SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell Model Flying Cloud

8306 views
10 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
Revell Model Flying Cloud
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:04 PM
Has anybody any information on an old kit from Revell..the Flying Cloud, I believe it dates back a while (50's or 60's).
I am looking at building one, and wondered if anybody knew about it.

Thanks,
Greg
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:23 PM
Here's the basic data on it, from the bible on the subject: Dr. Thomas Graham's Remembering Revell Model Kits.

The scale is 1/232. (This is one of those notorious "fit the standard box" kits.) It was originally issued in 1957, in tan, black, and white plastic. It was reissued under its own name in 1975 and 1979, and under the generic name "Yankee Clipper" in 1973.

In one of its more odious marketing ploys Revell used the hull and most other parts of the Flying Cloud as the basis for a kit that supposedly represented the Stag Hound, another Donald McKay clipper. In reality the two ships only vaguely resembled each other. The Stag Hound kit, according to Dr. Graham, was issued in 1962.

I'm pretty sure I've also seen the kit in a Heller box. Heller distributed some Revell kits for a while - in the early eighties, if I'm not mistaken.

For its size and age it's a really nice kit. The small scale forces some obvious limitations on it (the angel figurehead lacks the oustretched arm and trumpet), but some of the details are remarkable. The countersunk planking and the "copper sheathing" are particularly well done. And how about those little coils of rope, with blocks seized to their ends, lying around on the decks! The guys who sculpted the masters for that first generation of Revell sailing ships were real artisans. Those kits were far nicer than they needed to be.

This was one of the very first kits to feature plastic-coated thread "shrouds and ratlines" and vacuum-formed "sails." Those are two ideas I wish the designers had never had. The set of "sails" for the original issue of the Flying Cloud have always baffled me: all the skysails, headsails, and staysails are represented, but for some reason the fore topsail is missing. In its absence the sail plan looks ridiculous. I think Revell fixed that mistake in later issues - but I'm not sure.

Hope this helps a little. Good luck. It's a nice kit - a solid basis for a fine scale model.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, September 15, 2005 9:43 PM
Thank you for the quick response! That gives me some information to work with. I am going to build this one pretty much as the kit comes, with the exception of paint. I have not built a plastic ship for some time (10 years?) and want to get back into it, but before building some of my other kits I thought I would give this one a shot. It was given to me some time ago, and I have not even opened it up yet. I am sure the person who gave it to me had it for some time as well.

Thanks again!

Greg
  • Member since
    May 2005
Posted by Ron Smith on Friday, September 16, 2005 12:53 AM
It's a nice kit and the older issues have better thread than the later issues. I actually have two kits I got off ebay a few years ago, I got the second because the first was missing a few parts and very flashy.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Friday, September 16, 2005 9:37 PM
I built the Flying Cloud a couple of years ago- it wasn't a bad kit. The full build writeup, with pictures, is over on the modelingmadness website.

Older editions of the kit had the "shrouds and ratlines" -- I think later editions had heavier plastic units.

I had a STAG HOUND kit at the time I built the FLYING CLOUD- they are virtually the same kit. (FC had the thread-based ratlines, while the SH had the heavier plastic ones.)

I had a 1957 boxing of the Flying CLoud, and a 1980s edition of the Stag Hound. The hulls halves in the two kits were exact matches, and could have been exchanged between kits. To make the Stag Hound different from the FC, Revell deleted the raised foc'sle deck and instead added a small deckhouse forward of the Foremast. According to William Crother's definitive history of US Clipper Ships, no clipper had that deck config. (The Flying CLoud kit, however, matches the deck layout in the book.)

The coils of line jtilley mentions were engraved well, but they were all over the place- a bit too mucn IMO. I sanded off the molded in coils of rope on the roofs of the deckhouses, but left the ones on the main deck in place. No bosun worth his salt would have left coils of line laying abotu the ship in such a lubberly fashion! (I left the coils on the main deck, as I didn't think I could remove them without destroying the nice planking detail.)

All in all, I found the FC to be an enjoyable build.

-Bill


Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, September 16, 2005 10:21 PM
I think rcboater's right: sometime in the seventies Revell abandoned the plastic-coated-thread "shrouds and ratlines" in its smaller kits and replaced them with injection-molded ones.

I believe the plastic-coated-thread versions stayed in the big, three-foot-long kits. (Incidentally, only one of those big kits, the Constitution, is in the current Revell/Monogram lineup; the Revell Germany website shows the Constitution and the Kearsarge. The Cutty Sark seems to be gone - at least for the time being.)

I guess one could argue about which system was better; in my opinion both are pretty awful. The plastic kit manufacturers seem to have spent quite a bit of time fussing over The Great Ratline Problem, without ever coming close to a solution. If a manufacturer tried to foist such gross objects on the aircraft, armor, or railroad modelers, their reaction would be interesting - and loud.

Gold Medal Models has produced some reasonable-looking "shrouds and ratlines" for merchant steamships in its aftermarket photo-etched metal sets. Some time ago I bought a remarkably nice little 1/700 H.M.S. Victory from a British firm called Skytrex. The kit has a beautiful cast metal hull (arguably the best representation of the ship's 1805 configuration in kit form) and a photo-etched brass fret containing sails and shroud/ratline assemblies. The sails probably would be fine for wargamers (clearly the biggest market for such kits), but for a display model paper would surely be better. The "shrouds and ratlines" in the kit seem to be generic items that Skytrex includes in several kits. The spacing of the shrouds is a bit off, and the ratlines are the same width as the shrouds. On 1/700 scale they probably would look pretty good.

The idea of photo-etched sailing ship rigging is, I think, worth pursuing. I tried to interest Loren Perry, of Gold Medal Models, in it some time back; he didn't want to expand in that direction. I'm not sure it would work on the Revell Flying Cloud's scale, but it might be worth a try. With the relief etching concept, it might be possible to make the ratlines skinnier than the shrouds. The "ropes" wouldn't be round in cross-section, but on such a small scale maybe that wouldn't be noticeable.

I'd also be curious to see how effectively the photo-etching process would be in producing miniature chain. The finest actual chain I've been able to find has 42 links to the inch - mighty small, but still too coarse for a lot of chain on a 1/96-scale model of a latter-day sailing ship. I haven't been particularly impressed with the photo-etched anchor chains I've seen; they're too flat. But that problem lessens as the chain gets smaller. I wonder what 100-links-per-inch photo-etched chain would look like. I'm sure it could be done.

All this probably is silly fantasy on my part, but it's fun to think about. I detect a tiny bit of increased interest in plastic sailing ship kits at the moment. Maybe - just maybe - the day will come when sailing ship enthusiasts get at least a fraction of the attention from manufacturers that aircraft and railroad modelers take for granted.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    May 2005
Posted by Ron Smith on Saturday, September 17, 2005 12:07 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jtilley

I think rcboater's right: sometime in the seventies Revell abandoned the plastic-coated-thread "shrouds and ratlines" in its smaller kits and replaced them with injection-molded ones.


The plastic coated soft one look OK on Flying Cloud, not great but good enough for most folks. They also make the worst part of rigging easier for newbies.

QUOTE: Gold Medal Models has produced some reasonable-looking "shrouds and ratlines" for merchant steamships in its aftermarket photo-etched metal sets.


PE ratlines look too flat, worse in fact than the soft plastic coated ones in the original Flying Cloud.

[quote[The idea of photo-etched sailing ship rigging is, I think, worth pursuing.


I never use the PE rigging on steelnavy ships with the rare exception of crane stays.

QUOTE: I'd also be curious to see how effectively the photo-etching process would be in producing miniature chain. The finest actual chain I've been able to find has 42 links to the inch - mighty small, but still too coarse for a lot of chain on a 1/96-scale model of a latter-day sailing ship.


I've got down to 72lpi chain from railroad and armor suppliers. PE chain sucks in anything larger than 1/600.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, September 17, 2005 9:26 PM
Ideally, any method of reproducing shrouds and ratlines needs to take several things into account. The lines need to be round (which photo-etched metal products aren't), the ratlines need to be considerably smaller in diameter than the shrouds, the shrouds need to be taut, and the ratlines need to sag between the shrouds. The shrouds also need to vary in diameter according to their location in the ship's rigging - the mizzen shrouds should be finer than the main shrouds, the topmast shrouds should be finer than the lower shrouds, etc. All that creates a tall order for any manufacturer. To my notion, none of them has yet pulled it off. On really small scales photo-etching just might work - provided the designer was willing to use the "relief" technique to make the ratlines thinner, in all dimensions, than the shrouds. But to my knowledge no manufacturer has yet tried that.

As in most aspects of scale modeling, there's no real substitute for "doing it to scale" - i.e., clove-hitching the ratlines individually to the shrouds. Here's a link to some photos of my model of the Revolutionary War frigate Hancock: http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/album194 . The shrouds on this model are silk (cable-laid, made on a crude "ropewalk") and the ratlines are nickel-chromium wire, about .002" in diameter. I'm pretty satisfied with the result.

That model is on the scale of 3/32"=1' (or 1/128). For my fingers and middle-aged eyeballs, that's about the smallest scale on which it's practical to tie the ratlines individually. (I might be able to do it on 1/16"=1'; frankly I've never tried. I certainly wouldn't do it on a smaller scale than that.)

If I were doing that Revell Flying Cloud I'd use one of two approaches to rigging the ratlines. One - the old "needle-through-the-shrouds" method. Rig the shrouds first (a good idea in any case). Thread a needle with the very finest thread you can find. Make a white cardboard template (index card stock works fine) with a series of lines ruled on it at the spacing of the ratlines (about one scale foot), and slip the template behind the shrouds. Grab the first shroud near the bottom with a pair of fine tweezers, and shove the needle through it. Repeat with each shroud in turn. Touch the end of each ratline with a tiny drop of white glue, let the glue dry, and trim off the excess thread. It's an old technique, and one that works quite well; I've used it, and seen it applied pretty effectively, on scales down to 1/32"=1'.

The other technique is to rig the shrouds carefully and leave the ratlines off altogether. That approach actually has a lot to recommend it. A real ratline is little more than half an inch in diameter; in 1/232 scale (that of the Revell Flying Cloud) that's smaller than what lots of people can see. One school of thought in model building says "if you can't make it to scale, leave it off." Omitting the ratlines arguably is preferable to making them grossly out of scale.

One aspect of all this that frequently discourages newcomers is the "learning curve." In ship model rigging the learning curves are pretty steep - but short. If you've never rigged ratlines with the "needle-through-the-shrouds" method you'll probably find it frustrating at first. It may take ten minutes to rig the first ratline, and you'll look at the total number that have to be rigged and conclude that you won't finish it before you get so old that your eyesight goes. But if you stick with it you'll discover that the fifth ratline goes a lot faster than the first one, and by the time you get to the top of the mast you'll be rigging one ratline per minute. And I can almost guarantee that when you see the results you'll think they're worth the effort.

The kit manufacturers seem to have convinced generations of modelers that rigging ratlines is difficult, if not impossible. It really isn't. It takes a certain amount of time and dexterity - but so do plenty of other jobs in building a ship model. A model of a full-rigged ship can be "rattled down" in about a week of evenings. One of the most important features of my workshop is a decent sound system. The first thing I do when confronting a set of shrouds and ratlines is to put on a good CD.

Too long as usual; please forgive the rambling. Good luck.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Saturday, September 17, 2005 11:37 PM
I'm not sure on the date, but jtilley's recollections match mine. Sometime around 1980, Revell dropped the coated thread ratlines in their smaller kits, replacing them with molded plastic ratlines. I agree with jtilley that both approaches are not that great, but IMO, the molded plastic parts are the worst of the two- they are molded so overscale! When I build the smaller REvell kits, I will search out an old edition of the kit-- I'd rather have the coated thread ones, If I'm not goign to tie my own....

jtilley is right- Revell continues to use the coated thread ratlines in the big 1/96 scale kits. I doubt those kits will undergo the "simplification" that the smaller kits went through 20-25 years ago....

Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Walworth, NY
Posted by Powder Monkey on Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:33 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jtilley

I'd also be curious to see how effectively the photo-etching process would be in producing miniature chain. The finest actual chain I've been able to find has 42 links to the inch - mighty small, but still too coarse for a lot of chain on a 1/96-scale model of a latter-day sailing ship. I haven't been particularly impressed with the photo-etched anchor chains I've seen; they're too flat. But that problem lessens as the chain gets smaller. I wonder what 100-links-per-inch photo-etched chain would look like. I'm sure it could be done.

Do you mean a flat chain? It would consist of ovals joined by a short straight piece. How thick would the links be?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, September 19, 2005 5:57 AM
Iron chain was used for lots of rigging in latter-day sailing vessels, in both the standing and running rigging. The size of the chain varied tremendously, according to the job the chain had to do.

Here are a few examples from a set of plans I happen to have handy - the Young America drawings by William Crothers and Thomas Hornsby. (These are the draftsmen's guesses, but those two gentlemen knew what they were doing.)

Anchor cable: stud-link chain, 1 3/8" wire size, 13 links per fathom, each link 8 3/4" long.

Bobstays - close-link (i.e., oval-link) chain, 1" wire size, 29 links per fathom, each ling 4 5/8" long.

Main topsail halyard runner - close-link chain, 1/4" wire size, 92 links per fathom, each link 1 5/16" long.

See the problem? On 1/96 scale, the links on that main topsail halyard runner would be .0136718" long (over 100 links per inch). On that Revell Flying Cloud they'd be .0056573" long (over 200 links per inch). I'm not at all sure whether a photo-etched metal representation of chain at that size would take the necessary strain without snapping. But it might be worth trying. The links obviously couldn't be open; the representation would have to consist of dots joined by lines. Whether it would look at all like chain to the eye - well, I'd have to see it to form an opinion.

On another thread in this Forum a modeler is working on some homemade photo-etched shrouds and ratlines for a 1/350 model of the U.S.C.G.C. Eagle. I hope he succeeds - and posts some photos. I continue to think photo-etching has a potential for rigging on small scales. I just can't live with those plastic-coated thread "shrouds and ratlines." To my eye they just don't look like rigging - though I agree that they aren't quite as hideous as the injection-molded versions Revell has been making lately.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.