Hella HMS Victory - Shrouds

Grymm, as I understand it, you haven't reached the point where you're ready to transfer your loom-rigged shrouds and ratlines to the model itself.  When you do, I'm afraid you're going to find out why the loom doesn't work.

Heller did do something clever in making the masthead parts separate, so the shrouds can be seized to the mastheads more-or-less accurately while they're still on the loom.  That puts the Victory kit ahead of the Soleil Royal.)  But there are two problems at the lower end of the shrouds.  First, those who've tried it (I haven't) report that the spacing of the lower deadeyes as indicated in the instructions doesn't match the spacing of the holes in the channels.  Second - and more seriously - that system just doesn't provide adequately for setting up the deadeye lanyards.  The shrouds have to be among the tautest lines on a ship model.  The lanyards running between the deadeyes are the mechanisms that make them taut.  When the shrouds are taut, the upper deadeyes are supposed to end up in a nice, straight row, parallel to the channel.  There's just no way that's going to happen if the shrouds and ratlines are rigged off the model.  (Maybe it's physically possible, but it's far easier to do if the shrouds are set up on the model in the first place.)

If you're going to use the needle-through-the-shroud method to rig the ratlines, I can't see any earthly advantage to rigging them off the model.  (Well, ok, with your reference to being able to set up shop in the living room, you've got me.  But my wife doesn't want to be around when I'm working on a model.  She says I emit a wide variety of strange noises, including some that vaguely resemble singing and upset the three household cats.)  The physical motions entailed are exactly the same.  And if the shrouds are set up on the model to begin with, they'll be taut before you start rigging the ratlines.  Most experienced modelers rig the shrouds before they do any other rigging; there shouldn't be any other lines in the way.  And in any case, that piece of paper inside the shrouds, in addition to showing you where the ratlines go, will isolate your fingers (and your needle) from everything else.

Over the years quite a few individual modelers and kit manufacturers have tried to work out methods of "pre-fabbing" various rigging components.  They almost invariably don't work - or they turn out to be more complex than the traditional methods.  As the typical ship modeler gets experience, he discovers pretty quickly that (admittedly with some exceptions) the traditional methods aren't just more accurate; they're easier. 

Get back to us when you've got the standing rigging of the model finished.  I have a feeling your enthusiasm for "rigging looms" will be considerably less then. 

Your reference to shrouds twisting when ratlines are hitched to them is utterly new to me.  I've tied several thousand clove hitches in ratlines and never had such a thing happen.  Maybe the shrouds aren't set up taut enough, or maybe the line you used for them has something wrong with it.  But that shouldn't happen.

CrazedCossack - please take all these posts in the context of the others.  You're getting some slightly conflicting suggestions; try all of them before you conclude that any of them is the best.   

JTilley is correct.  The best two methods are the clove-hitch and shroud threading.  But, don't throw out the loom.  I've been using it.  For some reason, while rigging the shrouds/ratlines on my Cutty Sark using the Clove Hitch method, my ratlines caused the shrouds to twist about halfway up.  I'm assuming this is do to the fact that if you tie each row of hitches in the same direction, the tension from the knots cause the shrouds to twist, causing the problem.  Now, I'm sure as I get better at this the problem will go away, but it is really frustrating right now.  So I'm practicing with the loom, but instead of glue (I haven't found a 100% sturdy glue yet), I'm using the shroud-threading method and so far I am pleased with my results.  I can still use the loom's numbers as a guide for spacing, the shrouds stay taught and don't twist, I don't get my finger caught in the ship trying to do the lines, and I can sit downstairs with my wife while I do it.  So, in my own way, I found a way to make the loom work.

Here's how I've done it.

1) Set up your loom as per the instructions.

2) Set up the shrouds as per the instructions.  Use a line larger than what is supplied by the kit for this.  The kit-supplied line is too small anyway.

3) Use a thin line for the ratlines and a small needle.  Begin on the left or right, at the bottom and just thread the line through each shroud, using a little white glue on each end to hold it in place. 

4)You can make small adjustments in the line if necessary, but not too much, else you'll loosen the shroud line itself, causing it to unravel.

That's it.  It's really quite simple. 

Hope this helps.  I'll post some pics when I can...

Grymm

Re shrouds and ratlines - I'll accept CrazedCossack's invitation to refrain from another diatribe against that ridiculous jig/loom gadget, and try to explain two extremely old-fashioned, but far better-looking, ways to do it - as modified slightly for use in plastic kits.

The first step is to set up the shrouds.  For that, in the case of the Heller Victory kit, I strongly recommend ditching the plastic, grooveless deadeyes in favor of aftermarket parts, either metal (www.bluejacketinc.com) or wood (www.modelexpoonline.com).  The rigging of the deadeye lanyards is, for me at least, the trickiest part of the job.  Some folks have had success with simple jigs to hold the deadeyes the appropriate distances apart while the shrouds are seized to the upper deadeyes and hove taut.  But I'm afraid there's no way to make that part easy. 

Once the shrouds are in place, you need to make yourself a simple guide to the ratline spacing.  Different sources give slightly different spacings - anywhere from 11" to 16".  Take your pick.  Cut a piece of stiff, white paper or cardboard to fit just inside the shrouds, between the channel and the bottom and the masthead at the top.  Draw a series of horizontal lines on the paper at your chosen spacing.  (Or use your computer.)

At this point you have a choice.  Before making it, understand how the real thing was rigged.  On the real ship, each end of each ratline has an eyesplice worked into it.  The eyesplices are seized with light line to the foremost and aftermost ratlines, and the ratline is tied around each intervening shroud with an extremely simple knot called a clove hitch.  So far as I know, nobody has ever attempted to make the hundreds of necessary eyesplices in fine thread that would be necessary to replicate all that on a 1/100-scale model.  In deference to practicality (and the limited time granted us on the Orb), some simplification is necessary.

Probably the best compromise between accuracy and practicality is to tie each ratline around each shroud with a clove hitch.  (The clove hitch is one of the simplest of all knots; learning it takes about a minute.  Knot-tying is notoriously difficult to describe verbally, so I won't try; any website that contains pictures of knots will show you how to do it.)  Start at the bottom.  If you're right-handed, tie the first ratline around the lefthand shroud at the point where the line on your piece of paper tells you.  (Starting at the left is, at least, easier for me.)  Then tie it to the next shroud, and so on.  Put a tiny drop of white glue on the first and last knots, for safety, and when the glue's dried snip off the ends with a small, sharp pair of scissors or an Xacto knife.

I find the finished impression is a little better if on the first and last shrouds, instead of a clove hitch, I use a reef knot (aka square knot).  That creates a little visual difference between those two knots and the others - not enough to make anybody think I actually made all those eyesplices, but at least a difference.

Method two is the "needle-through-the-shroud" method.  For this one, get yourself the thinnest, sharpest needle you can find at your local sewing store and load it up with the finest thread you can get.  (It's unlikely that you'll make the ratlines too thin.  We've discussed the question of color elsewhere.)  With this method I find it easier to start with the righthand shroud.  (I'm right-handed.)  At the point indicated by your paper guide, shove the needle right through the middle of the first shroud, and through each of the others in sequence.  As before, put a tiny spot of white glue on the first and last intersections, and trim off the excess thread when the glue's dried.  Initially you'll probably find it a little awkward to shove the needle through in the oppposite direction, but once your fingers get the hang of it you'll probably find the job goes quicker if you put a couple of feet of thread through the needle and zigzag back and forth - the first ratline from right to left, the second from left to right, etc.

As you can see from any batch of photos of models, there's just no substitute for individually clove-hitched ratlines.  But the "needle-through-the-shroud" method, done carefully, can produce extremely neat, clean results.

As I've preached more than once before, I urge everybody to try the "clove hitch method" first.  Most modelers are pleasantly surprised to discover that it isn't as hard, or as time-consuming, as they thought.  Give your finger muscles a fair chance to get some practice with it; don't give up after the first try.  I firmly believe that most modelers, if they have enough dexterity to build and rig such a model at all, have what it takes to rig ratlines with clove hitches.  Such things as arthritis and close-range eyesight can, however, create problems.  If it does prove too much for you, try the "needle-through-the-shroud" trick.  It's a little easier, and considerably quicker.

Re plastic kits of the Victory  in her as-built configuration - folks, I hate to say it, but I fear you dream.  The economics of the plastic kit industry are such that manufacturers aren't impressed with the opinions and aspirations of dozens; they think in terms of thousands.  That's why, as of 2006, the plastic sailing ship model kit business is almost dead.  The chances of any manufacturer releasing a kit that duplicates, in subject matter, half a dozen that already exist are just about zero. 

And in all honesty, there are quite a few subjects that I personally would give a higher priority.  How about a 1/96 (or 1/00) H.M.S. Prince?   Or a Sovereign of the Seas?  Or a Wasa?  Or an American clipper ship?  Or a good, state-of-the-art American whaler?  Or a British frigate?  Or some American sailing warship other than the Constitution?  (I'd be willing to bet that "new" Constitution from Revell Germany is just the old one in a different box with a higher price.  That company is notorious for botching up its descriptions of scales and measurements.)  I could easily make up a wish list of twenty or thirty subjects - but the sun is going to rise in the west long before any of the manufacturers asks for my opinion. 

I do find myself wondering whether anybody who works for Heller, Revell, or Airfix ever bothers to look at forums like this.  Personally, I've been pleasantly surprised by the number of folks who are working seriously on plastic sailing ship kits - both currently-available ones and golden oldies that get bought at swap meets and via e-bay.  That Chumster website suggests that the number of purchasers of the Heller/Airfix 1/100 Victory is actually pretty substantial.  Maybe, one of these days, some adventurous model company executive will decide to take a risk and put his/her people to work on a new, large-scale sailing ship kit - an accurate, well-conceived one that (a) can be built to an acceptable standard by a reasonably dexterous newcomer and (b) can serve as a starting point for the more experienced modeler who wants to turn it into a more serious scale model.  That fine Japanese company, Imai, proved that it could be done - but went out of business.  The Russian firm Zvezda issued a medieval Hanseatic cog a few months ago that, though I haven't bought it myself, appears to be a well-designed, reasonably accurate kit - and an excellent newcomer's project.  (I'll be interested to see what else comes from that stable.)  I think the other manufacturers are assuming that the market for such kits just isn't big enough to justify the staggering expense of producing them.  But maybe, just maybe, things are changing enough to tempt one of them into taking the plunge.  I sure hope so - but I'm not holding my breath.

I know this has been discussed many times before, but could somebody go through in detail the 2 best ways to assemble the shrouds and ratlines?  There is no need to degrade that "loom" or "jig" or whatever the heck that thing is called anymore because it makes good material to practice refining my airbrush techniques with.  I just want a simple, easily understood explanation.  Another non sequitur, Revell of Germany is releasing a 1/96 Constitution in August, but its 4 1/8 inches longer and $21.00 more expensive than the currently available kit from Revell.  Its first on my "to do" list after finishing the Victory.  Has anybody heard any news regarding this kit?

The wire provided by Heller is to represent the gunport lid ropes. You will see above each port that has a lid  two  guide marks that are to be drilled out into which the 'ropes are fitted.

A lot of modellers  including me don't use this but prefer to rig the lids with line. That wire does come in use tho' I used mine to make the side tackles for the cannon.

You had me going for a moment CC, the kit refers to 1765 which is the launch date of the Victory, but the portrayal is of the Trafalgar era configuration. Note the closed in galleries on the stern. I have built this model in the long distant past, it is not as originally launched.

Shame tho' it would have been nice.

Hi CC where's the pics then?

The only Airfix 1:180 model I know of is the1805 configuration (including Entry port) that has been around for a long time.

I think we'd all be interested in a  1765 configured model with open galleries etc; do keep us posted.

As JTilley said, starting from scratch to build the Victory in her 1765 configuration would be the only way to go except, through some late night parousing I found that Airfix has a 1/180 Victory model as built in 1765.  Has anyone other than me even seen this kit?              

Well, what I'm looking for is someone who has built the kit and can take a series of pictures of it for me, pretty much of just the rigging.  Say, like several pics of each mast with some closeups.  That way I can get a better feel for how this monstrosity is rigged up...

I just can't find any pics like that on the web...

Hello all,

I don't know if a link to the following forum has been posted before:

http://www.chumster.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=83&mforum=bobbie

These are some pictures of an impressive Soleil Royale build.

The forum and website are dedicated to builds of the Heller Victory, and there are also threads for other sailing ship models. Those gents across the pond do some great work.

Jose Gonzales

So George, you have built all 4 kits then?  Could you post some pics for us?  I am especially in need of pics of a completed Soleil Royal.  Perhaps I could get you to take a series of pics for me?  I would be very grateful.

It seems this topic will run and run.

The Heller kit is no doubt one of the most complex plastic kits of its type, but with the potential for superb results. In the end  tho' modellers should only build to their own satisfaction and enjoyment.

How far the tips and recommendations found in forums like this are taken on board is entirely up to the individual. The rub is, as Mr Tilley has touched on in an earlier post, that faced with this information an element of disillusionment can creep in which can spoil one's pleasure in the build, perhaps a case for ignorance is bliss for newcomers to the art.

One of the problems doing the rigging ala Heller is that they don't really explain what many of the lines (particularly running rigging) are for. It can therefore be difficult to understand the sense of it without some knowledge of model ship rigging.

That is why people such as Mr Tilley and myself advocate books such as those by C.N. Longridge which are invaluable  at whatever level of completion one is prepared to undertake.

I certainly agree with Mr Tilley that the Revell Cutty Sark and Constitution are large scale ship models that do have clear explanations and can be built  with a high personal satisfaction level, without the torture presented by Heller instructions.

Had I not built these two model first, my builds of the Victory and Soleil Royal would have been a much less pleasant experience.

To begin with, we should emphasize in any discussion like this that it's your model, and how you build it is entirely up to you.  Nobody (I hope) is going to pronounce that anything you do to it is "wrong."

If you look through the various Forum threads dealing with this kit (and there are quite a few of them), you'll see that there's been a lot of criticism (much of it from me) of many of the kit's parts.  In most cases, though, the problem is not how they look, but that the way they've been designed isn't practical. 

Some of that situation is not Heller's fault.  Styrene plastic is a wonderful material, but there are some purposes for which it just doesn't work well.  Eyebolts made out of styrene break when threads are tied to them and pulled taut.  Hammock netting stanchions made out of styrene break when they're accidentally bumped - which they almost certainly will be when the model is being rigged.  And the rigging blocks and deadeyes in the kit are just about unusable.  A real block or a deadeye has a groove around it and a hole (or several holes) through it.  A two-piece rigid mold cannot produce a part with a groove around it and a hole through it.  As I recall, the rigging blocks in the big Heller kits have little bumps molded on their edges; the modeler is told to tie a piece of thread around the block in such a way that the thread sort of zigzags around the little bumps.  That isn't just unrealistic; it's utterly impracticable.  The deadeyes aren't quite as bad; they don't have grooves around them, but they do have little "steps" molded in them that, at least in the case of the bigger sizes, probably could be made to hold the lines in position (though I'm not so confident about the smaller sizes). 

That's why so many serious modelers replace the eyebolts, blocks, and deadeyes with aftermarket or scratchbuilt parts - not because the replacement parts look so much better, but because they work so much better.  I speak from experience:  rigging a cast metal block from Bluejacket (www.bluejacketinc.com) is a whole lot easier than wrestling with those Heller abominations.  And it takes less than a minute to make an eyebolt from brass or copper wire - an eyebolt that will withstand any yank that's administered to the rope attached to it.

I am unaware of any aftermarket parts designed specifically for the Heller Victory - or any other plastic sailing ship kit.  In any case, changing the figurehead would only be one step toward making the Heller kit represent the ship's 1765 configuration.  In the first forty years of her life she went through several massive refits that changed her appearance quite substantially.  To reproduce her 1765 configuration you'd have to rebuild the stern galleries, the entry ports, and some of the bulwarks in addition to the bow; the position of the mainmast would have to be altered, the "copper sheathing" would have to be removed from the hull bottom, and the armament would have to be changed.  The kit does a pretty good job of showing what the Victory looked like in 1805 (though there's room for argument about that).  My suggestion would be to let well enough alone - unless you're prepared for a project that would be almost as complex and time-consuming as starting from scratch.

All the foregoing discussion of "how bad (or good) the model would be if built from the box" makes me wonder about something.  Over the years I've seen quite a few Constitutions and Cutty Sarks built more-or-less straight from the boxes of the 1/96-scale Revell kits.  The Revell designers, as we've discussed above, knew what they were doing; they figured out how to simplify some of the tricky parts in a practical way that enabled a competent modeler to obtain a nice-looking, impressive result - whether or not he really knew what he was doing.  A significant investment in aftermarket parts, and the acquisition of some reference materials beyond those in the box, certainly would make a Revell Cutty Sark or Constitution into a better-detailed and more accurate model, but they aren't necessary to produce a model that most observers would find really impressive and satisfactory.

On the other hand, I've never seen a completed Heller Soleil Royal or Victory that hadn't had a great deal of extra attention lavished on it.  We've had discussions of several that are in progress here in this Forum; most of the builders are adding lots of aftermarket parts, and so far as I know none of them is finished.  Has anybody out there ever built a Heller Soleil Royal or Victory without replacing any of the kit parts - and using at least one book or set of plans to augment those gawdawful "instructions"?  Has anybody even seen a finished Heller Soleil Royal or Victory with its yards dangling unattached to the masts? Or fitted successfully with hammock nettings made on that ridiculous "loom"?  Or with deadeyes, lanyards, shrouds, and ratlines successfully "rigged" on those silly, complicated jigs?  Or with the rigging lines actually zigzagging around the little bumps on the blocks?  Quite apart from the question of why anybody would try to build those kits that way, I have my doubts as to whether it could be done.

CrazedCossack wrote:

I purchased an airbrush just for this particular model, and I am wondering if anyone has used anything other than a thinner specified for modelling.  Would mineral spirits or lacquer thinner have the same effect?  I am using Humbrol enamel.  My biggest fear is ruining the paint or the airbrush.  As I mentioned earlier, I painted the railings on the stern galleries solid black (looks like a fat hornet from behind).  I do not have a whole lot of experience in painting the smaller details like the figurehead or foc'sle or ornamentation on the stern.  Does anyone have any useful hints or tips on how to make these finer details look respectable?

You know, I've tossed around and tried airbrush versus handbrushing, and to me at least, nothing beats handpainting.  It looks so much more scale than airbrushing, adding brush texture to the hull.  Now, I've used airbrushes for undercoats, say, for the black under the deck tan for grain effects, as well as for masts.  But I found that nothing looks better than a brush painted kit.  I tend to be a little more proud of my work also.

But, to tell you the truth, I've never used anything except water as a thinner.  It just works well for me since I only use acrylics.

As for the finer details, I use wash and drybrush techniques.  I can get wonderful shadows, aged paint effects, and worn wood effects...

Hope that helps...

Hey, back on the shroud/ratline subject...I found this type of "liquid plastic" that dries to a flat black tone.  I tried it out and was quite pleased with it.  Check your local hardware store.  I think it's in either the plumbing, glue, or electrical section.  Just a dab to cover where the ratline crosses the shroud and it holds quite well, though I haven't tried it over an entire set of shrouds, so I don't know how the whole finished product would hold together.  When it dries, it's very hard to notice, except for the fact that you cannot see any knots where there normally would be, and that would drive purists crazy...But viewing the ship as a display on a shelf or something like that, it would look very pleasing to the eye.

Grymm

If the Heller rigging instructions had been written competently, they'd look about like the rigging instructions in the Revell kits.  That is, they'd provide a clear, understandable guide to installing a somewhat simplified version of the real ship's rigging - sensible, rational, within the capacity of any decent modeler, while providing a basis for the experienced enthusiast to elaborate on if he/she wanted to.  The problem is not that the rigging of the Victory is inherently more complex than that of the Constitution.  It isn't.  (As a matter of fact, in some ways the Constitution has more rigging than the Victory.  The Constitution has four yards on each mast; the Victory - in the configuration kitted by Heller - only has three.)  The problem is that the Heller people didn't know what they were doing.

In fairness we probably should note one other factor that undoubtedly influenced the approach the Heller instruction "writers" took.  The old Revell kits originated in the 1950s and 1960s, before the plastic kit industry got internationalized.  The original issues of the Cutty Sark and Constitution kits were in English - period.  Heller, from the beginning of its existence, felt obliged to gear its kits to an international market.  I suspect that's one big reason why the instructions in the Soleil Royal and Victory kits rely so heavily on diagrams and numbers:  the writers wanted to keep the actual verbiage to a bare minimum, so the same instructions could be packed in the boxes going to France, Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy, the U.S., etc.  Nice idea - but it just doesn't work.  Combine that approach with the designers' fundamental ignorance of how sailing ships worked, and the result is a ripoff of the typical purchaser.  (The Revell people may not have operated on quite the level of artisanship that the Heller ones did - but at least Revell understood that yards are supposed to be fastened to masts.)

Make the model as you envision it.  That's what I always say.  As for the rigging, I've known several people who never went past the lower masts, believing the model was stunning at that stage.  And yes, the rigging instructions were truly written by satan.  They are insane.  JTilley mentioned a very good book that really makes it easier to do the rigging (yeah JTilley, I said that).  I'm currently deciphering the kit included rigging instructions and finding the book.  The bowsprit alone is the most insanely written rigging diagram I have ever seen.  But, had it been written cleaner, I imagine we would have had a 100+ page set of instructions.

Just build, paint, and enjoy.  That's the thrill of modelling.  Escape.

When I was working at the Mariners' Museum we got into a lengthy discussion about the terms "professional modeler" and "amateur modeler."  The subject came up when I was asked to draft a set of rules for the next of the once-every-five-years model competitions the museum sponsored in those days.  A couple of competitors in the first competition suggested that professionals and amateurs should compete in different categories.

After considerable discussion and consultation with some experts, we decided against that approach.  The competition was supposed to recognize quality models - in terms of research, accuracy, technique, etc.  There is no direct relationship between those attributes and the amateur/professional status of the modeler. 

The professional has some advantages over the amateur.  The professional can (indeed probably has to) devote many hours per day to the model; that lets him/her "get in the groove," which in some aspects of modeling can be highly desireable.  The pro also probably finds it easier to acquire tools, reference books, materials, etc.  (My workshop and library would be considerably better equipped if I could claim the money I spend on tools and books as business expenses on my tax return.)

On the other hand, the professional has to work according to a schedule, and has to be governed by a price.  If he/she makes a mistake and has to tear something apart and start over, that costs money.  For the same reason, the pro can't afford to experiment as much with new techniques and materials.  And the pro has to crank out models at a certain, considerable pace in order to make even a modest living.

One example may help.  I spent something in the region of a thousand hours on my little model of the frigate Hancock, spread extremely inconsistently over a period of 6 1/2 years.  If I'd been working on that model full-time, I might have been able to do it in six months (assuming I could have stuck with it for eight hours a day, five days a week - which I probably couldn't have done).  Shortly after I finished it, I happened to have it at a convention that was also attended by a friend who was in charge of the ship model brokerage at Mystic Seaport.  He tried briefly to convince me to let him sell the model for me.  He thought he could get, as he put it, "at least $15,000" for it.  (Those were 1984 dollars.)  That sounded tempting - till he went on to explain that his firm's standard commission was 40 percent.  That would have left me with $9,000 - before I paid income and Social Security (self-employment) taxes on it.  If I could have cranked out two models like that per year, and sold each of them immediately, I might have made $15,000 or $16,000 per year - more than the MM was paying me, as a matter of fact (which is why Tilley went to ECU), but hardly a generous income.  Take out of that the expenses of materials, tools, reference materials, etc., and you begin to see why so few professional modelers make really good scale models.  Some do.  (The names McNarry, Hahn, Napier, Ough, and Reed come to mind immediately.)  But most find that, in order to make a living, they have to make compromises in terms of detail and quality.  Rather than working up to a standard, they have to work down to a price.

The amateur, on the other hand, can build what he wants, when he wants to build it, to his own standard, to his own deadline.  He can experiment to his heart's content, redo anything that doesn't satisfy him, and have fun.  Most professional modelers I've met tell me they envy the amateurs.

I think this extract from the definition in the American Heritage Dictionary sums up the matter pretty well: 

amateur n. 1.  A person who engages in an art, a science, a study, or an athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession....(French, from Latin amator, lover, from amare, to love.)

Maybe we need some vocabulary words to distinguish between levels of quality in model building.  But "professional" and "amateur" just don't do the job.

I do want to correct something I typed in my last post, wherein I said that the truly completely rigged ship model hasn't been built yet.  I remembered one model that, I think, does in fact meet the definition:  the model of the whaling bark Lagoda, in the Whaling Museum at New Bedford, Massachusetts.  The model is on 1/2 scale.  (That's not 1/2" = 1',  but 1/2.)  The model is about fifty feet long.  It was built - and rigged - early in the twentieth century by people who had been involved in the construction and rigging of the real sailing whaleships, and it literally reproduces every part of the original.  Those who want to emulate that project and build 50'-long models certainly have my best wishes.  Everybody else needs to acknowledge that his/her models are simplified to some degree or other.

Straight forward and correct as always JTilley.  But, from my perspective, when putting one of my builds up against you Hancock, you are in no way, an amatuer.  My perspective, mind you.  But that's for another debate.

I actually got a hold of one of the books you mentioned.  I must be more stupid than I even thought.  Even that book (for the Soleil Royale), will take time to decipher. 

Yes, both of the Lindberg kits can have very complicated rigging.  But, as JTilley points out, with the right resources, you can complicate the rigging to your desire.  Straight from the box though, as 95% of the modelling population builds their kits, the rigging is a lot easier to work with as it is and still makes a fine looking model.

I've got a long way to go before any heavy rigging on either of the Heller kits, true, and planning is critical if you're going to use the instructions for rigging provided.  I've already got several pages of notes and I am looking for the books in order to have a reference.

And last, then I too will shut up, I come from the world of "build it from the box", so taking a kit beyond what is in the instructions, is still relatively new to me.  So I still have that perspective in my head.  A fine model can be built using the instructions, and a few pics of the actual ship (if available) and pics of other peoples builds will give you a great kit.  Just have fun and determine what works for you.  Post your work and finished builds on the forum for all to see.  Nobody here will ever negatively criticize your work. 

Just have fun with it and who cares what anyone else says...

Now, back to figuring out how to tie off this stay.....  :)

Grymm... 

I'll just make four points and then shut up.  First - the problem with the rigging instructions for the Heller Soleil Royal and Victory is not that they're so complex, but that the people responsible for writing them (especially the alleged "translations" into English) were incompetent.  There's no need whatever to turn the rigging of a ship model into such an incomprehensible mass of numbers and badly-drawn diagrams.  And some of the mistakes in those instructions are downright mind-boggling.  How anybody with any interest whatever in sailing ships could think that yards aren't fastened to masts is beyond my comprehension.  That such a person would attempt to tell somebody else how to rig a ship model - and charge money for the information - borders on criminality.

Second - the real ships represented by the two Lindberg kits actually had rigging that was, in most respects, just as complex as those represented by the big Heller kits.  The Lindberg "Jolly Roger" is a reissue of the French eighteenth-century frigate La Flore, whose rigging was quite similar in most respects to that of the Victory.  The Lindberg "Captain Kidd" is a reissue of the German two-decked warship Wappen von Hamburg, whose rigging looked quite a bit like that of the Soleil Royal.  Most modelers vary the amount of rigging they install according to the scale of the model.  Those two Lindberg kits are on a relatively small scale, hence most modelers install less rigging on them. 

The instructions in the big Revell kits do a reasonably good, intelligent job of simplifying rigging while preserving the basic concepts of it.  I don't think much of Revell's methods of handling shrouds, ratlines, deadeyes, and lanyards, but their rigging diagrams generally make sense.  They don't, for example, show how lower stays were secured around mastheads, and in general they make things less complicated than an experienced modeler would like them in an ideal world, but the people responsible for those diagrams clearly knew what they were doing.  The people responsible for the Heller ones didn't.

The truth of the matter is that every modeler simplifies rigging to some extent.  What varies from model to model, and from modeler to modeler, is the degree of simplification.  My little frigate Hancock has every piece of rope on it that I thought I could justify.  But the sheaves in its blocks don't move, the ends of its ratlines are knotted (rather than eye-spliced) to the shrouds, and some of the lines that ought to have three strands actually have two.  The model with absolutely complete, absolutely accurate rigging has yet to be built. 

In this respect, as in so many others, the plastic kit company that beat them all, in my personal opinion, was the Japanese firm Imai.  The Imai 1/125 Cutty Sark, in my opinion, is the best representation of that ship yet to be made available in kit form - plastic, wood, or otherwise.  And the rigging diagrams are skillfully conceived to present a simplification of the real ship's rigging - not an arbitrary collection of threads.  Unfortunately, Imai went out of business about twenty years ago.  Some of its kits have resurfaced recently under the Academy and Aoshima labels, though - but unfortunately the prices are pretty staggering.

Third - let's be careful with that word "amateur."  It doesn't imply anything whatever about the skill, ability, or knowledge of the modeler; it just indicates that he/she doesn't get paid for building models.  Some of the best, and some of the worst, ship models I've ever seen have been built by professionals.  (Think of those..things...that are sold in discount stores - the ones with spray-painted burlap "sails" and ludicrously oversized "cannon" sticking out of their hulls.  The people who built them were professional ship modelers.)  I've been building ship models for fifty years, and I'm an amateur - and have every intention of remaining one.  I've done some restoration work on old models for money, but the last time I actually took somebody's money for building a model was when I was in the sixth grade.  I have no desire whatever to build models for money - or to build them to deadlines.  I have to contend with enough deadlines in my real job. 

Fourth - in confronting a big ship model project planning ahead is always a good idea, but it makes sense to be most concerned with the jobs that have to be tackled in the immediate future.   As I've said several times already - and I know you're sick of hearing it - the only way to compensate for those awful instructions in the Heller kits is to get hold of a book or two.  Internet forums like this one are great, but there's just no way anybody can learn how to rig a ship model by means of web posts.  The books in question don't have to be expensive.  A used paperback copy of Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast can, as we established in another thread some weeks back, be had for less than $10.00, and contains everything anybody needs to know to rig a model of the Soleil Royal.  The Campbell plans of the Cutty Sark, which contain almost enough information to build the ship herself (on three sheets of paper), cost $15.00.  The Longridge book on the Victory, unfortunately, is pretty expensive, but it can be obtained through Inter-Library Loan. How any hobbiest spends his money and time is his business - certainly not mine.  But if you're working on the Soleil Royal and cash is scarce (as it is for most of us - certainly for me), wouldn't it make more sense to spend $10.00 on a copy of the Anderson book, rather than on a massive stock of rigging thread for a model you haven't started yet? 

I guarantee that the rigging of that ship, presented by an author who knows what he's talking about, will start to make sense almost immediately.  Instead of huge, incomprehensible diagrams, Dr. Anderson breaks the subject down into individual spars and lines.  He describes, in clear, friendly English, what each rope does, how big it is, and how it leads - and he gives you an individual drawing of it to clear up any questions.  He also includes a collection of photos of contemporary models, so you can see how everything fits together.  Armed with that information, you can decide for yourself which lines are the most important, and which can reasonably be omitted from your first model and left for your tenth one.

Now, as promised, I'll shut up.  These are your models.  It's not for me or anybody else to tell you how to build them.

starduster wrote:

Gentelmen, I've been reading all the posts here since I injured my leg the other day and am confined to my house for a few more days catching up on all the great modeling news, in reading about millard and jtilly's arthritis I'm 62 and I've had inflammatory rheumatoid arthritis since the early 1970's and for the last 3 years I've been taking weekly injections of methotrexate, a cancer drug to ease the pain and to reduce the redness and swelling in my joints, after years of almost paralyzing pain in my fingers and hands and shoulders not being able to raise my arms I'm able to do things now that I used to do, this truly is a wonder drug.   Questions, what scale is the Victory that you are all working on ? and would it help to have someone take photos of the various methods of making the shrouds and ratlines and the methods of tieing them off ? I think photos would be very helpfull in clarifying what has been written so far about this issue, what would the dia thread be for the Jolly Roger and the Captian Kidd  as my son has just bought these two ships he's getting intrested in these ships as well, thanks again for all the incredible informantion you guys have given.  Karl

Arthritis is minimal for me right now.  The nerve damage and back damage I got while in the military is primarily in my legs and lower back. Give me another 20 years and things will probably be different.  For now, anti-inflammatories and pain killers do the trick.

The Jolly Roger and Captain Kidd kits are wonderful kits and are actually just re-named ships of other kits.  The rigging is pretty simple.  Now, the Heller Victory and Soleil Royal are on an entire different level.  From a quality standpoint, IMHO, you can't find better molds.  Simply put, they are beautiful.  But, the instructions are a nightmare and many people say to just throw them out because of their complexity.  The Victory is a lot easier to work with than the Soleil Royal.  But, on both kits, the rigging is the most complicated and detailed that you will find on any plastic kit.

There has also been much debate on the Soleil Royale and the fact that Heller just flat out got many of the ships details and architecture wrong.  But, for me, I don't really worry about such things.  Both kits are a challenge and look stunning when complete.  Just be prepared to spend a heck of a lot of time on them.  I'm giving myself at least 1 year to work and finish the Victory, and that's being liberal.  It will probably take longer.

A couple of kits I do recommend that are not as complex as the Heller kits, but are a challenge in of themselves would be the Revell kits 1/96 constitution and 1/96 Cutty Sark.  I am busy rigging the Cutty Sark and it looks incredible and is a blast to do.   Just check Ebay and you'll find them being auctioned all the time....

The kit is the 1/100 scale Heller HMS Victory.  The line included with the kit would be adequate for the average modeller but out of the question for the master modeller.  I'm kind of in-between, leaning towards the more amatuer, due to limited but growing experience with rigging.  Tying off rigging, siezing, and whatnot is not really an issue.  Simplifying the rigging to something that looks good to the untrained eye and adequate to a more trained eye is what I'm going for. 

Thanks for the diameter suggestions.  I'll look into the sizes and make my purchases...thanks again.

     Gentelmen, I've been reading all the posts here since I injured my leg the other day and am confined to my house for a few more days catching up on all the great modeling news, in reading about millard and jtilly's arthritis I'm 62 and I've had inflammatory rheumatoid arthritis since the early 1970's and for the last 3 years I've been taking weekly injections of methotrexate, a cancer drug to ease the pain and to reduce the redness and swelling in my joints, after years of almost paralyzing pain in my fingers and hands and shoulders not being able to raise my arms I'm able to do things now that I used to do, this truly is a wonder drug.

  Questions, what scale is the Victory that you are all working on ? and would it help to have someone take photos of the various methods of making the shrouds and ratlines and the methods of tieing them off ? I think photos would be very helpfull in clarifying what has been written so far about this issue, what would the dia thread be for the Jolly Roger and the Captian Kidd  as my son has just bought these two ships he's getting intrested in these ships as well, thanks again for all the incredible informantion you guys have given.  Karl