SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Hella HMS Victory - Shrouds

18525 views
77 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:13 PM

CrazedCossack wrote:  do any of you out there in cyberspace think that replacing the "wound" hawser with a 2mm chain would look totally out of character for the Victory?

 

My answer would have to be:  yes.  Chain anchor hawsers didn't come into use on board warships till considerably later than 1805.  I don't have an exact date, but it was sometime near the middle of the nineteenth century.  I recall reading somewhere or other (I don't recall where) that anchor chains - and other chain components of rigging - actually appeared a little later in warships than in merchantmen, because naval officers were concerned about the prospect of pieces of iron flying around when the chain got hit by enemy shot.  I'm not sure I buy that explanation, given the amount of stuff that was flying around anyway in a naval action, but it does seem that anchor chains didn't become common in warships till well after the Napoleonic wars.  I imagine the Victory got equipped with them sometime during her career, but by then her appearance would have changed in various other ways.

Chain anchor hawsers also require some mechanical gear for handling them that the Victory, at least in her 1805 configuration (which of course is what the Heller kit tries to represent) didn't have.

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 9:27 PM
I don't want to start a riot here, and I know each modeller personilizes his model, but a little educated feedback everyonce in a while is not necessarily a bad thing.  Now to my point,  do any of you out there in cyberspace think that replacing the "wound" hawser with a 2mm chain would look totally out of character for the Victory?  Any knowledgeable input would be greatly valued.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 7, 2006 9:36 PM
I've recently assembled the hulls and the gun deck.  I have also mounted the Victory on a very handsome piece of red oak. I hope to have some pictures uploaded soon.
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, July 30, 2006 5:47 PM
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, July 29, 2006 9:34 AM

I ought to emphasize that I haven't built either of these kits, or seen them first-hand.  So the following is all based on the literature from the manufacturers, the photos in the ads, and a general familiarity with kits of this type.

To begin with, the appearance of any ship model built from a wood kit depends, to an enormous degree, on the builder.  Two models built by two people from the same kit are going to look a lot different.  Most of the wood ship model kits on the market (like most of the plastic ship model kits on the market) are, in terms of their resemblance to real ships, trash.  But Model Shipways and Bluejacket are two of the finest wood kit manufacturers in the world, and their respective Constitution kits are among their more recent and sophisticated kits.  The Model Shipways one is a little more recent; it's pretty clear that the company intended it as competition for the Bluejacket kit.  But I'm sure both are excellent.

There are a couple of conspicuous differences.  The Model Shipways kit is on a slightly larger scale, and the two kits represent the ship at different points in her career.  The MS kit, from what I can tell, tries (quite successfully) to replicate what she looks like right now, as preserved at Boston.  The Bluejacket kit represents a major research effort to determine what she looked like during the War of 1812.  (There's quite a bit of room for disagreement about that; if you do a search you'll find several threads in this Forum that discuss the issue.)

I'm confident that either of these kits, in the hands of an experienced modeler willing to devote several years of his/her spare time to it, has the potential to produce a beautiful, accurate model.  (The old Revell kit also has that potential.)

One other point struck me when I looked up the MS kit on the Model Expo website (www.modelexpoonline.com) a few minutes ago.  (Model Expo owns Model Shipways, and functions as the Model Shipways distributor as well as a retail outlet.)  Model Expo currently has 17 Constitution kits in stock - more than most of the other kits in the Model Shipways line.  These kits are produced, and sold, in numbers that, by the standards of the plastic kit industry, are incredibly small.  (Plastic kit production runs number in the thousands - at least.)  And, as anybody who's ever worked in a hobby shop knows, only a very small percentage of the sophisticated wood ship model kits ever gets finished.  (Actually that's a common phenomenon among model kits in general, but the wood sailing ship kits are the worst.  The second-worst are the balsa-and-tissue airplane kits.)  Far too many people buy these big ship kits without having any idea what they're getting into. 

In my long-ago days as a hobby shop employee I always advised newcomers to start with a small ship in a large scale - something that can be done in a few weeks or a couple of months.  Most customers, of course, ignored me; everybody wants a Constitution, Victory, or Cutty Sark.  I sold plenty of those big kits to newcomers, virtually none of whom I ever saw again.  (The reputable manufacturers understand this problem.  Both MS and Bluejacket emphasize in their literature that their Constitution kits are for experienced modelers.) 

When those enthusiastic newcomers get home and started their kits, at least one of several things usually happens.  In some cases, the contents of the box, and the vagueness of the instructions (which are written for modelers who have lots of experience under their belts), are so intimidating that the kit gets stuck in a closet and forgotten.  If the newcomer does work up the gumption to start the model, he/she often gets discouraged at the amount of time it takes to make even a little progress on it.  Just as frequently, he/she works on the model for several months and then discovers his/her skills have improved during that time, with the result that the work completed a couple of months earlier no longer looks satisfactory.  That can indeed be pretty discouraging.

As anybody who's read my rants in this Forum probably has figured out, I'm a big believer in plastic kits.  I have to acknowledge, though, that the wood kit market - though most of the kits in it are overpriced garbage - has one big feature to recommend it over the plastic kit market:  a considerable number of good, well-designed, accurate kits that can be completed successfully in a reasonable amount of time by newcomers.  I'd suggest that anybody interested in getting into wood sailing ships take a good look at the "Group Build" forum thread that's currently discussing the Model Shipways Sultana.  That's a fine kit that doesn't take years to build, isn't extravagantly expensive, and turns into a mighty handsome model.  A few weeks spent on a model like that will be an extremely sound investment when the modeler tackles something more sophisticated. 

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:55 AM
Aside from the hull construction, is there any real difference in the quality of the finished product?
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, July 29, 2006 12:07 AM

The Bluejacket kit has a solid hull; the Model Shipways version is plank-on-bulkhead.  Those are two fundamentally different ways to build a ship model hull.

Both kits are based on extensive research; both are extremely expensive, and both are intended for experienced modelers.  The plans and instruction books assume a considerable amount of experience on the part of the modeler, and a pretty thorough familiarity with the necessary vocabulary. 

Either of these kits represents a big investment in time, skill, and money - frankly an investment that I personally am not about to make.

The Revell 1/96 Constitution is one of the best plastic sailing ship kits ever.  As mentioned earlier in this thread, some features of it are simplified a bit as a means of catering to the less-than-experienced purchaser.  And some of the inevitable drawbacks to plastic kits are definitely there.  (The plastic eyebolts and hammock netting stanchions cry out for replacement, the plastic-coated thread "shrouds and ratlines" are awful, the plastic "deadeye and lanyard" assemblies let the experienced viewer know that he's looking at a plastic kit, and various other aspects just aren't as sophisticated as either of the two wood kits.)  But the kit is generally accurate in most respects.  It was based on the plans drawn up by George Campbell for the Smithsonian back in the late fifties; though a good deal of research about the Constitution has been done since, I'm unaware that anybody has found any really major errrors in Mr. Campbell's research.  The biggest problem with the Revell kit, in terms of historical accuracy, probably is one that's endemic to the plastic kit:  the bulwarks are too thin.  Fix that and you're well on your way to a serious scale model of a great ship.

As we've noted before in this thread, one big difference between the big Revell sailing ship kits and the big Heller ones is that the Revell designers really knew what they were doing.  A reasonably skilled and patient modeler can turn a Revell Constitution or Cutty Sark into a nice-looking, reasonably accurate scale model, without investing an arm and a leg in aftermarket parts and references.   (That can't be said about the big Heller kits.)  And the modeler who wants to go further, in terms of additional rigging and detail, will find the Revell kits nice, congenial starting points.

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 28, 2006 11:01 PM

 CrazedCossack wrote:
I was looking around on bluejacketinc.com and notcied that they have a Constitution kit that is quite nice.  Would this one even compare with the Revell kit? (Price differential notwithstanding)

Also, how does the BlueJacket kit stack up against the Model Shipways kit?

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Walworth, NY
Posted by Powder Monkey on Friday, July 28, 2006 3:56 PM
The kit is supposed to be very good. It is made from wood not plastic. It is listed as the official kit of the U.S.S. Constitution museum. The kit is for experienced modlers. It has their highest difficulty rating.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 28, 2006 2:59 PM
I was looking around on bluejacketinc.com and notcied that they have a Constitution kit that is quite nice.  Would this one even compare with the Revell kit? (Price differential notwithstanding)
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 28, 2006 2:36 PM
For some reason KodakEasyShare and AOL are both fubar.  I'm all out of ideas. 
  • Member since
    February 2006
Posted by Grymm on Friday, July 28, 2006 11:49 AM

Hmmm.  I'm still not seeing it.  When I click your link, it says the gallery is unavailable....

And yes, posting pics to this forum is archaic and way too

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, July 28, 2006 11:02 AM

This is  more complicated than it should be.  Bear with me here...

photo

photo 

  • Member since
    February 2006
Posted by Grymm on Friday, July 28, 2006 8:38 AM
for some reason, I'm not seeing the photos you just posted.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, July 28, 2006 12:46 AM

The failure to provide any means of attaching the yards to the masts is, indeed, one of the most ludicrous weaknesses of that kit - and, for that matter, of the Heller Soleil Royal.

To describe how it works on the real ship is, without the help of pictures, a little tricky, but the system is simple enough.  If you want to replicate the real thing accurately, it will take you a couple of hours and cost two or three dollars - assuming you need to buy everything for the purpose.

In the late eighteenth century the lower yards typically had no mechanical apparatus to hold them to the masts.  Each lower yard was secured by a fairly simple rope arrangement called a truss.  When the ship was working to windward (i.e., when the wind was blowing from one side, rather than from astern) the truss could be slacked off.  That gave the yard a little more room to swing without being restricted by the lower shrouds.

The topsail and topgallant yards were secured with simple mechanical gadgets called parrels (also spelled parrals).  Again, it's a little tough to describe verbally, but the components of the assembly were quite simple.  The parrel consisted of a series of egg-shaped wood rollers, or trucks, with holes bored through them, separated by a series of wood boards called parrel ribs and held together by lines called parrel ropes.  The parrel provided for two forms of motion:  it let the yard swing around the mast and slide up and down it.  (Remember that the topsail and topgallant yards were raised and lowered when the sails were set and furled.) 

In model-building terms, you can make a parrel quite easily and quickly, using either plastic sheet or wood for the ribs and glass beads (preferably painted) for the trucks.

A simple trick to keep the whole assemblyl steady is to drill a hole in the front of the mast and the back of the yard for a metal pin.  It won't show on the finished model, and it will make the whole mess rigid while you set up the rigging.

I'll say it again:  this sort of thing takes almost as long to describe as to do.  And it's much, much easier if you have some pictures to help you.  If you want to fix the numerous mistakes and omissions in the kit, try, if at all possible, to get hold of at least one of the books we've mentioned earlier in this thread.  The Longridge book, for instance, has several drawings that will make the workings of parrels and trusses absolutely clear.

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

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:36 PM

I have realized, through forums such as this and my own examination, that Heller provides no way to attatch the yards to the masts.  Would anyone have any idea on how to do this, and in such a way that it looks realistic even to the semi-trained eye?  I understand that I am a LONG way from getting to this point, reference my update photos, but I would like to have an idea of what to do when I tackle the second half of this monstrosity.  As a side note, I purchased both Longridge's and McKay's books  prior to the inital construction of the model.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 27, 2006 3:56 PM

Looks good. I really need to buy that kit.

I've got the Soliel Royal kit, but I am still alittle afraid of it do to the scratch building stern part.

Keep the pics comin' :)

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:17 AM

I've been on a bit of a hiatus, but still managed to get some work done.  More pictures soon to come...

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2006
Posted by Grymm on Monday, July 24, 2006 9:46 AM

Well JTilley, let me be the first to tell you that I intend to build the Victory straight from the box, with the exception of some of the rigging line.  Why somebody may ask?  Well, it's about money to put it simply.  I just don't have the money right now.  3K move-in expenses for my daughter's apartment and new job 450 miles away has kind of drained my "play money" for the time being.  But, being the eternal optimist that I am, I do believe that I can still complete this kit without any significant degree of additional difficulty.   Call me crazy, call me stupid, but that's just what I believe. 

Can aftermarket parts make a build easier?  Sure they can.  Do aftermarket parts look better?  In most cases, yes they do.  Can a build look good without spending money on aftermarket parts?  Of course it can.  Now, believe me, I would love to get some real nice blocks and deadeyes, as well as some other parts that improve the build or (as some people say), make the build easier.  I do agree with JTilley that the two Heller kits (Soleil Royale and HMS Victory) are kits that should be tackled by experienced builders.   They are complicated.  But these kits can still look very good when built from the box.  To the trained eye there will be screams.  "Those lines are out of scale!" "Those kit blocks look like crap!"....but...to the 99.9999999999% of the world, or as we call them, the "untrained eye".  like my friends, family, neighbors, guests....pretty much everyone who will ever see this kit with the exception of photos I put on here for you guys to (hopefully constructively) criticize, will look at what I've created and not notice that I built it without all the aftermarket stuff and appreciate a beautiful ship that adds to the look of the room...and I beam with pride that I actually made it myself.

There are times (few times that is) that I would feel modellers who are excellent at the craft in their own right would be scared away from kits that are well within their ability simply because they get intimidated when told they "need" to buy all these sometimes expensive third party parts just to build this kit.  Now, this in no way is meant as an insult to anyone.  To the contrary, I have nothing but the deepest respect for everyone on this forum.  But there are many skill levels here and most of the people on this forum always think less of their own skill than it actually is.  It's just me, but I just think that aftermarket "requirements" have the potential to scare modellors away, and keep them from taking their craft to the next level.

HMS Victory can be built from the box.  Will it be the same as with all the aftermarket parts?  Of course not.  Will the kit still be something to look at and be proud of?  Of course it will.

As for the shrouds, which was the subject of the forum to begin with, use whatever method works best for you my friend.  There is a vast wealth of knowledge here at FS and everyone will be more than happy to help you.   I have found a glue that works, if you choose to go that route.  JTilley can go into detail with the best ways to approach the clove hitch method.  I'm still practicing with the Loom, and my results so far have been...improving.  I just need more practice.  But it is working, and my wife likes that I'm downstairs with her, and my cats love batting the spool of thread around...

PM me so we can get together on our builds of the Victory.  If anyone else is building either the 1/96 Constitution, 1/96 Cutty Sark, or the Heller Soleil Royal, give me a PM also....

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:03 PM

I agree:  as an investment in leisure-time entertainment, it's a bargain.  On the other hand, I can't blame any innocent purchaser of it who, having spent about $200 on a plastic kit, balks at the thought of discarding several hundred pieces of it - and spending at least another $200 replacing them with aftermarket parts. 

I'm a big believer in the value of the plastic sailing ship kit, but there ought to be a better way.  Imai was moving in the right direction; by the time of its demise its engineers had figured out how to cast excellent styrene blocks and deadeyes in rigid steel molds.  I hope some company picks up the technology where Imai left it.  At the moment, however, I'm not optimistic.

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

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: The green shires of England
Posted by GeorgeW on Saturday, July 22, 2006 6:31 PM

You're a true wordsmith Mr Tilley, you've just described in one paragraph exactly my approach to building this ship Smile [:)]

Now that is a paragraph to cut out and pin on the wall.

I'm seven months into this build at a fairly intensive rate, and I'm just reaching the basic hull completion stage.  I fully expect the job to take two to three years to completion.

If nothing else the kit represents extremely good value for money on a leisure time / cost basis.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, July 22, 2006 5:37 PM

It's rather interesting that even the person who built the model on the boxtop omitted what is arguably the worst feature of the kit:  the hideous vac-formed "sails."  And much of the rigging associated directly with the sails (sheets, tacks, buntlines, leechlines, etc.) doesn't appear to be there.  That picture doesn't meet the criteria of my original challenge; it doesn't prove that the model can be built "out of the box."

A friend of mine once got hired to build some warship kits to appear in photos on Airfix boxes.  (At that time the plastic kit industry was coming under some pressure to use model photos instead of paintings, apparently because some authorities claimed the paintings were deceptive.)  The Airfix people told him "not to do too good a job."  They were afraid of scaring off potential customers.  Maybe something like that was involved in the photo on the Heller Victory box - but somehow I doubt it.

None of this should obscure the fact that, by any reasonably objective standard (and especially by comparison with what else is on the market), it's an outstanding kit.  My suggestions to anybody contemplating it would be:  (1) Don't make it your first ship model.  Learn the basic terminology and skills of ship modeling on something simpler and less time-consuming.  This is a kit for people who have at least half a dozen ship models under their belts.  (2) Throw out the "sails" before you leave the hobby shop.  (3) As soon as you get home, throw out the rigging and hammock netting "looms," the blocks, the deadeyes, the eyebolts, and the hammock netting stanchions.  (4) Throw out the rigging instructions.  (5) Reconcile yourself to spending a considerable sum on aftermarket parts, such as blocks and deadeyes, and some time scratchbuilding some details, such as the yard parrels.  (6) Buy, beg, borrow, or steal a copy of Longridge's Anatomy of Nelson's Ships.  (If you can't find that one, the revised edition of John McKay's The Hundred-Gun Ship Victory makes an excellent second choice.  Better yet - get both, and throw in a copy of Alan McGowen's H.M.S. Victory.)

Having taken those steps, you'll have before you the basis for a serious scale model of a great ship.  Building it will take a long time (at least two years, I suspect), but when you're finished you'll have a model that you and your descendants can be proud of.

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

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: The green shires of England
Posted by GeorgeW on Saturday, July 22, 2006 3:41 PM

To illustrate Mr Tilley's point here is a picture of that box art, a photo of the completed model which presumably Heller thought would attract potential customers.(well I bought it I suppose)

Many of the faults identifed in previous posts are apparent - the lack of any attachment of the yards to masts, the deadeyes virtually touching each other, no difference between shroud and ratline thickness; and the awful looking hammock netting in stark white thread.

(Actually the netting on the real Victory is pretty white, but it doesn't sit right on a model of this scale.)

To answer Mr Tilley's question, yes the builder did use the kit deadeyes and blocks, but they obviously thought that it was not necessary to show any of the lower deck ports open, which suggests a quick build job.

It's fortunate for Heller that some of us had some vision as what could be done with the basic kit, although on reflection their marketing people probably didn't really care. Why should they it still seems to be selling all these years later.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, July 22, 2006 2:40 PM

The sequence I normally use is:

1.  Make the rope needed for all the shrouds on one mast, and prepare the necessary number of lines in about the right lengths.

2.  Seize one deadeye in one end of one shroud pair (i.e., one piece of line that's long enough to make two shrouds).

3.  Pass the other end of the shroud around the masthead and seize it, with the deadeye hanging slightly above the right height. 

4.  Rig the lanyard between the upper and lower deadeyes for the first shroud.  Pulling the lanyard taut brings the upper deadeye to the correct height - i.e., the correct distance from the lower deadeye.

5.  Seize another deadeye into the other end of the shroud, at a point where that deadeye hangs slightly above its correct height (i.e., level with the other upper deadeye). 

6.  Rig the lanyard for the second shroud, using it to bring the two deadeyes the correct distance apart.

7.  Repeat for all the other shroud pairs.

8.  Rig the futtock staves and sheer poles (if any).

9.  Rig the ratlines.

On my little Hancock model I added one other step.  The upper end of each shroud is supposed to be wormed and served for a distance of about eight feet on either side of the masthead.  (The foremost shroud is wormed and served all the way down.)  In photos of old ships the bights of the shrouds and stays where they pass around the mastheads have a distinctive appearance, caused by the serving and the tar that was applied afterward.  I represented that on the Hancock model by coating the upper ends of the shrouds with a mixture of artist's "modeling paste," white glue, and acrylic paint.  That had the effect of fattening the line slightly and smoothing the surface of it.  When the concoction dried it was brittle and chipped off easily, but that didn't matter much; it was fairly easy to avoid scraping or bruising it till the model was done.  I don't know that I'd recommend that trick on a large-scale model, but I was pretty happy with it on 1/128 scale.

That's a pretty old-fashioned way to set up shrouds.  I've tried various tricks to get around some of the awkward parts (e.g., setting up deadeyes and lanyards in advance), but in my experience none of them really helped much.  My observation has been that the more experience a modeler gets, the less he/she relies on jigs and shortcuts - not because there's anything "improper" or "lazy" about them, but because they usually don't work as well, or as quickly, as the old-fashioned methods.  Getting the deadeyes the right distance apart, without introducing either too little or too much tension on one or more of the shrouds, does take a little practice - and, every so often, the willingness to scrap a line or two and start over with it.  But once my fingers get into gear on such a project, I suspect I can work faster than I could with any sort of jig or other gadget.

I should say that I do know of a few outstanding modelers (Donald McNarry and John Wilson come to mind immediately) who get outstanding results by pre-assembling shrouds and ratlines (and various other block and tackle assemblies) separately from their models.  Those modelers work on very small scales, and use wire instead of thread for their rigging.  (Mr. Wilson gets beautiful results by making shrouds and ratlines on a jig and soldering the joints with liquid solder and a torch.  And Mr. McNarry's models, none of them bigger than 1/192 scale, are exquisite works of art in every sense.)  The whole process of rigging a ship model changes a great deal when you use wire instead of thread.  I've never had much inclination to go that route - except in the cases of extremely fine lines, like ratlines. 

Several days ago I asked if anybody on the Forum had built, or knew of anybody who had built, either the Heller Victory or the Heller Soleil Royal "out of the box" - i.e., without fastening the yards to the masts, without replacing any of the plastic blocks, deadeyes, stanchions, eyebolts, etc. with aftermarket parts, and without augmenting the instructions with books or other references.  So far I haven't seen any responses.  For a while Heller was selling its Victory with a photo of a completed model on the box top; it looked pretty awful (even my wife thought so, when she saw one of those boxes in a hobby shop), but I didn't look closely enough to see whether the builder had in fact used the blocks and deadeyes that came with the kit.  At any rate, the model in that picture was the only one I've ever seen that came anywhere near demonstrating that the kit could be built "out of the box."  Apart from the question of why anybody would try to do that, I continue to question whether it can be done.

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

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: The green shires of England
Posted by GeorgeW on Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:54 PM

I always rig my shrouds on the ship. Having fixed the lower deadeyes to the channel I rig the shrouds in pairs around the masthead in proper sequence, and turn the upper deadeye into the shroud using a piece of wire as a jig to space the deadeyes the correct distance apart. This distance varies the further along the channel you go and more than one jig is required. The aim is to keep the top deadeyes level.

This is why the Heller shroud contraption is a poor idea. I don't finally seize and trim the deadeye turning on the shroud until I am happy with the overall look, at which point I secure with a spot of superglue

  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Saturday, July 22, 2006 10:58 AM
Has anyone attempted to do the shrouds in place, rig the dead eyes first, the do each shrould cable in turn right on the ship?


  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, July 20, 2006 11:06 AM

Beginning ship modelers seldom take my suggestions, but I'll take the liberty of offering one more here.  Print out Mr. Gonzales's last post, frame it, and hang it over your workbench.  Pay particular attention to what he says about how his fingers have learned the skills of rigging - and how the amount of time he spends per ratline has already been reduced by at least 70%.

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

  • Member since
    February 2006
  • From: The green shires of England
Posted by GeorgeW on Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:44 AM

Amen to what both both John Tilley and Jose say.

This is a job to do in stages with breaks in between.There is satisfaction to be gained seeing the progress of the rattling down, and in truth I quite enjoy it.

It is more tiring to do the topmast shrouds as inevitably your arms are held up in a more uncomfortable  position. I understand that Dr Longridge  (my ship modelling guru) built some sort of frame around his model to rest his arms/elbows on when working on the higher rigging. When I get to that point I may have to figure out something similar.

Having set the shrouds up on the model with the deadeyes and lanyards, I rig all my ratlines using a pair of tweezers in each hand. The time is mostly taken up by the gradual tightening of the clove hitch to the point where there is a slight sag in the ratline but the shroud  remains unmoved.

Personally I've always found that the card behind the shrouds method for marking the spacing to be more trouble than its worth. I use a piece of styrene or wood of the right width to use as a gauge for checking my spacing as I go along.

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: San Diego
Posted by jgonzales on Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:07 AM

Here's another vote for the clove hitch method. I've finished the foremast port and starboard lower ratlines on my 1/96 Constitution, and am working on the port mainmast lower ratlines now.

A couple of observations:

The difference in diameter between the shroud and the ratline can be important. The thicker the ratline thread, the less realistic the ratlines will be if you use the clove hitch - the knots will appear huge. If you look at any photos of ratlines on real ships, the ratlines are much smaller than the shrouds they wrap around. If I were to start all over again, I'd make a much greater effort to locate some fine wire

Be careful when tying the knots, don't make them too tight. I was pulling hard on the ratline when tying knots, trying to take up excess slack between the shrouds, and ended up distorting the shrouds.

Quality of thread is important. I started off with cotton thread from my wife's sewing box, lightly waxed it, and strung several ratlines. The next day the threads had expanded unevenly and what I though had been evenly spaced ended up sagging badly in random spots. Perhaps again a result of pulling too tight on some and not on others. I removed what I had done and switched threads.

I did not lose heart. Once I got into a rhythm, I was able to achieve consistent technique for each knot, and the results drastically improved. Slack and spacing between shrouds are now more consistent as I go along, and the shrouds are less and less distorted. The difference between the first ratlines on the model and the ones I'm working on now are noticeable, and I find myself tempted to re-do those first several lines with my newfound skill.

I don't spend more than a half an hour at a time stringing the ratlines. It is a repetitive motion, and while I do tend to get on a roll and lose track of time, in the interest of my eyes and my wrist tendons, I force myself to switch to something else on the model - there's always plenty else to do. The fore and mainmast have 9 sets of shrouds on each side and that makes for at least 8 knots for each ratline, but I'm cranking - from the first sets which took 15-20 minutes per row of knots, I'm down to <5 minutes per ratline.

Finally, I am comparing the ship I'm building now to the one I built in my early teens (another 1/96 Constitution), in which I used the kit-provided plastic-coated shroud/ratlines, and I am happy with my accomplishments on my current build so far. It'll never match some of the works of art I've seen by other builders, but it is the best work I've done so far as a model builder.

Jose Gonzales San Diego, CA
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.