Another 1:96 Cutty Sark post!

Unfortunately there's no simple, quick answer to that one.  The size and number of blocks and deadeyes you'll need really depends on how thorough a job of rigging you do.  The rigging of a ship like that, when she's in service, includes hundreds of lines.  There are all sorts of perfectly legitimate reasons to omit some of them.  Most of the lines that are attached directly to the sails (sheets, tacks, buntlines, leechlines, clewlines, etc.) are relevant only if your model has its sails set.  Many modelers (including me) don't build their models in that configuration.  If you leave off the sails, you're fully justified in leaving off a pretty big percentage of the running rigging.

The George Campbell plans that you've ordered include specs for the blocks and deadeyes of the real ship (that is, the lengths of the full-size blocks and the diameters of the full-size deadeyes).  So all you have to do is divide the numbers on the sail and rigging plans by 96 to get the scale sizes. 

I'm a big fan of the britannia metal blocks and deadeyes from Bluejacket (www.bluejacketinc.com).  The Bluejacket parts don't come in enough different sizes to cover every single size of block on board the real ship, but you can come close.  (You can, for instance, easily get away with representing 11", 12", and 13" blocks with the Bluejacket 1/8" ones.)  You probably want to use the "metal-stropped" blocks.

The plans also give the sizes of the rigging lines.  Remember:  rope sizes are generally expressed in terms of circumference.  To get the diameter of the rope (which probably is what you're interested in), divide the figure on the drawing by pi (i.e., 3.1416 - or by 3 if you're not ridiculously picky about such things.)  Then divide that figure by 96 to get the diameter of thread that will represent the prototype rope to scale.  (Or, to keep life simple, just divide the measurement on the plans by 300.)  Again, you probably won't be able to match all the huge variety of lines in the real ship, but six or seven different sizes will make a pretty convincing variety. 

The deadeyes present some problems.  After you've junked the plastic ones, you'll have to work out a way to secure the replacement lower ones to the hull.  (The Cutty Sark's lower deadeyes are a little unusual.  They're secured by iron strops to chainplates that are riveted to the insides of the bulwarks.  The chainplates pass through the pinrails; the deadeyes sit on top of the pinrails.  Revell's deadeyes, of course, are oversized - and the pinrails in way of the deadeyes are too wide.  Study the plans, which clearly explain how the real ship is put together.  It shouldn't be too difficult to make one of the Bluejacket styles work.

One tip:  don't feel like you're under some obligation to buy all the fittings you'll need at the same time.  At first, buy enough deadeyes to cover the lower ones on the lower fore, main, and mizzen shrouds and backstays - the deadeyes, that is, that are secured to the bulwarks.  (By my casual count, there are 34 on each side of the ship - in two or three sizes.  That means you'll need six dozen deadeyes to start.)  I'd suggest buying twelve dozen (uppers and lowers combined), so you have enough to set up the standing rigging of the lower masts and the backstays.  While you're at it, order a few dozen blocks in various sizes.  When you get low on blocks, order some more.  Bluejacket's service is good; waiting for a shipment of blocks to arrive won't slow you down significantly.  In any case, if you're just now starting on the model, you won't need any blocks or deadeyes for several months.

Hope that helps a little. Good luck.

Thank you very much. I will be patient and wait for the plans. Yu are right about the length of time for the build. Kids and dogs have a way of distracting me!

   OK, I have a question, the 3 ship plans of the Cutty  Sark every one's talking about  what do they actually consist of ? do they include the rigging plan ? or do I have to order that  as well ? and what is the final cost including shipping of the 3 set ?  I have the Revell 1960 issue  1/96 scale Cutty Sark without the sails and am trying to sort out all this informantion which is causing my printer to scream stop....thanks    Karl

Starduster that set  will include the rigging plan along with the sail plan for around 15 to 20 dollars, maybe a little more.. I'll be ordering a set myself.

 

Michael.

I've got the plans in front of me.  Sheet #1 ("General Arrangement") contains the hull lines, an outboard profile of the hull (including the bowsprit and jibboom), a longitudinal cross-section (which goes up as high as the lower masts), an elevation of the insides of the bulwarks, a plan of the main deck, a second deck plan showing the forecastle deck, poop deck, and tops of the deckhouses, and scrap views (some on larger scales) of several fittings and other details:  the anchors, rail winches, tops, deck winches, bilge pumps, fiferail stanchions, catheads, saluting gun, bollards, windlass, deckhouse bulkheads fire bucket rack, harness cask, steering wheel, compass, and a few others.

Sheet #2 ("Rigging Plan") is dominated by an outboard profile with all the spars in place - with the yards in their lowered positions and no sails.  It also includes details of the spars and a large-scale scrap view of the figurehead and bow carvings, along with an unusual detail view showing the leads of the running rigging through the shroud fairleads.  This sheet shows all the standing rigging and most of the running rigging - everything that normally would be in place when the sails weren't present - and some lines that might not be.

Sheet #3 ("Sail Plan") shows all the sails - those on the fore and main masts from the weather side, those on the mizzen from the lee.  The yards are raised and the studding sail booms are rigged out.  This sheet also includes detail views of the ship's boats and an expansion of the carving on the stern.  Various lines associated with the handling of the sails (including the studding sails) are shown here and not on the "Rigging Plan."

To do a thorough job of building and rigging the model you really need all three sheets - and the price is hard to beat.  I can't think of a bigger bargain available in ship modeling.  The price in the U.S. will, of course, vary a little according to the exchange rate, but $20 should do it (including shipping).  Here's the link to order them:  http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/index.cfm?fa=contentShop.productDetails&productId=40&startrow=1&directoryId=6

I can't say enough about these plans.  They're beautifully drawn, easy to follow, and fascinating to just sit and read.  (Reading everything that's on them will take quite a while.)  I've never seen so much information crammed into three pieces of paper.

   Thank you jtilley, that sounds like a great amount of informantion, I'll be ordering a set as well, thanks again.   Karl

Wow, all of this info is getting me in the mood to start building mine also.

I'm not quite there yet but looking very forward to ordering the plans and getting started.

Just wanted to share.

 

Here is how the plans show up on my paypal account:

Item Name: CUTTY SARK SHIP PLANS: SET OF THREE
Quantity: 1

Total: £7.50 GBP



Cart Subtotal: £7.50 GBP
Shipping: £3.00 GBP
Sales Tax:
Cart Total: £10.50 GBP

The exchange rate for this purchase is 1 USD = 0.517725GBP.

So they only total al ittle over $21.00 USC.
The best modeling buy of my life!

Hi

When I was about 13, I did a "sistership" of the "Sark". It too was a Revel kit, the Thermopilie{sory for the miss spelling, but you get the drift, I did all my models then "out of the box", and I used her unferled sails in full bloom. She was up 'till then the most difficult model I put together at that time. Now that I'm 57 I'm not that satisfied for just "out of the box" anymore. I take 1/700 scale ships and go BEYOND the original kit. I guess I like the challenge. But then again after a 30 year hiatis, it's time to a higher level.

Steve H

Hi again

I did not paint that ship, the colors "off the tree" looked good enough for me. And it took me 3 months to work in ALL those SMALL parts!

SteveH

I can identify with Steve H. I am also 57 and have been out of modeling for 30 years. In those days I built out of the box using little or no paint and leaving lots of bare plastic. One exception was about 10 years ago I made a WW II diorama of a glider after one my father was in during the Normandy invasion. It was a gift! I am working on (at least researching) the Ferriera/Cutty Sark. I have Campbell's plans. The extended pin rail at the shrouds is about twice the size it should be. The problem is that the whole Revell design of that area is different than that of Campbell's plans and the actual ship. Revell's dead eye assembles mount against the bulwark. Per Campbell they are basically in line with the pin rails with a slight off-set. On the model there are sixteen pins in a row; all inboard of the dead eyes. Per Campbell the pattern is two pins, a dead eye, two pins, a dead eye, etc. all along the extended portions of the main rail. In order to fix it, the model pin rail would have to be drastically redesigned. Then there are structural considerations. Moving the dead eyes away from the bulwark would put a lot of stress on the pin rail and the dead eye's point of attachment. Then if you remove the solid stancions under the rails and replace them with wire or plastic to represent the real ship, the pin rails will again be compromised. Jtilley suggested wiring the dead eye through the wash way in order to reinforce it. That would work except the strope for the dead eye actually mounts on the bulwark (chain plate) just short of the wash way. That would be another compromise of design. Then I estimate that it would cost about $60 including shipping to make the change! That is the cost of an entire kit that is due for reissue in January 2007. I am building two Cutty Sarks ($120), and I have a wife!

I haven't looked at the grand old Revell kit up-close for many years, but I'm sure Shipwreck's description is accurate. 

If those pinrails are to bear the strain of shrouds and running rigging set up to scale, some degree of compromise probably is just about inevitable.  My guess is that if the chainplates for the shrouds and backstays were made of wire running down through the waterways, the deviation from reality would be almost invisible.  When the model's finished, most of those belaying pins will have coils of line hanging from them; it would take a real eagle eye to peer under the pinrail and between the coils in order to see that the chainplates (a) aren't shaped quite right, and (b) terminate in the waterways rather than being riveted to the bulwark plating.  I suppose it would be possible to reproduce the rivet arrangement  pretty accurately, and thereby pin the ends of the chainplates to the bulwarks, but I don't know how many observers of the finished model would be able to see such a detail.  But narrowing the pinrails, getting rid of those awful plastic bars on the bottoms of the deadeyes, and rigging the deadeyes with genuine lanyards would make a big difference to the look of the finished model. 

I should emphasize, though, that I haven't tried it and I don't have the kit in front of me.  All these suggestions are coming out of my head, on the basis of the Campbell plans and highly unreliable memory of the kit.

I strongly recommend replacing the plastic belaying pins in any case.  I'm a big fan of plastic sailing ship kits, but we need to acknowledge that certain components of a real ship just don't lend themselves to reproduction in styrene.  Belaying pins are a prime example.  Even if they haven't been busted off before you open the box (as they may well have been), they just aren't strong enough to do the job.  The extra effort and expense of replacing them will be amply rewarded when you reach the running rigging.  And once you've sliced off the plastic ones, and sanded the top of the pinrail smooth, it's just as easy to drill the holes for the replacements in the right places as the wrong ones. 

Even if the plastic belaying pins aren't replaced, there's a problem regarding the strength of the pinrails.  I built several Cutty Sarks and a couple of Thermopyaes when I was much younger, and I remember the sick feeling when, midway through the running rigging process, several of the pinrails simply busted loose from the bulwarks.  Wire chainplates would go some way toward solving the problem, by taking the strain of the shrouds off the pinrails and transferring that strain to the waterways (or the bulwarks).  Another trick, which I've used on several models (including the little scratchbuilt frigate Hancock that's shown in my avatar) is to reinforce the joint where the pinrail joins the bulwark.  In the case of that particular model I used L-shaped ABS "girders" from Plastruct.  Each pinrail has a Plastruct girder, slightly shorter than the pinrail itself, underneath; the girder is completely concealed on the finished model.  On a model as big as the 1/96 Cutty Sark, a small strip of basswood will work just as well.  But I'd strongly recommend doing something to beef up the pinrails - at least the wide ones in way of the shrouds and backstays.  When you reach the running rigging stage, you'll find your life is considerably simpler if you know you don't need to worry about a pinrail coming loose. 

Rigging a Revell Cutty Sark completely with aftermarked blocks and deadeyes probably would cost at least a couple of hundred dollars, and I certainly don't blame anybody who declines to spend his money that way.  I have, however, noticed something odd about this in other threads.  When newcomers decide to buy aftermarket parts like that, they seem, for some reason, to think they have to order the complete outfit for the ship at once.  (I remember one case, in another thread, of a modeler who spent several hundred dollars, sight unseen, on blocks and deadeyes for a Heller Victory before he finished painting the hull - and then found out a lot of the parts he'd bought were in the wrong sizes.)  That just doesn't make sense. 

If you're confronting the prospect of replacing the deadeyes of the Revell Cutty Sark, and you haven't started the model yet, the only deadeyes you need to worry about now are the lower ones in the pairs for the lower shrouds and the backstays.  By my count (based on Mr. Campbell's drawings) there are 68 of them, in four sizes.  (In practical terms the difference between a 6" deadeye and a 7" one probably isn't worth worrying about on this scale.  You probably can do a nice job with two sizes - 3/32" and 1/8".)  Bluejacket britannia metal deadeyes ("lower, scored, unstropped"), in those sizes (which are a little big, but probably not intolerably so), cost $2.25 and $2.35 per dozen, respectively.  So we're talking about an initial purchase of six dozen, costing (including shipping) about $20.00.  If you work at the rate I do (which isn't saying much; maybe you work quite a bit faster), you won't need any more deadeyes for several months.  Then you'll need another three dozen ("upper, scored, unstropped") to set up the lower shrouds.  (No need to worry about the backstay deadeyes till you've set up the topmasts.) 

My personal habit when I'm working on a ship model's rigging is to order as many blocks and deadeyes as I figure I'll need in a month or so.  When I notice the supply is getting low, I order another month's worth.  To me, that makes sense - and the modest family budget can handle those incremental expenses of $10.00 to $20.00 per month without creating a financial crisis.  (My wife used to balk at my insistence that the kids could go without food one or two days per month, but they're out of the house now.  If one of my Bluejacket orders means one of the cars has to go without gas for a few days, so she has to walk the ten miles to work - well, it's good for her.  Just kidding, Anne.)

Again, I'm not trying to drum up business for Bluejacket, and I certainly don't want to imply that it's "necessary" to buy aftermarket parts for a model like this.  But I do think it's worth thinking about model building as an investment in leisure-time activity.  Even with those aftermarket parts thrown in, it's lots cheaper than most.  It is, in fact, one of the cheaper  hobbies a person can choose.

 

 In "Plank on Frame Models" Vol. II, Harold Underhill describes how to build blocks from wood. For blocks that fall between "the smallest manufactured", and "they can't be built THAT small", the process could also be used on styrene strip from Evergreen. The biggest problem with building tiny blocks, and deadeyes, is holding on to them! I intend to do some block and deadeye building when I get back to working on "Surprise". I suspect my first building project will be jigs to hold things so they can be shaped and drilled, and then, jigs to hold them for stropping, so they can be attached to rigging lines, and eyebolts.  Gotta run now, those "nice young men in their clean white coats" are approaching.

I was discussing this very issue with a friend of mine the other day.  We were discussing the issue of Heller's lack of grooves on the blocks of the Soleil Royal.  My friend is now working on molding his own.  He says he can create a mold that will make blocks small enough, and with the grooves.  He intends on making the blocks without the hole.  By doing this, he can mold the sprue with the blocks sideways, which will allow for a groove all the way around the block.  Then, using a jig that holds the blocks in place, he will just drill out each block.

I'm intrigued to see if he works it out.  While I don't find the lack of grooves on the blocks to be much of an issue (for me at least), it would probably make rigging a little easier.

 Grymm

Hi All, I have recieved my Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark from ebay. I effectively paid $32 plus shipping.  The instructions are dated 1987. Nice box art.  There were 2 very thin plastic bags (one with white sprue one with brown, and the 2 hull parts, thread bag etc. The kit contents were thrown around pretty good,. An inventory accounts for all parts yet I had to  keep a small box for many small parts fallen off sprues. The only thing missing was a bio pamphlet that I know was included in the release. _________The deadeyes are way out of scale. Just huge.

I have much time before I get to this model and may get up to see the ship (if possible under conservation repair, when I'm on business).   I will  watch this thread and others as to how to correct the problems mentioned.  I have seen some great photos on the web, and tried to copy and past one of the inner deck of the CS....just what was being discussed  here, but it wouldn't work. If you google  Cutty Sark then hit images there are dozens of pages of photos some good some not.

<> I will get the set of plans as well.

 

Cheers 

Wilbur Wright - I'm curious about one point.  How many, if any, of the belaying pins in the kit you bought are broken off?  When I was working in a hobby shop (1975-1980), irate customers were contantly returning Revell Cutty Sarks and Constitutions whose belaying pins, by the dozen, had been busted before the kits even got to the hobby shop.

John,  There had to be around 3 dozen smaller parts broken off.  As far as the pins I will give a count next time I open the box which I've put away for the time being. I got the kit from someone that I suspect was cleaning his attic, not from my regular ebay model dealer (Balzano's) , hence the mess inside.  There were quite a few pins broken in my Alabama kit I can tell you, and that came from Tower Hobbies. The ones on the pin rail are the ones I mean. Caked with flash and of course very difficult to remove on fragile parts.

I have yet to find a solution as they are quite small.  I'll have to use very small styrene rod .

 

Also I have seen that the inner pins on the Cutty Sark are almost totally obscured by rope wound around them (the ones under the deadeyes/lanyards) on the inner hull.  From photographs.

Are the blue jacket deadeye/lanyard fittings (which they say on their site are molded in one piece) made out of brass? Have you used these? It seems I would have to get these to replace the huge Revell pieces, and also wonder if using CA would work in attaching these to the inner plates? I would also like to get the Blue jacket deck padeyes to replace the Revell  ones, which tend to melt quite easily using Tenax 7R (which is my styrene "Glue" of choice).

 

 

 

I was able to solve the plastic deck padeye problem by making them out of wire.  I folded a short piece of wire over a small diameter drill bit and twisted the tail ends which left me with a very sturdy eyebolt.

Ray

 

Wilbur - That's what I was afraid of.  My suggestion is to slice off all the plastic belaying pins, sand the surfaces of the pinrails smooth, and start over.  I don't recommend making the replacement pins out of styrene; you'll just be inviting repetition of the problem.  The best solution is to either turn your own pins or buy brass ones from somebody like Bluejacket.  If that presents a financial problem (the smallest Bluejacket ones cost $2.80 per dozen), consider just using carefully-cut pieces of brass wire (maybe with the top rounded off). 

The shortest belaying pins in the Bluejacket line are 1/4" long.  That's two feet in 1/96 scale - long for a belaying pin, but not inconceivable.  It's easy enough to make some sort of simple jig to snip a uniform length off the narrow end of each one.

The Bluejacket "deadeyes with lanyards" are cast in Britannia metal.  They aren't bad; if you don't want to tackle the rigging of individual, scale lanyards, those fittings might be a viable alternative.  The big problem I see with them is that each size of deadeye only comes with one length of lanyard.  (I.e., all the 1/16" diameter deadeyes are spaced the same distance apart.)  In a real ship, the aftermost deadeyes in a gang are considerably farther apart than the foremost ones (because the after shrouds slope more steeply).  In a warship, which has lots of shrouds on each mast, that's a serious problem.  In the Cutty Sark, with only five pairs of shrouds on each mast, I suspect the discrepancy wouldn't be very noticeable.  Just be sure the sheer pole (which I suggest making from wire) is parallel to the pinrail.

I don't recommend relying on superglue as the only means of holding the deadeyes in place.  Earlier in this thread I suggested a slightly simplified method of reproducing the chainplates.  That method should work just as well for the combined deadeye and lanyard fittings.  Caveat:  it's just an idea; I haven't tried it.  Take a careful look at the Campbell plans, and the photos on the ship's website, and work out a scheme that looks practical to you.  Hint:  if you can set up the system so none of the strain created by the shrouds comes to the pinrails, so much the better.  That's how the rigging of the real ship works.

I agree that replacing the plastic eyebolts would be an excellent idea - and I agree that making them from wire makes a lot more sense than paying good money for them.  A set of drill bits, #60 through #80, gives you twenty mandrels that will produce every size of eyebolt you could conceivably want. Brass wire will bend a lot easier, and to a tighter radius, if you heat it over a candle for a few seconds in advance.  If you can figure out in advance where all the eyebolts are going to go (as, with Mr. Campbell's plans to help, you probably can), they'll be even sturdier if you spread the "legs" of the eyebolt out under the deck and secure them with superglue.

Good luck.

The Revell belaying pins are about 5/16", or about 30" on a real ship. The 1/4"BlueJacket pins are about 24". NatureCoast has 3/16" pins which would about 18". Campbell's plans seem to indicate that they were 16" long. The NatureCoast pins are a bit more expensive! http://www.naturecoast.com/hobby/hfit1.htm

I have two 1:96 Revell Constitutions waiting in the wings, both from Ebay.  One is dated 1976, the other, 1972.  Molds are excellent, with little to no flash on either kit.   I just inspected my boxes, with good news and bad news.  One kit is virtually perfect, with only 2 pieces loose, and no broken belaying pins.  The other kit has about a dozen loose pieces, but there are broken belaying pins.

What I'm probably going to do is cut them all, sand smooth, drill out holes, then create my own pins from stretched sprue.  Because of the small size, I should be able to create something that will at least work mechanically.  Aesthetically they will be okay, but once painted and weathered, they should pass muster.  I may try wood, but I'm inexperienced with turning parts that small.

 Grymm

Go for copper wire instead of stretched sprue, it's stronger.

Julian

Any kind of wire is preferable to styrene for belaying pins.  Styrene just isn't strong enough to take the pull of the line that's secured to the pin.  The only woods that can be effectively turned down to a small enough diameter without losing too much strength are extremely hard ones - boxwood, pearwood, etc.  Bamboo probably would work, but it's awfully brittle.  Believe me, brass is preferable in every respect. 

Maybe I've missed something - but what would be the rationale for removing plastic belaying pins (which, whatever else may be said about them, at least look like belaying pins) and replacing them with pieces of plastic that don't look like belayng pins?

One point that doesn't seem to be mentioned on the Campbell plans (though I don't have them in front of me; maybe it is):  are the belaying pins of the real ship wood or iron?  I strongly suspect the latter.  Iron belaying pins came into use in the last quarter of the eighteenth century (the inventory of at least one American Continental Navy frigate includes both wood and iron belaying pins), and was in quite common use by the Cutty Sark's day - though some ships retained wood pins after that.

It's an excellent idea to replace the styrene belaying pins on any plastic sailing ship kit with brass ones - whether the originals have already been busted off or not.

Thank you John for the detailed answer.  Fantastic idea to make the padeyes out of wire and C/A under the deck. I am going to do that, and wish I had on the Alabama (too late).  Another great idea is to cut the pin rail clean and replace the styrene pins.  I can still do this for the Alabama.

 

I have been building models since 1977 and have never had the interaction, and education that this forum provides.  Really great stuff.

 

Thanks  

And I will second that thanks to all of you, especially to John Tilley for sharing his wisdom!

Regarding the length of Cutty Sark's belaying pins:  Longridge's book states they were 21" long with a 9" handle and 12" shank.   Personally, if I were building the Revell kit again (and someday I hope to) the 1/4" BlueJacket items would work just fine for me.   He does not say what material  the originals were made, but does give their color as black, indicating perhaps metal construction?

Well, that 3" discrepancy between Longridge's dimension (which I think we can trust completely) and the Bluejacket products translates into 1/32" on 1/96 scale.  It wouldn't be difficult to snip 1/32" off each pin; one would spend more time measuring, or making a simple jig to make the snips uniform, than on the actual snipping.  (A possible approach:  drill a hole, of a diameter that's a smooth fit on the shank of the Bluejacket pin, in a 1/8" thick piece of styrene.  Shove the pin through the hole and snip off the projecting tip with a pair of flush-cutting nippers.  I imagine the whole complement of pins for the ship could be snipped in fifteen or twenty minutes.)  Whether it would be worth the trouble is best left to the individual modeler.  One vital point:  make sure the pin is short enough to leave sufficient clearance between it and the deck.  You need to be able to pass lines underneath conveniently.

We can probably assume the pins are iron.  My inclination would be to assume that in any sailing ship of 1870, unless I had evidence to the contrary.  (Some spit-and-polish yachts have wood belaying pins even today, but for utilitarian reasons iron pins were pretty universally preferred by the middle of the nineteenth century - if not a bit earlier.)

Interesting stuff.

Hello all,

                 I have enjoyed reading the tips you all have provided. I am currently building this same model and have ran into a hangup. I know now in hind sight I should have done this earlier but I always try to make things work from the get go. I was wondering if any of those of you still have the original decals and still in a complete scan. I was wondering if I could get a scan of the complete sheet so I could print them off and use a newer copy instead of the old ones that came with the kit. I have heard on the wind that Revell will be re-releaseing this model next year. I'd like to finish this as a present for my Dad before christmas. I thank you all for your comments and even if you can't helpout. I believe I can gain alot from just reading on techniques on this forum. Take care!!!

Kevin

Kevin, I have them on pdf files. I do not know if the images are any better than what you have. I scanned thirty-five year old decals. If you give us your email address, I send them to you!