Revell 1/150 USS United States

Folks:

I had a few minutes this morning and was able to dig the old Revell "1:192" kit out of the closet.

According to my reprint of Chapelle's "The American Sailing Navy," the U.S.S. Constitution, as originally designed, measured 175' bp ("between perpendiculars'), as far as I can tell, the kit hull measures 9.875" bp, meaning 17.72' per inch, and a scale of 1:212.6.

At 1:150 (12.5' per inch) the length bp on the model should be 14" - and the Revell / Monogram U.S.S. United States is not even close to that.  Leaving out the other problems with the kit, there is something very wrong about advertising a kit at a scale that is grossly incorrect, leading the buyer to believe that they are purchasing a much larger kit and I would hope that the advertising is updated (not going to hold my breath though).

BTW - they are not the only culprits.  "Lindberg" (or whomever owns the rights to the name these days) advertises their "Captain Kidd" (aka Wappen von Hamburg) as being 1:132 and the kit's actual scale is clearly much smaller than that.  I would suspect that the rest of their kits are also incorrectly scaled.

Mike

 

USS UNITED STATES,

How about the old 1/96 scale kit of the USS United States by Revell?  It is clearly based upon the USS Constitution kit, but how inaccurate is it?  Can your foundation make any specific recommendations for improving that kit?

Thanks!

Bill Morrison

You can refer to the USS UNITED STATES Foundation; ATTN: Ed. Zimmerman, Jr.; Founder, President, and CEO.

I would stay away from the 1:150 scale Revell model. It is not the USS UNITED STATES. Kill a rumor about the USS UNITED STATES. Contact this Foundation. It's been around over 33 years.

1. I understand the Old Waggon had a roundhouse/poop that is missing on the kit... any way to replicate this?  I can send you a copy of THE 1/8" =1'-0" AND YOU CAN MAKE IT TO YOUR WORKING SCALE TO ADD IT TO YOUR MODEL. i AM STEERING EVERYONE AWAY FROM PURCHASING THIS MODEL. wITHOUT THE Poop Deck it is not the USS UNITED STATES. 

2. Those plastic shrouds/ratlines are nasty... how do you rig better ones in a scale this small? I would make my own ratlines. Running them from the belaying pins, up through the masts, and down to the other side of the ship. Then make your cross ratlines with a spot of glue to hold them in place.

 3. What diameter of rigging line would work in this scale? I'm not impressed with the thread that came with the kit. You would need to guess at the gauge of the threading and then string it accordingly. Black for standing rigging, tan for running. 

4. Any suggestions on black hull paint that is dark enough to look correct but still light enough to show weathering effects (washes, dry-brushing)? Black is black. Copper is copper. The copper can be streaked with a light green. Be sure the stripe on the side of the hull is yellow and not white.

5. Is it worth replanking a model this size with actual wood strips? If not, what's your best technique for making the plastic deck look like wood?  No. It's not worth the aggrivation, especially at this scale.

Compliments of USS UNITED STATES Foundation; Ed. Zimmerman, Jr. F, P, CEO USSUNITEDSTATES@Yahoo.com

Plastic kit manufacturers have a long history of screwups regarding the scales of sailing ship kits.  I long ago reached the point where I quit paying attention to the scales listed on the boxes.

I haven't actually measured the old (1956) Revell kit, but I think the scale of it is in fact 1/192.  That's how it's listed in Dr. Graham's fine book, Remembering Revell Model Kits (which, admittedly, lists some questionable scales for other sailing ship kits).  1/192 is the equivalent of 1/16"=1', which is a fairly standard ship modeling scale.  This kit was Revell's very first sailing ship; my theory (for which I have no hard evidence whatsoever) is that the designers deliberately chose that scale for the kit and designed a box to fit it - thereby, perhaps inadvertently, starting the infamous "make-the-model-fit-the-box" policy when they released the next two kits in the series, the Bounty and the Santa Maria.  (I know for a fact that the Bounty is on the oddball scale of 1/110.  Dr. Graham says the Santa Maria is 1/90 - but the crew figures in those two kits quite obviously are on the same scale.  One can quickly get a headache trying to sort all this stuff out.)

The Monogram kit with the one-piece hull was originally issued long before the company merged with Revell.  Those two companies were semi-vicious competitors for quite a long time.  (In Dr. Graham's book about the history of Monogram he tells an interesting story of two 1/48-scale B-17 kits.  Revell's B-17F appeared shortly after Monogram's B-17G.  Most parts from the two are interchangeable - down to the locator pins and holes - except that the Revell parts are very slightly smaller. Styrene shrinks slightly as it cools; it was perfectly obvious that Revell had based its kit on Monogram parts.  According to Dr. Graham, one of Monogram's executives wrote one of Revell's executives a very nasty letter, but chose not to take legal action.)

Back in the late 1920s, when the Constitution was undergoing restoration prior to being put on public exhibition, the Navy published a set of plans for her.  Those drawings were based more-or-less on her then-current configuration - including the raised bulwarks, the relatively narrow main hatch, etc.  I think the designers of the 1956 Revell kit based it on those plans, with one big exception:  for some reason or other they got interested in the Andrew Jackson figurehead, and created a beautiful miniature version of it to replace the simple billet head the ship actually had at the time.  It's unlikely that the real ship ever looked exactly like that; she almost certainly didn't during her years of active service.  The naval officers who made the decisions regarding the restoration weren't professional historians, and they made some judgment calls that would be regarded as near-heretical today.  (For example:  they found several different sets of spar dimensions from various dates in the ship's career.  So they averaged all of them and had a new set of spars built accordingly.)

The Anatomy of the Ship volume has taken some pretty brutal criticism in a number of quarters.  My opinion of it isn't as low as some people's, but I have to say I find it disappointing in a number of respects.  The author apparently didn't spend much (if any) time examining the actual ship, and he missed several important sources of information (most notably, perhaps, the old "Isaac Hull Model" in Salem).  One example of the book's weaknesses:  the framing plan on pages 60 and 61 is pure nonsense.  There are a number of good, clear (and easily accessible) photos of the ship's hull with the planking stripped off; they show that her frames just plain weren't arranged like that.  I really like some of the drawings in that book (the reconstructions of the transom, for instance), but when it comes to such things as hatch dimensions I'm not inclined to trust it.

There are two other good sources of Constitution plans - both of them reconstructions of her War of 1812 configuration.  The first is the set George Campbell drew for the Smithsonian in (I think) either the late fifties or the early sixties.  That set was the basis of the 1/96-scale Revell kit (and the smaller, "quick-build" version that was based on it).  I've heard some vague criticisms of these drawings, but I'm not aware of any major, indisputable errors in them.  The other set is the one published by Bluejacket Shipcrafters.  The individual responsible for it was not a draftsman of Mr. Campbell's training or experience, but he made the project a labor of love and spent an enormous amount of time on it.  (He also, as I understand it, consulted extensively with Capt. Tyrone Martin, one-time commanding officer of the ship and probably the reigning expert on just about every aspect of her.  Captain Martin's book is conspicuously absent from the bibliography of the Anatomy of the Ship volume.)

It seems remarkable that the details of such a famous ship - and such a popular model subject - are still so hard to pin down.  But such seems to be the case - and I suspect it will be for the foreseeable future.  I continue to hope that, in view of the critical reception the Anatomy book received, Conway will publish a revised and corrected edition of it some day.  But even if that happens I suspect the results won't be accepted as "definitive."

Hi again,

I do this from work so there isn't always enough time to respond. What I meant to say is that the BULWARKS are planked in the waist area (as per 1927). The waist hatch itself is the same on both the 1/150 and the 1/220 but much better detailed on the IMAI model. I think the Revell 1/196 modelI is the least accurate as there are other grave errors on that ship as well.

I have the "Anatomy of a Ship" book and the waist hatch as drawn in that book doesn't match ANY of the plastic models. As drawn in the book, it appears to be open a full frame longer in the direction of the bow. The changes the appearance of the deck and locates the galley stack further forward. Also, the ladders down to the gun deck are of a different configuration. None of it makes sense when you match up existing models with the drawings. The deck beams are not equally spaced in the drawings but appear to be in current photos. The beams across the hatch on the "USS President" as drawn by the British are also not of equal spacing. The hatch opening also appears to have been wider at one time. Does anyone have the actual dimensions of that hatch the way she is now? I'd run down and measure it myself but I'm in San Diego!  I have actually done that on the HMS Surprise/Rose both here and the tank model (Fox Mexico) so if anyone needs any measurements on her, let me know.

Chris

Transverse ship stability is a function of the metacenter--that point that occurs when the heeled center of bouyancy "moves" out from under the Center-of-Gravity creating a moment arm for righting the vessel.  Centroids and the like come into play with that.  Recoiled guns will have more change on CG centroids than just about anything else shipboard in those times.

So, stability is likely not an issue with tumblehome.

My guess is that it has a lot more to do with the tactical aspects of how the gunports on upper decks present themselves when a ship heels.  Especially given the camber of earlier decks.

Well, that's a new one to me.  Every pre-twentieth-century method of measuring tonnage that I've ever run across was based on either the maximum breadth or the breadth of the maindeck, which is defined as the widest one.  But I can't say for sure that no other system ever existed.

I don't have the relevant volume in the Conway's History of the Ship series in front of me (that's where I normally look for stuff related to old-fashioned nautical vocabulary), but here's the definition of "tun" from dictionary.com :   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tun .

The truth is that, prior to the twentieth century, official "measurements" of ships' capacities had virtually nothing to do with reality.  The designers didn't have an accurate system to measure such things; they used rather arbitrary measuring systems that don't really tell us much beyond the relative sizes of different ships - of the same country during the same period.

In any case, issues of tonnage and taxation would be irrelevant in the case of a warship.  Warships belong to governments, and governments don't pay taxes.

The big purpose of tumble-home clearly was to lower the ship's center of gravity.  It was much more pronounced in warship designs; the theory behind it was that mounting the upper deck guns closer to the centerline of the ship would lower the center of gravity, thereby making the ship more stable.  Brian Lavery, in his classic history of the British ship-of-the-line, points out that the theory is in fact false.  (I don't know enough about physics to explain the details, but the bottom line is that lowering the center of gravity does not necessarily make the ship more stable.) 

Thank goodness the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century designers didn't know that.  It's difficult to imagine what their ships would have looked like without tumble-home.

  gOOD MORNING EVERYONE .... wELL ,THE SUBJECT IS INTERESTING AT THE LEAST . SAY, J.TILLEY, WASN,T THERE SOMETHING WRITTEN THAT ANOTHER REASON FOR THE NARROWER TOPSIDE DECKS (GUNDECKS )IS THAT IT WAS ALSO DONE FOR TAXATION PURPOSES?? I DO BELIEVE THE DUTCH USED A FORMULA THAT EVERYONE ELSE ADOPTED IN A WAY THAT DETERMINED THE TAXABLE AMOUNT REFFERED TO THE SHIPS CAPACITY IN TUNNAGE? NO TUNNAGE IS NOT MISSPELLED . IN THE LATEST BOOK I READ ON SHIPS THE TUN WAS A LARGE CASK OR BARREL which held goods and I believe it held about 436 lbs. I could be wrong , but I believe that is the primary reason besides stability that ships had tumblehome . Didn,t they decide that the narrower the upper decks were that the ship would , hopefully be somewhat more stable in a blow ??   I apologise for the uppercase I just had my first cup of joe .   tankerbuilder

Very interesting!  I wasn't aware that the big Imai/Monogram kits had one-piece hulls.

I'd be interested to know the details of how the small Monogram and large Imai/Monogram kits are related.  My recollection is that the little Monogram ones appeared first, but I could well be mistaken about that.  (Dr. Graham's book doesn't say much about any of these kits.  The only thing I remember for sure is that the little Monogram ones were released while I was working in a hobby shop in Columbus, Ohio - that is, before 1980.  I don't think I've ever actually seen the larger Imai/Monogram kits.)

I don't think the big hatch in the Constitution's spardeck has ever actually been planked over (though, if memory serves, it's been narrowed).  For quite a few years (including the first time I saw her, which must have been in about 1966) the spaces between the beams were covered with gratings.  (I think they still are, as a matter of fact.  Whether the gratings were there at any point during her active career I don't know.  I'm pretty sure they weren't there during the War of 1812 - or earlier - when the hatch was considerably wider.)  The earliest of the kits we've been discussing, the 1956-vintage Revell 1/192 one, represents the hatch as a smooth surface, with the beams molded in relief.  (I suspect Revell may have taken its lead from the way such features were represented in solid-hull wood kits - about the only competition in those days.)

The belfry is an interesting question.  She certainly has one now (or did the last time I was on board her).  I think it may have been added in the late nineteenth century - or perhaps in the 1927 rebuild.  There's no belfry on the famous "Isaac Hull model," which is generally regarded as the best guide to her appearance during the War of 1812.  Frankly I'm inclined to take that model a little less literally than some people do.  It's extremely crude; it obviously was built by an enthusiastic amateur with an extremely limited tool kit.  (The gun carriages, for instance, are simple wood blocks, with no trucks or other details.  The builder made no effort to distinguish between the shapes of long guns and carronades.)  It is, I think, entirely possible that making a bell and a belfry was simply beyond his capacity.  (That almost certainly explains why the model also doesn't have a steering wheel.)

Deck camber has indeed been a big problem that the plastic kit manufacturers have had trouble reproducing (or, I suspect, understanding).  There have, however, been at least few cases in which they've dealt with it successfully.  The big Heller Victory kit contains cambered deck beams (not to scale, and not in the scale number) that (unless they're badly warped - which they may well be in kits that have been molded recently) will set the camber more-or-less correctly.  The Airfix Bounty has several, properly-cambered "deck beams" cast integrally on the underside of the deck.  (That's one of the few features of that kit that I really like.)  I'm pretty sure the old, old Heller Nina and Pinta have pretty sharply cambered quarterdecks.  So do the Revell Golden Hind and Mayflower, and the Heller Reale.  There probably are others, but those are some that come to mind off the top of my head.

Hi all,

I DO have both (all) of the Constitution kits made with the exception of the Aurora kit so I can't comment on that.

It's my oppinion that the Revell Germany kit is merely a re-run of the Monogram kit. Although RG's SAYS 1/150 (it's not) Monogram didn't specify a scale but it's close to 1/225; very close to the Revell Victory's. The Mongram kit looks for all the world like a pantographed, scaled down version of the Monogram/Imai 1/150 model. They both have 1 the piece hulls and the deck details are similiar and in the same relative locations; the main hatch being virtually indentical on both and also unique to those 2 models.

THe detailing on both is superb with a fairly correct tumblehome and gun-port spacing. They are the ONLY sailing warship kits with a deck camber! They also include a bellfry but according to all of the sources I've seen; she didn't carry one. The fit is the 1927 reconstruction with the waist completely planked in, not the 1812 one. That would be the Revell, Revell/Monogram 1/120 one.

Chris

One thing I do know of the Aurora kit is that it was of the ship as she looked after the 1927 restoration not of the 1812 fit. I've only seen the box art and never the actual kit.

I'm working at the office, and my copy of Dr. Graham's book about the history of Monogram is at home.  I'll check that book tonight (if my senile brain can remember) to be sure, but I think the following is correct.

Two Constitution and two United States kits have been released under the Monogram label.  One of each was a re-labeling of the old Imai 1/150 version.  I've never actually laid hands on either of those kits (in either Monogram or Imai guise); my impression is that - like virtually all Imai ships - they're pretty good.  On the basis of photos, though, it looks to me like the Imai designers treated the waist area the same way the old Revell 1/192 kit did:  with a flat piece of styrene covering the big waist hatch, through which the gundeck ought to be visible. 

I have the impression that both Imai and Monogram simply changed the names on the transoms to turn the Constitution into the United States.  In reality the United States had a "roundhouse" on her quarterdeck, which neither kit represents.  (The only plastic kit that made even a half-hearted attempt at the "roundhouse" was the old Revell 1/96 version - which has plenty of other problems.)

In the mid- to late 1970s Monogram made a brief effort to popularize sailing ship models for beginners.  (Revell was doing the same thing at the same time; I think both of them were trying desperately to lure newcomers into the hobby, which was going through rough times.)  Monogram issued three such kits:  the Cutty Sark, the Constitution, and the United States.  (Once again, the U.S. was just the Constitution with a different name on the transom.)  These kits were quite small - smaller than the Revell 1/192 kit.  (I imagine the scale was in the neighborhood of 1/250; I'll look them up in Dr. Graham's book.)  The overwhelming consideration in their design seems to have been simplicity.  The yards were molded integrally with the masts, and they had one-piece hulls.  A person who'd never built a model was supposed to be able to make a sailing ship from the contents of the box in a couple of hours.

The designs were actually quite ingenious (the designers almost got around the fact that the tumble-home in the Constitution's hull couldn't be reproduced with a one-piece hull), and the packaging was nice, but as I understand it the kits were not successful.  They weren't in the Monogram catalog long, and shortly thereafter Monogram was taken over by Mattel and got out of the scale model business for several years.

I don't think I've ever had the old Aurora kit in my hands either, but I'm pretty sure it's an entirely different kit from either of the Monogram ones - though, if memory serves, it probably was about the size of the smaller one (i.e., 1/250 or thereabouts).

Again, all this is based on my highly defective memory.  But I think I've got the story more-or-less straight.

Regarding the Monogram Constitution, one kit of Constitution I see rarely mentioned is the Aurora kit from the early to mid 60's. When Aurora went out of business in the 70's Monogram aquired many of their molds and among them were their ship molds. The USS Kennedy, cruisers USS Chicago, Lehey and a Frigate who's name escapes me. They also released the Aurora U-boat as well as a Japanese sub and possibly Aurora's Bismark. I'm guessing the Constitution that Monogram released was possibly the old Aurora mold. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

RedCorvette wrote:

I guess the thing that mystifies me from an economic standpoint is why Monogram would invest in completely new tooling in a very similar scale rather than just modifying the existing tool or directly copying it with modifications.

Well, as a guess, it could be that they "shopped" or "farmed out" the entire tool-making part of it.  So, they sent off the "masters" for the products to be moulded, and said "give us tooling to make these" (that also fits with our mould/casting line). 

And, thermocasting technology, the assembly-line of it, has changed, several times in just the last few years.  Articulated moulds are common--which is how you get the semi-tumblehomed hull.  (The hull mould probably folds in on itself and retracts from the transon "hole," as a guess.) 

The other possibility is that the new mouldings were sent to a "rapid prototyper," who made new "masters" from various kinds of end product.  Those tooling "tools" might then have been sent off to a tooling outfit, who may have combined or modified some of the parts before sending them off back to Revell. 

I guess the thing that bugs me the most about the United States kit is the gross misrepresentation of the scale.  Didn't they think someone would notice?

And, with more guessing, there's two possibilities that come to my mind.  One is marketing weasels.  The second is left hand versus right hand "modern" coroporate "culture." 

So, the marketing types (not all of whom are weasels; some are good, the rest embarass weasels everywhere <sigh>) may have demographics that "say" buyers "prefer" 1/150 as a scale.  So, the marketing people had the ad, the box art, the destructions writers, all use 1:150 as the referenced scale.  So, that's what it is, right?

This is where the marketing people might not be weasels--it may have been, in the 97-step-boogie to make tooling, that no one told Marketing, oh yeah, the kit is really 1/223 after we got the tooling back.  What do you do with a dozen gross boxes and assembly destructions already printed, then? 

Could also have been like the tale from the first color season of Star Trek.  They painted the Orion woman green (Spock, too, a tad).  But, in the "dailies" the color never came out, so the make up people were chasing their tails no end.  That is until they asked the film developers, who are alleged to have said "What?  They're supposed to be Green?  We've been correcting the color . . . "

I built the Monogram Constitution in 1991 and the Revell United States last year.  I could not see any difference at all in the two kits except box art, nameplates, and the logos on the instructions. However, I did not look too deeply into the scale aspects of the actual dimensions on the hull.  I was more interested in the quick build model for a school display and for a shadowbox experiment which these kits worked beautifully for.

I guess the thing that mystifies me from an economic standpoint is why Monogram would invest in completely new tooling in a very similar scale rather than just modifying the existing tool or directly copying it with modifications.  After all, the original tooling for the 1:196 kit has been modified since it was first issued: the masts originally were molded as separate pieces and had to be built up, while the current issue has single-piece masts.  (I suspect/speculate it might have been at the same time they added the infamous molded ratlines.)  Even with the single-piece hull, the part count between the two kits isn't that much different, especially if you exclude the long guns which are molded as part of the stub gun deck pieces on the new kit.  Plus the parts are smaller, in the "simplfied" kit which would seem to make assembly, painting, etc. even more challenging.

I guess the thing that bugs me the most about the United States kit is the gross misrepresentation of the scale.  Didn't they think someone would notice?

Mark 

It looks like the clever folks at Monogram did manage to work a little bit of tumble-home into that hull - though not enough for accuracy.  I wonder how they did it.  Maybe they varied the thickness of the plastic (making it thicker around the waterline), or maybe the "plug" component of the mold was made in some elaborate way that let it be extracted in several pieces from the finished casting.  In any case, quite ingenious.

I vaguely remember, when the kit (along with its companion Cutty Sark) was released, reading a review of them in one of the hobby trade journals.  (I was working in a hobby shop at the time.)  The reviewer clearly was not an experienced ship modeler; he was far more interested in the marketability of such products than their historical accuracy.  In this case he expressed his bewilderment that Monogram was making such a big deal out of the one-piece hull idea.  The reviewer said he'd never heard any particular complaints from customers about difficulties in gluing hull halves together.  I have to confess that I haven't either - except in cases where the hull halves are warped or don't fit right (complaints that have never been prominent in Monogram products).  What we seem to be talking about here is a period in the history of the American plastic model when the industry was operating in a state of near-desperation.  Sales were down, various other forms of leisure-time activity were cutting into the traditional markets, manufacturers (e.g., Aurora and Frog) were going out of business, and the survivors were trying all sorts of ideas to move the kits off the shelves.  Those ploys ranged from silly "diorama kits" (two 1/72-scale fighters mounted on a base formed by the inside of the box) to "simplified" kits to simply packaging the kits in oversized boxes (to keep the competition off the shelves in the discount stores). This pair of kits can, perhaps, best be seen as relics of an unpleasant era. 

At that time - the late seventies - there was talk among the manufacturers and dealers that the age of the American scale plastic model kit was just about over.  In retrospect, they were almost - but not quite - right.  Perhaps it's worth noting that no American manufacturer has produced a genuinely new sailing ship kit since then.

The one-piece hull kit in my photos was boxed as the Revell Germany 1:150 United States.  If it was actually 1:150 scale, then the it should be about 30% longer than the 1:196 Constitution sitting beside it - it's not - it's definitely smaller.  I'm guessing about 1:220 or so.

Here's some more photos that might help with the hull questions.   

Greetings !

I carefully examined redcorvette's nice photos and then took the hull of United States(sic.) and looked to it at 90 degree angles both from on top, from transom and from bow. Maybe I don't know how to look (or just my eyesight is bad ) but I can swear that the tumblehome is done on the Monogram kit. I can clearly see the open gunports at around a 45 degree angle when I look from the top and I can observe how the hull is blown like glass of wine at amidships when I look right through the bow. I think the difference in scale between the two kits and the angles at which the photos are taken cause a trompe d'oeil, that's why it gets difficult to fully observe details of the smaller kit. (I tought German Revell's kit was a new version from the old 1/196 model but through Professor's posts, I realized that it's a different kit in a different scale from Monogram . Right ?) 

On the subject of Constitution kits, if you are looking for a kit of this ship which is a bit larger and more detailed than the old 1/196 one, but are put off by the cost, size or complexity of the big 1/96 Constitution - Revell's 1/150ish kit from the "Quick Build" series isn't bad at all. It has a number of simplifications, such as most of the gun deck ports being closed up, and the gun carriages moulded integrally with the deck (they're surprisingly detailed, however, despite this) but IMHO is very good overall. I'd say it was excellent if it weren't for the fact that the 1/96 Constitution is so much better. Though from the "Quick Build" series it is still a very complex and detailed kit, other than the lower gun decks it has as many parts as the Heller 1/150 kits. Not sure about accuracy of hull lines, but I'd assume the hull and deck parts are pantographed either down from the 1/96 or up from the 1/196 kit (it has a two-piece hull) which are both quite accurate. Certainly it shouldn't have the tumblehome problems of the Monogram kit. This kit has been reissued quite a few times recently, most recently by Revell Germany last year, and is not too hard to find or expensive. The scale is described as 1/110 by most retailers, but it is actually about 1/150 (they probably measured the hull length of the kit against the total length of the real ship; the 1/196 kit has the same problem, being boxed as "1/146")

RedCorvette's photos seem to answer a question that I'd been wondering about since this thread started:  how can a hull with tumble-home be made in one piece in a rigid mold?

This class of frigate, like most other large warships of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, featured tumble-home.  In simple terms, their spar decks were considerably less broad than their main decks.  The theory was that this arrangement lowered the ship's center of gravity, thereby making her more stable.  (Brian Lavery notes that the concept was false - but it persisted for a long time.)

I can't tell for sure from the pictures, but it looks to me like Monogram altered the shape of the hull to omit the tumble-home.  The ancient Revell kit, on the other hand, reproduces the ship's lines pretty accurately - as does the later, 1/96-scale Revell kit.  (The big problem with that kit's hull is that the "planking" is far too thin.  There's no way the thickness of those moldings could accommodate the ship's frames and two layers of planking.  Revell confronted an insurmountable obstacle there; if the hull halves had been given the scale thickness, the styrene would have suffered from awful sink marks and other signs of shrinkage.) 

From the standpoint of serious scale modeling, the wildly inaccurate cross-sections of the one-piece hull pretty much rule the old Monogram "1/150" kit out of contention.  That's sort of a shame; in many other respects it looks like a carefully-designed product.  But, as we established earlier in this thread, it was never intended for experienced modelers. 

Some quick photos of my WIP 1:196 Constitution alongside the alleged 1:150 United States with the one-piece hull:

 

Maybe I've been too hard on this kit and am used to the current super duper scaled 1/700 kits of today.  As compared to what Airfix, Life-Like, Aurora, and others were putting out at the time, this kit does have some really good qualities to detail on it.

The Cuttysark is a masterpiece for its size if you go the extra and add portholes, doors, and paneling details to the deckhouses.

Scott

The Magoun book is an old (very old) classic.  As Kapudan implies, it's been supplanted in most serious modelers' libraries by more up-to-date works.  The validity of the plans in it, however, varies considerably.  Magoun's version of the Mayflower is pretty awful, but his Bluenose and Flying Cloud drawings appear to be reasonably sound (if basic and simplified).  I think he based his drawing of the Constitution on the set of plans that the Navy published in the 1920s, after the major restoration that Kapudan referred to.  The Navy sold those plans for many years to any modeler who was interested in them; they were, for example, available in the gift shop that used to be on board the ship.  I suspect those drawings were the basis for the little Monogram (now Revell Germany) kit.  That would explain why it looks so much like the ship did in the 1920s.

Good day,

I share your argument that the kit is a bit simplistic, but I think you judged it rather harshly overall I compared kit's components with the detailed plans in Magoun's book and I did not find any inconsistency or inaccuracy. The model is 40 cm from transom to the tip of jibboom when completed: same length with another classic from Revell, the 1/220 HMS Victory. Thus I think the scale is right at 1/196. The hull is correctly shaped, even the deck is not flat ! Plank and copper sheating detail is quite nice considering the small scale. Instead of supplying the modeler with those horrible stub cannons as often practiced by most styrene producers (even Imai !), Revell's designers too the pain to produce proper full cannons with part of the gundeck below them. No small feat at this scale !  The one piece masts and spars are a major fault but otherwise, I consider it as quite a fair little model of Constitution.

I have had both the Constititution and the United States kits.  The ONLY difference between the two is the box art, and the nameplate.  That is it.  Fun little kits to put together and practice rigging on but do not count on them for accuracy.

Scott

I recently got suckered  persuaded to buy this kit.  It is definitely based on the 1:196 Constitution, but is considerably smaller.  Maybe 1:250 scale, but nowhere close to 1:150. 

The detail on the deck is much improved: the main hatch has molded grating over the open areas versus the large blank areas of the 1:196 kit and the skylight over the captain's cabin is more accurate.  But the molded combings of the the hatches and the companionways are way too high (about 2' in scale).  The deck is actually molded with some crown (although again, probably too much scale-wise).  The training gear of the carronades is molded into the deck, but would be about impossible to paint without the aid of an electron microscope.  The transom piece is the modern/restored Constitution with the window covers molded in the closed position and some half-hearted ingraving that implies fourth and fifth gallery windows.

The one-piece hull also means that they had to forego all the molded detail inside the bulwalks - pin rails, planking, etc.

As Prof. Tilley mentioned, it has the yards molded to the masts in the raised positions.  Either you use the vaccuum-formed sails, or are faced with a lot of work to re-work the masts with the yards lowered.

Nothing about this kit even suggests Revell made any effort to model the United States:  it's just a smaller, simplified, "quick build" version of the 1:196 Constitution.  Quite frankly, I don't know if I'm even going to make the effort to build it.

It's really a shame they didn't just spend the effort to update/improve the molds of the 1:196 kit. 

Mark 

 

 

   

Kapudan's observations confirm my suspicions:  this is the old Monogram Constitution.  I never bought it, but I remember taking a look at the contents of the box in the hobby shop where I was working at the time.  It struck me as an ingeniously-designed product that would produce something that, from a fair distance, would look reasonably like a model of a sailing ship.  But I don't think it was ever intended for serious scale ship modelers.