlins would be spaced about 24". I don't plan to use the sails either. I think I can get the plastic deadeyes to work. I am going to do the yard foot ropes with a fine wire. I am playing around with some metal screen for the hammock nettings. One big concern I have is for the upper masts and yards. They will require very careful rigging in order get them to look right.

I did use your idea with sewing the ratlins through the shrouds, It doesn't look quite as good as knotting, but it will be a lot easier to keep everything straight, in the end it is by far the best approach. I will do a similar thing with the snaking on the forestay.

next time I will try to use some maple venere planks on the decks. the colour should be good and the grain should be fine enough. Using a black PVA glue might give a nice effect with a little sanding.

By the way, where is the bell?

Glad - and relieved - that you got rid of the kit shrouds and deadeyes. I also agree completely about the vac-formed "sails." Whoever came up with the ideas of representing rope and canvas with such substances ought to be...well, never mind.

If you don't want to buy individual replacement deadeyes, you probably can get the plastic ones to work (though the plastic "rope" lanyards will never look as convincing as thread). My suggestion would be to slice off the plastic sheer poles, glue the halves of the deadeyes together quite firmly, seize the shrouds around them (just as you would if the deadeyes were made separately), and add the sheer pole later from either wire or plastic rod.

If you decide to replace the upper masts with wood, no experienced modeler will blame you. The plastic parts can be made to work; since this is a big model, they're just about big enough to support themselves and the rigging. But they'll never be as sturdy and rigid as wood ones.

Regarding hammock nettings - before you resort to metal mesh, try the local fabric store. Such places sell a wide variety of nylon mesh. Most of it is made in a hexagonal grid pattern that isn't appropriate, but if you look hard enough you'll find some that's made in a square pattern. I'd recommend ditching the plastic hammock netting stanchions and replacing them with wire. And check out some photos and drawings of real hammock nettings. Some modelers tend to assume that the mesh of the netting should be as fine as they can make it. In reality it's surprisingly coarse. The openings in it are at least three inches wide. That's 1/32" on the scale - pretty big as such things go.

I build one of these kits years ago and planked the decks with basswood. As I remember (don't trust my memory; this was a long time ago) the deck pieces of the big Revell Constitution are supported by heavy pins projecting from the hull halves. The locators on the deck pieces (I think) consist of lttle pads, about 1/32" thick, that sit on those pins. If I remember right, I started out by shaving those pads off the bottoms of the deck pieces, thereby making the entire deck drop by 1/32" - which was the thickness of the basswood planks I used to cover it. Worked like a charm.

Basswood isn't a bad material for that job. (Its great virtue, from my standpoint as a starving college student, was its availability in appropriate sizes at the hobby shop.) Maple would be better. In my opinion, though, the best decking material of all is holly veneer. Its grain pattern is such that, with a little help from stain, it literally looks like miniature wood. And it's hard as a rock.

The "black glue" trick is one of several that people have come up with to represent deck caulking. It works all right - though it's kind of messy. My favorite technique for that purpose, though, is simply to rub each edge of each plank with a fairly soft pencil. That produces an extremely thin line that can't be eradicated by sanding, and is dark grey in color. (The caulking in an actual deck is no more black than the asphalt in a street.)

The question of the bell is an interesting one. Logic suggests that the ship must have had one. (The normal quota in those days would have been at least two - one by the binnacle and one on the forecastle.) Putting two and two together, my best guess is that the absence of a bell from the Revell kit can be traced back through the research process.

As I understand it, Revell used the plans that were drawn by George Campbell for the model the Smithsonian commissioned back in the late fifties or early sixties, in an effort to establish what the ship looked during the War of 1812. Campbell, in turn, relied heavily on the "Isaac Hull model," in the Peabody Museum (now called the Peabody-Essex Museum) in Salem, Massachusetts. I mentioned that model in an earlier post. It has extremely detailed rigging, but the workmanship and materials of the hull and deck furniture can most gently be described as folk-art-like and most accurately as downright crude. (The gun carriages, if I remember right, have no wheels, and each gun is held in place by an enormous nail with a projecting head.) My guess is that the bell got omitted from that model because the modeler had no idea how to make one, and that Campbell, being the extremely knowledgeable and conscientious researcher that he was, didn't want to speculate on it.

Since the Revell kit was first released (in 1965) a great deal of additional research into the Constitution's appearance at various times in her career has been done. Two American wood kit companies, Model Shipways and Bluejacket, have issued kits that make great - and, I think, justified - claims of accuracy. It would be interesting to see what the plans of those kits have to say about bells.

Interesting stuff. Good luck.