Revell 1/96 USS Kearsarge

I was gonna say the same thing. The tracks look very convincing.

nice start mike , the sweeps actually have a nice worn look about them .

Small update. I've applied the Scaledecks wood decks. I could not get them to line up with all the openings perfectly but, with my usual ham-handedness, I'll manage anyway. I thought I'd taken enough time to line everything up but, with my lack of skills they don't. Part of the problem was probably my attempting to "seal" them with water based matte varnish. Live and learn .

I must say I like the look of these decks even if they're not really representative of how the actual decks looked. They are just fine for me.

The Scaledecks package provides PE sweeps. I had some "Blacken it" left over from several years ago and used it. It took about 20 minutes to get what you see. I think the acid has weakened over the years. Anyway I like the varied finish I got. YMMV.

I should be getting my ordnance from eBay (Cottage Industries cannons, truck carriage, etc.) today. I'm looking forward to putting them together.

1943Mike

OK Steve, now I understand.

The Revell stuff will have a prominent seam line and some clunkiness with the carriage.

The Blueacket offereings also will have a seam line, and dthe carriage is a bit plain.

Now, from period photos, the carraiges are dark, near ebony, or painted black, or the like.

The Cottage ones will, with effort, turn out nice.

Then, the question turns into how much detail do you need to see if it's all going to e covered with the breech tackle lines and the like.  Or skip the tackles to show off a very bare gun.

These are the choices modelers face.

OK Steve, now I understand.

Mike. You may not be throwing away 80% like I did. I just found their white metal castings more trouble than they're worth. The cannon cradle journal is impossible to fit without hours of tedious work and the thin white metal levers bend while trying to clean up a seam, never to be totally straight again. And many of the eyelets have holes off centered. But even with all of that, its better to have the Cottage parts than not. But as CaptMac said "Your Mileage May Vary":)Screen Shot 2021-05-23 at 10.10.11 PM by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />

CapnMac82,

As usual you've given me an education in 3 minutes!

The gist of your post makes me feel that I'll not be far off by using some of the Cottage Industry Models'  parts when I get them.

Steve,

Why would I be throwing away so much?

1943Mike

as I'm not versed on military ordnance whether from the present or the 19th century but they sure look the part to this modeler.

About 1850, the "bottle shape" barrel shape became the "thing."  That, and the Armstrong "wedding cake" patterns with hard steps between the barrel diameters.  So, really, the shapes all wound up all about the same.

The carraiges changed about the same time, an adaptation of carronade-style carraiges.  They keyed to a deck pivot of one sort, and had trucks not for recoil control, but for train (horiszontal plane rotation).  Recoil was handled using the slide of the upper carriage on the base.

This kind of encompassed several changes.  One was much larger guns, so fewer were needed/wanted.  Also that such weight was wanted closer to the centerline for stability, and from how the thinking about broadsides had changed in the brief time of sidewheelers.

About the only time you needed to bring a gun (and many were being rifled, too) was to improve train angles, and those were for the "secondary" sized weapons where weight at the rail was not a huge stability issue.  Steam allowed something not seen before--manoverability.  It mattered less that you only had a 15º arc trhough the rigging for your 100# gun, because you could steer that arc onto your enemy.  (While on that attack vector, you could bring your "mere" 32 & 48 pounders to bear from the rails.)

We don't have a ton of documentation of a bunch of this.  The pivot muzzle loaders were eclipsed by rifled ML in something like two decades.  And breach-loading rifles eclipsed them both perhaps a decade later.

So, did they use a Gun Tackle (3 part) in 1860 and a Double Gun tackle (5 part) in 1880?  Lots of argument on that.  Dry, academic argument, often plucking phrases out of dusty of tomes & reports.  Scant few photographs, sadly.

So, ar the guns lashed to their pviots when stowed?  What tackles were used when in Action?  The recoil return tackls is usually 5 part along the side of the recoiling slides.

So, the Revell kit is not bad.  5 part tackle at 1/96 is never simple.  The aftermarket stuff can be good.  Cottage looks better than, say some of the white-metal offerings.

Your Mileage May Vary

Mike. Its nice to have Cottage as an alternative. Expect to throw away 80% of the Cottage parts:)

Steve,

You've nudged me to change my mind about aftermarket cannons. I just ordered the post war version of the Kearsarge cannons from Cottage Industry Models. I hadn't realized until this morning that they also made that post war set.

I'll probably not do much to modify them as I'm not versed on military ordnance whether from the present or the 19th century but they sure look the part to this modeler.

Thaniks for the posts!

It relieves my mind to know I'll at least have some guns aboard that could have represented the era of my build better than the ones in the kit.

Not a big problem but Cottage also placed the cannon barrel gunsight in the wrong place. Still more work to be done to these including the rigging I'm dreading.cannon 1a by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />cannon 1 by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />

Steve,

Very impressive scratch work on the carriages.

Looking forward to viewing your progress on this kit.

Mike. I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll start my own as soon as I have more progress. Its good to have the Cottage Industries cannons as an alternative but their carriage castings leave a lot to be desired. Even after spending much time removing flash the castings look horrible. Nothing has a sharp edge and are very disappointing. So I built my own carriages using the acceptable pieces from Cottage.

   As far as what the differences between 1861 and 1880, I'll leave that to the experts and Google. I'm just building what I see in the photos take right after the battle with the Alabama.carriage mods. by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />mod cottage. by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />

Steve,

Your build will be followed by me with great interest. Looks like you're off to a fine start!

I sure hope you have or will have a build log on this site?

The cannon really look the part ... are they Cottage Industries?

Question for all following this thread ... was the ordnance very different between 1861 and the 1880's? I'm using the supplied cannon but will be open to ditching them if they were totally obsolete a couple decades later. That is, I'd ditch them if there were after market substitutes that are accurate for the 1880's time frame.

But, as I said at the start of this thread, I'm not after historical accuracy, just a pleasant looking model for my condo.

Thanks. Not Blue Jacket's. Just a heavily modified 1/96 Revell Kearsarge model. Lot's of fun:)

Nice model, Racer. Is that Blue Jacket's?

Looking great!

Mike. Love your Cutty Sark. Truly inspirational. 

 I'm currently on the other end of the Kearsarge spectrum. I'm building a 1861 Kearsarge. I've been focused on the seven or so period photos trying to understand every detail. Its amazing to me how much is in these photos, and how there seems to be something new I observe each time I re-examine these pieces of photographic history. My progress is slow as well but I need to build this kit with extensive scratch building and aftermarket parts.

progress three by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />Kearsarge progress by steve hawley, on Flickr" alt="" />

OK, I've taken away the "Placeholder" in the title.

I'm going to go slowly - perhaps painfully slowly for some. Don't expect a quick build on my part.

I'm already disappointed in my rusty mediocre skill set when it comes to painting. I've spent the better part of a week going over and over what should have been routine painting and have seen my hand painting screw up more touch-ups than it was supposed to fix. That's life with my shaky hands it guess.

Anyhow, I'm off and running (or crawling) on this build.

I like the color I've gotten to represent Muntz Metal. It works for me. See the comparixon with the original post.

Thanks Bill.

Most likely I'll try to rig her based on the rigging instruction sheet. It looks relatively complete - albeit not necessarily accurate - and has the belaying pin diagram.

As I've said before, this is going to be a build for my enjoyment and I'll try to keep it as close to out of the box as I dare. The wood decks may be the exception - we'll see.

I have lots of line, deadeyes, etc. from ModelShipways, Syrene, etc. left. I may have to buy a few blocks if I don't end up using the ones from the kit. So far I don't see any major roadblocks.

I've spent several hours masking the hull halves to paint the white lines - that includes a skinny white water line which I've seen on a couple of images of paintings depicting her in the later stages of her life.

Here's what I'm taking about:

That Tea Clipper is a rig based on a race, a one off for fame, fortune and marketing.

Your goverment navy ship would only go under sail when coal was a fair distance beyond achievable range.

Were me- oh I haven't historical record. Stow the sails, make the yards struck to the deck or at least dropped to the top.

Sail rigs in  the age of steam were either for economy in commerce, transportation from builder's yard to customer, or distance between coaling stations for navies.

CapnMac82,

Thanks for your input. It's always appreciated.

I do still have "Blacken it". I've plenty left from using it to blacken some anchor chains on some of the ships I've built in the last decade.

I also have plenty of black annealed steel wire .. too much in fact. I'd need several lifetimes to finish using it.

As to the shrouds and ratlines that are in the kit - I've already decided to try to rig both myself. I'm not very good at it but I'll give it the old college try - again.

However, I'll not attempt to rig the lanyards between the deadeyes for the shrouds. I'll just use whatever the kit provides for that - it's beyond my skill set.

When I built my Cutty Sark eight years ago I didn't attempt that then. I know my build suffered for it but, in all honesty, it's more than I can do and still enjoy the process.

The dusty, old CS still sits on its own little corner table in my living room area. Not a work of art but I enjoyed building it and I still like the way it looks - even if it's not accurate.

Again, thanks for your contributions to this thread. I really enjoy it when those with much greater nautical knowledge than I have offer their help.

Here are some images of my old CS:

1943Mike

the metal on which the cannons were moved about.

There are chemical blackeners for brass that are outstanding in effect, and look more like iron than paint, too.

Now, I have this memory that the ship, especially after ACW was reduced in rig, to something approaching a "jackass" rig--no crossed spars on the mizzen at all, and no more than 3 or 4 yards on the Fore & Main.  That the Main mast had a gaff rigged, but carried no spencer sail (which would foul the funnel) but only a staysail aove the gaff.

That memory could be faulty.

I know there's been online debate on whether the kit, as boxed, is of an age to have wire rope and chain sheets.

The kit-supplied ratilines & shrouds are an abomination, all of the Revell ones of vinyl-dipped thread really are.  They won't tie, and they won't glue, and they don't represent the geometry at all.  (I may be biased) 

Shrouds ought e 4-8 times the diameter of the ratlines.

And, if I'm going to throw 2¢ around, hit up the craft store and look for 28ga black annealed steel wire, which has a ton of ship modeling uses.  Footropes on yards being a leading one.

OK, I've given up on my plan to paint the decks ... just stripped all paint for the second time.

I've broken down and ordered Scaledecks wood decks for her. I like Scaledecks. They don't have adhesive so one needs to use his/her own. The Kearsarge set made by them includes the wood decking for the mast tops as well as for the boats she carried. It also comes with PE - the metal on which the cannons were moved about.

Hopefully I won't screw up on attaching the wood decks.

CapnMac82,

Thanks for the information.

I'm not going to concern myself with historical accuracy ... just a pleasant looking transitional warship between sail and steam.

I've toyed with the idea of using the supplied shrouds and ratlines in the kit supplied glued together form but more than likely I'll try my patience (as I did with the USS Constitution and the Cutty Sark) by rigging them myself.

This sailing vessel was originally (Civil War era) barque rigged - at least it looks that way to me. No square sails on the mizzen, just fore and aft. Later she was fully ship rigged. I, however, will rig her as a barque. That's the way the kit has her. I'm not about to add the required yard(s) to the mizzen for square sails and to somehow figure out where to belay the lines from them. Way, way above my pay grade, my patience, and my skill set.

So, CapnMac82, thanks for your (appreciated) $.02 but I'm sticking with my plan.

1943Mike

Are they the flat track areas on the deck which the mounts for the cannon would roll to position?

Yes.  Really only used during the heavy rifle period in the mid 1800 to late 1800s, perhaps 40-50 years, and use varied between Navies.

The pivots were levered up and spun to various points, then the trucks (the carriage wheels) landed on the arcs.  Mostly.

Research by various modelers on both Kearsarge and Alabama generally hold that the iron tracks are wrong.  (Although the ones in the Alabam kit are said to be more accurate for Kearsarge circa 1860s.)

That accessory kit noted above looks like a good one.  A wood deck lets to just build the deck and not have to fuss with restoring woodgrain engraving at joints.

The 'kit' of lines will be particularly helpful.  Six sizes of line will have better effect than the two in the kit.

The wooden blocks might be a cool feature, too--they'd have to be better than the single size in the kit (esp. with the fragile eyes cast in them).

That's 2¢, spend it well.

Don,

The title is, "Memoirs of Service Afloat; Two Years on the Alabama".  There is another book written by the Alabama's First Lieutenant John McIntosh Kell, "Recollections of a Naval Life, Including Cruises on the CSS Sumter and CSS Alabama".  Both are or were available from Naval Institute Press.

Bill

Michael,

I'll do my usual work ... I'm in this for the enjoyment of seeing the kit come together but I'm not in the same league as skilled modelers like you. I appreciate your interest. I'll try not to screw it up too badly.

I want to get some time consuming drudgery out of the way before I take away the "placeholder" from the title of this thread. I've already painted the decks three times - the first time with nato black and let it dry. The next with deck tan (Tamiya XF-55) and let it dry. Then I attempted to use fine sandpaper to reveal a bit of the dark paint beneath so as to represent the grain in the planks. I did that on my Cutty Sark years ago but this time it didn't work as well so I soaked all four deck pieces in warm water and Simple Green for several hours to remove all the paint. Then I painted the decks with a slightly different dark color - nato black mixed 50/50 with flat brown. It will need to cure for about 12 more hours (it's now 4:40 am and I'm going to drive a couple hours up to Washinton to hike Dog Mountain. I'll be too tired when I get home to do the next coat of paint so that'll most likely be tomorrow).

Anyway, I'll be plodding along starting in earnest in a week or so.

Mike,

I like your planned approach on this, as long as ALL seams, flash/ molding ridges, sink holes and use of sandpaper were needed to create wood grain are finished off so they're undetectable, it'll look fantastic. Looking forward to seeing her take shape!

Michael D.