SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Revell 1/96 Cutty Sark

122943 views
200 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2009
Posted by britjeff on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:31 PM

cheers guys for the reply, going to be watching this thread, really enjoying it. the revell pirate ship is cool, suprised that there isn't a black pearlor something like that. but , really looking for something that looks like a reall pirate ship/ freebooter. think they were usually ordinary ships put to other use.

 

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:14 PM

Shipwreck

At some time in the past I dealt with this question of the order of setting up the shrouds; but I could not come up with a definitive answer. Underhill in Masting and Rigging gave the generic approaches, p81, which Dr. Tilley outlined. Longridge in The Cutty Sark seems to think that the port and starboard shrouds were spliced together, p68; but no mention of which end to start making pairs, fore or aft. I have the feeling that Mr. Longridge was taking an educated guess! So, I guess we can get away with doing the same.

It seems like we are all taking an educated guess, at least it's educated ;-)

One thing that really suprises me is that there are so few detailed photo's posted on the internet. She had so many visitors, someone must have taken some decent photo's

Anyone out there?

Geoff

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Carmel, CA
Posted by bondoman on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:28 PM

GeoffWilkinson

 

 jtilley:

 

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

 

 

Left to my own resources I would have applied the third example, however, thinking about it, I can't imagine the shipbuilders doing this. The most logical would be the first option, which is my choice at this point.

This opens yet another question that has been bugging me - did the shipbuilders 'pre-fabricate' the shrouds with their deadeyes, seizing etc.?

 

 jtilley:

 

An equally interesting question is whether the odd-numbered shroud (the one treated differently from the others) is the foremost or aftermost one in the gang.  My impression is that it was normally the foremost one, but I've seen references to its being the aftermost.

I have no idea which system was used in the Cutty Sark.  But Mr. Campbell's drawing appears to show the two last shrouds as a pair - i.e., a single line starting at a deadeye on one side, running around the masthead, and coming down again to the next deadeye on the same side.  If that's the case, the foremost shroud on each side obviously is the "odd man out."

The good news is that on a finished model it will be just about impossible to tell the difference.

 

 

It was not too clear on my copy of the plans but that was the impression I got.

As far as the finished model goes - I agree, however, with the wonders of modern digital cameras and closeup photographs I am sure there wold be one eagle eye on the forum who would pick it up :)

 

 jtilley:

 

Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport and asked him why only one out of every five ratlines on the Charles W. Morgan ran across the whole gang of shrouds.  (The others stopped short of the foremost shroud - like those of the Cutty Sark.)  His answer was that the foremost one wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener."  When the ship was working to windward the stiffener on the lee side would be slacked off, giving the lower yard a little more room to swing.  That does make sense, but I've never seen that explanation anywhere else.  And no other square-rigger sailor I've ever met has ever heard of it.

 

 

That sounds like far too much work to me. If that were the case I think they would have come up with an alternative arrangement. Anyway were the shrouds not carefully tensioned to all take an equal strain?

Geoff

Was the Victory ever a prison hulk?

  • Member since
    May 2006
  • From: Chapin, South Carolina
Posted by Shipwreck on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:40 PM

At some time in the past I dealt with this question of the order of setting up the shrouds; but I could not come up with a definitive answer. Underhill in Masting and Rigging gave the generic approaches, p81, which Dr. Tilley outlined. Longridge in The Cutty Sark seems to think that the port and starboard shrouds were spliced together, p68; but no mention of which end to start making pairs, fore or aft. I have the feeling that Mr. Longridge was taking an educated guess! So, I guess we can get away with doing the same.

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
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:38 PM

jtilley

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

Left to my own resources I would have applied the third example, however, thinking about it, I can't imagine the shipbuilders doing this. The most logical would be the first option, which is my choice at this point.

This opens yet another question that has been bugging me - did the shipbuilders 'pre-fabricate' the shrouds with their deadeyes, seizing etc.?

jtilley

An equally interesting question is whether the odd-numbered shroud (the one treated differently from the others) is the foremost or aftermost one in the gang.  My impression is that it was normally the foremost one, but I've seen references to its being the aftermost.

I have no idea which system was used in the Cutty Sark.  But Mr. Campbell's drawing appears to show the two last shrouds as a pair - i.e., a single line starting at a deadeye on one side, running around the masthead, and coming down again to the next deadeye on the same side.  If that's the case, the foremost shroud on each side obviously is the "odd man out."

The good news is that on a finished model it will be just about impossible to tell the difference.

It was not too clear on my copy of the plans but that was the impression I got.

As far as the finished model goes - I agree, however, with the wonders of modern digital cameras and closeup photographs I am sure there wold be one eagle eye on the forum who would pick it up :)

jtilley

Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport and asked him why only one out of every five ratlines on the Charles W. Morgan ran across the whole gang of shrouds.  (The others stopped short of the foremost shroud - like those of the Cutty Sark.)  His answer was that the foremost one wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener."  When the ship was working to windward the stiffener on the lee side would be slacked off, giving the lower yard a little more room to swing.  That does make sense, but I've never seen that explanation anywhere else.  And no other square-rigger sailor I've ever met has ever heard of it.

That sounds like far too much work to me. If that were the case I think they would have come up with an alternative arrangement. Anyway were the shrouds not carefully tensioned to all take an equal strain?

Geoff

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:51 PM

There are really three basic possibilities - all of which I've seen referred to in reputable sources.

1.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a single, separate piece of line, with an eyesplice that slips over the masthead.

2.  The odd-numbered shroud on each side is a separate piece of line, spliced or seized to its opposite number on the other side (as in Mondfeld's nos. 4 and 5).

3.  The odd-numbered pair is formed from a single line, running up to the masthead, wrapped around it, and taken down the other side.

An equally interesting question is whether the odd-numbered shroud (the one treated differently from the others) is the foremost or aftermost one in the gang.  My impression is that it was normally the foremost one, but I've seen references to its being the aftermost.

I have no idea which system was used in the Cutty Sark.  But Mr. Campbell's drawing appears to show the two last shrouds as a pair - i.e., a single line starting at a deadeye on one side, running around the masthead, and coming down again to the next deadeye on the same side.  If that's the case, the foremost shroud on each side obviously is the "odd man out."

The good news is that on a finished model it will be just about impossible to tell the difference.

Many years ago I had a conversation with the chief rigger at Mystic Seaport and asked him why only one out of every five ratlines on the Charles W. Morgan ran across the whole gang of shrouds.  (The others stopped short of the foremost shroud - like those of the Cutty Sark.)  His answer was that the foremost one wasn't really a shroud; it was a "stiffener."  When the ship was working to windward the stiffener on the lee side would be slacked off, giving the lower yard a little more room to swing.  That does make sense, but I've never seen that explanation anywhere else.  And no other square-rigger sailor I've ever met has ever heard of it.

Be careful with the Mondfeld book.  He's a knowledgeable author and a good draftsman, but the scope of the book is so broad that it can't get down to the nitty-gritty of details that are relevant to an individual model.  (I also have big problems with some of his pictures, which quite obviously are copied from other books - and not acknowledged.)

 

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 Wednesday, June 23, 2010 12:01 PM

Question about Shrouds

The Cutty Sark has five shrouds on each side of all the masts. I can, just about, see on the Campbell plans that they are arranged in two pairs and one single. What is not clear is how the single shroud is rigged. None of the photographs I have seen are clear enough to show this either. The only guidance I have is from the book ‘Historic Ship Models’ by Wolfram zu Mondfeld ( a wonderful book that can be picked up online for just a few dollars!)

I am thinking that the foremost shroud is a single spliced eye arrangement installed first in the sequence.  Below is and image from the Campbell plans and one from Wolframs book.

It may seem like a ‘picky’ detail but I would like to know anyway.

Geoff

 

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 8:47 AM

Marcus.K.

Its strange - but it seems that decades of lifing change many things - for example the preference for .. the age and type of women, of wine and food, of music, of furnishing, of cars or motorcycles .. and of ships?!

Today I have to say: well - the ship IS sexy.

And I begin to play with the idea of getting the kit - just to have it  in hold - to prevent that I need to buy it in E-bay for horrible prices if its not available in the stores.

A question concerning the rings, eye-bolds and chains for the ancors and the rigging of the bow sprit:

Is there any available table with the sizes (thickness of the steel, diameter of the eyes, etc.) of those parts?
Or which diameters do you use mostly (could you give me the dimension in mm??)?

Marcus,

When I was a young boy I was fascinated by steam locomotives. All those connecting rods etc. moving together in harmony. You could see the thing working. At that age the word ‘sexy’ was not part of my vocabulary and, probably, not even a concept I could understand. I could not think of a single Steam Locomotive that I would want to describe as ‘sexy’ because once streamlining  was applied it ruined the visual impact that gave me pleasure.

I think you are right in that time does shape our perception of things.

As far as getting hold of a kit, unless Revell get the idea that they have something ‘priceless’ in this kit, you do not have much option other than to acquire one off ebay.

I have just bought a copy of the George F Campbell plans and all the dimensions you ask about can be found there. Of course, they are in inches, however, a very simple spreadsheet will convert inches to scaled mm.

Geoff

  • Member since
    March 2013
Posted by Marcus.K. on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 7:10 AM

Hello Geoff, Gentlemen,

I followed this discussion with growing interest and fun!

Geoff, as mentioned before by others: do not hesitate to ask and reask if necessary. Your questions are good ones - and so are the answers by our experts here! Thanks to you all!

Because of this thread I began to look for pictures and information about the old clipper. I onced build the Revell 1/144-Version - and I hated it.

First because of my missing abilities to do it in an adequat way - it was awfully bad done! The rigging ridiculus. But o.k. - I was 15 years (about) in those days and it was my second or third sailing ship.

And second because I did not like the ships shape and look. This almost steel-ship hull with its sharp bow (I did not know that these ships were on the edge to steelships - and today I believe I even understand why this special and different shape was possible then - and not before, in the ages of only-wooden-hulls). The mountains of sails which - in my thinking - in those days were bizarre oversized ..

Its strange - but it seems that decades of lifing change many things - for example the preference for .. the age and type of women, of wine and food, of music, of furnishing, of cars or motorcycles .. and of ships?!

Today I have to say: well - the ship IS sexy.

And I begin to play with the idea of getting the kit - just to have it  in hold - to prevent that I need to buy it in E-bay for horrible prices if its not available in the stores.

A question concerning the rings, eye-bolds and chains for the ancors and the rigging of the bow sprit:

Is there any available table with the sizes (thickness of the steel, diameter of the eyes, etc.) of those parts?
Or which diameters do you use mostly (could you give me the dimension in mm??)?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:04 AM

GeoffWilkinson

Revell have just the model for you with their Caribbean Pirate Ship #85-0386

You can examine their instructions here:
You will see that they don’t even include thread for the rigging. They tell you to use ‘Household Thread’ (whatever that is).
Geoff

Building models on instruction from spouses is a challenge.  As a matter of fact it's one I'm confronting at the moment, with a generic, 1900-vintage tugboat named the A.M. Tilley, after my wife.  I ran the idea by her before I started.  She liked it - but imposed some requirements.  One was that there be a figure of a buxom woman, a "Tugboat Annie" type, somewhere on the model.  (Preiser, the big German HO railway figure manufacturer, to the rescue.)  I've discovered that I really like that approach to model building. One of these days I may build a generic, early-twentieth-century fishing schooner and name it after my father.

It sounds like the Revell "Caribbean Pirate Ship" may indeed fill Britjeff's requirements.  In the interest of full disclosure (a concept unknown to Revell's current management, of course) it might be well to clarify just what the kit is.

It's a reissue of a kit originally released in 1960 (the date is from Dr. Thomas Graham's fine book, Remembering Revell Model Kits) under the label "Peter Pan's Pirate Ship Jolly Roger."  It is in fact a remarkably (for its age) detailed scale model of an amusement park set:  the "Jolly Roger" that initially stood at the original California Disneyland.  That...thing...was the fruit of the fertile imaginations of the animators who were responsible for the wonderful Disney feature-length cartoon from the 1950s.  I believe it was firmly attached to the bottom of the lake in which it sat; I don't think anything that looked like that ever actually floated.  (It certainly bears no resemblance to any of the ships in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.)  As I understand it, the "ship" got removed from Disneyland quite a few years ago and spent some time as a restaurant in the L.A. area; I don't know whether it still exists or not.

The current reissue is kind of interesting as a commentary on the state of the plastic kit industry.  It obviously was intended to draw on the public interest generated by the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.  But there's no mention of them in the accompanying publicity, or on the box of the kit (and no photo of Johnny Depp).  Back in the old days of models as movie tie-ins, the box would have been plastered with such stuff.  But apparently Revell didn't pay any licensing fee to Disney this time around.  (Disney presumably has copyright on the phrase "Pirates of the Caribbean"  - but can't copyright the word "Caribbean."  So nobody can stop Revell from calling it a "Caribbean Pirate Ship.")

I have to confess to a long-standing prejudice against models of "pirate ships."  (It's been suggested to me more than once that said prejudice is somehow related to the fact that the athletic teams at the joint where I work are known as the "ECU PIrates."  I hate big-time college sports.)   But I suspect that old Revell kit may serve Britjeff's purposes perfectly. 

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 Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:46 AM

CapnMac82

To expound, the lest bit, on Professor Tilley's explanation, in military use, the lifts of all but the lowest (course) yards are a form of standing rigging, meant to support the yard in its lowered position.

Military practice was to only use the course yards and the burton pendants for cargo handling. 

In military use, you have a lot of crew, except when cleared for battle.  So, rather  than brailing and clewing a sail to reduce the canvas set, naval practice began with just lowering the halyard  to douse the sail.  Which had a concurrent advantage of being able to increase sail with similar speed.

So, with sails set, lifts ought to be slack (if with some debate on whether they ought be slack before or abaft the yard; or my gut feeling, made up with marline along the after edge).

As I mentioned earlier, we have to be mighty careful when generalizing about stuff like this.

Through most of the eighteenth century the lift was clearly regarded as a piece of running rigging; it ran through blocks that let it by slacked off when the yard was lowered and hauled taut when the yard was raised.  For a long time the only yards that had lifts were the lower and topgallant yards.  (Until the late eighteenth century there were no royals - or if they were rigged they were "set flying," with almost no running rigging.)  For many years the topsail yard lifts also functioned as the topgallant sheets.  When the topgallants weren't set, the ends of their sheets were shifted from the clews of the sails and secured to the topmast cap.  (James Lees, in his book The Masting and Rigging of English Warships, says that practice ended in about 1790.  When I was working on my little model of the frigate Hancock I found a couple of contemporary inventories that implied pretty clearly that some of the American Revolutionary War frigates were rigging separate topsail lifts and topgallant sheets in 1776.  I'm not sure what the practice in the merchant service was, but it typically would have lagged a few years behind what the navies were doing.)

The practice of fixing both ends of the lift permanently, so the line drooped down behind the sail when the sail was set, was certainly common in merchant ships shortly after the middle of the nineteenth century - in ships like the Cutty Sark.  But I don't think it would have been seen in either naval or merchant vessels much earlier than that.

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 Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:02 PM

CapnMac82

To expound, the lest bit, on Professor Tilley's explanation, in military use, the lifts of all but the lowest (course) yards are a form of standing rigging, meant to support the yard in its lowered position.

Military practice was to only use the course yards and the burton pendants for cargo handling. 

In military use, you have a lot of crew, except when cleared for battle.  So, rather  than brailing and clewing a sail to reduce the canvas set, naval practice began with just lowering the halyard  to douse the sail.  Which had a concurrent advantage of being able to increase sail with similar speed.

So, with sails set, lifts ought to be slack (if with some debate on whether they ought be slack before or abaft the yard; or my gut feeling, made up with marline along the after edge).

Well I didn't know that! Amazing what I'm picking up here, all being stored for future reference.

Geoff

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:54 PM

britjeff

you guys must have the patience of saints to rig a sailing ship, i have enough trouble with ww1 planes.lol the with wants me to build her a pirate ship, might have to give it a while. lol anyone know what sort of ship would make a pirate ship? sorry for the slight thread highjack.

Britjeff,

I guess we must! I think we are driven by a desire to model, as close as possible, an exact replica of the real thing but in miniature. I have never fully understood the mentality of the kit manufacturers who seemed to go to extreme lengths regarding attention to detail of Hull, Deck Fittings etc yet provide scanty, and in some cases misleading, information about the rigging. Almost as if it is an afterthought.

Revell have just the model for you with their Caribbean Pirate Ship #85-0386

You can examine their instructions here:

http://manuals.hobbico.com/rmx/85-0386.pdf

You will see that they don’t even include thread for the rigging. They tell you to use ‘Household Thread’ (whatever that is).

Geoff

  • Member since
    November 2005
  • From: Formerly Bryan, now Arlington, Texas
Posted by CapnMac82 on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:43 PM

To expound, the lest bit, on Professor Tilley's explanation, in military use, the lifts of all but the lowest (course) yards are a form of standing rigging, meant to support the yard in its lowered position.

Military practice was to only use the course yards and the burton pendants for cargo handling. 

In military use, you have a lot of crew, except when cleared for battle.  So, rather  than brailing and clewing a sail to reduce the canvas set, naval practice began with just lowering the halyard  to douse the sail.  Which had a concurrent advantage of being able to increase sail with similar speed.

So, with sails set, lifts ought to be slack (if with some debate on whether they ought be slack before or abaft the yard; or my gut feeling, made up with marline along the after edge).

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:07 PM

jtilley

The lower yard continued to be used as a derrick for handling cargo.  In the case of the Cutty Sark (according to you-know-who's drawings), the lower yard lifts were heavy pieces of wire, leading from the lower yardarms through blocks at the lower cap.  The end of each lift was hooked to a heavy rope tackle that, in turn, was hooked into an eyebolt in the deck at the foot of the mast.  (My guess is that when the "yard and stay" operation was in progress for handling cargo, the sailors would take the hauling end of that tackle through the sheave at the base of one of the fiferail stanchions, in order to get more purchase on the line.)

The lower topsail yards don't have lifts.  There is, however, a tackle called a downhaul on each side leading from the upper topsail yardarm to the lower topsail yardarm; that, in combination with the sail itself, would have kept the lower topsail yard horizontal.  The upper topsail yards have "fixed lifts" - simple, one-piece wires running from the yardarms to the topmast caps. They go slack when the yard is raised (by means of the halyard) and the sail is set.

Dr Tilley,

Thank you, once again, for your very lucid, detailed description. It makes perfect sense now. I just could not figure out why they would have such heavy tackle if it was only for occasional use.

I am now back home after a very frustrating week away having to rely on the battery of my laptop when passing near a hot spot for my internet connection. I admire the people who put up with this frequently!

The Campbell plans were delivered while I was away. Guess what I will be doing tonight?

Geoff

 

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2009
Posted by britjeff on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:25 AM

you guys must have the patience of saints to rig a sailing ship, i have enough trouble with ww1 planes.lol the with wants me to build her a pirate ship, might have to give it a while. lol anyone know what sort of ship would make a pirate ship? sorry for the slight thread highjack.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:09 AM

Mr. Gonzales has laid out the basic system.  I'll take the liberty of adding a little bit, in the hope of clarifying things slightly.

Prior to the mid-nineteenth century it was customary for all yards to slide up and down the masts as part of the process of setting and furling the sails.  The exceptions were the lowest yards on the three masts:  the fore lower yard, main lower yard, and crossjack yard.  (The latter normally didn't have a sail on it during that period.)  Each yard was raised and lowered by means of a tackle rigged to its center.  That tackle was called the jeers in the case of the lower yards, and the halyard in the cases of all the others.  By the end of the eighteenth century it was also common, especially in warships, for the lower yards, once they'd been hoisted into position by the jeers, to be secured semi-permanently by another, non-adjustable tackle called the truss. 

The lifts were separate, lighter pieces of gear secured to the yardarms (i.e., near the tips of the yards.  Each yard has two yardarms - one at each end.).  The purpose of the lift was to keep the yard horizontal - or, under some circumstances, to tilt it one way or the other.  The lower yards could, by means of the lifts and the braces, be used as derricks for handling cargo and the ship's boats.  And certain sailing evolutions called for the upper yards to be tilted, so only a triangular portion of the sail would be exposed to the wind.

By the Cutty Sark's day the system had evolved considerably - and, in general, simplified.  She, like most other good-sized ships of the period, has double topsails.  The double topsail was conceived as a labor-saving device.  (Some people have the notion that its purpose was to increase the amount of sail the ship set; in fact it did precisely the opposite.  All other things being equal, a ship with double topsails has less sail area than one with single topsails.  Most of the big American clipper ships switched from single to double topsails as their careers went on.)  The old single topsail was, in effect, cut in half, each half being reasonably convenient for a relatively small group of men to handle.  A new yard, the lower topsail yard, was inserted into the picture.  It was generally mounted with a permanent iron truss to the lower mast cap (the iron or wood fitting at the head of the lower mast).  The former topsail yard became the upper topsail yard; it slid up and down the topmast on a parral, as in earlier generations.  And by this time the lower yard also was fixed vertically by an iron truss. 

The lower yard continued to be used as a derrick for handling cargo.  In the case of the Cutty Sark (according to you-know-who's drawings), the lower yard lifts were heavy pieces of wire, leading from the lower yardarms through blocks at the lower cap.  The end of each lift was hooked to a heavy rope tackle that, in turn, was hooked into an eyebolt in the deck at the foot of the mast.  (My guess is that when the "yard and stay" operation was in progress for handling cargo, the sailors would take the hauling end of that tackle through the sheave at the base of one of the fiferail stanchions, in order to get more purchase on the line.)

The lower topsail yards don't have lifts.  There is, however, a tackle called a downhaul on each side leading from the upper topsail yardarm to the lower topsail yardarm; that, in combination with the sail itself, would have kept the lower topsail yard horizontal.  The upper topsail yards have "fixed lifts" - simple, one-piece wires running from the yardarms to the topmast caps. They go slack when the yard is raised (by means of the halyard) and the sail is set.

Lowering a yard to the deck, in a ship like the Cutty Sark, was a major operation that wouldn't be attempted at sea except in dire circumstances.  The lower yards, in particular, were extremely heavy.   (They were made of steel; the other yards were wood.)  I doubt that the lower yards were sent down more than a handful of times in her entire career - and then only when she was tied up to a pier. 

By the end of the nineteenth century the topgallants had been "doubled" as well.  So in the last generation of square-rigged sail a large ship would have six sails on each mast:  course, lower topsail, upper topsail, lower topgallant, upper topgallant, royal.  (The Cutty Sark  was built with double topsails; so far as I know she never "divided her topgallants."  She did, however, initially have a main skysail above the main royal.  The skysail was removed midway through her career - by the time the first surviving photos of her were taken.)

Again, the Campbell drawings will make most of this clear.  (Rigging is far easier to explain through pictures than through words.)  But I hope the above helps a little.

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 Monday, June 21, 2010 3:34 PM

jgonzales

Hi Jose

The two lower yards on the masts (the courses and lower topsails yards) were at fixed heights, while the remaining yards above these (the upper topsail, topgallant, and royal yards) were able to be raised and lowered. The yards were raised and lowered by means of both halyards and lifts, halyards being attached to the midpoint of the yard, while lifts were attached to the ends.

Jose Gonzales

I understand that but it does not explain the lifts in the rigging diagram. (They can also be seen in photographs).

My only thought is that, although the yards were fixed they did need to be lifted into position in the first place and, maybe lowered and raised for maintenance?

Geoff 

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: San Diego
Posted by jgonzales on Monday, June 21, 2010 3:18 PM

Hi all,

I'v e had this model sitting in my stash for a couple of years (along with the Heller Victory) while I'm working on the Constitution. I can't wait to get started on it!

The two lower yards on the masts (the courses and lower topsails yards) were at fixed heights, while the remaining yards above these (the upper topsail, topgallant, and royal yards) were able to be raised and lowered. The yards were raised and lowered by means of both halyards and lifts, halyards being attached to the midpoint of the yard, while lifts were attached to the ends.

Cheers,

Jose Gonzales

Jose Gonzales San Diego, CA
  • Member since
    July 2005
Posted by caramonraistlin on Monday, June 21, 2010 2:53 PM

Geoff:

To answer your question Underhill's book describes lifts as running rigging that was used to hold the yard horizontally to the mast or skew it to one side such as when approaching a dock. Evidently they were used to turn the yard and hence the sail as needed. The jeers appear to be heavy tackle used to lift or lower yards. Lifts were used on fixed as well as yards that were raised/lowered. I don't believe any of the yards on the Cutty Sark were raised or lowered but were fixed in their location via yard trusses and held from above with a chain sling. The Cutty Sark then would have lifts but no jeers.

 

Michael Lacey

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Cocoa, Florida
Posted by GeoffWilkinson on Monday, June 21, 2010 2:52 PM

caramonraistlin

I checked Amazon.com and they have 3 used copies for 33, 35, and 39 dollars respectively. All copies are newer than mine which is a 1949 reprint. The book was 1st published in 1946. Once again as I've said this book is a treasure trove of information for rigging a steel or wooden hulled clipper or ocean carrier. While it is true it does not cover one unique ship it does cover all full rigged ships in general and even provides tables for the diameters/sizes of masts/spars/rigging for steel or wooden hulled vessels. He also touches on smaller coastal craft and so called unusual rigs. Lastly he provides a pullout plan of the belaying pin layout for a full rigged ship. If you get the chance pickup a used one for any future projects. I know I will be using mine if I ever build Heller's Preussen.

 Michael Lacey

Michael,

Thanks for your advice, although I have not seen any pages of this book I note that is continually being recommended.

I really have to draw a line, for the time being, on my outlay on my rediscovered hobby.

When I get back home I intend asking my local library if they would be prepared to order it for me. I'm not holding my breath though, in the light of all the current budget cuts.

As I said earlier, I am going to spend time studying the Campbell plans when they arrive. I think that will keep me occupied for a while.

Geoff

  • Member since
    July 2005
Posted by caramonraistlin on Monday, June 21, 2010 2:22 PM

Geoff:

I checked Amazon.com and they have 3 used copies for 33, 35, and 39 dollars respectively. All copies are newer than mine which is a 1949 reprint. The book was 1st published in 1946. Once again as I've said this book is a treasure trove of information for rigging a steel or wooden hulled clipper or ocean carrier. While it is true it does not cover one unique ship it does cover all full rigged ships in general and even provides tables for the diameters/sizes of masts/spars/rigging for steel or wooden hulled vessels. He also touches on smaller coastal craft and so called unusual rigs. Lastly he provides a pullout plan of the belaying pin layout for a full rigged ship. If you get the chance pickup a used one for any future projects. I know I will be using mine if I ever build Heller's Preussen.

 

Michael Lacey

  • 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

 

 

 

  • 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
    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 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
    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
    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
    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
    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 

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.