SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

1/96 USS Kearsarge - work in progress

16493 views
34 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2006
1/96 USS Kearsarge - work in progress
Posted by EPinniger on Friday, July 7, 2006 9:43 AM
Whilst this is a well-known kit, there don't seem to be many photos of built models out there on the web (in fact I haven't found any so far) so I thought I'd post some pictures of my build.

So far the hull and deck are assembled (the forecastle is not fitted yet) and painted, including basic weathering and drybrushing. Some minor retouching to the stripes is also needed. With large ship models I usually paint the hull before assembling the rest of the model - otherwise you usually end up damaging the rigging/fittings whilst painting.





Not really much to see at the minute but I will post more photos in this thread as the build progresses.

I am building the kit more or less OOB, representing the Kearsarge in 1880s configuration, with a few additional details such as bulwark interior ribs, glazed portholes + windows, etc.

Despite the flash, mould lines and sink marks, I'm very impressed with this kit. After building the Revell/Matchbox 1/72 Flower-class corvette (which needs much of the fine detail to be scratchbuilt) and recently starting the Lindberg 1/125 Fletcher-class destroyer (which needs virtually ALL the fine detail, and a lot of the larger components, to be scratchbuilt or heavily modified if you want a detailed + accurate finished model) it's a refreshing change to build a kit which is as comprehensively detailed as this "out of the box" - especially considering that it's more or less a contemporary of the above 2 kits.
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Carmichael, CA
Posted by Carmike on Friday, July 7, 2006 2:55 PM

It looks like you're off to a good start.  I'm just about to start work on the Alabama (the kit has been sitting on the shelf for 20 years, so it's time).  You've done a great job in eliminating the seams between the three pieces of the deck, which has always seemed to be the weakest point of these kits.  Do you have any suggestions / tips that you could pass along - they would be very gratefully received.

Good luck with the Kearsarge. 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Friday, July 7, 2006 8:18 PM

If you can find a copy of "How To Build Plastic Ship Models" By Les Wilkens.He has a page of pictures of the Kearsarge he build.Its been out of print for several years.On he's model he laid a wood deck and used typewriter paper to make his gun tracks.

Rod

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 7, 2006 9:13 PM
Man that is looking good.  I love the weathering so far.
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Saturday, July 8, 2006 1:44 PM
The seams in the deck are actually more visible in real life than in the photos, though hopefully once the armament and deck fittings are installed they won't be too bad. I filled them in with gap-filler CA, but unfortunately there is still a noticeable line there.
Replacing the deck with real wood is the best option (as with the Constitution) but I didn't really want to go that far, especially since it would cover up both the gun rails and the location points for the fittings and superstructure.

The weathered effect on the deck was made by first painting overall with Revell Earth Brown (acrylic) and then dry-brushing very heavily in the direction of the grain with Revell Stone Grey. (this is actually a pale cream colour). I then added an overall wash of heavily thinned burnt umber oil paint, with irregular patches of black wash, and finally added a lighter drybrush of Stone Grey over the top.
I think I might have overdone it a bit - then again my model represents the ship 25+ years after it was built - unless the deck planking had been replaced, it'd be looking fairly worn by then.

Anyway, I've nearly finished the fittings in the area under the forecastle now (this needs to be done before installing the foc'sle deck, as it's almost completely inaccessible afterwards) and will post a photo once it's done.
 
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 1:13 AM
A good source for that scale is Warship Models Underway. Their forums are at http://www.wmunderway.8m.com/cgi/yabb/YaBB.cgi  I too am building a 1/96th scale ship. Mine is the USS North Carolina.
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:32 PM
Four more photos - apologies for the poor quality of some of them!

Fittings under the forecastle, painted + weathered (as they will be virtually inaccessible once the foc'sle deck is installed). Anyone know what the tank (with the brass tap) was used for? Fuel oil for the stove?


Forecastle deck fitted + weathered. Not sure whether the interior of the forecastle bulwarks should be painted white or black?


Cabin and engine house installed (the glazing in the cabin windows is just about visible).


Overall view of the hull.



Since these photos were taken I've added a few more deck fittings (bollards, fife rails etc.) and started work on assembling the gun barrels, funnel, and lower masts.

An odd thing I've noticed is that there appears to be a spare 9" Dahlgren gun included in the kit; is this a leftover from the Alabama kit? The Kearsarge only has 5 9" guns, two each side and one as a bow chaser.
  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by jwintjes on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 5:16 PM
 EPinniger wrote:

An odd thing I've noticed is that there appears to be a spare 9" Dahlgren gun included in the kit; is this a leftover from the Alabama kit? The Kearsarge only has 5 9" guns, two each side and one as a bow chaser.


Actually Kearsarge did have two 11" pivot guns and 4 9" broadside guns, at least in her later fit (which is what the kit more or less shows). So you should have two larger bottle-shaped guns on pivot carriages and four smaller ones on simple carriarges.

Kearsarge did have a smaller bow gun during the war, though, but that was done away with probably already in 1865 or 1866.

Nice build by the way; I particularly like the way you did the weathering on the forecastle fittings.

Jorit
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Thursday, July 13, 2006 2:43 PM
 jwintjes wrote:

Actually Kearsarge did have two 11" pivot guns and 4 9" broadside guns, at least in her later fit (which is what the kit more or less shows). So you should have two larger bottle-shaped guns on pivot carriages and four smaller ones on simple carriarges.
Kearsarge did have a smaller bow gun during the war, though, but that was done away with probably already in 1865 or 1866.


Sorry, should have worded my post more clearly - the kit has 6 9-inch Dahlgren guns, in addition to the two pivot-mounted 11-inch guns, therefore there's one left over (or two, if you don't fit the bow chaser gun)
If nothing else, the extra guns will be useful for future scratchbuilding/kitbashing projects!

According to Wikipedia, the ship also had a 32-pounder Parrott rifle; not sure if this was in its Civil War configuration, or later.

Another source I've read states that the 11" Dahlgrens were later replaced with 8" rifled guns. The kit guns are obviously Dahlgrens, so it's not strictly accurate to have these fitted at the same time as the 9" broadside guns, but as I have no references as to what the 8" guns looked like, I'll just use the kit parts.

The fittings (and most of the rest of the model) are weathered using acrylic craft paint. Cast-iron fittings like the stove are drybrushed with "granite" paint which gives a subtle dull metallic effect.
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Carmichael, CA
Posted by Carmike on Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:42 PM

Good news is that you're OK with the 11" Dahlgrens in both the Civil War and post-war fits.  The 8" rifles were 11" Dahlgrens that had a rifled sleeve inserted into the barrel.  The main difference is in the gun carriages, the converted 11" guns were mounted in iron carriages.

Canney (The Old Steam Navy, Vol 1: Frigates, Sloops, and Guboats, 1815-1885, U.S. Naval Institute Press) has a plan and elevation of the Kearsarge in her 1880's fit with both poop and foc'sl decks, a bridge between the stack and the forward pivot gun, as well as what appears to be a 20 or 30 pdr rifle on the foc'sl even though in the text he notes that "Her armament in the later years was two converted 8" rifles and four nine inchers on iron carriages in broadside."

Depending on your penchant for accuracy you might not want to put a 9" Dahlgren on the focs'l (although it looks naked to my eye without the gun).  I believe that the Kearsrage kit came out before the Alabama so who knows why there's an extra 9" gun - it may have just been a mistake in the tooling or pre-planning for later conversion of the tooling to produce the Alabama.

      

  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Friday, July 21, 2006 1:08 PM
A few more photos. Note that these are very much work-in-progress pictures and the model looks fairly "rough" at the minute - many parts are unpainted or partly painted, or are in need of retouching and/or weathering.

Starting to look like a ship now! Most deck fittings, lower masts and tops, and bowsprit are now installed.


Armament, completed + painted but not rigged yet. The "cast iron" effect on the barrels was created by very lightly and irregularly drybrushing with "granite" craft acrylic paint. Not strictly realistic (guns of these types were usually painted gloss black) but looks very effective IMHO.


Amidships deck area including engine house and cabin. I lengthened the funnel by adding the spare section, and also angled it slightly more, to match the reference photographs I have.



  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Goodyear, AZ
Posted by Chad in the AZ Desert on Friday, July 21, 2006 1:20 PM

"Anyone know what the tank (with the brass tap) was used for? Fuel oil for the stove?"

First of all, great work on the Kearsarge!  It is really looking good.  I hope you continue to post pictures as you complete it.

I got the chance this summer to crew for a day aboard the USS Niagara in Erie, PA.  If the wooden tank next to the stove on the Kearsarge was used the same way as the one on the Niagara, then it was used to hold pottable water for cooking.  At least that was what they were using it for on Niagara.

Good luck with the rest of the Kearsarge.

"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." - George S. Patton, Jr.
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Saturday, July 29, 2006 3:03 PM
Close to completion now - needs rigging, shrouds, stanchions + railings, boats, anchors, crew figures, and various other small bits, as well as some retouching + extra weathering on the hull paintwork, but it definitely looks like the Kearsarge now:



Since the lower yards are attached to the masts only by a small plastic peg, which would be very vulnerable to breaking, I decided to reinforce the joint by tying thread around it. Not sure how historically accurate this is, here is a photo:

but I decided that, inaccurate or not, it would be better than the model having lower yards which snap off at the slightest touch!

I'm probably going to simplify the rigging layout a bit (leaving out most or all of the blocks, for example), but will try and make as good a job of it as I can. However, I'm definitely going to rig the shrouds + ratlines by hand (I've already drilled out all the deadeyes); they look a lot better this way and are not much harder than struggling with the plastic-coated thread lines supplied in the kit, and a great deal easier and quicker than using the Heller/Airfix loom contraption (IMHO at least).

One question: What diameter (approximately) should the threads for the shrouds be? Of the 2 types of black thread supplied with the kit, the reel of thicker thread seems too thick, whilst the thread on the orange plastic "star" appears to be too thin.

I'll post some "detail closeups" when the model is completed.
  • Member since
    August 2006
  • From: Sydney, Australia
Posted by Robert on Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:19 AM
EP, I must say that is a superb job on the Kearsarge. I will soon start mine and hope to get the deck to look like real weathered wood, as you have managed to do. My 1971 attempt looks less satisfactory the more I look at it because I left the deck unpainted; it was molded in a reasonably good tan, and the boats were molded in white. Also, there were only two stack sections whereas in the re-release there are three. Thanks for the description of the deck paint, it is a tremendous help. 
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:45 AM
The model is now virtually finished other than the lifeboats (haven't added these yet, as ideally I want to make them removable but can't work out how!), so I'll post some photos of the completed ship soon.

I don't think I'd ever leave a part of a model unpainted (other than non-visible interior areas obviously!) as IMHO plastic still looks like plastic even if it is the correct colour, and unpainted styrene is also much more vulnerable to discolouration and degradation caused by sunlight.

  • Member since
    March 2006
Posted by jwintjes on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 5:04 AM

The model is really a nice one - I find the idea of changing the angle of the funnel very interesting, as it, to a certain extent, gives the ship a Civil War look (only that before the 1870s this was due to the sheer of the hull).

Jorit

  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:15 AM
I changed the angle of the funnel and added the extra section (included in the kit but not mentioned in the instructions) to match the photos I've seen of the ship in the 1880s.
There are quite a few bits left over after completing the kit which aren't indicated in the instructions, including a pair of small anchors (for the boats?) and an extra 9" Dahlgren gun and carriage.

Anyway, the model is now complete, so I'll post some photos as soon as I've taken them! (in a few days hopefully).
  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:52 AM

Ahoy mr. EPinniger,

Any update on your Kearsarge? I enjoyed reading about your build so far and am looking forward to seeing the finished ship !

regards,

Julian

 

illegal immigrants have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.....................

Italeri S-100: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/112607.aspx?PageIndex=1

Isu-152: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/116521.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:45 PM

Eping,

Do you still have time to add some wire at the top of the yards for the jack stays? If so, they will make the yards look all the better. You can look in my Cutty Sark pictures you'll see what I'm speaking of..

Jake

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Friday, August 25, 2006 12:16 PM
Back from holiday/vacation today so I should hopefully be able to take some photos of the Kearsarge and other recently built ship models over the next week or so.

The ship was unrigged when I took the previous lot of photos, it looks a lot better now! I haven't added the lines along the tops of the yards, but there's no reason I can't go back and add them some time in the future when I've gained more experience.


  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Sunday, August 27, 2006 2:23 AM
 Big Jake wrote:

Eping,

Do you still have time to add some wire at the top of the yards for the jack stays? If so, they will make the yards look all the better. You can look in my Cutty Sark pictures you'll see what I'm speaking of..

Jake

When did jack stays come into general use Jake ? I would like to add this detail to the models I have in my stash.

Julian

 

illegal immigrants have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.....................

Italeri S-100: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/112607.aspx?PageIndex=1

Isu-152: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/116521.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:14 AM

I hope Jake will forgive me for jumping in with an answer to this one; I'm nursing a case of sunburn-induced insomnia at 5:30 a.m., looking for something to type about.


James Lees's The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860 gives 1811 for the introduction of jackstays.  He, of course, is talking strictly about British warships, but I think that date is about right for other nations - and for the merchant service - as well.  Like all other developments in maritime technology, of course, this one was gradual; not all ships got jackstays at the same time - and some never got them.


In its initial form the jackstay consisted of a piece of rope running through a series of iron eyebolts driven, at intervals of about three feet, into the top of the yard.  I've read that jackstays sometimes were made out of wood, though I'm having trouble thinking of a specific set of plans with wood jackstays on them.  Sometime in the mid-nineteenth century the iron jackstay came into use.  It was essentially like the old rope version, except that the rope running through the eyes was now a piece of iron rod.  I'm not sure when the first iron jackstay appeared, but it certainly was in common use by the middle of the nineteenth century.  The classic American and British packet ships, clipper ships, and whalers seem, in general, to have had iron jackstays.


The jackstay had two functions.  First, it served as a place to fasten various pieces of gear that, in earlier periods, had been secured to the yard itself.  The robands (the lines that secured the head of the sail), the footrope stirrups, and various other gear (such as the buntline and leechline blocks) all came to be lashed to the jackstay.  Sailors quickly figured out that the jackstay was useful for another purpose:  it made a convenient thing to hang onto.


Eventually (I don't know exactly when, but probably around the turn of the twentieth century) it occurred to somebody that things would be more orderly if the the various functions of the jackstay were divided.  The big steel ships and barques of the last days of sail often (by no means always) had double jackstays.  One remained on top of the yard; the second jackstay was mounted 45 degrees forward of it.  The head of the sail was secured to the forward jackstay; the other pieces of gear remained on the upper one (which the sailors also used for a handhold).


Plastic kit manufacturers have dealt with jackstays in several ways.  The grand old Revell 1/96 kits of the fifties and sixties, the Cutty Sark and Kearsarge (along with their dubious clones, the Thermopylae, Pedro Nunes, and Alabama) had tiny pins molded on tops of the yards to represent the jackstay eyebolts.  (The big Revell Constitution doesn't have them.  It seems to be generally agreed that the Constitution didn't get jackstays till well after the War of 1812.)  It's relatively easy to glue pieces of wire to the pins to represent the jackstays themselves.  (The instructions in the first few  issues of the Cutty Sark told the modeler to do that - and to buy 12 feet of 36-link chain to represent parts of the running rigging.)


Some of the smaller Revell kits (including, I think, the 1/192 Constitution) had jackstays, in the form of a narrow ridge with little bumps on it, molded integrally with their yards.  I think Aurora did the same thing with a couple of its kits; I'm not sure whether Airfix did or not.  Actually, on such a small scale that probably wasn't such a bad idea.  On a real ship the jackstay is separated from the yard by an inch or two; on any scale smaller than 1/96 that's pretty hard to represent realistically.


I only remember two Heller kits that tried to represent jackstays:  the Pamir and Passat.  (I imagine the Preussen did too, but I never bought it.)  Here, as in so many other instances, the Heller designers combined great skill and ingenuity with an utter failure to understand the prototype.  They molded a series of little rectangular blocks on each yard to represent the jackstay eyebolts, and advised the modeler to glue pieces of wire or thread to them.  Not such a bad idea - but they put the "eyebolts" on the fronts of the yards.  That's ridiculous.


Making your own jackstays, with no help from the manufacturer, isn't easy.  It entails drilling a series of small holes in the yard, all in a precisely straight line.  Scratchbuilders sometimes tackle the problem by drilling the holes in some sort of jig, before the yard gets tapered.  It's occurred to me that a set of generic jackstays on various scales would be a good product for some enterprising photo-etching firm.  Maybe every fifth or sixth "eyebolt" could have a long shank to go into a hole in the yard, while the others were cut short and glued to the surface with no holes.  Maybe it wouldn't work, but it might be worth a try.


Too long as usual - but the subject is interesting.  I'm going back to bed.

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

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:59 AM

Thanks for a very "speedy" answer. I'll most certainly add this to my "Kearsarge"when I get around to building it. The Heller Victory and Revell's Constitution would not have been fitted with jack stay's I gather from your message.

cheers,

Julian

 

illegal immigrants have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.....................

Italeri S-100: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/112607.aspx?PageIndex=1

Isu-152: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/116521.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, August 27, 2006 9:39 AM

The Kearsarge almost certainly would have had iron jackstays at the time of the Civil War, and mounting pieces of piano wire on those little pins molded to the yards would be a reasonable way to represent them.  I would, however, advise giving the yards a careful inspection first.  I've seen some Cutty Sark kits in which the pins were broken off or incompletely molded.  All of them need to be the same height - somewhere between .10" and .020", so the gap between the jackstay and the yard is between one and two scale inches.  The wire used for the jackstay probably ought to be about .010" in diameter - that is, about a scale inch.  Oversized jackstays can make a model look pretty awful; better to leave them off than to make them conspicuously too big.

The Victory may well have had jackstays installed at some point in her career, but certainly not prior to 1805 - the configuration represented by all the plastic Victory kits.  The Constitution definitely got jackstays at some point; they can be seen in some photos taken during her later years.  (The small Revell kit is intended to show her 1830s configuration; it probably is correct in having jackstays.)  But the famous Isaac Hull model, which is generally regarded as a thoroughly reliable guide to her spars and rigging as they were during the War of 1812, doesn't have jackstays, nor does any othe representation of her in her 1812 configuration that I've seen.  I think Revell was correct in omitting them from its 1/96-scale kit.

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

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Netherlands
Posted by Grem56 on Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:25 AM

Crystal clear jtilley. I'll bear this in mind.

Julian

Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

 

illegal immigrants have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.....................

Italeri S-100: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/112607.aspx?PageIndex=1

Isu-152: http://cs.finescale.com/FSMCS/forums/t/116521.aspx?PageIndex=1

 

  • Member since
    July 2009
Posted by Publius on Sunday, August 23, 2009 6:47 AM
EPinninger, Great work. I'm currently fooling with the deadeyes and ratlines to see if I can make something worth looking at.   I've backed each  group of shrouds with stiff thin cardboard  cut to the side profile to hold them in place looking nearly taught. I've also glued a black thread to one of the upper ratline shrouds to pull thru the mast area and help guide each of the shrouds into it's best place.  Problem at the bottom then is that the deadeyes don't line up well at all in the middle of the ratlines when the shrouds on the sides are positioned optimally. I may have to move many deadeyes to get a reasonable look. Revell sure didn't take enough time on this one.  If you ever decide to refit your ship this might help.  Meanwhile your ship looks very good. Thanks, Paul

How does this work?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, August 23, 2009 9:53 AM

My personal opinion is that making shrouds and ratlines (the shrouds are the vertical lines; the ratlines are the horizontal ones) out of plastic-coated thread was a lousy idea in the first place - at least the way Revell and Airfix did it.  There are several basic problems with the concept.  One - the stuff is, as so many modelers have found out, extremely difficult to work with.  It's almost impossible to set the shrouds up taut (and they ought to be among the tautest ones in the ship) and the stuff is too slippery to be tied in an effective knot.  Two - the manufacturers always (I don't think there are any exceptions) make the thread for the shrouds and the thread for the ratlines the same diameter.  (In reality, the shrouds are extremely heavy rope and the ratlines are extremely thin.)  Three - there's just no practical way to reproduce the way the ends of the shrouds are secured.  The methods of doing that in the real ships varied through the centuries, but it's just about impossible to reproduce any of them with that plastic-coated stuff.

I always encourage people to at least take a stab at rigging the shrouds and ratlines to scale.  It really isn't as difficult as most beginners seem to think.  The kit manufacturers, with all their jigs, looms, and plastic-coated thread concoctions (to say nothing of the injection-molded monstrosities that Revell has been selling recently in its smaller kits), seem to have created a myth of a Great Ratline Problem, and convinced lots of people that scale shrouds and ratlines are beyond the capacity of normal mortals.  They aren't - especially on as large a scale as 1/96.  (I admit it takes some practice and patience to rig scale ratlines on scales like 1/192 - though it's not impossible and probably not as hard as lots of people think.)  Rigging 1/96 shrouds and ratlines does take a certain amount of time - but, as Publius is finding out, rigging those plastic-coated thread...things...and making them look even vaguely like reality takes a lot of time too - and can at best produce marginal success. 

I have yet to see a plastic kit that addresses this topic in a way that I'd describe as successful.  I thought Lindberg might be on to something with the flexible plastic shrouds and ratlines it put in its La Flore and Wappen von Hamburg.  The basic idea looked sound to me, though it had some kinks to be worked out.  The earliest Pyro kits featured "deadeye combo units" - deadeyes molded in pairs, with the lanyards represented (rather crudely) in plastic so the deadeyes were fixed the right distance apart.  The modeler glued the "combo units" to the hull and rigged the shrouds to scale; the instructions ignored the ratlines.  If  a modeler feels like he/she just isn't up to the task of rigging the ratlines, there's a lot to be said for the idea of leaving them off.   

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  give it a try, and don't give up till you give your brain, your eyes, and your fingers a fair chance.  If you do a Forum search on the word "ratlines" you'll find several threads that describe two basic methods:  the "clove hitch method" and the "needle through the shroud method."  In all honesty, I strongly suspect that anybody who has the close-distance vision and dexterity to build a 1/96-scale ship model at all is perfectly capable of rigging the ratlines with the "clove hitch method," but the "needle through the shroud method" is quicker - and, though the results won't be quite as impressive as actually tying all those knots will, they'll be a heck of a lot better than the best that can be gotten from the...things...supplied in the kit. 

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

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Sunday, August 23, 2009 1:32 PM

 jtilley wrote:
Two - the manufacturers always (I don't think there are any exceptions) make the thread for the shrouds and the thread for the ratlines the same diameter.  (In reality, the shrouds are extremely heavy rope and the ratlines are extremely thin.) 

There is one exception.  The preformed ratlines that came with the original 1959 issue of the Revell Cutty Sark have shrouds that are about twice the size of the ratlines.

 

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, August 23, 2009 3:30 PM

Very interesting, steves.  It seems that original issue of the old Revell Cutty Sark was unique - or at least unusual - in quite a few ways:  the gears linking the wheel to the rudder, the elaborate rigging instructions (which advised the modeler to add piano wire jackstays and 12 feet of 36-link chain), and (for better or worse) the portholes in the 'tween decks.  This is the first I've heard of the differentiation between the diameters of the shrouds and ratlines.

The more sophisticated rigging instructions apparently stayed in the next few editions; they were included in the first one my parents bought me (in, I think, about 1962).  I vividly remember the night my father took me downtown to the hobby shop to buy the piano wire and the chain (which cost more than the kit did).

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

  • Member since
    August 2008
Posted by tankerbuilder on Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:53 AM
 HI guys! I read this thread with a lot of interest and just had to pipe in . When I did those ^&^&*&&* ratlines and shrouds I almost gave up !!! Then a fly fishing friend of mine said try this . This, was 12 different sizes of old fashioned fabric(for want of a better word) thread . It was nylon and ,I believe some was even a coarse silk!! I took the largest which about .015 ,and rigged it to a board ,tied the top and ran the bottom to "t" pins stuck in a board .Carefully then using the smaller thread that looked right to the eye , I used a fine embroidery needle and did the footropes (or ratlines ). WOW!!! whata difference!! That was over thirty years ago and I still use this method .(it is a good project while taking it easy ) If you have more than one ship in the same scale you can make more than one set at a time . (oh , I still get the line through CABELAS ) !! A sailing ship is SO labor intensive I only do one about once every two years as a fill in in the winter . I like the way some of you weather your decks , and here,s one for you . When I do the wood overlay ,I stain it with coffee to strong to drink and tea the same way, then two washes ,one of grey/white and one of soot/yellow . Dont laugh it looks great when dry just make sure to get rid of the excess!!!    tankerbuilder
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.