Is There A Good Reference Model For Building The USS Kearsarge?

Using wood strips to plank the decks is not difficult and the results are very worthwhile.   To my mind, the only major drawback the big Revell sailing ships have is the plastic decks.   If you replace them and any other bits that should be natural wood with real wood you will go a long way towards making them look "museum quality".    Many of the deck fittings may also be available from other sources, like BlueJacket.

The photo should actually be fairly close to the model as far as mast placement and the length of the forecastle are concerned.   Assuming the 1888 plans are correct the model should be almost spot on for the masts.    I did not compare the length of the forecastle, but my guess is that its correct.   The slightly different angles of the photos and optics of the cameras may account for any apparent differences.   One correction that the model needs is in the head area.   The flat area ahead of the forecastle and on either side of the bow sprit should be open and contain the "seats of ease".

Steve,

 Excellent feedback. Thank you. I see if I'm going to build an accurate 1864 Kearsarge I'll have to learn planking the deck and making deck furniture. No problem. Its the challenge that makes ship building so interesting to me.

  As a side note: It appears to me that the fore mast and the main mast should be moved back a good bit. This would include an extension of the forecastle deck as well as an extension of the splash rail. (sorry my terminology may be off).

Leftie, 

If by scroll you mean the billet head and trail boards (not trying to throw jargon around, just trying to be sure we're talking about the same thing) the Kearsarge kit hull is much closer to the 1864 version than the Alabama kit hull.   Actually, the stem area may not have changed very much, if at all, from 1864 to 1888.   They are very similar in both sets of drawings and not at all like the Alabama kit.

Robert's plans do show the aft gun pointing aft, like the McNarry model.   Meanwhile, Andrew Bowcock's book on the Alabama, which I suppose is the latest and best resource on that ship, shows the same arrangement- -fore pivot gun pointing fore, aft gun pointing aft.

 Steves,

    Excellent post. While you're at it can you see if the scroll for the 1864 Kearsarge looks more like the Revell Kearsarge kit or the Alabama kit. From what I can make out the 1864 scroll comes out and down. And the 1990+ Kearsarge is more like the Revell kit. How's it compare?

    And another question: On the 1864 plans, does it show the rear Dalgren cannon facing to the stern? I just got the Alabama kit today and found it interesting that both of the kits guns face to the rear, and in the Kearsarge kit both are facing forward. Looks like the Alabama deck could be substituted with limited modifications.

   More questions later I'm sure...

Some thoughts on an "accurate" build of the Revell Kearsarge:

I'm probably older than most of you (56) and I first built the Revell Kearsarge as an 11 year old in 1961 when it was originally released.   Naturally, I made a total hash of it, and always wanted another one until about 6 or 7 years ago when I bought one on ebay for fairly big bucks (but nowhere near the $300-400 they ended up going for at the end).   I also have one of the new releases.    So I have a great fondness for the ship, and like some of you, I have thought about back-dating the kit to the 1864 version.  

As has been stated in this and other threads about Kearsarge on this forum, the Revell kit is depicts a later version of the ship, based on plans in the National Archives and the navy's model at the Washington Navy Yard museum.  These plans are (at least partially) reproduced in Donald Canney's book The Old Steam Navy, Volume One.  My office has a scanner and printer large enough to handle architectural drawings and I was able to enlarge the plans to the size of the kit.   What I found is that they are almost a perfect match.   The hull outline and deck layout of the kit are remarkably close to these plans.  The main differences are the absence of the poop deck, bridge structure and pivot gun on the forecastle deck in the kit.   These could be easily added to the kit and you would have, I believe, a fairly accurate model of the ship as she was at the later part of her life in 1888.

I also enlarged Arthur Roberts' plans of the ship as she was in 1864 and laid the Roberts plans over the plans from the Canney book on a light table.   The keel of the 1864 Kearsarge is shallower than the 1888 version, the sheer line is much lower, the bow profile does not match, and there are multiple differences in the sizes and locations of hatches and the layout of the centerline mounted armament.   The masts and funnel structure on the Robert's 1864 plans are all drawn noticeably aft of where they are shown on the 1888 plans and where they are located on the Revell kit.  This is something Roberts discusses in his NRJ articles, where he says the locations of these structures were among the most problematic aspects of his research.  

I guess what this all brings home for me, assuming that Robert's plans are accurate or very close to it, is apparently how little of the Revell kit is "right" for the 1864 version of the ship.   The kit's hull, deck layout, boats, fittings, armament and rig are all incorrect, to varying degrees, for the ship as she was when she fought the Alabama.    When you analyze it, for 1864 there just does not seem to be much useable in the kit left.

Certainly not trying to discourage anyone from making the 1864 conversion, saying it couldn't be done, or that I might not attempt it myself, but the 1888 version is looking very good to me.

Hi,

I traveled down this road a while back, so maybe I can help.

The Roberts four-part series (highly recommended) is indeed available from the Nautical Research Guild. Parts 2 and 3 are back issues, and Parts 1 and 4 they will photocopy for you. This series details how Roberts scratchbuilt Kearsarge in her 1864 fit, when she sunk CSS Alabama. The Revell kit represents Kearsarge in her 1894 fit, or "as sunk" configuration. Several rebuilds took place between 1861 and 1894, which resulted in a myriad of different "looks" over the years.

The Revell kit is not completely accurate for 1894. At that time, Kearsarge had been fitted with a raised quarterdeck and an elevated bridge amidships (like Alabama), neither of which are included in the Revell kit. The rest of the kit is more-or-less fine. The kit is not all that inaccurate per se, just incomplete.

I have on my Do-Before-I-Die list the 1864 Kearsarge, as adapted from the Revell kit. Good luck with yours.

 Weasel

Steves,

    Thanks for your post. Now that I bought this $98 model I see I'm in for another uphill battle with accuracy. No problem. That's what makes this hobby so great. It goes like this:

  The KIT. The Accuracy. The Research. The Modifications. The Modeler's Compromises. And the final usually satisfying results. Stay tune for my next post.

    Thanks To All Of You!

Your best bet is probably to get ahold of Arthur C Roberts four-part series in Nautical Research Journal, which describes the research and construction of his 1/48 model of the ship as she was in 1864.   The series appeared in the December, 1999-September, 2000 issues, not all of which are available from the Nautical Resrach Guild as back-issues, but the two most useful segments for modelers, Parts Two and Three in the March and June, 2000 issues, are:

http://www.naut-res-guild.org/reprints2.htm

Roberts does not address the Revell model at all, but there is an in-depth discussion of the Navy Dept. model - upon which the Revell model was largely based - by Dana Wegner, the curator of the navy's model collection.

Another good source is The Old Steam Navy, Volume One, Frigates, Sloops and Gunboats by Donald L Canney, which contains plans of the ship as she was at the time of her loss.