SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Would you build Revell's 1/96th Cutty Sark if you had it?

8031 views
42 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Tuesday, October 10, 2006 7:06 AM
Jtilley-thanks for the information.   I now feel somewhat foolish having asked the question, as I was at the NMM this past year and certainly saw some of the models you mentioned.  Then, a quick look at Ship Models by Lavery and Stephens revealed several photos (one on the cover of the dust jacket no less) with red-painted gun muzzles.   I just never noticed.  Sometimes we look, but we don't see.

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, October 9, 2006 4:10 PM

Mikepowers - If you're looking for pictures of the Cutty Sark in her current state, a good place to start is the ship's website:  http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm  .  Frankly I find the assortment of pictures on it a little disappointing in terms of numbers, but they're good, professional shots.  While you're on that web page, think about ordering those plans.  They're super.

Steves - Many thanks for your kind comments.  The practice of painting the muzzles of naval guns seems to have been common - though by no means universal - at least as far back as the late seventeenth century, and maybe before that.  Lots of the old English "Board Room" models have red muzzles, and they show up in contemporary paintings as well.  It's fairly likely, as a matter or fact, that the entire barrel was painted in many cases - especially if the gun was made of iron, and therefore subject to rust.  American Civil War enthusiasts tell me that guns in that conflict, both naval and land artillery, frequently were coated with a liquid containing tar and lampblack as a preservative and rust-preventer.  Lots of ironwork (anchors, chainplates, etc.) on board sailing warships got "tarred;" gun barrels, I suspect, often got the same treatment.

The favored color for gun muzzles seems to have been red - presumably the same color that was used on the insides of bulwarks, deck furniture, gun carriages, etc.  Recent research suggests that it probably wasn't as bright a red as I used on those two models, but rather a dull, flat red applied mainly to serve as a primer and weather-proofer.  (The old story about red paint being used to camoflage blood may have some truth to it, but it seems that was a secondary consideration.)  I've seen photos of one large, early-eighteenth-century Dutch model whose gun muzzles are painted white.  (So are the deadeyes, and various other fittings.  By non-Dutch standards it looks a little odd.) 

Sometimes the red paint seems to have been applied just to the face of the muzzle; sometimes the red went back as far as the first band around the barrel.  When I was working on my little Hancock model I spent quite a bit of time looking at the eighteenth-century British frigate models at the National Maritime Museum, in Greenwich.  I became convinced that there wasn't any consistent pattern in how the guns were painted at any given time.  Such trivia decisions presumably was left to individual officers.  Not much is known about the color details of American frigates from the Revolutionary War; I assumed that the Hancock probably followed British practice in that respect.  I painted her guns and the Bounty's differently, not because I have any firm evidence in either case but because, frankly, I thought it was a sort of interesting point and I was looking for ways to make the two models a little different.  In either case the modeler would be justified in putting the red paint on either the outer surface of the muzzle, the enire barrel as far back as the first band - or nowhere.

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 Monday, October 9, 2006 12:13 PM
 jtilley wrote:

 

For what little it's worth, here are pictures of three models that take three different approaches to the problem: http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/johntilleygallery.htm

Beautiful work!   I was curious about the red painted gun muzzles on Bounty and Hanock    I can't recall ever reading anything about that.  Was it common practice?

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ohio
Posted by mikepowers on Monday, October 9, 2006 11:30 AM

I had no idea she was still around. Thanks for the info.

I'll try to get some actual pics of her too, could'nt hurt.

 

Mike

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ohio
Posted by mikepowers on Monday, October 9, 2006 11:24 AM

Jake, if you have built 14 without a problem then I should be ok. 14? What the heck??

Thats alot ah modeling.

Jtill, thanks for the info. Whew, I had to read it twice. :)

Its all going to come in handy when I built the CS.

The kit is mid 60's so I'm thinking the masts should be ok unless time has had an effect on the plastic and made it brittle.

I'm going to turn this thread into a document and keep it for the reference.

Thanks guys.

Mike

  • Member since
    September 2006
  • From: Lewiston ID
Posted by reklein on Sunday, October 8, 2006 5:05 PM
The accessory parts you are looking for are at GPM.pl  These guys are producers of very sophisticated paaper models.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, October 8, 2006 5:19 AM

Generally speaking I agree with Jake.  I do think, though, that the topic is worth a little discussion.

I'm a big booster of plastic sailing ship kits.  (That's probably a waste of time on my part, since the genre is just about dead, but I still think they have a great deal to recommend them.)  Styrene is a wonderful material for lots of purposes.  It also has some built-in limitations.

For one thing, the thickness of the "walls" of a hollow plastic casting are limited by the laws of physics.  If they're too thin, they won't support themselves.  If they're too thick, the styrene shrinks noticeably as it cools, resulting in the dreaded "sink marks" (among other things).  That's why the bulwarks of the Revell Cutty Sark are way too thick for 1/96 scale.  (Those bulwarks are made of sheet iron; in 1/96 scale they should, theoretically, be about the thickness of aluminum foil.)  The bulwarks of the Revell Constitution, on the other hand, are far too thin.  In the former case, the discrepancy is almost impossible to see, because the edges of the bulwark "plating" aren't visible.  If I were doing a Revell Constitution, I'd look into the possibility of cementing some plastic strip around the insides of the gunports, to beef up the bulwarks where the edges are visible.

The wonderful old Japanese company Imai just about conquered that particular problem by using an odd form of styrene that, somehow or other, allowed castings of considerably greater thickness than is possible with regular styrene.  Some of those Imai hull parts were really massive - and none that I ever saw suffered from shrinkage or sink marks.  We lost a lot when Imai went out of business.

Another feature of styrene is its flexibility, which, of course, increases as its thickness is reduced.  A styrene strip or rod less than 1/8" thick, or thereabouts, is extremely flexible.  That does indeed put some obvious limits on the material's usefulness in sailing ship models, since lots of spars - especially in smaller-scale models - have to be smaller than that if they're to be to scale.  (One feature of that excellent, 1/125 Imai Cutty Sark that I remember is that some of the upper spars were a little too thick.  Even the geniuses at Imai couldn't get around every limitation of the medium.)

Back in the olde dayes of the fifties and sixties, the good folks at Revell made a gallant effort to mold the masts and yards of their sailing ship kits as close to scale size as they could.  In the case of some of the smaller kits, that made the upper spars pretty brittle.  If you bought a Revell Flying Cloud, there was a fair chance that one or more of the skysail yards would be broken before you opened the box.  In the case of the big Cutty Sark, though, my recollection confirms Jake's observation.  That particular ship's top hamper was sturdy enough that it could be reproduced in styrene at 1/96 scale without a major problem of flexibility. 

One big caveat, though.  It seems that in recent years Revell has been using a considerably cheaper form of styrene than it used to.  The last Cutty Sark I started (and never finished) gave me a problem I'd never seen before - and haven't seen since.  I used masking tape on the waterline, and when I pulled the tape off a layer of styrene came with it.    The stuff had the consistency of mica.  That was a long time ago - and I have the impression that the situation has gotten worse.  Several folks here in the Forum have reported that the styrene in such kits as the reissued Kearsarge and Alabama is awful stuff - rubbery, riddled with flash, and frequently warped.  If somebody told me the spars in a recently-purchased Cutty Sark kit were two or three times as flexible as the ones I remember, I'd have no trouble believing it.

Before anybody starts buying wood to replace the spars of a plastic sailing ship kit, a couple of other points need to be born in mind.  In the first place, the choice of wood is crucial.  Some woods are stiffer than styrene; others aren't.  If you try to turn a piece of balsa or basswood down below 1/16" in diameter, it probably will fall apart before you're done. The dowels sold in American hardware stores and hobby shops these days seem to be made of one of two woods:  oak or birch.  Oak is far too coarse for most scale modeling purposes.  Birch is better (as long as the grain of the dowel is straight), but when it's reduced below 1/16" or thereabouts it gets just about as flexible as styrene.  Harder woods obviously don't bend as easily - but they do break, frequently at extremely awkward moments. 

The rigging of a sailing ship is designed to make any flexibility in the spars almost irrelevant - at least in theory.  In theory it shouldn't matter much whether a spar can bend or not; if the rigging is set up accurately, and uniformly tensioned, the spar won't bend.  That's in theory.  In practice, it's difficult to set up all the lines to the same tension - and if they aren't at the same tension, something starts to bend (or breaks).  If the spars are a bit more rigid than the typical plastic kit part, that makes the rigging somewhat easier by increasing the margin of error when it comes to tensioning the lines.  But wood spars don't come close to eliminating the problem.  Replacing styrene spars with wood ones certainly is not guarantee of success.

For what little it's worth, here are pictures of three models that take three different approaches to the problem: http://www.hmsvictoryscalemodels.be/johntilleygallery.htm

The Bounty is based  on the 1956 Revell kit.  I replaced all the styrene spars - not because they were styrene, but because their dimensions and shapes were inaccurate.  I made the replacements of a hardwood called degama (which I think is known in England as lancewood). It's quite hard and stiff, and extremely brittle.  (The fore topmast snapped when I was almost finished with the model; I was able to fix it with CA adhesive and a metal pin.) 

I also used degama for the spars of the Hancock.  It's scratch built, on 1/128 scale (3/32" = 1').  That model required some extremely small-diameter spars.  (Such things as the flagstaffs are well under 1/32" in diameter.)  In most cases it took me at least two attempts on the Unimat to get them down that small, and I broke more than one of them before the model was done.  (Incidentally, the hull planking, gun carriages, transom, and numerous other parts of that model are styrene.  It's a wonderful scratch building material, if its benefits and limitations are born in mind.)

The Phantom is based on the now-discontinued resin-hull kit from Model Shipways.  (MS currently sells a version based on the same plans with a pre-carved basswood hull.)  Having run out of degama (and having no idea where to buy more), I made this one's spars out of cherry.  It's nice stuff; I'll probably use it again.  It has a nice, tight grain, turns well, and is almost as stiff as degama without being as brittle.  Its biggest drawback, perhaps, is its color.  Cherry is notorious for turning darker as it gets older.  Within a few years I may well regret picking it.

If I were building a Revell Cutty Sark today I'd start by checking the consistency of the styrene.  If it was really rubbery, I'd probably replace the spars with wood (or maybe, in some cases, brass rod).  Otherwise, I'd keep the plastic spars.  There are, however, some other plastic parts that I definitely would replace.  Plastic belaying pins are no good.  (In most of the big Revell kits I've seen in the past fifteen or twenty years, a high percentage of the belaying pins have been busted off before the lid comes off the box.)  I'd regard the purchase of some aftermarket brass belaying pins as just about mandatory.  Same goes for plastic eyebolts; they can break too easily.  Several Forum members replace them with either aftermarket eyebolts or small cotter pins; I personally refuse to spend money on manufactured eyebolts, and bend my own from brass or copper wire.  (It takes less than a minute per eyebolt.) 

Styrene is great stuff, but it's not ideal for every component of a sailing ship model.  I suppose the ideal sailing ship kit might have a styrene hull, hardwood spars, and fittings made from a mixture of styrene, brass, and britannia metal.  Unfortunately it seems highly unlikely that we'll ever see such a product.

Well, this turned into a far longer post than I intended.  I apologize - and plead guilty to using this Forum as a treatment for insomnia.

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

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Saturday, October 7, 2006 10:16 PM

Mike,

On the Cutty Sark kit, the upper mast have never given me a problem.  The plastic is fine and strong.  I've built at least 14 of these in the past 20 years and have never had a problem.

Jake

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ohio
Posted by mikepowers on Saturday, October 7, 2006 9:44 PM

The dreaded bent top-mast syndrome ?

I would have never known to prepare for that unless I was looking through these forums.

What a great tool for us modelers to have.

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: On the way to AC+793888
Posted by lolok on Saturday, October 7, 2006 1:51 PM

To help prevent the dreaded bent top-mast syndrome try and replace them with wood. There is a company here in Poland that produces wooden masts and yards for card models..I used them for the heller Victory and other smaller ships and they worked very well..

  They come in different sizes so can be adapted for most large scale kits with a bit of judicious sanding.

         I will try and dig up the web-site and post it for you..

 They also do a nice line in brass cannon with wood carriages..

       Not very authentic but they do look good left unpainted if your only after visual impact with all those brass cannons shining out..

Jim Ryan Ex-Pat Limey in warsaw.Poland. " MENE,MENE,TEKEL U PHARSIN"
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: 37deg 40.13' N 95deg 29.10'W
Posted by scottrc on Saturday, October 7, 2006 6:31 AM
 mikepowers wrote:

I'll have to read through all the info again but I think I have a good enough idea of what your talking about.

Now I just have to order the plans and get some reference pics and I'm good to go.

We should get enough people to do a group build. : )



Sure Mike, I still have this kit too and could use a reason to build it (I'll just add it to the other three or four or five projects I have going on).  I have built both the Cuttysark and Thermopylea, and although they were never built to a fine degree of accuracy, they gave me a lot of confidence in building, and most important, rigging.  This kit is large, and pretty forgiving when learning how to set up and tension the running rigging.  You should be pleased with building it.

Scott

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ohio
Posted by mikepowers on Friday, October 6, 2006 4:01 PM

I'll have to read through all the info again but I think I have a good enough idea of what your talking about.

Now I just have to order the plans and get some reference pics and I'm good to go.

We should get enough people to do a group build. : )

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, October 6, 2006 2:18 PM

Glad to help.  Those drawings are indeed spectacular.  The only ones I can think of that compare with them are the line of American clipper plans by Hornsby and Crothers, sold under the name "Seagull Models."  Those, too, are superb pieces of draftsmanship - but even they don't show quite the depth of detail and obvious enthusiasm that the Campbell Cutty Sark plans do.

I bought my copy of the Campbell plans more than 25 years ago; they're blueline prints, and they've faded quite a bit.  As I understand it, the ones being sold now are nice, sharp, black ink on sturdy white paper.  I really need to order a set for myself.

Another very useful source is Mr. Campbell's book, China Tea Clippers.  Most of it is available online, but the hardbound version contains quite a few pictures that aren't on the web version.

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

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Friday, October 6, 2006 10:23 AM
 jtilley wrote:

In every discussion of the Cutty Sark in this Forum I recommend one additional acquisition:  the set of plans by George M. Campbell.  He was the naval architect in charge of the ship's restoration, back in the 1950s, and the plans are some of the best I've ever seen.  Those three sheets of paper contain just about every piece of information a modeler could want - from a complete sail and rigging plan to the pattern of the linoleum on the deck of the galley.  They're available for about $15.00 through the ship's website:   http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentShop.productDetails&productId=40&startrow=1&directoryId=6

One of the biggest bargains available to the model builder today.

John,

On your advice I ordered these plans which arrived yesterday.

Let me tell you, these are the nicest plans I have ever seen for any subject, ship, plane or whatever! And at $15.00 they are a steal! I look forward to the day I start my Revell Cutty Sark armed with this information.

Thanks for the tip!

Tory

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ohio
Posted by mikepowers on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 11:11 AM

Yeah, I feel better about building it now.

It was the thought of not being able to do the kit justice considering I have never built a ship before and the age of the kit and all that.

Were good to go.

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Belgium
Posted by DanCooper on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 4:52 AM
There is no dilemma, kits are made for building, not to collect dust Smile [:)], if you feel bad about starting to buid it, I'de gladly give you my snail mail address Big Smile [:D]

On the bench : Revell's 1/125 RV Calypso

  • Member since
    June 2006
Posted by Paul5910 on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:22 AM
Jake,  I enjoyed seeing the pictures of your Sark build up as well.. Nice work!

Paul
  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Stockton,Ca
Posted by Hippy-Ed on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 12:07 AM
Jake, thanks for the linkBig Smile [:D] That's a great ookin' model ya didApprove [^]
If you lose your sense of humor, you've lost everything
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Monday, October 2, 2006 7:02 AM

Mike,

Did you understand about adding the Cutty Sark to the top of the mainmast? If not drop me a line.

Jake

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Ohio
Posted by mikepowers on Sunday, October 1, 2006 9:48 PM

Thanks Jake and everyone.

Thanks to the information that I have recieved from you guys, I'm going build it.

What would I do without the Finescale forums?

Jake, I'm going to check out your pics and refer to it often, thanks again.

Mike

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Sunday, October 1, 2006 9:39 AM

Mike,

One of the first questions that you need to ask yourself is "What period of her history will I model"? On my Cutty Sark I choose the early years (1869-1870), because the model as molded is very close to the original designers plans.

You could choose the latter years when she was sold the the portugese (sp) and was renamed the Ferrier.  You just need to modify the mizen mast into a different rig.

When she was the Cutty Sark she wore a nice little item at the top of her mainmast to set her apart from the rest of the crowd.  Don't forget to add a small Cutty Sark to the mainmast top.  I added one on my model and it gets a lot of questions.

If you are going the extra mile to model it will don't forget to add the jackstays and foot ropes.  They add greatly to the detail and are simply to add. If you care check out my pictures and don't forget to HAVE A BALL BUILDING THE MODEL, Remember it's not a chore, just a hobby past time.

http://community.webshots.com/user/jbgroby

Jake

 

 

  • Member since
    March 2003
  • From: On the way to AC+793888
Posted by lolok on Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:49 AM

Re.the Cutty Sark. Last week the trust was given a huge chunk of cash from the National lottery fund to do a complete and extensive refit.basically she will be raised in her dry dock to allow visitors access to her hull bottom and interior/exterior work will be done to bring it back to what she looked like when a working ship..She was in grave danger of falling apart in the dock but much shouting by concerned parties who include the Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Charles have woken the powers that be...The huge refit of Victory helped their cause as well.

 

Jim Ryan Ex-Pat Limey in warsaw.Poland. " MENE,MENE,TEKEL U PHARSIN"
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by EPinniger on Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:29 AM
The 1/96 Cutty Sark is about 3 feet long, the hull (without bowsprit) is about 2 and a half feet long.

I've got the same "build or sell" problem myself, as I recently bought an old Aurora "Corsair" kit (US War of Independence privateer) at a collectors fair for a low price. It's definitely worth significantly more than I paid for it (both the box and the kit are in very good condition, and it's an original 1960s issue), on the other hand it's the only plastic kit of a ship like this, and has never been reissued.
If it were an Aurora Hartford, for example, or a Lindberg 1/125 minesweeper, I'd build it whatever it was worth, but as sailing ships are a "secondary" modelling interest of mine, I'm not sure. The kit isn't too bad in terms of detail/quality (a lot better than the Black Falcon or Viking ship, for example) and looks to be about 1/150 scale.
  • Member since
    June 2006
Posted by Paul5910 on Friday, September 29, 2006 8:26 PM
Gentlemen,

About how long is the 1/96 Cutty Sark?  I keep seeing people saying it's a large model.

Paul
  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Friday, September 29, 2006 11:38 AM

Sounds like a good deal either way.

Built or kept--a good deal is a good deal.

Makes me wish I had not flogged the GooB bought cheap pair of  late-issue CS & Thermopolye that I had meant to 'correct' by kit-bashing a four-masted jackazz barque out of the two.  That project languished no small amount (taking a saw to the hulls still a big step even with only $15 in the two of them).  Abetting languishment was collecting the conversion "bits"--you get enough belaying pins, mast hoops, blocks, eyes, etc., and it's almost easier to build a hull from scratch as jsut use 7-8 parts out of the kits.  (was going to be cool, though, "bridges" & compass platforms were neatly going to "cure" those stinking deck seams <g> . . . )

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Thursday, September 28, 2006 9:13 PM

Yes build it it will make agreat looking model.But like its been said change the deadeyes out not only are they ugly they are out of scale.Also you are going to have to do something with the deck.Revells three piece deck system is hard to hide the seams.Two ways either erace alot of detail sanding out the seams or lay in a wood deck.The belaying pins need to be changed to wood or metal.I would change the blocks to wood also.

Rod

MJH
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Melbourne, Australia
Posted by MJH on Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:41 PM
jtilley's comments about the relative size of the kit as compared with it's Imai counterpart is the reason I haven't been interested in the Revell version of the Cutty Sark - too big.  The Imai is much more space-friendly for me.

My dilemma is similar to mikepowers however, I picked up a mint Imai kit last year with the full intention of building it (one day), but when it arrived I found it was so pristine in every respect it seemed a shame to do so.  If it was in a tatty box and parts were removed from the sprues I wouldn't hesitate so maybe I should look for another, or else buy the Aoshima.

Michael

!

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Stockton,Ca
Posted by Hippy-Ed on Thursday, September 28, 2006 7:27 PM
 bilbirk wrote:
It was made to be built, So dive in and enjoy it


Sign - Ditto [#ditto]
If you lose your sense of humor, you've lost everything
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan
Posted by bilbirk on Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:35 PM
It was made to be built, So dive in and enjoy it
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.