Little mistakes add up. 1/96 constitution

I recommend Tenax 7R as my styrene welder of choice. In fact I can't recommend it highly enough. It dries very quickly, and bonds the styrene very hard.

Make your own eyebolts. I recently built my first sailing ship and threw away all the Revell eyebolts. I made my own from wire bent around a small brad, then C/A'd them into drilled holes on the deck. Let me tell you....they will not come out.

I will almost never use the alignment pegs slots on any model, as they are almost always off (particularly on airplane fuselages), but ships as well.

I will cut them off and use Tenax to get the seam correct.  

We learn something on every model we build. 

jtilley wrote:

regarding furled sails - here's a thread that may be helpful:  /forums/350912/ShowPost.aspx                                                                                                  I think the kit was intended to represent the ship as she looked at that time - i.e., in 1956 - with the notable exception of the figurehead.  Since then she has, of course, been modified several times in an ongoing effort to bring her back to her 1812 configuration.  Conspicuous chnges from 1956 include the shapes of the quarter galleries, the removal of the planking obove the breastworks in the bow, the height of the bulwarks, and (I think) some of the spar dimensions.      Good luck.

Thanks for the link to the previous thread.  The Andy Jackson figurehead was the first thing to go when I started the kit. 

I figure about the time I finish my model is when they'll rip the current stern off the real ship and try to restore it to something closer to the 1812-era configuration... ;)

Mark

Grahor wrote:

But you don't need a 1000 eyebolts. You need 30 at the most, for a ship.

Well, my memory of the 1/8" Connie is that she needs about 100 e/b; but your point is still valid.

regarding furled sails - here's a thread that may be helpful:  /forums/350912/ShowPost.aspx                                                                                                  I think the kit was intended to represent the ship as she looked at that time - i.e., in 1956 - with the notable exception of the figurehead.  Since then she has, of course, been modified several times in an ongoing effort to bring her back to her 1812 configuration.  Conspicuous chnges from 1956 include the shapes of the quarter galleries, the removal of the planking obove the breastworks in the bow, the height of the bulwarks, and (I think) some of the spar dimensions.     

Good luck.                                                                                                

Interesting insights on the jackstays. 

My plan with my little Constitution is to build it 'as is' per her current restoration, with the iron jackstays.  It's just starting to bug me when I look at all the eyebolts I've mounted on the masts and tops and then look at the molded jackstays, which are basically just plastic ridges. 

Funny you should mention the furled sails.  Consistent with modeling the current Constitution, I've also been considering making furled sails for the six-sail plan used on the turnaround cruises.  Any thoughts on what material to use for the sails in this small scale?

Mark

The scale of 1/150 is indeed pretty small to be worrying about precise scale sizes of eyebolts.  It's surprising, though, how small they can be and still make an impression.  An eyebolt made with a #80 drill bit as a mandrel and painted black is quite conspicuous on a bare-wood-colored deck.  And if the observer finds himself staring at it, so much the better.  A couple of the model railroad parts companies (Grandt Line and Detail Associates, I think) make cast styrene and brass eyebolts that actually are that small.  I'm not suggesting that anybody use such fittings if he doesn't want to; that's the sort of decision that, in my firm opinion, needs to be made by the individual modeler.  But it's worth thinking about. 

Regarding jackstays - making them to scale (especially on such a small scale as that) is extremely difficult.  (Harold Underhill, in his two-volume work Plank-on-Frame Modeling, asserts that it can't be done on 1/96 scale.  On the model described in those books he contented himself with highly simplified jackstays - with two or three eyebolts on each side of each yard.)  Drilling a straight row of tiny holes in each of those plastic yards would be quite a project - and, unless the holes were spaced several times as far apart as they were supposed to be, probably would weaken the smaller yards dangerously.  I don't think I'd want to try it. 

Whether a model of the Constitution ought to have jackstays on its yards at all depends on the period in the ship's history the model is to represent.  The jackstay was invented right around the time of the War of 1812.  (The famous Isaac Hull model of the Constitution, whose rigging is outstandingly detailed, doesn't have them.  Neither does the Revell 1/96 kit - for good reason.)   They initially took the form of pieces of rope run through iron eyebolts; the iron jackstay, which apparently is what the Revell designers were trying to represent, didn't appear until (I think) at least the 1820s.  The Revell 1/192 kit has the notorious Andrew Jackson figurehead, which was fitted to the real ship in 1833.  It seems likely that she had iron jackstays by that time, but I, for one, wouldn't argue with anybody who left them off.

Two other possible approaches come to mind.  I personally like to fit furled sails to my models; a furled sail on a ship like that sits on top of the yard, and effectively conceals the presence or absence of the jackstay.  I'd also be curious to see what would happen if the molded-in jackstays were given a little help by some creative painting.  If the yard were painted an extremely dark grey (so close to black that the casual oberver didn't notice the difference, and  a thin line of pure black were painted (or maybe applied with a fine pen) along the base of the molded-in jackstay (with the top of it, and the eyebolts, painted the same color as the yard), the eye might be fooled into thinking the jackstay was more three-dimensional than it is.  I haven't tried that trick, but it might be worth considering.

jtilley wrote:

The other big advantage to making your own is that you can make them in any size you want.  The aftermarket companies offer only a few different sizes of eyebolts - most of them too big to represent any but the largest on 1/96 scale.  With several diameters of brass or copper wire, and a set of drill bits to use as mandrels, you can whip out eyebolts of any size - and it's rather surprising how much that can affect the appearance of the finished model.  An eyebolt that's going to have a lower stay secured to it, for instance, is far bigger than one for a gunport lid tackle.  And with some practice, and a small soldering iron, you can make ringbolts as well as eyebolts.

Good point about the ability to make different sizes, especially with larger scale models.

BTW, I just took a look at my little Mamoli La Galeta schooner and it has 30 eyebolts, plus about ten cleats. (I'm an amateur sailor and it bugs me no end to see a model rigged so there's no possible way it could actually sail - I probably overkill if nothing else).

I figure it's going to take in the neighborhood of 125 - 150 eyebolts to finish my little 1:196 Revell Constitution by the time I rig all the carronades, chase guns, boats, etc.  

I've also been agonizing for the last few days whether I want to cut the molded jackstays off the already-painted spars and re-do them with little eyebolts & wire. (I probably will...). 

Mark

Grahor's point is, of course, valid - if you're only dealing with a model that requires a handful of eyebolts.  A bigger ship may need over a hundred, though.  (On the other hand, in my case, to the time spent ordering the commercial ones, and waiting for them to arrive in the mail, I'd have to add the time I'd need to spend trying to remember where I put them.  If you saw my workshop, you'd know why.) 

The other big advantage to making your own is that you can make them in any size you want.  The aftermarket companies offer only a few different sizes of eyebolts - most of them too big to represent any but the largest on 1/96 scale.  With several diameters of brass or copper wire, and a set of drill bits to use as mandrels, you can whip out eyebolts of any size - and it's rather surprising how much that can affect the appearance of the finished model.  An eyebolt that's going to have a lower stay secured to it, for instance, is far bigger than one for a gunport lid tackle.  And with some practice, and a small soldering iron, you can make ringbolts as well as eyebolts.

>>But your argument seems based more on principle than economics.  I'd rather pay $10 for a bulk pack of 1000 eyebolts (= $0.01/ea).   Making a 1000 eyebolts at 30 sec/ea works out to over eight hours of bending wire. Guess it comes down to a personal preference of where you want to spend your time.<<

But you don't need a 1000 eyebolts. You need 30 at the most, for a ship. So, it's still $10 for a pack + $12 for shipment (for me)  plus 20 minutes to find them on the site and to make a purchase + a week to wait against 20 minutes spent making my own. Talk about economy... Plus, mine are better. :)

jtilley wrote:

IThe aftermarket fittings suppliers do indeed sell replacement eyebolts, but I personally refuse to spend money on them.  They're too easy to make.  Just get hold of some copper or brass wire of the appropriate diameter.  (If it's brass, soften it first by holding it over a candle flame for a minute.)  Small drill bits (you've got a set, nos. 60 through 80 - right?) make excellent mandrels.  Clamp a bit, whose diameter matches the inside diameter of the eyebolt you want to make, in a vise and bend the wire around it.  Twist the ends of the wire into a "pigtail," snip off the ends, and you've got your eyebolt.  It takes about three times as long to describe the process as it does to do it.  Once you get a little practice, you can make an eyebolt in about thirty seconds. Good luck.

I'm glad you enjoy making your own eyebolts.  :) 

But your argument seems based more on principle than economics.  I'd rather pay $10 for a bulk pack of 1000 eyebolts (= $0.01/ea).   Making a 1000 eyebolts at 30 sec/ea works out to over eight hours of bending wire. Guess it comes down to a personal preference of where you want to spend your time.  

Plus, I figure the original shipwrights bought theirs from some iron foundry so it's okay for me to get mine from Model Expo. ;)

Mark

Thus I'm securing everything in such way that it will be impossible to break in any way.

Did I hear a challenge?  This one would be easy.  ;-)

Thus I'm securing everything in such way that it will be impossible to break in any way.

  If there is one chance, in infinity, it is possible.

  Nothing is impossible, it is all a matter of probability.

Go ahead with metal stuff; CA glue will hold it, no doubt about this. If you want to be absolutely postitively sure, that they will hold even if you pull at them with all your force, you may add a bit more glue from the other side of a deck, like I did here:

But this is completely unnecessary - even a drop of CA glue will hold metal eyebolt. I've done this simply because I'm a rather clumsy person, and most likely my ship will at least once fly from the table to the floor. Thus I'm securing everything in such way that it will be impossible to break in any way.

If you notice, leftmost pair of eyebolts is glued with CA glue, while other two pairs are glued with white epoxy, colored with some acrylics (although I was afraid to add more, not knowing how acrylics would react with epoxy.) I've done this trying to decide, which way the holes in the deck will look better. So far, I haven't decided yet. May be next time I'll try to color epoxy completely black, like tar. But the difference with naked eye (as opposed to close view by camera) is annoticeable.

I would only add two points to those in the above replies.  One - I can't imagine where the idea of acrylic paint dissolving liquid styrene cement came from.  It's ridiculous.  In the first place, that liquid cement works by softening the styrene where it's applied.  As it dries, the cement evaporates - so there's nothing left for any sort of paint to affect.  I've been using acrylic paints over glue joints like that for about thirty years; believe me, there's no problem.

Two - by all means get rid of the plastic eyebolts.  The aftermarket fittings suppliers do indeed sell replacement eyebolts, but I personally refuse to spend money on them.  They're too easy to make.  Just get hold of some copper or brass wire of the appropriate diameter.  (If it's brass, soften it first by holding it over a candle flame for a minute.)  Small drill bits (you've got a set, nos. 60 through 80 - right?) make excellent mandrels.  Clamp a bit, whose diameter matches the inside diameter of the eyebolt you want to make, in a vise and bend the wire around it.  Twist the ends of the wire into a "pigtail," snip off the ends, and you've got your eyebolt.  It takes about three times as long to describe the process as it does to do it.  Once you get a little practice, you can make an eyebolt in about thirty seconds.

Good luck.

I know diddly about building a tall ship in plastic, but I do know a bit about glues. For the kind of joint strength you desire, and using the dissimilar materials of metal and plastic, cyanoacryate (CA or Super Glue) is about the best way to go.

BUT (you knew there was a but, didn't you?) you need to be aware that there are different kinds of CA. The thinnest type bonds almost instantly (think the stuff you can get at a hardware store, like Crazy Glue) and gives you no time to move parts into position or correct a placement error.

The thicker super glues are usually labelled as "gap filling" and they can be either just a little less liquidy than the thin stuff to something close to honey. These you have to go to a hobby shop to get. Most will give some indication of cure time on the front of the label ... I like the ones that give me at least 30 seconds before they start to bond, not that, ahem, I ever screw up my parts placements.

It also helps if there isn't a layer of paint in between the two materials, although this is less critical if the parts are not going to be load bearing or under any tension (like a cannon being glued to the deck). For deadeyes and deck joints, I'd prefer to have a straight plastic to plastic or plastic to metal joint.

And by the way - those are not stupid mistakes - those are just "deviations from the standard mean."

The first thing I have done with this deck was to cut the tabs off.  I have never had the deck align to the hull properly using the alignment tabs.  My current kit has the deck being almost a 1/8" off.

It would be nice if Nautilus would offer a laser cut deck for this kit. 

I would definitely ditch the plastic eyebolts supplied with the kit.  They're going to cause even more problems when you start rigging due to lack of strength.  I use metal eyebolts from ModelExpo, which are available in different sizes.  I use gel type CA to attach them.  On eyebolts that are going to bear some significant load, like the main stays, I'll try to figure out a way to leave enough of the stem to bend over on the backside of the part for strength.  But most of the time I just trim the stem to the length of the kit part and glue them in place.  I don't paint the metal parts before installing them.  I'll go back aferwards to paint them and touch up any glue marks.  

I feel your pain struggling with the deck.  Those three-piece decks are probably the worst-designed parts of the Revell kit.  They are very difficult to install and get aligned properly and you have the issue of how to fill and finish the joints between the sections.  I've already decided that I'm going to scratch-build full length wooden decks next time, using the kit parts as a pattern.  

Mark