Revell Stag Hound

I am happy to meet prof. Tilley in the forums, because he is a rare "living reference" about plastic kits of sailing ships.  There is so much job to be done, we can not find websites providing informations about them, so who will give us a good website with serious informations about our sailing ships model kits?

Michel

A good material for scratchbuilding the forecastle deck (if you're within range of a hobby shop that carries it) would be Evergreen scribed styrene sheet.  It comes with grooves in a wide variety of spacings; the finest probably would be just about right to match the beautiful countersunk decks seams on the Revell kit, and you could use the same finishing techniques. 

Just don't forget to add camber to the forecastle deck.  It should arch upward a little bit at the centerline.  The curvature doesn't amount to much; a standard formula is 1/4" of rise in deck camber for every foot of the ship's beam at that point.  You could work the camber into the scribed sheet by just bending it gently with your fingers.  Deck camber adds a great deal to a model - especially in a case like that, where the edge of the deck is visible.

Now that my Flying cloud is finished, one thing I wish I had done was to bring some running  rigging to the pinrails.   One techniwue that might be worth a try is to drill small diameter holes in the pinrails, and anchor small dia,eter lines with a knot or dab of glue.  You could them run them up to the mast to whereever you want, to represent some of the many lines that are belayed at the pinrails.

I agree completely about Mr. Crothers's book.  It's a masterpiece - and that chapter on deck plans has done quite a service to everybody who has any interest in American clippers.  For decades art galleries, museums, collectors, and researchers have been looking at old pictures of clipper ships without being able to identify them.  Many people thought for a long time that there was such a thing as a "generic" deck layout for American clippers.  Mr. Crothers has shown that such was not the case.  Just about every old painting or drawing (if it represents a real ship at all accurately) can now be identified on the basis of his drawings.  It turns out that scarcely any of those wonderful ships had identical deck layouts.

Incidentally, a paperback edition of the book came out not long ago - at about half the price of the hardback original.  That book has my enthusiastic recommendation.  I'd suggest that anybody with any interest at all in American clipper ships snap it up.  It looks like the sort of book that goes out of print fairly quickly.

I've always had mixed reactions to Chapelle's manifesto about "models that shouldn't be built."  I'm just as tired as he was of seeing dubiously-researched Santa Marias, Golden Hinds, and Bonhomme Richards.  But I also think that reconstructions based on careful, scholarly research can be extremely valuable.  Such ships as the Mayflower II and Elizabeth II have considerably enhanced our understanding of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century naval architecture and seamanship.  And the reconstructed Greek trireme Olympias has caused historians to rethink many of their most basic assumptions about ancient naval warfare. 

In any case, Chapelle wasn't talking about stunts like the Revell "Beagle" or "Stag Hound."  In those cases we're not talking about poorly-researched attempts to represent vessels for which accurate information isn't available.  There's more than enough reliable, contemporary information to build a genuine scale model of either of those ships.  What's in the Revell Stag Hound box is not a bad reconstruction of an obscure ship.  It's a reasonably accurate model of another, conspicuously different ship, with a few completely spurious alterations thrown in to fool the consumer. 

One thing that bothers me about that sort of marketing ploy is the completely different standards that seem to be applied to different realms of the hobby.  One of Revell's earliest aircraft kits was a B-29.  Suppose that kit had reappeared with a couple of different parts in a box labeled "B-17"?  (Hey, man - they're both airplanes, they're both bombers, they're both built by Boeing, and they both have blue and white insignia.  How many people will know the difference?)

On the other hand, beggars can't be choosers.  It would be nice if we could suggest that Powder Monkey go down to the hobby shop and trade in the Stag Hound for a Flying Cloud.  That's not an option; so few plastic sailing ships are left on the market today that I can easily sympathize with anybody who decides to make the best of what he can find. 

I have to echo jtilley's comments, except for the part where I point out that things are even worse....

THE reference on this subject is Crother's The American Built Clipper Ship. It is a terrific book for the modeler, with information about the hull, rig, and deck arrangements of all the American clippers. (I got a copy from the local library system.)

In that book, I found that the Revell Flyign Cloud is fairly accurate.  I also discovered how wrong the Stag Hound is.  Worse, I found that no other clipper had a deck layout like the Revell kit- None of the clippers had that silly little cabin forward of the foremast.  (I was hoping they had gotten the layout for another ship.)

-Bill

Pete

   I agree with Scott build the model.It will help develop your modeling skills.Plus 90% of people that see it won't know if its true to scale or not.They'll just say boy I wish I could do that.Keep up the good work.

Rod

One must always remember the words of the great admiral, David Glasgow Farragut-" Damn the torpedoes!! Full speed ahead!"..........or was it-" Damn!!, the torpedoes!!,...Full speed ahead!!!!!"

Funny what a simple punctuatiuon mark can do to history.

To my eye, at least, that bow configuration with no raised forecastle is hard to swallow.  A sea coming over the bow would fill the whole forward part of the ship.  I don't recall ever having seen a ship with that sort of deck layout. 

How serious all this is depends, of course, on the individual modeler.  I never like to suggest that somebody choose or reject a particular kit because I like it or don't like it.  I just think modelers are entitled to know what they're getting into.  I've been trapped more than once by stunts like this; I wish somebody had warned me.  (When I was considerably younger, and even stupider, I spent a couple of years working on a Heller Soleil Royal.  If I'd had any conception of that kit's inadequacies I never would have bought it - let alone built it.)

Unfortunately, the question "what were they thinking?" has a simple answer:

          $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

I hate to be the bearer of foul tidings, but I also believe modelers have the right to go into projects with their eyes open.  Those who prefer not to hear foul tidings - stop reading now.

This kit is one of Revell's more deceptive ripoffs.  It's a modified reissue of the company's Flying Cloud.  The original kit was remarkably good, especially in view of its age.  (According to Dr. Graham's history of Revell, it originally appeared in 1957; it was Revell's fourth sailing ship kit, after the Constitution, Bounty, and Santa Maria.)  It captures the unique hull shape of the Flying Cloud beautifully, and the detailing of such things as the hull and deck planking and the copper sheathing can stand comparison with kits that were designed twenty or thirty years later.

But it doesn't look anything like the Stag Hound.  In fact, it doesn't look much like any American clipper ship.  The people responsible for it apparently were determined to make it look visibly different from the Flying Cloud, while retaining the same hull and most of the other parts.  But they apparently didn't bother to find out what the Stag Hound looked like.  (It's no secret.  Plans for her are available in several places - most prominently in Howard I. Chapelle's The Search For Speed Under Sail.)  Somebody thought it would be clever to omit the Flying Cloud's forecastle deck and add a small deckhouse forward of the foremast.  The Stag Hound in fact did have a raised forecastle deck, and the little deckhouse is pure fiction.  So is most of the other deck furniture.  And there's just no getting around the fact that the two ships had conspicuously different hull lines.  The Stag Hound was a relatively early McKay design; the Flying Cloud was one of his masterpieces, and her hull didn't look like that of any other ship that was ever built.

The kit, in other words, is not a scale model but a merchandising ploy.  The best that can be said for it, in terms of scale fidelity, is that it isn't the worst such stunt Revell ever pulled.  (For that title I nominate the company's so-called "H.M.S. Beagle," which is a modified version of H.M.S. Bounty.  It bears no resemblance whatever to the real Beagle.)

Whether such a kit is worth building is, of course, entirely up to the individual modeler.  Personally, I'd regard the orginal Revell Flying Cloud as an extremely worthwhile subject - a fine basis for a serious scale model, though on an awfully small scale. But I have trouble recommending that so-called Stag Hound to anybody.