Revell 1:83 Mayflower

Bill's right - though I think he meant "yards" rather than "yardarms." (The spar is a yard. The yardarms are the outer extremities of it. Each yard has two yardarms. The modern navy uses the words interchangeably, but in 1620 they meant different things.)

Here's a shot of the Mayflower II (on which the Revell kit was based) with her yards lowered and sails furled. I don't know why I wasn't able to insert the image itself, but here's the link:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/Plymouth_Mayflower_II.jpg/300px-Plymouth_Mayflower_II.jpg

One important point that lots of modelers miss: notice how small the bundles of the furled sails are. The ones on the topsail and spritsail yards are barely visible. And the lateen mizzen yard has been lowered to the rail.

And here's a good photo of the Susan Constant replica with her yards lowered and her sails in the process of being furled:

Here the mizzen has been furled with the yard still raised. Either arrangement is certainly possible.

The original Susan Constant brought the first English settlers to Jamestown in 1607, so she was contemporary with the Mayflower. The book Anatomy of the Ship: The Merchant Ship Susan Constant, by Brian Lavery, would be another useful source for your project.

Good luck. Love the transparent transom windows.

Greetings, Bill!  Hey, it's never too early.  I am glad this came up sooner, than later.   I did not know that little nugget, and that would have been a huge blunder had I gone there and left them up.  You have given me something to think about, and I learned something today as well.

At this point, my plan is to have the ship with full sails.  But I tell ya, I might give this more thought.  Furled sails look awfully cool, and it may serve my purposes better. I will let you know once I get there.  Thanks for the references too!  If I go this route, I will need the help.

Oh, and thanks for the kudos.  I hope I can do this project some justice.

Thanks again!

Steve

Jtilley-- thanks a bunch for taking what Bill started with, and clarifying it even more. This is all, extremely, helpful. These are some nice reference photos too! I think I need to do more research, as you guys are leading me to.

Thanks about the windows... 

Steve

My own preference (entirely personal) is bare poles, followed by furled sails. My hang up about set sails is that then they need sailors, and at this point I'm not modeling sailors. Maybe someday.

This is an interesting project so far. Keep it coming.

John,

Thank you!  I guess that I had a senior moment. You are absolutely correct, I know the difference, and I should have self-edited! Anyway, good catch! 

Bill

P.S.  I missed you this summer. I thought that you were taking a trip up North.

Good work thus far. The idea to mold that stern in clear is genius.

Thanks, Hpiguy.

Greetings, Folks.  The nice weather is keeping me from doing much, but I have a few things I can post.  

Below:  Nothing too exciting. I dry-fitted the decks and deck structures to give it a final onceover.  I am looking for any possible fit issues, and to identify what must be assembled before paint.  I was given advice that for ships, it is usually best to assembly as little as possible before paint. That is my goal then.  Hopefully soon, I can begin attaching what I can, and then move towards paint.

I did a little more research on the transom, specifically on the Mayflower replica.  I wanted to see if they had used any stained glass in the windows. Interestingly, it does not seem that they did.

Below:  Exterior view.

Below:  Interior view.

Some of you folks probably heard this, but I thought that I would mention it for those that didn't.  There is a theory that parts of the original Mayflower exist to this day.  It is believed that the ship was sold for scrap, and the wood was used to construct a barn.  I find that possibility really interesting.  To think, that the ship in its parts is still available to see.  I pasted a link below.  There are more references out there about this, but this one seemed as good as any that I came across.

http://www.gailhennessey.com/index.shtml?barn.html

Lastly, this short article seemed interesting to me too.  For people that like history, the article fleshes things out a little more. Of course, there are better references than this, but this was nice because it is short and sweet.

http://jasonponic.hubpages.com/hub/TheMayflower

That could well be. In the bigger picture, that particular ship was only one of many that made the voyage. There's a halo around her on account of positive press after the fact, but it was not a voyage of religious freedom we now can see, but a financial expedition as well.

I've posted this before, but the one time I went on board the replica, I had a very interesting conversation with "Governor Bradford".

His nibs: "Where be ye from?".

Meselves:"California".

"Don't know that, be it part of the continent?".

In character because I finally got the clue: "Yes on the west coast, a part of New Spain".

"Aye, they all be a bunch of Papists!".

True in my case...

GM... Well said. Also, I love your dialog with the Governor.  Too funny.

Greetings guys, I am just checking in.  I got a little bench time in recently but like with most of my builds it is one step forward, two steps back.  I have some troublesome gaps where the transom meets the lower hull.  I suppose some filler would work but I am trying to leave that option as a last resort. With some careful gluing I hope to minimize them. Fingers crossed.

I have made a decision about the sails.  I decided to go with them furled.  Along with maybe getting some of the book references noted earlier on in this thread, I found another image of the Mayflower replica that gives pretty good detail with sails furled.  I posted an image below. Why do you suppose the masts at the bow don't have the sails?  Maybe they are down for repair? Or is there another reason I am ignorant of. 

Lastly...I decided on the paint scheme, or lack of. I won't be following the scheme that the instructions suggest.  Since there are no records of how the ship actually looked, I will use some artistic license.  I plan to go with a more minimalistic look. 

Steve

GMorrison

My own preference (entirely personal) is bare poles, followed by furled sails. My hang up about set sails is that then they need sailors, and at this point I'm not modeling sailors. Maybe someday.

 

There used to be a sort of tradition with ship modelers.  Naval ships were displayed without sails, but all masts and yards erected and all running rigging in place.  Civil/commercial ships were often depicted with sails bent, either furled or set.    I still see that in effect for naval ships (see few with sails) but the civil ships are losing their sails over time.  I think we need better sails in kits of civil ships.

I can help a little with the rigging questions. When the ship was at sea, there would be one sail set below the bowsprit. I don't want to insult anybody's intelligence, but the bowsprit is the horizontal spar that sticks out from the bow of the ship. Underneath it is the spritsail yard. That yard had a square-rigged sail set on it. I think the sail is actually there in the photo; it's furled so tightly that it's hard to see.

There's a lesson to be learned there. A lot of modelers make the "bundles" of furled sails way too thick. The bundle, as you can see from the sails that are furled in the photo, is actually extremely small - often smaller in diameter than the yard to which it's furled. In that photo the fore course and the mizzen appear to be missing (probably for maintenance reasons). The main course and main topsail obviously are there, and the spritsail may be; on my monitor I can't tell for sure.

The modern crew has taken a little license in furling the main topsail. In the seventeenth century it was customary to furl a topsail while standing on the top (the round platform at the head of the lower mast). The sailors would gather up the sail into a more-or-less vertical bundle and lash it to the heel of the topmast.

It's also worth noting that the furled sail is fatter in the middle than at the ends. That's because of the arrangement of the rigging that hauls the sail up.

The spritsail yard is cocked up at an odd angle. My guess is that the crew was worried that a truck or bus might collide with it. Normally the yard would be horizontal. Or it might be twisted in its parral and, along with the furled spritsail, lashed alongside the bowsprit.

One more point about that photo. Notice the wide variety of sizes of rope in the rigging. The standing rigging (the lines that hold up the masts) is, generally speaking, quite a bit heavier than the running rigging (which controls the yards and sails).

My recollection is that the rigging instructions in this kit are actually pretty good (though somewhat simplified). If you study them carefully you'll be well on your way to a good rigging job.

When it comes to color schemes, the sky's the limit. In the photo it looks as though the Mayflower II is undergoing a refinishing job; almost all the colored paint is gone. My suggestion is to take a look at the various paintings of the Mayflower, and take your pick.

Hope that helps a little. Good luck.

Thats about as complete explanation as can be given.

Something tickles my memory that footropes were not invented yet, in the 16th or early 17th Centuries, other than the previous use of the term related to a cord sewn into the bottom, or foot, of the sail.

I know from experience, and from previous discussion both here and on other boards, that the common error made in furling sails on a model is the assumption that a piece of material, cut to the size of the sail, can then be furled in the same way as the real thing.

This fails due to non scale material thickness and flexibility.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Mayflower there has nylon sails, either.

Bakster, check this out:

http://blogs.plimoth.org/captns-blog/

Don...thanks for the input.  I must admit I had to research what you meant by bent sails. LOL... Now I get. 

JT... that is awesome information that you have provided. This will be extremely useful to me.  BTW, you are not insulting my intelligence in the least! The information that you guys are sharing is exactly what I need to hear.  I have a lot to learn and you guys are bringing me up to speed.  It could take me years to learn this on my own and your knowledge is extremely appreciated.  Please continue to educate me in the way that you are doing.  Even if I already knew something about what you said, the information could be helpful to other newbies like me.  It's all good! 

GM...that is great information too.  Thanks for the link.  I have not read it thoroughly yet but I will, probably tonight.  It looks really interesting and right in line with my project.

Thanks again guys!

GM is right about the footropes. A footrope is a line that hangs loosely below a yard, suspended by a few shorter lines called stirrrups; its purpose is to provide the men working on the yard with a more-or-less safe place to stand. Footropes are visible in that photo; they presumably were installed as a safety precaution. The real Mayflower almost certainly wouldn't have had footropes. They were invented late in the seventeenth century.

Another point about furled sails. The yards don't just swing around the masts; they also slide up and down the masts. The fore and main lower yards generally stay up at the height where they sit when the sails are set. The fore and main topsail yards, and the lateen mizzen yard, don't. When the sails are furled those yards are lowered (as can be seen in the photo). To an experienced ship lover, a model with raised yards and furled sails, or with the sails omitted, looks all wrong.

I'd like to recommend a free source that won't cost anything and will tell you all sorts of useful stuff. Model Expo ( www.modelexpo-online.com ) sells a fine wood Mayflower kit that was designed by Mr. Chuck Passaro - a fine modeler and a first-rate gent. As I'm typing the ME site is down for maintenance, but if you go there, click on "Model Shipways Kits," then on "Plank on Bulkhead," then on the Mayflower. That will take you to a page of info about the kit. Click on "documents." That gives you the option to open up the kit's instructions. Click on that button and you'll have a long, well-illustrated practicum on how to build the kit. The info on the plank-on-bulkhead hull obviously will be irrelevant, but the rigging of a wood model is essentially identical to that of a plastic one. Mr. Passaro takes you through all the rigging, line by line and block by block. And he knows what he's talking about; he won't lead you astray.

Hope that helps a little. Good luck.

Holy cats, JT.  I have followed your link to the instructions and they look incredible. What a "novel" idea to have legible illustrations, detailed step by step instructions, and they even provide names for what the parts are called. WOW!  I think that I have won the lottery with this.  BTW... the kit that they are selling looks amazing.  Down the road I am sure that I will buy one.  That would be a really fun build, plank by plank.

Thanks for explaining about the fore and lower yards and their heights.  Again, I would not have known that.  I am taking notes.

Also, thanks about the foot ropes, stirrups, and their purpose. (Excellent tips and information)

You guys are awesome.

Thanks again, JT.

Steve

For anybody else who's interested, here's the direct link to the instruction book for the Model Shipways Mayflower: http://www.modelexpo-online.com/images/docs/MS2020/MS2020-Mayflower-Instructions.pdf

One nice thing about those in-progress photos: they prove that the methods described in the instructions actually work. That isn't the case with all wood kit instructions. I remember a highly expensive HECEPOB Vasa kit that I looked at (briefly) in the hobby shop where I worked. The guidance it provided for the ship's figurehead consisted of a sloppy perspective sketch of it (from the back) and the enlightening note: "Carve from block of balsa wood supplied." Yeah, right. Model Shipways, Bluejacket, and Calder/Jotika don't pull stunts like that.

I really like Model Expo's practice of posting complete instruction books on its website. Mr. Passaro's efforts are among the best. His more recent kits even have instruction books illustrated with color photos.

I've got two Passaro-designed kits in my stash: the little eighteenth-century pinnace and the brig Syren. Highly recommended.

Holy Rapidograph, Dr. Tilley!

Yes, I enjoy looking at instruction books and drawings from good sources as much as I do trying to muddle through the kits. I spent $ 40.00 for the Bluejacket plans and book of the America, in order to do a better job on the $ 29.00 Revell plastic kit. Worth every penny.

Hey GM, I just read the plimoth blog.  Interesting stuff!

Thanks again.

Well guys, one step forward, 3 back.  Not long ago I mentioned I was seeing some fit issues with the resin piece.  The areas I had some issues with are ok now, even better than the original, but I found something else that I didn't notice at first.  The area just above the windows is terribly out of alignment.  Not only that, it is too short!  I looked at this yesterday for several hours trying to figure out what happened.  I checked the mold, I compared some other resin pieces that I made, I checked the piece that I used to make the mold, and I compared them all to a new master that Revell was good enough to send me.  The piece I used to make the mold matches the new piece.  For some inexplicable reason, the copy came out shorter.  And, it seems so primarily just above the windows. Below the windows it seems fairly decent.  My best guess is that the resin piece shrank as it cured.

Man...I didn't see this one coming.  That is usually how it is though.  It's a good idea Pal, but not this time. 

So the question remains... now what?  Do I scrap the idea and just plunk in the new piece that Revell sent me? Or do I try making a hybrid using the new piece along with part of the resin piece.  The latter option is filled with pitfalls. I am not afraid of a challenge but the outcome has to be worth the risk. If it will look like a butcher job then it is not worth it to me.   

You can see in the image below what I am talking about.  See how the resin piece is not aligning (1 and 2).  That follows all the way up. With (3 and 4) you can see how short it came out.

Steve

Steve,

If surgery is involved, then I would cut the resin windows out and then paint the framing. When that is complete, I would cut the windows out of the Revell transom and insert the resin ones..... then use the Revell transom piece since that fits better than the resin piece now. It might just work.

Steve

Hey Steve, thanks for chiming in.  Your suggestion makes the most sence to me as well.  I will give it a whirl.

I will report back when surgery is done.

Steve

Ive been hearing a lot about resin shrinkage before, i.e., that if one were to make a master for a particular scale, he/she had to oversize it a bit to factor in resin shrinkage.  Could be what happened to your piece?

Alan, probably so.  Based on my research of the resin I had expected it to shrink some, but I didn't expect it to shrink as much as did it. I have since learned that the mold material is also prone to shrink. This process seems best suited for a piece that does not require tight tolerances. I guess there are ways around this but it requires special processes and materials. It is a lesson learned I guess.

Well Guys, I went into surgery today at around 12:15 and finished up at around 1:30. I am happy to report that the patient is alive and well.  The surgery was a resounding success.  

Below:  Steve, (Docidle ) I started out trying what we talked about.  You can see how it was coming along.  When I reached this stage, I took a closer look at the resin piece and how I would have to trim those windows out.  The more I had looked and thought about it, the more daunting it became. I could not see myself pulling this off without destroying some of window frame detail. My eyes are not what they used to be, even with magnifiers.

Below: After a lot of back and forth, I came up with a plan that minimized my chances of destroying the piece.  Between these two images, you can see what I removed.

Below:  Here is what is left of the resin piece after working on it.

Below:  Here is how it looks when combined with the transom.  The pieces are loosely taped for this image so it is not snugged up at the top as it would be once glued.

Below: Here is how it looks in the ship.  Again, everything is loosely positioned.

Below: I like how this looked with some sunlight reflecting behind the windows.  It almost looks like there is a lantern in there.   Since I am just a big kid, I am including the image.

All in all, I am very pleased with how it came out.  It still needs some plastic surgery to clean up some of the roughness from after filing, but that should be a minor detail.

Big sigh of relief.  

Steve

It looks a lot better than the kit, for sure. You will really want a candle on Standishes table.

When you started this, with that very ambitious recast of the whole thing, I honestly felt that what you've finally arrived at was the best idea.

Very nice work, good perserverance, and I've learned a new tactic too.

Bill

Bill, thank you.  That is very encouraging to me.  

Are you being serious about the candle?  That would be a nice touch...  Maybe I should consider adding a light in there.

If the clear resin windows don't work (I certainly hope they do), there's another way to do the trick.

Take a piece of thin, clear styrene and score some grooves on it. Then rub some black or  grey paint into the grooves, to represent the lead strips that hold the tiny panes of glass together. Especially in that shadowy area of the ship, the fact that the lines don't stand proud of the "glass" will be almost impossible for a normal human eye to detect.

I'm not quite sure why Mr. Passaro chose white tape to represent the leading on his windows. Maybe he's got some evidence that the lead strips were painted. The ones in the photos of the Mayflower II look distinctly grey - like unpainted lead.

I think there's some confusion about why sixteenth- and seventeenth-century windows look the way they do. Those little panes with lines between them aren't decorative. In those days large, flat sheets of glass were expensive, and extremely difficult to make. So the glass workers made windows (in houses as well as ships) out of tiny pieces of glass, held together with lead strips. (Lead was about the only material that would do the trick; it had to be melted and hammered to go between the panes.) It would have been hard to see much through such a window; its primary function was to admit light. I don't know much about modern stained glass fabrication, but I think those folks use a similar technique - with pre-formed, extruded lead extrusions, that come in rolls.

I've seen several references to modelers using tinted plastic in such situations, to represent stained glass. I have to confess that I've never heard of stained glass being used in a ship (or any reason why anybody would do such a thing). I think that trend may have started out as a HECEPOB stunt.