USS Monitor specifications conformation

I'm not sure I quite understand the problem.  (Does "at least 1/200 scale," mean as large as 1/200 or as small as 1/200?  For that particular ship, 1/200 scale is pretty small.  Verlinden, incidentally, makes a resin Monitor kit on that scale; it certainly appears to be a good, accurate product:  http://www.squadron.com/NoStock.asp?item=VE2078 )

In any case, the Monitor is a reasonably well-documented subject - with some frustrating exceptions.  A great deal of research has been done on the wreck, and the pieces (most spectacularly the turret) that have been brought up.  The big problem has always been that, since the ship landed on the bottom upside down, various features on top have not been visible.  I have the impression that what's left on the bottom now has pretty thoroughly disintegrated; I don't think there's much hope of finding the pilothouse.  (If any of it still is intact, it obviously is the modified version, with sloping sides, that was installed after the battle with the Virginia.)

I had to do some digging about this subject quite a few years ago, when I got hired by the Monitor Marine Sanctuary to design a paper model of the ship.  (The model was intended primarily for kids, but the Sanctuary folks wanted it to be right.)  I was advised to follow two sets of plans.  One was the beautiful set of hand-drawn and color-tinted ones, on one sheet of drafting cloth, supposedly drawn by John Ericsson himself. At that time it was in the collection of the American-Swedish Historical Society in Philadelphia.  (I haven't studied this matter in about 25 years, but I imagine it's still there.  The Society was quite protective of it - for good reason.)  An engraving based on that set of drawings was published in 1862.  It's been reproduced in various books, and on the web: 

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monitr-v.htm

The other source the Monitor Sanctuary folks told me to use was the book U.S.S. Monitor:  The Ship That Launched a Modern Navy, by Edward M. Miller.  It contains a modern (i.e., 1960s or 1970s) set of drawings by Alan B. Chesley.  The word I got from John Broadwater, who was in charge of several diving expeditions that went down to the wreck, was that the Chesely drawings were as reliable as anything else in print at that time.  The book unfortunately is out of print, but several used copies are available (at pretty reasonable prices) via the Barnes and Noble website: 

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=U%2ES%2ES%2E+Monitor%3A+The+Ship+That+Launched+a+Modern+Navy&z=y

It should be fairly easy to take the dimensions of the pilothouse off either of those drawings.

My familiarity with this stuff is pretty seriously out of date, though.  The exploration of the wreck and the raising of the turret have led to some rethinking of just what the ship looked like.  For a long time, for instance, nobody was quite sure what the top of the turret looked like.  (Metal grating?  Wood grating?  Solid iron plating?  The alleged Ericsson drawing doesn't make it clear, and the top of the turret wasn't visible until the whole thing was brought up.)  If you do a search on the word "Monitor" here in the Forum, you'll find some interesting discussions.  Here's one such link: 

/forums/1/598128/ShowPost.aspx#598128

I suspect some more revelations about this important ship in the next few years, as the conservators continue the long, precise job of cleaning up the turret and other components that have been raised.  A new book, containing a new, detailed set of plans, probably will appear before too long.  In the mean time, though, so far as I know the Ericsson and Chesley drawings are the best graphic sources.  

I suspect Mr. Williams already knew all that - but if not, maybe it will help at least a little.  Good luck. 

Thank you very much Dr. Tilley. This is just the information I was looking for. The 1/200 is small for this ship,I figure about 10.3 inches. Perhaps 1/150 would be a better scale choice.The Verlinden model does look very good in the 1/200 scale and a water-line model would be a less complex build. My plan was to build a full hull model of the Monitor in its original configuration of battle.

Thanks again

RG

The Verlinden 1:200 scale Monitor is a one-piece deck with a separate turret.   The interior of the turret is detailed with Dahlgren guns & carriages.   The after stacks & vents as well as the pyramid-shaped conning tower are cast as part of the deck piece.    The kit represents the Monitor in the as-lost configuration.   The kit cannot be built as the Monitor appeared during the battle without destroying deck detail. 

I added the canopy, turret-top grated deck, and railing around the turret in attempt to show the Monitor as during the James River operations during the summer of '62.

The IronShipwright Monitor (1:350 scale) comes with separate  conning, vent, and funnel options so that it can prepresent the Hampton Roads version.

The Flagship Models (ex Lone Star Models) 1:192 scale version is whole hull.   IIRC it is only the Hampton Roads version. 

There is also a large 1/72 kit from a company in England called Speedline Models.  Fairly pricey, they sell them here directly on ebay from time to time at about $400 including postage, but a very nice kit that can be built as she fought the Virginia, later on river patrol duty, or as she was when lost.

http://www.speedline-models.com/page26.html

That Speedline kit looks superb - though mighty pricey.

In the interest of making the list complete - there's also the 1/192 wood kit from Bluejacket, and three styrene versions:  the ancient ones from Lindberg and Pyro (the latter with the turret in the wrong place; how on earth did they manage that?), and the recent 1/144 one from the French short-run company Battle Axe:  http://www.squadron.com/ItemDetails.asp?item=BX1141 .  The latter is probably the best of the three.  Caveat:  I haven't seen it.  But the reviews have been generally favorable - though they acknowledge that building the thing takes a lot of work.  (As I understand it the sides are molded as flat strips, which have to be bent to shape.)  If I were in the market for a Monitor kit, and didn't mind the waterline configuration, the Verlinden version is the one I'd probably buy.  I imagine it wouldn't be too terribly difficult to slice off the modernized pilothouse, make a new one, and scribe the edges of the "deck plates."

Ed,

Excellent display and nice added detail to the model. The water display really illustrates the Monitor's radical design for the time period. Thanks for showing

Steve,

That Speedline Monitor model is the best yet.  I clicked on the instructions sheets and was very impressed at the level of detail and clarity of construction illustrations. The model is fairly expensive , but it has lots to offer. Thanks for the information.

RG

Dr. Tilley,

That Battle Axe Monitor looks very tempting . It does look like a project to work on slowly and with great care.  To modify the Verlinden deck and pilothouse with success, for me, could be a stretch.

RG

Here's a review of the Battle Axe kit, with some photos:  http://www.steelnavy.com/BattleAxeMonitorRS.htm

Looks to me like a good kit, and a sound basis for a serious scale model.  As the link to the other Forum thread that I posted above indicates, the top of the turret probably isn't quite right (though it does appear to have the two hatches).  At this point, though, I don't think anybody's a hundred percent sure exactly what the top of the turret did look like.  We'll have to wait for the conservators to finish with it.  For that matter, when they do get done conserving it, it may or may not look like it did during the battle.

Otherwise, it looks to me like Battle Axe got things right.  The idea of making the sides as flat pieces, to be bent to shape, strikes me as an excellent one.  Any alternative approach, giving the limits of injection molding, would compromise the "plating" detail on the sides.

I do think that Battle Axe has grossly overdone the scribed panel lines, particularly on the turret.  These joints are not that noticable, even in close-up photos of the turret they can be difficult to see, and Battle Axe does not appear to have gotten the locations correct either.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h61000/h61923.jpg

Steve,

I think you are correct in your observation. The scribed lines are too deep and wide. The number of panels are also too few. From picture observation of exterior turret panels , if they are all of uniform size , I estimate the number to be about 24. Thanks for the picture.

RG