SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell 1/96 Constitution beginner questions.

4254 views
12 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Pennsylvania (big state)
Revell 1/96 Constitution beginner questions.
Posted by Big Ole Bob on Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:40 PM

BigOleBob here... 

The shrouds on my constitution would look much better If done by hand. Though I'm using mostly kit parts I agree that useing Some differnt size thread diameters and hand rigged shrouds would be best for appearance. This is my second ship and the HMS victory (my first model ship) which used those plastic shrouds. Proved to be a nuisance as they never seemed to be taunt even Slack in places. This makes me want to do hand rigged shrouds.

Also there were barely ANY instructions for rigging the victory. It had the holes and places for rigging but didn't even show the Gammoning! I had to use my constitution instructions as a guideline and a few images i found online at the time. The kit was from 82, old, and had many warped masts. A pet bird flew by, knocked it over as i was half way done rigging and the fall broke all the upper masts. The masts were warped to begin with and the tension in the rigging helped to correct that. Once broken there was no way to correct the warped nature. So i glued it back together as best I could and I left it at that. It was a learning model. I learned, not to use enamels, glue does not adhere to paint, and to keep ship models away from small hands or wings. (photos of said model and birds on bravenet page)

A. Although I am a straight forward beginner What would be a quick and easy method of doing them? (shrouds) I've seen use of the cardboard pattern for horizontal lines and of course aligator clips to help keep tension, The wire-clip for keeping the deadeyes even spaced too. But my main question is in reguards to the thread Size. I'm intending to opt for the 'easy' method of threadding (via needle) a thin horizontal line through a much thicker verticle line then secureing in midpoints with some Ca glue and tieoff (with some ca) on the ends. -- What would be a nice good thick line/string to do this with that I can easily find at any craft store.

The local hobby shop (there is only one) seems to have moved away from plastic models to the extent that I was practically shocked when I revisited it. I was intendeing to pick up a 1/196? scale cutty sark for my next project only to find a few models of modern aircraft and cars. -- Thus the request for commonly found line found at -craft- stores instead of hobby shops.

B. Sails. I'm going to do this thing with the sails in place however I do agree with the consensus that many of you have about rigging them in place. untouched the sails look fake, but with a light wash the detail pulls out. Any suggestions on the Wash. Also I've seen a few photos with what looks almost like a metal 'eye' for where the strings go through the sail. Is this painted on detail intentional Or do some modelers opt for such a method to keep the plastic sails in one piece? If So how Could I do so?

So far I've just gotten the upper deck on and im working on painting a lot of secondary detail elements before atachment. Cannons, longboats, etc.

I've even found some Metal bolts that can help with strength at the craft shop. Not completely to scale but useable. I opted for birch wooden dowls to reinforce the masts and painted the deck a nice Burnt-Umber. You can see some photos on my bravenet site

http://pub37.bravenet.com/photocenter/album.php?usernum=3157957965

BOB

If you can think it. Then someone has else has also thought of it. Then someone else has tried it. Then someone else tried and completed it. Then someone else tried and proved it CANT BE DONE!
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:40 AM

Well, this can get kind of complicated - depending, of course, on how deeply you want to study the subject.  Let's start with the question of line sizes.

In a real frigate of that period the number of sizes of rope ran into the dozens.  Few modelers try to reproduce every one of them - especially on the relatively small scale of 1/96.  But the more different sizes of thread you use, the better the model will look.  That's one of the easiest improvements one can make to a kit - and thread doesn't cost much.

There's a detailed table of rigging sizes in the appendix to James Lees's The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860.  (It's reasonable to assume that an American frigate's rigging would be pretty similar to a British one's.)  Mr. Lees says the size of the lower shrouds was 0.6 times that of the corresponding stay, which in turn was half the diameter of the mast. 

Let's take the main shrouds as an example.  The Constitution's spar dimensions changed several times during her career, but the mainmast seems generally to have been about 3' in diameter.  (A set of her spar dimensions that I have in front of me says it got as small as 2'8" for a while, but let's use 3' to keep things simple.)  Half the diameter of the mast would be 18".  So the mainstay would be made of 18" rope.  Multiply 18" by 0.6 and you get 10.8".  (I keep a calculator that works in feet, inches, and fractions handy at the workbench for occasions just like this.)  So the main shrouds would be made of 10.8" rope.

Unless it says something to the contrary, it's safe to assume that any source describing rope sizes is referring to the circumference, not the diameter.  In picking thread for a model's rigging, the diameter is far more useful.  To find the diameter, divide the circumference by pi, which is 3.1416.  10.8" divided by 3.1416 is 3.4377387".  So let's say the main lower shrouds of the Constitution were three and a half inches in diameter.  (That's pretty hefty rope.)

Just one more step.  The model is on 1/96 scale, so to get the diameter of the thread you should use for the main lower shrouds, divide the full-size diameter by 96.  Divide three and a half inches by 96 and you get .0364583".  That, ideally, is the diameter of the thread you're looking for.

Two golden rules of ship model rigging.  1.  If in doubt as to color, err on the dark side.  2.  If in doubt as to size, err on the small side.  Thread that's .035" in diameter will be fine, and .030" probably will be more than good enough for most observers.

To make things simpler - use 3 instead of 3.1416, and 100 instead of 96.  If you're working on a 1/96 scale model and you know the circumference of the actual rope you're trying to reproduce, divide that figure by 300 and you'll be close enough for most purposes.  (If you use that figure instead of the ones above, your thread works out to be .036" instead of .0364583.  Close enough.) 

Ratlines, as you've noted, were much thinner than shrouds.  (The shroud has to hold up the mast, and transmit the force of the sails to the hull, thereby pulling the ship through the water.  The ratline just has to support the weight of a human being.)  Mr. Lees says ratlines were generally made of inch-and-a-half rope.  One and a half inches divided by 300 equals .005"  That's the size thread you want, ideally, for your ratlines.  In practice, if you use the smallest sewing thread you can find, it won't be far off.

What sizes of thread are available at your local craft store I have no idea.  But why not order some thread online?  Model Expo (www.modelexpoonline.com) and Bluejacket (www.bluejacketinc.com) both sell high-quality rigging line in a wide variety of sizes.  The difference in price between high-quality line and the stuff at the craft store won't amount to much - certainly not in comparison to the time you're going to be putting into the rigging of that model.

Some modelers may disagree with me, but I don't recommend CA glue for most rigging applications.  If I were you I'd thread the ratlines through all the shrouds (including the first and last ones) and secure the ends (only the ends) of each ratline with a tiny drop of white glue.  In such small quantities it only takes a few minutes to dry (though I'd wait a couple of hours to trim the ends of the ratlines, just to be safe), and it doesn't stiffen the thread like CA does.  White glue also doesn't have the ugly, shiny appearance that CA has.  (If the white glue does show when it's dry, you can touch it up with some appropriate flat paint.  Don't use acrylic for that job; it will soften the glue.)

Somebody else will have to offer suggestions about plastic sails.  I personally just can't live with them - but I guess that's a matter of personal taste.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

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

  • Member since
    February 2006
Posted by Grymm on Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:47 AM

Welcome to ship modelling!  You're going to both love it and pull your hair out.

Anyway.....shrouds.  Wow, this subject is discussed almost weekly here on the forum.  Just look through the archives and you'll find any number of discussions on shrouds.  I'm in the process of hand rigging the foremast shrouds on the 1/96 Constitution and will be working on it here in about an hour (after I get out of class).  It is time consuming and frustrating, especially with the way I'm doing it, but the reward in the end is a fantastic looking model.

Grymm

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Sarasota, FL
Posted by RedCorvette on Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:55 AM

I just love reading jtilley's posts - a such a fountain of knowledge!

FWIW, when the Constitution went through its last extensive overhaul in 92-95, the shrouds were replaced with modern polyester rigging as so:

Main lower shrouds:  9" circumference (0.029" diameter in 1:96 scale)

Main top shrouds:    7" circumference (0.023" diameter in 1:96 scale)

Main topgallant:      5" circumference (0.017" diameter in 1:96 scale)

The main point here is the shrouds get smaller as you move up the masts, only logical as they have less to support and it reduces the overall weight.  From a modeling standpoint, even if you don't use the exact size line, the upper rigging should definitely be smaller diameter to avoid a "top heavy" appearance of the rigging on the model.

I'm currently working on the smaller Revell 1:196 Constitution, trying to build it "as is" in its current restored condition.  I'm rigging it from scatch and have spent most of the last few weeks just installing brass eyebolts everywhere they need to be.  Eventually I want to build a companion in an earlier "historical" configuration, although I'm still trying to decide exactly what period (maybe even including some 'battle damage', if I get brave enough)  I've also got a third 1:196 kit waiting to be built up in the receiving ship configuration (you may want to buy stock in Evergreen plastic once I start that one...)

I've also got a Revell 1:96 Constitution in the early phases where I'm building solid wood decks to replace the plastic three-piece gun and spar decks in the kit.  One of those long term projects that I tend to put aside for months at a time (usually long enough to forget where I was when I stopped). 

Mark

FSM Charter Subscriber

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:24 PM

As a general rule (with plenty of exceptions), rigging lines get lighter as they get higher.  That is to say, a topmast stay is generally thinner than a lower stay, a topgallant stay is generally thinner than a topmast stay, etc.  On a given "level," some lines are inevitably heavier than others.  (Topmast stays are slightly heavier than topmast shrouds, which are heavier than topmast buntlines.  Etc.)  And the rigging of the mainmast is generally heavier than the rigging of the foremast, which is heavier than the rigging of the mizzenmast.  Etc.

Maybe I should emphasize that, when I'm working on a model, I do NOT habitually subject rigging lines to micrometer measurement.  The tables in books by authors like Lees and Steel are great places to start, but I have my doubts about whether the apparently precise standards they set forth were actually followed on a regular basis.

When you've been in the hobby for a while, and looked at a fair number of pictures (and models by people who know what they're doing), you develop an eye for what "looks right" when it comes to rigging.  Till then, though, if you keep that adage about making the lines thinner as you go up, you won't go far wrong.  And when in doubt, err on the small side.  A ship model rigged with line that's a little to thin looks considerably better than one that's rigged with line that's too thick.  So does a real ship.  I wonder if that just may be why the dimensions quoted by Red Corvette for the Constitution's new, synthetic rigging are, according to Mr. Lees's table, a little thin.

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

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Sarasota, FL
Posted by RedCorvette on Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:36 PM

I got my information from the Naval Historical Center documents that specified all the materials to be used for the '92-'95 refit.  There were actually 15 different sizes of standing rigging specified, from 1-3/4" circumference, up to 10" circumference for the main stay.  I thought it  was interesting that during this period they switched from polyproplene to polyester for better UV resistance.  Just speculating, but I would guess: 1.) modern manufactured materials are more consistent in strength/cross section, allowing for smaller diameter sizes to be used, and 2.) there aren't suppliers on every street corner anymore for tall ship standing rigging, and they may have just sourced the closest "standard" sizes for the refit rather than custom-ordering exact historically-accurate line sizes.

From a modeling standpoint, no I'm not using 15 different sizes of thread for the standing rigging on my Constitution!  In 1:196 scale, I'll likely use the same size for the lower and tops, and something visually smaller for the topgallants, which in reality would be about 1/2 the diameter of the lowers.

Mark

 

FSM Charter Subscriber

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Boston
Posted by Wilbur Wright on Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:31 PM

I recently completed the CSS Alabama. I tossed the horrible Revell ratlines. They simply don't work. I also went to the sewing store and got 4 sizes of thread both tan and black (really quite inexpensive) It was probably 10 bucks for all the thread and I have plenty left for whenever I attempt the Cutty Sark.

I did set the sails on my ship and am happy with the result. Acheiving a realistic color was a lot of work. I first airbrushed the sails with MM flat white enamel (both sides) as a base. When completely cured, I sprayed with MM flat laquer. I then washed with a mineral spirit and off white (almost antique yellowish wash).........a few days later I used artist pastels to fine tune the color and realism. I have yet to bring my photos to the lab, but will eventually post them.

I am also a novice at sailing ships. You will learn many things quickly. I personally used CA on the rigging. I don't know I could have completed the rigging without it (seeing it was my first go at it). Once the model was complete I went around the whole ship and touched up using MM flat clear and a small brush to make the shine disappear on all CA spots. 

I expect that when I do another sailing ship I will be better at tying knots , and will have figured out some shortcuts (avoiding disasters) etc.

The Constitution has a lot of rigging. I've been on board and seen it. I don't know if I would personally attempt it. One good thing is that the ship still exists and commissioned at that!  There is a wealth of detailed photography of her on the web.

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:34 PM
Is the rule for heavy rigging to light rigging the same for both standing and running rigging?

On the Bench:

Revell 1/96 USS Constitution - rigging

Revell 1/48 B-1B Lancer Prep and research

Trumpeter 1/350 USS Hornet CV-8 Prep and research

 

 

 

  • Member since
    January 2006
  • From: Sarasota, FL
Posted by RedCorvette on Friday, March 30, 2007 6:51 AM

 Shipwreck wrote:
Is the rule for heavy rigging to light rigging the same for both standing and running rigging?

Pretty much.  The lines are sized relative to the load they have to bear.  As you go higher in the rigging, the smaller spars and sails create smaller loads and can therefore use smaller lines to manage them.

There are situations where you have mixed sizes of running rigging - larger single lines (lifts, braces, halyards, sheets, etc.) may frequently be attached to force-multiplying tackles made up of multiple smaller lines. (Not unlike the lanyards & deadeyes that are used to anchor and adjust the tension of the large lower shrouds).

Lots of engineering and physics go into the rigging design of sailing ships.  Every line has a well-defined purpose or it wouldn't be there.

Mark

FSM Charter Subscriber

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, March 30, 2007 1:59 PM

I can think of two other possible explanation for the discrepancy in the line sizes between the Constitution's new rigging and the tables in the Lees book.  One - the researchers found some specific data about the actual sizes of the ship's rigging as of the War of 1812.  (Certainly possible.  The folks responsible for the ship in recent years have done some pretty high-powered research.)  Two - the manufacturer of the synthetic rope only offers it in a specific range of sizes, and the ship's managers bought the ones that were closest to being accurate.

In any case, the discrepancies don't amount to much - certainly not enough to make a modeler lose sleep.

I notice BigOleBob, who started this thread, seems to have dropped out of it.  I do hope we haven't discouraged him.  Describing this sort of thing verbally sometimes has the unfortunate effect of making it seem more complicated than it is.

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

  • Member since
    February 2007
Posted by Flitch on Friday, June 22, 2007 2:54 AM
     It is possible, occasionally, to buy suitable rigging material from the local haberdashers (sewing store), quite cheaply, especially when they're getting rid of unpopular colours or wish to make space for a new line.  Threads, cottons and croche cotton are all usable, but make certain that - if they are not the colour for which you are looking - they can be suitably dyed: ask in store.  How do you know the material is the correct (or near accurate ) size?  Simple, take a pencil or other round stick (dowel rod?) about 6" long and, with a sharp knife, make two cuts exactly one inch apart towards one end; the other end is the "handle".  Put the end of the line on the first cut and wind the material round the rod until you reach the second cut, ensuring that subsequent turns are hard up against the previous windings.  Count the number of turns.  With your trusty pocket calculator divide one (1") by the number of turns, e.g. 50 turns means that the material measures 0.02".  Using Prof(?) Tilley's lucid explanation of the size of rope required, it should not be too diffcult to purchase the correct thread, cotton, etc.  If the material CAN be coloured to suit your purpose and you are looking for variation, it is possible to get interesting results from a soaking in tea or coffee; do make certain, however, that the material is unwound from its reel to ensure colouration is evenly spread and - eventually - of the correct depth.  Good luck.  Flitch.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, June 22, 2007 12:01 PM

Oh dear.  One of my unfavorite topics seems to have come up again.

I strongly recommend against using tea or coffee to dye fabric - or for any other purpose other than liquid refreshment.  Both contain tannic acid, which literally dissolves the fibers of most thread.  (Some modern synthetics may be exceptions.) 

Here's a link to another Forum thread in which we discussed this topic.  (The subject of tea-dying comes up about halfway down the thread.)  /forums/647115/ShowPost.aspx

As I said in that earlier thread, I generally try to resist the temptation to be dogmatic about any aspect of model building.  But tea and coffee are two of the three materials that, in my opinion, need to be utterly banned from the modeler's arsenal.  (The other is lead.  Balsa wood almost makes the list - but I'm prepared to concede that it does have some uses in the workshop.)

 

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

  • Member since
    February 2007
Posted by Flitch on Saturday, June 23, 2007 11:15 AM
      I mentioned tea and coffee because people, other than modellers, e.g. embroiderers,  assured me of their success with the process, but if Prof. Tilley's experience is otherwise, then it would be foolish to ignore his advice.  I shall ban tea and coffee from my modelling lexicon.  Not that I use lead, but do so agree the comment. Many thanks.  Flitch
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.