SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark

122940 views
200 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:53 AM

I like the way your rope lays out with the wrap up.  Are you doing that as a seperate piece that simply lays on top ont he pin.

Jake 

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:27 AM

Jake

Correct. The rope is belayed in the normal figure of eight, topped off with a half twist. The coil is a separate piece which just hooks over the belay pin.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:40 AM

You know it's amazing, that as much as we've talked about the model and the ship, it never gets old does it?

There's just something about the lines that look good.  What would you consider to be the equivilent ship of US origin that would compare.  I'm thinking the ships of Donald McKay are at the top, but none seem to have reached the sharp lines of the Cutty Sark.  Many of days when things ain't quite working right at the Plant I've found myself looking at my model in my office maybe wishing I was sailing on her.

http://www.eraoftheclipperships.com/introductionweb.html

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Boston
Posted by Wilbur Wright on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:05 PM

Hi Geoff,   I had started the big Revell  Cutty Sark and finished the hull and deck, and the masts are together and painted  not attached, however I don't want to spend 3 months rigging it without a display case, so for now its boxed very carefully.

I replaced all the deck padeyes in the same fashion you did with steel wire. A drop of CA and they hold very very strong. As far as the belaying pins I already drilled small holes next to the pins to take the pull of the thread then I will wrap the thread around the pin carefully to look as it should. If this is done right only the most experienced eye might catch it (or not).

One thing is the styrene deadyes are ridiculously out of scale, and on the most current photos of the ship before the fire there are some rigging things I don't quite recognize up a little from the deadeyes (they look cylindrical).

This is a great model and I'm looking forward to seeing the ship (hopefully) next year when I'm in London.

I will follow this thread with interest, I'm currently finishing the big Revell QM2

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Boston
Posted by Wilbur Wright on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:13 PM

Just a note that I have to do something to strengthen the bowsprit  or replace the end section of it as the styrene is not strong enough to bear the tension of the rigging thread without curving up.

Something I have to solve. Anyone with an answer for this please share.

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 10:21 PM

Brass tubing.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 11:27 PM

One of the biggest, most important decisions a modeler of this kit has to make - and, unfortunately, make pretty early in the process - is how to handle the rigging of the lower shrouds.  The kit's rendition in this area is simplified almost beyond recognition.  There are various ways around the problem - some of them pretty complicated, some relatively easy.

In wrassling with a problem like this, the first step is to get a good understanding of how the real thing works.  A real deadeye, of course, is a round piece of wood with a groove around it and three holes drilled through it.  Deadeyes are set up in pairs, with a piece of rope - the lanyard - running between them.   In the Cutty Sark, the lower deadeye in each pair has an iron fitting called a strop around it.  The ends of the strop are in the form of eyes, at the bottom of the deadeye.  Another fitting, called a chainplate, consists of an iron rod with an eye forged at one end of it; the other end of the chainplate is welded to a rectangular iron plate.  The end of the chainplate with the eye on it passes up through a hole in the pinrail.  The eye in the chainplate fits between the two eyes at the bottom of the deadeye strop.  A big iron bolt runs through all three eyes, and is secured with a nut on its end.

The iron plate welded to the bottom end of the chainplate is riveted to the inside of the ship's bulwark.   (In the case of the mizzen mast, that arrangement is hidden under the poop deck; the deadeyes appear to be fastened directly to the deck.) 

The upper deadeye is seized into a bight on the lower end of the shroud, which is made of twisted  wire. The seizings are made of rope; there are three on each shroud, and they're coated with white paint.  (I think those seizings may be the cylinders referred to above.  Or maybe not.  See below.)  The upper end of the shroud passes up through the "lubber hole" in the top (the platform at the head of the lower mast), has a rope seizing wrapped around it to keep the loop tight, and runs down to the upper deadeye in the next pair.  (Exception:  when there's an odd number of shrouds in a gang, the first one goes all the way around the mast and runs down to the first deadeye in the other side.) 

The shrouds are "parcelled and served" throughout their length.  That means they're wrapped in a spiral pattern with strips of thin canvas, and then wound tightly with twine.  The whole mess is then coated with "blackening," a concoction containing tar and lampblack that makes the shroud, if not pure black, pretty close to it.

The lanyard is a piece of rope that runs between the holes in the upper and lower deadeyes.  It has a big knot tied in one end (a "Matthew Walker" or "double crown" knot), and is passed through the lefthand hole in the upper deadeye (as viewed from inboard).  It then passes from hole to hole, and gets knotted around the two parts of the shroud right above the upper deadeye (with a knot called a "cow hitch").  There's two feet of space between the upper and lower deadeyes of the lower shrouds and, rather surprisingly, three feet between those of the various other deadeye pairs in the ship. 

There's one other fitting associated with the lower shrouds:  the fairlead.  (Maybe this is the cylinder Mr. Wilkinson referred to earlier.)  It's a flat, cylindrical block of wood with a groove around it, a vertical (i.e., parallel to the axis) groove at one point on the circumference, and either one, two, or three holes drilled through it.  It's lashed to the shroud a few feet above the deadeye seizings, with the shroud lying in the vertical groove and the lashing wrapped around the circumferential groove.  Various pieces of running rigging run through the holes in the fairlead; its function is to keep those line from getting tangled up with each other (i.e., to make sure they lead fair). 

The ratlines are made of light rope.  Each end of each ratline has an eye splice worked into it; the eyesplice is seized to the shroud.  (On the fore and main masts only every fifth ratline extends to the foreward shroud; the others stop with shround no. 2.  We've had some interesting discussions of why that's the case; the bottom line in my personal case is that I don't know.)  Each ratline is secured to each intermediate shroud with a clove hitch.

Just in case anybody hasn't figured it out already - I'm typing all this with a copy of Mr. Campbell's plans in front of me.  This sort of stuff is much easier to understand in the form of a drawing than verbally.

Now - how does one represent all this gear in 1/96 scale?  I frankly don't like the way Revell did it much.  Those "combo units" (combining the deadeyes and lanyards) look pretty hokey, and the deadeyes are too far apart.  The big plastic blobs under the lower deadeyes that connect them to the pinrails are conspicuously out of scale, and there's no attempt to represent the chainplates.  And of course the shrouds and ratlines are represented with plastic-coated thread, which some modelers defend but which I wish Revell had never invented. 

I can offer some suggestions.  (Caveat:  I haven't tried them.  The last time I built this kit was a long, long time ago, before I understood its limitations and inaccuracies.)  One could, I suppose, reproduce the chainplates, deadeye strops, etc. to scale.  But they'd be mighty small.  (The biggest deadeyes in the ship - those on the lower fore and main shrouds, are 10" in diameter.  That's slightly less than 1/8" on the scale.)  And the space under the pinrails will be almost invisible when the model's done.  A good way to fake the lower deadeye fastenings might be to run pieces of brass or copper wire around the deadeyes, drill holes in the pinrail where the deadeyes are going to be, pass the wires through the holes, and superglue the ends of the wires to the bottom of the pinrail.  (You could, in fact, use strong, black thread; run a length of it all along the underside of the pinrail, with loops passing up through the holes and snagging the deadeyes.) 

In any case, I strongly recommend reinforcing those pinrails in some way - maybe with steel pins running through the bulwarks, and/or wires running diagonaly downward from the inboard edge of the pinrail to the waterway (the junction of the bulwark and the deck).  Lots of lines are going to be secured to those pinrails, and if you yank just a little too hard on one of the lines and the pinrail comes loose....

I'd recommend making the shrouds out of thread; as we discussed earlier, the visual difference between it and wire at this scale is negligible.  (Especially when you consider the parcelling and serving.  I don't think I've ever seen a 1/96-scale model with its rigging actually parcelled and served.) 

And the ratlines can be done more-or-less to scale.  Eyesplicing thread at that scale isn't practicable, but clove-hitching it is.  (My personal preference is to tie the ends of each deadeye with reef knots and the intervening ones with clove hitches.)  The Cutty Sark, with a maximum of five shrouds per gang, actually isn't a bad model to learn the mysterious (and ludicrously over-rated) art of ratline rigging.   We've discussed the subject of ratlines many times here in the Forum.  Please believe me - by comparison with plenty of other tasks involved in this model, it's easy.

By the way - the subject of knots is a huge and fascinating one.  But the truth of the matter is that  in building a ship model you really only need to know two knots:  the reef knot (known to Boy Scouts as the square knot) and the clove hitch.  They are just about the two simplest knots in the world to tie.  (You may also find occasional use for the slip knot - which is just a simple variation on the reef knot.  For the knot at the end of a deadeye lanyard, just tie several reef knots on top of each other.)

There are various ways to represent the fairleads (which lots of modelers omit).  Consider buying some extremely small deadeyes and filing grooves for the shrouds in them.  Or extremely small bullseyes.  (A bullseye is like a deadeye, but with only one hole through it.  Bluejacket's smallest bullseyes are smaller than its smallest deadeyes.)  Here's an application for one of the golden rules of ship modeling, though:  it's better to leave it off than to make it too big.

I personally find the setting up of deadeye lanyards just about the nastiest job in rigging a ship model.  It's particularly tricky because, almost by definition, it has to happen quite early in the rigging process.  (I've rigged more ship models than I can count, but by the time I start rigging another one I'm always woefully out of practice - and I usually screw up a few sets of deadeyes before my poor old fingers get back into training.)  I've tried various tricks for jigging the deadeyes at the right spacing, but nothing seems to work as well as (1) plain old practice and (2) trial and error.  The challenge is to get all the upper deadeyes lined up parallel to the rail, and all the shrouds at the same tension. 

And yeah, it would be an excellent idea to reinforce the jibboom.  (The designers had that one figured out right.  The bowsprit, strictly speaking, is the lower of the two spars that stick out from the bow.  In the real ship it's made of iron.  The jibboom, which is wood, lies on top of the bowsprit for the latter's full length.  At the end of the bowsprit a heavy iron fitting called the bowsprit cap clamps the jibboom and bowsprit together; it would take a huge amount of force to break the jibboom off at the cap.  But our dear friends at Revell, rather than mold the jibboom in its full length and having the modeler glue it to the top of the bowsprit, made the jibboom in two pieces, with the joint at the cap (the worst possible place, from the standpoint of strength).  My suggestion:  1.  Cut off the pin on the inner end of the jibboom.  2.  get a piece of piano wire about 1/2" or maybe 3/4" long and about 1/16" in diameter.  3.  Drill a hole slightly larger than the piano wire in the jibboom (where the pin used to be), and an identical hole in the end of the bowsprit (or, more correctly, in the end of the part of the jibboom that's molded integrally with the bowsprit.  4.  Superglue the wire into one hole.  5.  Superglue the two parts of the jibboom together.  The resulting joint won't be cat-, dog-, or kid-proof, but it should withstand any civilized force that's applied to it.

Hope all that helps a little.  Good luck.    

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

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:01 AM

Sort of like the failing writer who's agent secures a book jacket blurb, I can only follow the superb verbal description offered, with a homily as befits the aftermath of Gospel:

Do not think in terms of actual materials. Think in terms of getting the message across. I have discovered that electronics shops still sell wire in wonderful gauges from invisible to spaghetti. Cheap, accurate and useful. Ask for armature wire. Standing rigging was set up to be weatherproof, permanent and maintained. Slopped in tar, painted colors, whitewashed. Jack Tar might know which way the cable was twisted, but it's not so important in a model.

Ratlines are an issue I am faced with, having just bought the Heller Victory for Father's Day.

 

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: Boston
Posted by Wilbur Wright on Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:13 PM

I always enjoy and appreciate hearing  your knowledge John Tilly.  I may attempt to put tube into tube (brass may be too soft) to make the jib boom, then CA as suggested into the bow sprit. That is the part that is way to flexible in styrene.

I wish it was easier to post photo links on FS forums as I would love to link to a photo of those cylinders I mention. They are one to a shroud, seemingly about 3 feet above the top deadeye, look like large hockey pucks with rope going vertically through them and white rope wrapped horizontally around the sides.

There is a nice photo of the steel bow sprit being restored on the CS website.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, June 18, 2010 8:39 PM

Wilbur Wright

I wish it was easier to post photo links on FS forums as I would love to link to a photo of those cylinders I mention. They are one to a shroud, seemingly about 3 feet above the top deadeye, look like large hockey pucks with rope going vertically through them and white rope wrapped horizontally around the sides.

That's a good description of a shroud fairlead.   The ropes passing through the holes are pieces of running rigging on their way down to the belaying pins in the pinrails.

Most modelers don't bother with shroud fairleads; unless you do an extremely thorough job of the running rigging (including the gear that's only set up when the sails are in place), most of the holes in them will be empty.  On the other hand, they aren't particularly difficult to make.

Another form of fairlead is a board that's installed on each side of each top, adjacent to the lubber hole.  The board has lots of holes bored in it; pieces of running rigging pass through the holes.  Replicating these "fairlead planks" in the Revell kit would just amount to drilling a bunch of holes in the top - but, again, I'm not sure it would be worth the trouble.  This sort of thing needs to be up to the individual modeler.

All these details are shown in the Campbell plans.  I wouldn't recommend trying to work on this level of detail without them.

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

  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Tampa, Florida, USA
Posted by steves on Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:46 AM

"GeoffWilkinson" wrote"

 "All the spars or yards have little 'eyes' in the middle. There is no reference to them in the instructions and, looking at old photo's of the ship, I cannot figure out what they are for. They really look clumsy and I would like to remove them. Any one got any suggestions?" 

I finally got around to pulling out my orignal issue 1959 kit (the one with a painting of the model rather than a painting of the ship on the box.)  This first issue of the kit had somewhat more detailed rigging plans than the later issues.  Those eyes on the front of the yards are shown as attachment points for blocks used  for rigging the downhauls and sheets..  These are the parts of the rigging that  jtilley has talked about remembering that called for the use of very fine chain..  They also utilize the sheaves in the stanchion posts that have been asked about.  The first release of the kit did not include sails and the directions state that these details may be omitted as they were usaully removed and stowed if the ship was to be in port for any length of time.  For a model with sails I suppose these lines should be included for a "complete" rig.  In the later kits, this is all shown in much reduced and simplified form in detail "C" on the running rigging side of the rigging plan.   

This arrangemnt is also shown on the Campbell rigging plan.  Campbell appears to show some of these blocks attached to the bottoms of the yards, but the yards are drawn turned away from the viewer so it is not clear exactly what is happening.  Then again the kit may not be correct in this regard, as it seems that these lines would want to be behind the sails, and having the blocks attached to the fronts of the yards would make this difficult..   If you compare the  kit to the Campbell plans you will find discrepancies in many areas.

Geoff, if you feel it would be helpfull and want to PM me your email address, I can send you a scan of the earlier rigging plan.

Steve Sobieralski, Tampa Bay Ship Model Society

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, June 19, 2010 12:19 PM

Steves's description of the earlier kit rigging diagram is consistent with what I sort of suspected.  The eyes ought to be on the top (for the tye) and the bottom (for the sheet blocks) of the yard - but not the front.

From the standpoint of the kit designer, putting them in the right places would have created an insoluble (in those days) problem with undercutting.  (A better solution, in my opinion, would have been to provide holes in the top and bottom, and separate pieces for the eyes.  But maybe the designer figured those separately-cast eyebolts wouldn't take the strain.  He was probably right.)

In any case, in prototype form putting the eyes on the front wouldn't work.  The block attached to the eye would have been trapped between the sail and the yard.

My suggestion:  slice off the integrally-molded plastic eyes from the front of the yard, drill holes in the appropriate places on the top and bottom, and superglue wire eyes into them.  The Campbell plans will, I think, clarify how everything is supposed to work.

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

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:34 PM

Jake,

Yes, there is something about the lines of the Cutty Sark that are so clean. The word ‘sexy’ springs to mind, if such a word can be applied to manmade vehicles for travel. To me, E Type Jaguar, Lear Jet and Concorde can also be so described.

I have to confess, when I read your question about equivalent US ships, I was horrified at my ignorance of the subject, and all I could think of was the Sea Witch. I read with great interest the link you provided to the eraoftheclipperships. The site contains so much information (would be helped by improved site navigation).

I think one of the design innovations of Hercules Linton was to install the chain plates and deadeyes inboard. This gave her such clean, sleek lines.

Did any other ship designer/builder take up this idea?

Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:48 PM

Wilbur,

 

Drilling holes is an interesting solution and I would be interested to know how successful this approach is. I think the styrene deadeyes spoil the look of the model. I have ordered some miniature deadeyes, 2.5mm and 3mm to experiment with.

 

I think the picture you have seen is the one below. They look like some kind of guide.

 

Anyone else got any comments about these?

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 2:57 PM

John Tilley

I am currently contemplating the possibility of assembling the pin rails/chain plates to the hull sections prior to cementing the two halves and the deck together. If this can be done then the wire holding the lower deadeyes could be passed through a hole drilled into the waterway. This should take a lot of the upward strain off the pinrails.

I fear that if I do fit the pinrails to the hull sections in advance it will be quite a juggling act to assemble the three pieces (two hull halves and deck) together in one hit.

Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:01 PM

Steve,

That could prove to be very helpful.

Thanks, Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:04 PM

I am definitely going to take this advice! Thank you

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:09 PM

jtilley

Steves's description of the earlier kit rigging diagram is consistent with what I sort of suspected.  The eyes ought to be on the top (for the tye) and the bottom (for the sheet blocks) of the yard - but not the front.

From the standpoint of the kit designer, putting them in the right places would have created an insoluble (in those days) problem with undercutting.  (A better solution, in my opinion, would have been to provide holes in the top and bottom, and separate pieces for the eyes.  But maybe the designer figured those separately-cast eyebolts wouldn't take the strain.  He was probably right.)

In any case, in prototype form putting the eyes on the front wouldn't work.  The block attached to the eye would have been trapped between the sail and the yard.

My suggestion:  slice off the integrally-molded plastic eyes from the front of the yard, drill holes in the appropriate places on the top and bottom, and superglue wire eyes into them.  The Campbell plans will, I think, clarify how everything is supposed to work.

I am definitely going to take this advice! Thank you

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:14 PM

GeoffWilkinson
 
I think the picture you have seen is the one below. They look like some kind of guide.
 
Anyone else got any comments about these?
http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy234/GeoffWilkinson/Revell%201%2096%20Cutty%20Sark/shroud-guides.jpg

Those are the shroud fairleads all right.   There also appears to be one on the foremost topmast backstay.

Another interesting little fitting is the Y-shaped wood gadget secured to the foremost shroud directly outboard of the fairlead.  I'm not a hudred percent sure, but I think the weather sheet of the fore course was draped over it to keep the line from dragging in the water, when the ship was working to windward in a relatively light breeze. 

The depressing thing about photos like this is that they illustrate so clearly how much the Revell kit has been simplified.  The wrought iron bulwark stanchions, for instance, have been translated into triangular plastic gussets in the kit, and the kit doesn't represent any of the rather interesting iron sheet and rivet detail on the inside of the bulwark.

On the other hand, the picture suggests some relatively simple improvements that could be made to the kit.  Notice, for instance, that the waterways (the iron sheets that form the extreme edge of the deck) are painted red.  (More specifically, they form "troughs" at the edge of the deck; they're filled with cement, which is painted red.  That wouldn't be hard to reproduce.)  And if you're thinking about modifying the pinrails anyway, it's worth noting that Revell greatly exaggerated the "steps" where they change in width abreast the masts.  (That, I guess, was a concession to the out-of-scale method of mounting the lower deadeyes.)  The pinrails do indeed get wider in way of the masts, shrouds, and deadeyes, but not as much as Revell would have us believe.  That would be an easy thing to correct - at an early stage of construction. 

The sizes of the real deadeyes (according to Mr. Campbell) are: 

Fore and mainmasts:  lower shrouds - 10"; topmast shrouds - 6 1/2"; topgallant shrouds - 4"; capstay - 10"; topmast backstays - 9"; topgallant and royal backstays - 7".

Mizzenmast:  lower shrouds - 9"; topmast shrouds - 6"; topgallant shrouds - 4"; topmast backstays - 9'; topgallant and royal backstays - 6 1/2".  (There are no mizzen capstays.)

Please remember that these are the figures for the actual ship.  It really isn't practical to reproduce all those slightly-varying dimensions in a 1/96-scale model - and nobody ought to feel obliged to try.  Two of the golden rules of ship modeling are:  (1) if you can't make it quite to scale, try to err on the small side; and (2) if you can't come even close to making it to scale, leave it off. 

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

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:29 PM

Big Jake

Geoff,

Make sure you clean out the holes for the rigging at the bottom of the pin rail, you use those in some of the rigging steps. Bascally, the men would pull up or out against the area with a line traveling up to something or other.

I am currently away from my model, desk and Internet for a few days so am relying on occasional ‘hot spots’ to get connected.

Fortunately, the mail man arrived just as I was leaving and delivered a copy of 'Rigging Period Ship Models' by Lennarth Petersson that I had bid on on ebay.

I have been studying this book the past couple of evenings. Amazing book!

I seem to have a partial answer to one of my earlier questions related to the holes in the base of the fife rails which get no mention in the Revell rigging plan.

The book seems to show the following use of these holes:

Fore Jeers - (2 holes) P35 [Inner hole, forward rail Fore Mast]

Fore Clew Line (2 holes) P48 [Outer hole, rear rail Fore Mast]

 

Fore Topsail Sheet (2 holes) P49 [Inner hole, forward rail Fore Mast]

Fore Topgallant Sheet (2 holes) P50 [Outer hole, forward rail Fore Mast]

 

Fore Main Brace (2 holes) P44 [Outer hole, rear rail Main Mast]

Main Jeers - (2 holes) P35 [Inner hole, forward rail Main Mast]

 Any comments?

 Geoff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:30 PM

GeoffWilkinson
I think one of the design innovations of Hercules Linton was to install the chain plates and deadeyes inboard. This gave her such clean, sleek lines.
Did any other ship designer/builder take up this idea?

I don't know who originated the idea of mounting the chainplates inside the bulwarks, but for a while it was fairly common practice.  Here's what George Campbell, in his book China Tea Clippers (p. 77), has this to say about the subject:

"A noticeable feature about the wood, iron or composite ship is the attachment of the rigging to the ship's side.  The wooden ships had their shrouds, backstays etc. led outbard and attached to teh hull ove projecting channels, with deadeyes and lanyards from chainplates.  The earliest iron ship also had this arrangement.  The later iron clippers with plate bulwarks and waterays started the system of attaching the rigging inboard from iron rods (chainplates) attached to the inside lower part of the bulwark, still with deadeyes.  If the iron hull had wooden bulwarks and waterways, which was sometimes the case for good appearance, the channels and outboard attachments would apply.  Composite ships [like the Cutty Sark] also, with iron bulwarks, would have the rigging chainplates inboard, and outboard channels if wooden bulwarks.  In the latter case, the preventer bolts and chainplate bolts would be fastened through the hull at a depth below the sheerstrake so as not to pierce and weaken it."

That's pretty generalized, but the implication is that the "inside the bulwark" system was pretty common on composite-built ships.  Since the Cutty Sark was one of the last of that breed (the first composite-built ship, depending on how the term is defined, having been built in the 1850s or early 1860s), it seems likely that Linton was following fairly common practice.

Incidentally, one of the ridiculous features of Revell's "Thermopylae" kit involves those bulwarks and deadeyes.  The real Thermopylae had her chainplates outside her bulwarks; the way Revell reproduced that arrangement is pretty silly.  (One way to date a Cutty Sark kit:  if it has little ridges on top of the bulwarks, in line with the end of the deadeye/lanyard assemblies, it was produced after 1960 - the year the "Thermopylae" kit was released.  The ridges located the "Thermopylae's" deadeyes, which the modeler was supposed to glue on top of the bulwarks.

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

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:53 PM

GeoffWilkinson
 

Fortunately, the mail man arrived just as I was leaving and delivered a copy of 'Rigging Period Ship Models' by Lennarth Petersson that I had bid on on ebay.

I have been studying this book the past couple of evenings. Amazing book!
I seem to have a partial answer to one of my earlier questions related to the holes in the base of the fife rails which get no mention in the Revell rigging plan.
http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy234/GeoffWilkinson/Revell%201%2096%20Cutty%20Sark/fife-rail.jpg
The book seems to show the following use of these holes:
Fore Jeers - (2 holes) P35 [Inner hole, forward rail Fore Mast]
Fore Clew Line (2 holes) P48 [Outer hole, rear rail Fore Mast]
 
Fore Topsail Sheet (2 holes) P49 [Inner hole, forward rail Fore Mast]
Fore Topgallant Sheet (2 holes) P50 [Outer hole, forward rail Fore Mast]
 
Fore Main Brace (2 holes) P44 [Outer hole, rear rail Main Mast]
Main Jeers - (2 holes) P35 [Inner hole, forward rail Main Mast]
 Any comments?

 Geoff

The big, unavoidable problem with general books about ship modeling is that there are so many parts of the subject that can't be generalized about.  Among those are belaying point plans.  Mr. Peterson seems to be talking about a ship from either the eighteenth or the early nineteenth century.  The Cutty Sark doesn't have jeers.  (A jeer is a heavy running rigging tackle that raises and lowers the lower yard.  The Cutty Sark's lower yards are fixed permanently in place with iron trusses.) 

Over the years several authors have published "belaying pin plans" that are claimed to be generally applicable to ship models.  The truth of the matter is that there's no such thing as a universal belaying pin plan - or anything close to it.  There are a few contemporary examples applicable to specific ships, but they can't be assumed to be relevant to any other vessel.

If Mr. Campbell can be believed (and I think he can), Revell made some goofs with regard to those fifrails.  (Lest we be too hard on Revell, it should be noted that the Campbell plans hadn't been published at the time the kit was being designed.)  There's only supposed to be one fiferail at the base of the foremast; the one aft of the foremast is bogus.  And the stanchions of the one fiferail that does exist are round, rather than rectangular.  (I don't remember whether Revell got the latter point right or not; I think maybe it did.)

Each fore fiferail stanchion has one sheave mounted in it; each of the four main fiferail stanchions has three sheaves.  The plans don't indicate which lines are rove through those sheaves.  I suspect the answer is, at least in some cases - none.  It would make sense that, when a gang of men cast a line loose from a pin on the fiferail for the purpose of hauling on it, they'd just pass the end through the nearest available sheave - and yank it out again when it was time to belay it again.

One feature of the Cutty Sark story that sometimes gets ignored:  during her glory years she had a total crew of twenty-eight men.  They included the captain, two mates, the steward, the carpenter, and the cook, none of whom normally took part in the physical working of the ship.  So the ordinary "watch" of seamen and apprentices that would be on duty at any given moment would consist of eleven people.  (A major evolution, such as shortening sail, would bring "all hands on deck," but the normal routine of changing tacks, etc., would be carried out by one watch.)  With only eleven guys to do all the casting off, hauling, and belaying - and several of them probably working aloft, depending on the evolution, and one of them always at the wheel - those sheaves in the bulwark stanchions, and the mechanical advantage they delivered, must have been a godsend.  (Ditto the little mechanical winches on the bulwarks - which, as I remember, Revell represented reasonably well).

The big American clippers, by contrast, often had crews of as many as a hundred men.  And the later European iron-hulled sailing ships got along, somehow, with smaller crews than the Cutty Sark.  Kinda thought-provoking.  

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

  • Member since
    July 2005
Posted by caramonraistlin on Saturday, June 19, 2010 8:06 PM

Geoff:

That is an excellent book. I have a copy of it and I like the clear representation of the rigging for the shrouds.This book is based on a English frigate of the eighteen hundreds as the author notes. However, it is a full rigged ship and the running/standing rigging is very similar to other full rigged ships. One book I have used extensively is Underhills Clipper ships and other Ocean Carriers. What is nice about this book is he covers rigging for all steel ships in one half and wooden ones in the other. It is the only book I found that I could finally understand how a studding sail was properly attached to the yard it was rigged to. I'd look at the instructions for my Revell Constitution and they just weren't clear enough. Underhill's book showed a very plain view of this complete with all the blocks, lines and belaying points. Hope this helps.

Sincerely

Michael Lacey 

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:34 PM

Geoff,

If you build your kit pinrails and parts before you install the deck, you will not have a deck. It will not fit! If you scratchbuild your pinrails to scale (see Campbell plans), you might be able to pry your hull apart enough squeeze your deck in. But, it will not be easy!

I have three hulls and two decks. all are warped in many directions. That complicates any such assemblies.

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
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, June 20, 2010 12:23 AM

If you're looking for a book that describes the actual rigging of merchant ships (particularly British ones) during the period from about 1850 through the end of the sailing ship era, Underhill's Masting and Rigging:  The Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier is the one to buy.  It's comprehensive, well-written (by one of the real experts in the field), and beautifully illustrated.  The only problem with it is that it's also expensive.  Even used copies command pretty outrageous prices these days.  (In a few minutes of surfing I did find a few in the $30.00 neighborhood:    http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=EyhrrJXBoyacWcUsCfKn3lYp.T8_2422091453_1:82:791&bq=author%3Dharold%2520a%2E%2520underhill%26title%3Dmasting%2520and%2520rigging%2520the%2520clipper%2520ship%2520and%2520ocean%2520carrier .  Compared to the last time I checked, that's pretty good.)

If you're more interested in how such ships were operated, a superb book is John Harland's Seamanship in the Age of Sail.  This is a really fascinating tome, covering how sailing ships worked from about the sixteenth century onward.  The illustrations, by Mark Myers, are especially helpful.  Unfortunately it seems to be out of print at the moment - and used copies aren't cheap either:  http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=EyhrrJXBoyacWcUsCfKn3lYp.T8_2422091453_1:82:791&bq=author%3Dharold%2520a%2E%2520underhill%26title%3Dmasting%2520and%2520rigging%2520the%2520clipper%2520ship%2520and%2520ocean%2520carrier .

Fortunately for Cutty Sark modelers, fortunately, all the actual rigging of the ship is covered pretty thoroughly in the George Campbell drawings.  The considerable text on them may not tell you how to sail the ship from London to Melbourne, but it will tell you, in practical terms, everything you need to know in order to rig a model of her.  I've literally read myself to sleep with those plans more than once.  And they're outstandingly cheap.

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

  • Member since
    July 2009
Posted by Publius on Sunday, June 20, 2010 1:43 PM

Got to comment here because I built a Cutty Sark years ago and fully rigged it. I don't totally agree that the plastic pins will fail to hold the rig if handled carefully. Some poorly molded ones that are very thin, and I've seen that, could be unsuitable, but I think in general they can hold. They just might not look as good as a better made and scaled part. It's clear from the standard to which some people are taking these ship models now a days that reworking the pin racks is a big step to improving the quality of the model. I chose to level all the pin racks of my Revell Kearsarge. I was used to leveling and squaring things in my work as a carpenter framing houses and the Revell parts cried out for attention. The difference really shows. I hope to post some photos in the coming weeks.

    I don't know if you picked up on it yet but Dr Tilley maded me realize that the rope sizes and colors and block sizes could vary alot on any given ship. I've been collecting rope for Kearsarge and have gone to Bluejacket Models for block sizes too. Lastly my motto currently, "Slow is fast." Thanks for the posts and good luck, Paul/Bangkok

How does this work?

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Monday, June 21, 2010 12:42 PM

Publius

    I don't know if you picked up on it yet but Dr Tilley maded me realize that the rope sizes and colors and block sizes could vary alot on any given ship. I've been collecting rope for Kearsarge and have gone to Bluejacket Models for block sizes too. Lastly my motto currently, "Slow is fast." Thanks for the posts and good luck, Paul/Bangkok

There are so many things I have learned from the writings of Dr Tilley and Big Jake too. I like your motto and would agree. I am enjoying the research almost as much as making the model. In fact, so far I have spent a good deal more time on research than modeling.

Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Monday, June 21, 2010 12:49 PM

jtilley

If you're looking for a book that describes the actual rigging of merchant ships (particularly British ones) during the period from about 1850 through the end of the sailing ship era, Underhill's Masting and Rigging:  The Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier is the one to buy.  It's comprehensive, well-written (by one of the real experts in the field), and beautifully illustrated.  The only problem with it is that it's also expensive.  Even used copies command pretty outrageous prices these days.  (In a few minutes of surfing I did find a few in the $30.00 neighborhood:  ..............................

Fortunately for Cutty Sark modelers, fortunately, all the actual rigging of the ship is covered pretty thoroughly in the George Campbell drawings.  The considerable text on them may not tell you how to sail the ship from London to Melbourne, but it will tell you, in practical terms, everything you need to know in order to rig a model of her.  I've literally read myself to sleep with those plans more than once.  And they're outstandingly cheap.

I did bid on Underhill's book but lost the auction. I think I will wait to receive the Campbell plans before spending any more cash (It's getting out of hand! I have spent far more on addional parts and reseach material than the original kit).

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Monday, June 21, 2010 1:13 PM

jtilley

The big, unavoidable problem with general books about ship modeling is that there are so many parts of the subject that can't be generalized about.  Among those are belaying point plans.  Mr. Peterson seems to be talking about a ship from either the eighteenth or the early nineteenth century.  The Cutty Sark doesn't have jeers.  (A jeer is a heavy running rigging tackle that raises and lowers the lower yard.  The Cutty Sark's lower yards are fixed permanently in place with iron trusses.) 

Please forgive my ignorance. What is the difference between a Jeer and a Lift? I Note that the lower yards of the Cutty Sark are fixed permanently. If so, why do they need lifts, as shown in the rigging diagram?

 

Geoff

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Monday, June 21, 2010 1:46 PM

Ignorance! Geoff, you are asking questions that I have not even thought of. Please keep those questions coming. Good question!

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

 

 

 

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.