Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark

I don't know what those iron (?) strips along and below the waterline of the real Cutty Sark are either - or why they're there.  But they almost certainly have nothing to do with anything that was actually attached to the ship when she was in active service.  (She didn't have a white stripe along her waterline, either - though, if I remember correctly, Revell included that stripe in its painting instructions.  Again, we shouldn't criticize Revell for failing to conform to the Campbell plans.)

It's a pretty safe assumption that anything attached permanently to the underwater hull of a copper-  or Muntz-metal-sheathed ship was made out of either copper or bronze.  For the record - there's no such thing as a copper- or Muntz-sheathed ship with an iron hull.  One of the theories behind the introduction of composite construction (wood planks on an iron frame) was to combine the established virtues of copper or Muntz metal sheathing with the strength and durability of iron hull construction.  (Copper and Muntz metal couldn't be fastened to an iron hull due to the aforementioned electrolytic reaction.  But copper and Muntz metal were far superior to iron in terms of inhibiting marine growth.) 

 Another feature of the grand old Revell kit that my poor old memory is recalling:  the hatch coamings.  If I remember right (maybe I don't), Revell treated them as though they were made of wood.  In reality the coamings are sheet iron.  If I'm right about that, the mistake wouldn't be hard to fix with plastic strip.

And there's an interesting little detail related to the main hatch.  Lloyd's of London required that the ship's registered tonnage be marked clearly on the "main beam."  So the deck beam that's visible on the after edge of the main hatch has "921 Tons" painted (rather crudely, as I remember) on it.

Wilbur Wright

I would post photos but don't yet have a digital camera.

 

Wilbur,

'A picture's worth a thousand words'

My son bought me one, and a tripod, Christmas before last, it's one of the best tools I have and I love it.

What more can I say....

Geoff

Big Jake, I'm curious to know why "Only" Floquil copper would work for painting a ships hull? You may be referring to your personal technique which looks very good.

The Tamiya that I use (and I am generally not a fan of their paint) comes in two shades and as acrylic resists mineral spirits and turpentine when applying a further white oil wash to the copper after the green has dried.

I would post photos but don't yet have a digital camera.

bondoman

Big Jakes model is great; I wasn't so much referring to it as to a preference for finding out things myself from actual subjects. In fact I think I'll try his technique.

Good luck with your build, I'm following your thread with interest.

One thing I have noticed in photo's of the Victory in Portsmouts is the hull plating appears to be a pretty even color of dark grey/black. No streaks.

Geoff

Big Jakes model is great; I wasn't so much referring to it as to a preference for finding out things myself from actual subjects. In fact I think I'll try his technique.

Big Jake

The lower hull painting /Corrosion detail was done in the follow manner: You must use FLOQUIL Brand Paints for this step.

1. Coat the hull with Floquil Copper (ONLY this brand of paint will work), let dry 24 hours.

2. Using a #2 size brush, use Floquil Lt. Green, streak the hull in from the top of the plates to the keel in downwards strokes only.

3. Using a #2 size brush, paint Floquil Ant. White directly over the Lt. Green, and then while the paint is still damp wash the paint down with ONLY turpentine, any other solvent is too strong. Let dry over night, the smell is not that bad, but if you work indoors on your models you will want to do this outside and let dry their.

bigjake,

Was the hull in your kit prepainted with copper paint or just the black styrene molding?

Geoff

bondoman

A couple of details. The pintles and gudgeons on the rudder would be iron or steel and look to me to be painted black. Painting ferrous material is of course necessary under water, and would also serve pretty well as a galvanic separator from the copper alloy plating. On the museum we used marine grade stainless steel fasteners.

There's a strake or a stringer or a swale or whatever down about three plates from the top, at the 17 foot depth mark. From the pattern of the plates it looks to be applied over them, and painted black. Squinting at the model shot, I can't see it molded on there, but it's an interesting detail. It also looks like the hull shores come up under it, but I doubt it was put there for the shoring, more likely the shoring was fit to it. (?)

The very front edge of the bow, and I have no idea what the term is, breakwater?, is blackish. It looks soft though, like copper or brass, just in the black stage of oxidation. The bottom of the keel looks black too.

I've found a grand total of one photo showing the plating on the victory, as she currently sits, and it appears light green, which is predictable since it sits exposed in a salt air environment.

One last comment, and not to insult anyone. Having been a modeler for 40 plus years in a serious way, I do not tend to use other peoples models for reference very often. Certainly someone like Longridge is beyond any reasonable doubt, to put it mildly, but I'd rather read his book. And to follow that logic, there's lot's about his model that are not "as-built" but are rather done for effect, or to better show how something is put together before it's hidden under multiple coats of paint.

Although not defined in the original specification, I think the gudgeons would have been Bronze.

The strip 'thing' down the side is not on the model neither is it on the Campbell plans. It looks like an addition but I can't think what purpose it served.

This is the best detail of the keel I can find - make of it what you will:-

Every one is different - I do examine the work of other people and if I can learn something so much the better. I get a kick out of that. One of my mottos: 'There's got to be a better way'.

I included bigjakes photo because I felt he had represented the hull discoloration rather convincingly.

Geoff

I may be repeating myself here; I've lost track of who's been asking which question and which ones have already been answered.  If the following is repetition, I apologize.

The jeers and the lifts have different functions.  The jeers, which are secured to the yard at its center, are used to hoist the yard into position and, on occasion, lower it to the deck.  The lifts, running from the yardarms to the cap, are used to keep the yard horizontal - or, when it's being used as a derrick for handling heavy weights (such as provisions or the ship's boats), to tilt it.

GeoffWilkinson

 

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

Jake, thanks for the info! I'm going with it- skip the Alclad.

The lower hull painting /Corrosion detail was done in the follow manner: You must use FLOQUIL Brand Paints for this step.

1. Coat the hull with Floquil Copper (ONLY this brand of paint will work), let dry 24 hours.

2. Using a #2 size brush, use Floquil Lt. Green, streak the hull in from the top of the plates to the keel in downwards strokes only.

3. Using a #2 size brush, paint Floquil Ant. White directly over the Lt. Green, and then while the paint is still damp wash the paint down with ONLY turpentine, any other solvent is too strong. Let dry over night, the smell is not that bad, but if you work indoors on your models you will want to do this outside and let dry their.

The only watercraft I've ever owned was a sailing dinghy, and her rudder hinges were bronze. But, in the age of steam and certainly after 1900 such was iron, according to a couple of sources I quickly consulted. I can't disagree that Victory's were bronze, in any case they will be dark brown on my model. And paint is an effective galvanic separator if applied with vigor.

Hello All,

Interesting topic about the hull coloration.  But I have a question/observation - note that most of the photos showing the coppering weathering to shades of green/white the streaks are vertical.  The thing is sailing ships didn't make much money standing still - and they don't "move" like steam ship, either.  They rarely are vertical when moving, the wind tends to keep them leaning one way or the other while moving forward.  And this friction is what probably kept the copper "clean" (color wise - barnacles, seaweed and worms were some of the reasons to "copper").  So, could the motion of the ship explain Mr. Campbell’s observations of the hull colors?  If so, then the question goes to which do you want the model you make represent - the busy time of the ship or while drydocked/laid up?

Or maybe I’m just all wet in my thinking.

Like I said earlier, the appearance of a copper-sheathed (or Muntz-metal-sheathed) hull is a subject worthy of discussion.  There are several "right" answers.

The hull of such a ship is subjected to two factors that don't affect the roof of a building (or virtually anything else):  constant, total submersion in salt water, and the mild (but near-constant) abrasive effect created by the movement of the hull through the water.  That's why Mr. Campbell (who knew what he was talking about) referred to the clean, shiny appearance of the copper on a ship in service.

The actual Cutty Sark, unfortunately, isn't a totally reliable source for this subject, because her sheathing isn't Muntz metal.  My source on this point is the most interesting booklet, "The Restoration of the Cutty Sark," by Frank G.G. Carr.  (He was the director of the restoration project that brought her to Greenwich in the 1950s and early 60s.  The booklet is the text of a lecture he gave to the Royal Institution of Naval Architects in 1965, and that was published in the organization's Quarterly Transactions for July, 1966.  It used to be sold for a pittance in the ship's gift shop.  Nowadays copies occasionally show up on the web - usually at sky-high prices.)  In the "Discussion" section at the end of the article is a contribution from Professor A.G. Dowson, who says (among other things) the following:  "Mr Carr asked me a few years ago to go and look at the copper bottom of the Cutty Sark...because it was as he put it in his metallurgical layman's language, 'rotting.'  Indeed it was; it was very very rotten.  It is not strictly a copper bottom, it is of Muntz metal....Replacement of the rotten plates has been done in a material called 'Alumbro,' an aluminium-bearing brass which does not contain the high zinc content which led to the failure of the original material, and which precludes any sort of preventive measures."

Just how much difference is there between the appearance of Muntz metal on the bottom of a working ship in 1870 and "Alumbro" on the bottom of the same ship after exposure to forty or fifty years of exposure to English weather...heaven only knows.  My metallurgical layman's guess is - not a lot (though some of those vertical white streaks look remarkably like pigeon crap, which, I suspect, would not have been found below the waterline when the ship was in service).  But how the ship looks now is not necessarily what she looked like during her active career.

The use of "Alumbro" for the sheathing may explain why the rudder pintles and gudgeons appear to be iron.  On a copper-sheathed ship they can't be.  When copper and iron are placed in contact with each other and submerged in saltwater, an electrolytic reaction takes place that literally dissolves the copper.  The early experiments with copper sheathing established that.  The shipwrights initially attached the copper sheets to the hull planking with iron nails; in a few months the copper surrounding the nails was eaten away, and the plates fell off.  The answer was to use copper nails - and cast copper or bronze for the rudder fittings.  I'm not sure whether the phenomenon was any less problematic with Muntz metal, but I'm pretty sure that the Cutty Sark originally had either copper or bronze (or maybe cast Muntz metal) pintles and gudgeons.  (The aforementioned 1872 photo of the ship in drydock is of no help here.  The pintles and gudgeons apparently were ripped off when the rudder went.)  And I'm as sure as I can be that the rudder fittingsof the Victory are either copper or bronze.

I once, without knowing it, performed an experiment that shed a little light (not much) on what we're talking about here.  I have the degenerate habit of frequently eating lunch in my car.  One day I unthinkingly set a big paper soft drink cup in one of the console cupholders, not realizing that the latter was already occupied by (a) a McDonald's salt packet and (b) three pennies.  A couple of days later, when I got around to throwing out the cup, it had "sweated" to the point that there was about 1/4" of water in the bottom of the cupholder.  The paper of the salt packet had soaked through, and the salt had dissolved in the water. One of the pennies had turned almost pure black.  The other two were starting to acquire a medium green patina.  (Problems with this experiment:  McDonald's salt isn't the same as sea salt, and pennies aren't pure copper - much less Muntz metal.  But I do think it's interesting that the "weathering" effects varied so much.)

In my opinion there are several perfectly legitimate ways to finish the "sheathing" on a ship model.  To my eye Jake's model looks excellent - and quite believable as a depiction of a hull that's just come out of the water (or, maybe, is still in it).  And the green patina on Longridge's model is, I think, a good representation of a hull that's been exposed to the air for some time.  And I'm sure there are other good ways to do it.  To each his (or her) own. 

I have used Tamiya Olive Green XF-58 to achieve the greenish tarnish. Less is more of course!

I apply it with a small piece of sponge and dilute the paint with water to the desired result. It has worked well for me in getting a result like Mr Groby's example above.

I also use Tamiya copper for the plates ( 2 coats will do it) themselves and can brush it on in the case of the Revell CS as the plates are molded on the hull (not a smooth surface).

Tamiya paint is notoriously bad for brush painting smooth surfaces, but in this case it works well. Let cure several days then apply the green tinge.

Nice pictures Geoff. The hull does kind of look like my museum. I think those gold streaks are bare Muntz metal, and the overall copper patina color is oxidized Muntz. When you see fingerprints on brass, they're the same kind of color.

A couple of details. The pintles and gudgeons on the rudder would be iron or steel and look to me to be painted black. Painting ferrous material is of course necessary under water, and would also serve pretty well as a galvanic separator from the copper alloy plating. On the museum we used marine grade stainless steel fasteners.

There's a strake or a stringer or a swale or whatever down about three plates from the top, at the 17 foot depth mark. From the pattern of the plates it looks to be applied over them, and painted black. Squinting at the model shot, I can't see it molded on there, but it's an interesting detail. It also looks like the hull shores come up under it, but I doubt it was put there for the shoring, more likely the shoring was fit to it. (?)

The very front edge of the bow, and I have no idea what the term is, breakwater?, is blackish. It looks soft though, like copper or brass, just in the black stage of oxidation. The bottom of the keel looks black too.

I've found a grand total of one photo showing the plating on the victory, as she currently sits, and it appears light green, which is predictable since it sits exposed in a salt air environment.

One last comment, and not to insult anyone. Having been a modeler for 40 plus years in a serious way, I do not tend to use other peoples models for reference very often. Certainly someone like Longridge is beyond any reasonable doubt, to put it mildly, but I'd rather read his book. And to follow that logic, there's lot's about his model that are not "as-built" but are rather done for effect, or to better show how something is put together before it's hidden under multiple coats of paint.

jtilley

The point of all that is simply that if a modeler is going to get hung up on the sort of faults that this kit has, he/she probably isn't going to find it a satisfying project.  Every modeler - especially if he/she is working from a kit, has to confront a basic question:  how good is good enough?  (And I firmly believe that the answer is each individual modeler's business - and nobody else's.)   If the rest of the kit is good enough by your personal definition, don't get unduly hung up on those questions of dimensions; they're relatively minor compared to lots of the kit's other problems. 

 

John,

First, and foremost, I have the kit and I feel privileged to have the opportunity for a third attempt at building it. I am excited at the prospect and ready to face the challenges.

The forum is a place for discussion and, equally, I am thoroughly enjoying being involved in these discussions. Since I have the kit the subject of scale is merely of academic interest. Nothing is going to change the size of the parts in the kit.

The idle speculation that we have become embroiled in is purely out of academic interest and will achieve no more in changing the world as would discussing politics or religion in a bar. Personally, the discussions are positive, they keep the mind stimulated towards attention to detail and, in building a model, that detail is what gives me, and probably most modelers, satisfaction.

I am, in fact, delighted by my lack of progress in the actual construction of the kit because the research and input from the forum have already prevented mistakes which would have caused disappointment further down the line.

I have you all to thank for that.

bondoman

Hey Geoff- let's talk about where we need to start. Have you given any thought to how you are going to finish the copper?

IIRC having built the Thermopylae, never the CS, it comes with some kind of copper coating that Revell would have you wipe with thinner. Did that I think and liked it, but I was a kid then.

I've seen a few models where it was a patina green color. The question I have to ask, being an old model railroad guy, is, if the copper is green, then where's all the other barnacles, seaweed, mussels and crud that go with it?. I am considering new copper. Leaf won't do though. the plates are too small, and leafing big areas won't look at all right. I am considering Alclad II, if they sell copper color. It's a great metallic lacquer that is wonderful stuff on airplane models.

Edit: Yep- they have it! And a "prismatic copper red" that changes from red to green depending on the viewing angle. Could be a tragic choice though. I'm going to buy some of each tomorrow and when it comes I'll spray up a couple samples for us to evaluate.

Longridge in his wisdom realizes that the rest of us are indeed idiots. His advice using individual plates that were 5/16" x 1/1/4", was to not set the last course until rubbing the hull with boot black, to avoid spoiling the color which could never be set to rights.

Bondoman,

Yes, much thought, especially after reading Jake Groby’s excellent article “How to build Revell’s Cutty Sark – A Modelers Guide”  and seeing the photo’s of his model.

Also there are plenty of photo’s of the hull of the CS in London before the fire.

As for the barnacles and seaweed, copper sheathing of ships was first suggested in 1708 by Charles Perry, as an anti-fouling device but the first experiments with copper sheathing were not made until the late 1750s, at which time the bottoms and sides of several ships' keels and false keels were sheathed with copper plates.

The copper performed very well in protecting the hull from invasion by worm, and in preventing the growth of weed, for when in contact with water, the copper produced a poisonous film, composed mainly of oxychloride, that deterred these marine creatures. Furthermore, as this film was slightly soluble it gradually washed away, leaving no way in which marine life could attach itself to the ship. From about 1770, the Royal Navy set about coppering the bottoms of the entire fleet and continued to the end of the use of wooden hulled ships.

The green color is caused by oxidization when exposed to air. On a ship it would normally only occur along the waterline while a ship was at sea.

Geoff

About five years ago it was my firm's privilege to participate in the design of the New de Young Museum in San Francisco. Designed by the internationally renowned firm of Herzog and de Meuron, also the Beijing Stadium; the building is clad in 250,000 sf. of copper paneling. It's an exercise in CADD, no two panels alike, each premanufactured at Zahner Metals in Kansas City. All of the scrap was carefully collected and returned for reuse.

Each panel has rows of depressions, a total of 4 outward sizes, four inward, and neutral. Amazingly, these were made the old fashion way, with a machinist sliding the panel around under a punch, one at a time.

Anyhow, before the building went up, I was asked by the museum director how the copper would age. He had been given a series of renderings by the architects showing a green patina building. Would it look like that?

Pulling a handful of pennies from my pocket, I spread them out. They of course range from bright to black. But nothing green. Now pennies are not pure copper at all, but he got the idea.

Muntz metal is a brass alloy. It's very commonly used for architectural details that one would consider "brass" like handrails, elevator hoistway doors etc.

In my career as a student, I took a course in traditional roofing techniques at the University of Copenhagen when I lived there for a year. I could go on about thatch for pages, but that's not relevant. Copper is an excellent roofing material of course. It turns black initially, after ten years or so, then turns stages of green, ending it's useful life in an almost white pale color.

I would suspect that many copper sheathed ships hulls were pretty close to black. But that's an unattractive solution.

I recall painting the second of the 1/96 Constitutions I built, the "good" one, with gold spray paint on a whim, and it actually looked great.

Let's see what your kit looks like, Geoff.

bondoman

Hey Geoff- let's talk about where we need to start. Have you given any thought to how you are going to finish the copper?

This is an interesting subject that we've discussed several times in the Forum.  There are quite a few ways to interpret (a) what the color of the bottom of a "copper-sheathed" hull actually was, and (b) how to represent it on a model.

Mr. Campbell, in his book China Tea Clippers (pp. 124-125):  "The appearance of the copper, varying slightly with the composition from reddish to yellowish, would be like an old copper coin, when it was freshly applied.  At sea in salt water it would be bright and shiny, and in port or drydock a light green when dry, like a copper dome."  He also explains that in the case of the Cutty Sark and her contemporaries, the word "copper" is a misnomer; the actual material was a substance called "Muntz metal" which was a mixture of copper and zinc (50 parts copper to 50 parts zinc in 1830, 60 of copper and 40 of zinc as of 1846).  Muntz metal was also referred to as "yellow metal"; it probably looked about like what we think of as brass.  (The Victory, on the other hand, would have been sheathed with genuine copper.)

I have to say I have my doubts about that "bright and shiny" appearance when the ship was at sea.  (The theory is that the surface of the metal was constantly eroding, and that since it was also constantly wet, oxidation didn't have the chance to form.)  So far as I know, there's only one extant photo of the Cutty Sark in her seagoing years that shows the underwater hull.  It's the well-known 1872 shot of her in drydock, after she lost her rudder and completed the voyage with a jury-rigged one.  The photo (in black and white, of course) is reproduced in just about every book about the ship - including the little booklet that Revell used to enclose in the kit.  The sheathing is in good shape, but considerably weathered; it has a rather "mottled" look.  But no sign of a barnacle or strand of seaweed. 

In the early years of the kit, Revell sprayed the bottom with copper-colored paint.  Somewhere along the line the company quit doing that, and started leaving the hull halves all black; whether you have a prepainted hull or not depends on how old your particular kit is.

A Forum search on "copper sheathing" or "Muntz metal" will yield quite a few ideas on how to finish the bottom of a model.

GeoffWilkinson

Does anyone know where the original molds were made? Were they made by German engineers? If so, would it not have been natural for them to have used a metric scale. If they did then it is possible that they did design the kit at 1/100. That scale does not sit too well with the Imperial system of measurement whereas 1/96 does.

Geoff

The only information I have about the origins of the kit is what appears in Dr. Graham's book about the history of Revell.  On that basis I think it's pretty clear that the design originated in California, where' Revell's original (and I think only - as of 1959) was located.  I may be mistaken, but I don't think Revell Germany existed in 1959.

Every example of the kit I've ever seen personally - and every ad for it - has been labeled "1/96."  The only reference to a Revell Cutty Sark that I've ever seen is in that gentleman's reference on that other website (Modelshipworld.com).  He's Canadian, and he said he'd bought that kit in Canada quite a few years ago.  He remarked on the fact that at the time he bought it Canada hadn't yet gone to the metric system.

I have to say I have my doubts about whether Revell ever sold a Cutty Sark labeled 1/100 (though I'll be more than happy to stand corrected if I ever see any firm evidence).  My inclination is to think that the various discrepancies in scales and dimensions that we've been talking about have a common, simple explanation:  somebody goofed.  And I don't think it was George Campbell.

In all honesty I don't think, at this point in my life, that I'd want to tackle that kit.  Laying aside the question of whether it's an inch too long or not (and it certainly sounds like it is), it's got plenty of other problems.  I'm thinking of such things as those phony little gussets inside the bulwarks, the misshapen pinrails, the awful deadeyes, the near-insoluble joint problem in the deck components (a popular solution:  replace the decks with wood), the over-simplified paneling on the deckhouses, etc., etc., etc.  In 1959 this kit represented the state of the art; it's one of the classic ship model kits of all time, and it's had a good deal to do with getting lots of modelers (including this one) hooked on sailing ships.  But the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think that bringing it up to the standards of 2010 would take so much time and effort that I'd literally rather start from scratch.  And personally, if I'm going to do that I'd rather pick a subject that's a little less hackneyed.  She's a magnificent ship, but....

The point of all that is simply that if a modeler is going to get hung up on the sort of faults that this kit has, he/she probably isn't going to find it a satisfying project.  Every modeler - especially if he/she is working from a kit, has to confront a basic question:  how good is good enough?  (And I firmly believe that the answer is each individual modeler's business - and nobody else's.)   If the rest of the kit is good enough by your personal definition, don't get unduly hung up on those questions of dimensions; they're relatively minor compared to lots of the kit's other problems. 

Hey Geoff- let's talk about where we need to start. Have you given any thought to how you are going to finish the copper?

IIRC having built the Thermopylae, never the CS, it comes with some kind of copper coating that Revell would have you wipe with thinner. Did that I think and liked it, but I was a kid then.

I've seen a few models where it was a patina green color. The question I have to ask, being an old model railroad guy, is, if the copper is green, then where's all the other barnacles, seaweed, mussels and crud that go with it?. I am considering new copper. Leaf won't do though. the plates are too small, and leafing big areas won't look at all right. I am considering Alclad II, if they sell copper color. It's a great metallic lacquer that is wonderful stuff on airplane models.

Edit: Yep- they have it! And a "prismatic copper red" that changes from red to green depending on the viewing angle. Could be a tragic choice though. I'm going to buy some of each tomorrow and when it comes I'll spray up a couple samples for us to evaluate.

Longridge in his wisdom realizes that the rest of us are indeed idiots. His advice using individual plates that were 5/16" x 1/1/4", was to not set the last course until rubbing the hull with boot black, to avoid spoiling the color which could never be set to rights.

steves

At a scale of 1:100 25.5 inches equals exactly 212.5 feet!

Interesting…. 

And in 1/96 that’s exactly one inch too short.  But, I take your point, the kit hull is slightly undersized in all directions, per the Campbell plans, and overall is probably closer to 1/100 than 1/96.  Now, did  Revell design the kit the kit in 1/100 and then call it 1/96, figuring no one in 1959 would know or care?

Does anyone know where the original molds were made? Were they made by German engineers? If so, would it not have been natural for them to have used a metric scale. If they did then it is possible that they did design the kit at 1/100. That scale does not sit too well with the Imperial system of measurement whereas 1/96 does.

Geoff

Shipwreck

Several days ago there was a question about shroud pairings and what to do with the fifth shroud. I referred the question to Ms. Jessica Beverely who is the Curator for the Cutty Sark Trust. She in turn conferred with her rigger  and this is her response:

 Pair seized with 3 seizings in middle, Stb (1+2) Ditto Port Pair seized

in middle with 3 seizings, Stb (3+4) Ditto Port Single with 3 seizing's

Stb (5) Ditto Port

1 being most forward and 5 most aft.

 Upon clarification, (5) is a single cable that is seized to itself. So, there is a (5) starboard, and a (5) port.

Shipwreck,

I appreciate you contacting the CS Trust and am delighted to hear that they responded!

The clarification is most useful as I had proposed to make the forward shroud the single.

At the time I thought there was some sort of logic in that arrangement but I can't remember what it was now.

Geoff

Several days ago there was a question about shroud pairings and what to do with the fifth shroud. I referred the question to Ms. Jessica Beverely who is the Curator for the Cutty Sark Trust. She in turn conferred with her rigger  and this is her response:

Pair seized with 3 seizings in middle, Stb (1+2) Ditto Port Pair seized

in middle with 3 seizings, Stb (3+4) Ditto Port Single with 3 seizing's

Stb (5) Ditto Port

1 being most forward and 5 most aft.

Upon clarification, (5) is a single cable that is seized to itself. So, there is a (5) starboard, and a (5) port.

[quote user="steves"

GeoffWilkinson:

I measure the three assembled deck sections of the Revell model to be 25.5 inches.

At a scale of 1:100 25.5 inches equals exactly 212.5 feet!

Interesting….

And in 1/96 that’s exactly one inch too short.  But, I take your point, the kit hull is slightly undersized in all directions, per the Campbell plans, and overall is probably closer to 1/100 than 1/96.  Now, did  Revell design the kit the kit in 1/100 and then call it 1/96, figuring no one in 1959 would know or care?

[/quote]

Very interesting stuff.

On another website a few months ago we had a discussion of this kit; one of the participants had an example that he'd bought in Canaday quite a few years ago.  He said the box of his kit was labeled "1/100 scale."  Whether that was actually the case, or whether his memory was incorrect, or whether Revell was or was not selling some kits that were slightly larger than others at some point, I have no idea.  (The latter scenario seems highly unlikely.  On the other hand, in those days Revell had a pantograph machine that was capable of amazing things....)

One other factor we should take into consideration:  I don't know exactly when the Campbell plans were published, but I'm pretty sure it was after the Revell kit hit the market.  I'm not sure what sources the Revell designers worked from, but those sources almost certainly did not include the Campbell plans.

I've said quite a few times that, in terms of accuracy, my favorite Cutty Sark kit is the one from Imai.  (It quite obviously was designed on the basis of the Campbell plans.  A Forum search on "Imai Cutty Sark" will explain why I'm so certain of that.)  It's advertised as being on 1/125 scale.  I'd be curious to compare that kit to the Campbell plans.  My guess is that they'd match precisely, or very nearly so.  (The plans are on 1/128 scale; my strong suspicion is that Imai picked 1/125 as the nearest convenient metric equivalent, and I wouldn't be surprised if the designers just ignored the difference between 1/125 and 1/128.) 

If I were actually planning to build a model of the Cutty Sark  from a plastic kit I'm not at all sure which one I'd pick.  In many significant respects the Imai offering is superior to the Revell one.  But the big problem with working on the smaller scale is the vast amount of chain rigging.  The smallest chain I know about is 42 links to the inch, which is about right for the sheets, halyards, etc. on 1/96 scale.  But it would be pretty conspicuously overscale on 1/125 (or 1/128).  In all honesty that fact makes me shy away from this particular ship as a model subject.

The chain problem comes up in almost any post-early-nineteenth-century sailing ship model on a relatively small scale.  It's occurred to me that the photo-etching process just might hold the solution.  But none of the photo-etched chain I've seen offered by the aftermarket companies (as anchor chain for 1/350 and 1/700 warships) is anywhere near small enough. 

To expound a bit on Prof Tilley's foot rope technique, I too use wire. 

I like to use annealed steel wire that is already black.

If it's a ship with jackstays, and the jackstay is moulded in, I drill a hole for the wire, and superglue it in place (for those scale large enough for a proper jackstay, then it's get in there with the fine pliers.  For older vessels, the wire gets snubbed up to the yard in the right spots.

For the supporting lines, I use thread of  a proper size.  This is superglued to a hole in the correct location (or looped around the yard and tied off--whichever is appropriate).   This thread is hung down abaft the yard, a gauge block then used to tie the thread off to the wire foot rope.

That teeny-tiny knot just looks better to me, and the wire will hold the sag in between nicely.

Shipwreck

Steves, it sounds like you have an excellent set of Cutty Sark plans in 1/96 scale. I am wondering if you have been following this entire thread. Geoff discovered some discrepancy in them several days ago. It set me scrambling to verify it since I have be scratching building pinrails from them. I have made my comparisons based on the specifications for the ship. But then, who knows if the Cutty Sark was built to the specifications.

I believe that the general consensus is that Campbell's drawings are good, but were distorted when copied! Please let us know what you find.

Shipwreck,

My first post on this thread was several pages back, before the plan scale issue even came up, so I can assure you that I have been following the entire thread.  The only set of 1/96 plans I have are the Campbell plans which I have enlarged and printed myself with the large format scanner and plotter at my office.  I have sized them using the graphic scale bar, put on the drawings by Campbell, and I am quite sure that they are correct to 1/96 scale.  And I would disagree with you that the general consensus is that the drawings were “distorted” when copied.  The issue appears to be that some people have received copies of the drawings that are not sized correctly to be at the 3/32”=1’ scale that they are stated to be.  This is not the same thing as a distorted drawing, which would be unusable.  The point that I have tried to make is that, while it may be inconvenient or annoying to be sold an incorrectly sized drawing, it really doesn’t matter what size the drawing is, as long as you use the drawn graphic scale to take your measurements they will be correct.

Regarding the length of the ship, I have rechecked the Campbell plans and am confident that he has drawn the ship correctly and that the Revell kit is too small.  As you say, Campbell states that the registered length of the ship is 212.5’, but that needs to be measured at the correct location.  If you look above the hull on the Inboard Elevation, which is the top drawing on the General Arrangement sheet, you will see two vertical lines labeled “Register Length”.  These lines show exactly where the 212.5' should be measured from, and the distance between these two lines on a correctly sized 3/32” scale plan (which I have) is just a hair under 20 inches, right on the 19.92 inches  that 212.5’ in 3/32” scale should be.  If you measure the Revell kit hull from the same points, I believe you will you will find that it falls about one inch, or eight scale feet, short of the 26.56 inches that 212.5’ should measure on a 1/96 model.  To confirm it, check the other dimension for the ship's length that Campbell gives: 203’-6” for the keel length.  That’s 25.43 inches in 1/96 scale and the kit keel measures about 24.5 inches-again, about an inch short.

And in 1/96 that’s exactly one inch too short.  But, I take your point, the kit hull is slightly undersized in all directions, per the Campbell plans, and overall is probably closer to 1/100 than 1/96.  Now, did  Revell design the kit the kit in 1/100 and then call it 1/96, figuring no one in 1959 would know or care?

Shipwreck

The specifications for the Cutty Sark call for a length of 212.5 feet. Campbell, per his note, used that for his drawing.  If you convert 212.5' to 1/96 scale it comes out to about 26.563". My Revell CS hull is 26.312". That is close enough for me!

If you take Campbell's plans, which are in error, and convert them to 1/96, you will just multiply the error. For example, the General Plan has an 20.750" length (on my copy of the plan). In 1/96 that is about 27.659", which creates your difference of 8' plus a little. Each of my copies of the plan have a different hull length, so it depends on which one you use as to what the error will be. My guess is that an actual ship based on the plans would be about 9' longer than the 212.5' specification.                 

I’ll just throw this observation into this discussion.

Both Campbell and CS website specify the ships length as 212.5’. Campbell further clarifies this as “measured length on upper deck planking from its extreme ends”.

To me that means the length of the deck not the actual length of the ship

I measure the three assembled deck sections of the Revell model to be 25.5 inches.

At a scale of 1:100 25.5 inches equals exactly 212.5 feet!

Interesting….

Steves, it sounds like you have an excellent set of Cutty Sark plans in 1/96 scale. I am wondering if you have been following this entire thread. Geoff discovered some discrepancy in them several days ago. It set me scrambling to verify it since I have be scratching building pinrails from them. I have made my comparisons based on the specifications for the ship. But then, who knows if the Cutty Sark was built to the specifications.

I believe that the general consensus is that Campbell's drawings are good, but were distorted when copied! Please let us know what you find.