SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

USCG Training Ship Eagle in 1/96 scale

11531 views
34 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
USCG Training Ship Eagle in 1/96 scale
Posted by Goshawk on Friday, August 18, 2006 10:27 AM

In my last post regarding how to remove fuzz from rigging line, the thread wandered off into a question posed as to what would make a good subject if a major plastic kit manufacturer were to create a brand new tooled sailing ship kit for the mass market.

Many good suggestions were made, but I was wondering if the USCG Training Ship Eagle in 1/96 scale would be something worthwhile. To my knowledge, this somewhat contemporary well known sailing vessel has only been done well in 1/350 scale by Imai and is no longer in production. The old Revell kit, as has been noted, is plagued with inaccuracies not the least of all being an incorrect hull shape. So why not a large scale Eagle? And even the die hard wood ship kit builders would have to admit that a plastic hull would be a better way of representing the Eagles steel hull rather than trying to make a wood hull look like steel. As a matter of fact, as far as I know, the only wood showing on the Eagle is the deck, everything else is painted (save some minor trim work). So when you think about it, it really does lend itself to an injection molded kit.

So now the question that comes to mind is, do plans exist that can be used to create an accurate Eagle? Did any of the wood ship kit companies ever do a large scale Eagle? I know there were some small scale ones done in very simplified form, but I don't recall seeing one in 1/8 inch scale.

Can't you just imagine one in the same scale as your Revell Cutty Sark and/or Constitution? Now how cool would that be?

But alas, I guess the chances of it actually aver happening are slim and nil.

Maybe a resin kit...

Something to think about anyhow.

Tory

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2006
Posted by thunder1 on Friday, August 18, 2006 11:52 AM

Hi Tory,

What a great idea, it would make an impressive model in a larger scale. But the Eagle could only be representated as a training ship, only the paint scheme and a couple of deck fittings/small boats would make it a "customized" model.

Consider a model of the cutter "BEAR" in 1/96. Different paint schemes, mast arrangements, sails, and armament would make an interesting model. Heck the BEAR even carried a Grumman "Duck" in WWII, imagine a sailing ship model that could be modeled in different configurations over a 80+ year career! The kit would have a nice history book of the ship and all the parts required for the many modifications, pick your era! Well the chances of that be offered by a modeling manufacturer are about as possible as me being the King of England but its always good to wonder what if....you know the HARRIET LANE would make a nice 1/96 model... 

Warm regards

Mike Maynard USCG(Ret)  

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Friday, August 18, 2006 2:41 PM

Tory

   That would be a great idea.The Eagle would make a great model especially in that scale.The Eagle was commissioned in 1936 as the Horst Wessel.There where five identical ships built known as the "five sisters" They were Tovarish(Russia),SagresII(Portugal),Mircea(Romania)and Gorch Gock II(Germany).If you came out with one kit you could build these five ships the photo etch people would be able to come out with a lot of parts to change ships.

    The large's scale model of the Eagle in plastic is the 1/200 Imai kit.They also did the Sagres II. I'm working on that Eagle kit know.It very nice and very detailed,but needs photo etch,rails and stairs.That kits over thirty years old.

      Trumpeter or Zvezda are the only companies coming out with new sailing kits.Perhaps send a suggestion to them.

Rod

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Friday, August 18, 2006 7:20 PM
The biggest (and best) plastic kit of the Eagle is the old Imai 1/200 scale kit.  It can be hard to find, but is better than the old Revell kit.

Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Walworth, NY
Posted by Powder Monkey on Friday, August 18, 2006 9:25 PM
Mantua makes the Gorch Fock as a plank on bulkhead kit. It is listed as 1:90 scale.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, August 18, 2006 11:49 PM

The answer to the basic question of whether good enough plans are available to make such a kit is - yes.  The Coast Guard Historian's Office has quite a few accurate drawings of the Eagle, though they come from a variety of sources.  A few builder's drawings of the Horst Wessel (the Eagle's original name) survived the war.  In more recent times draftsmen hired by the Coast Guard have made measured drawings of her in conjunction with various refits and other projects - and I got hired to do an outboard profile/sail plan of her in her 1994 configuration.  If I remember right, the materials I got from Washington included such things as working drawings of the boat davits on the quarterdeck - which were recycled from a Treasury-class cutter that was being decommissioned at the time.

Whether an Eagle kit could be converted to any of the other ships in the class would depend on how picky the modeler was.  All five of them differed significantly in length.  I don't have all the dimensions in front of me, but if I remember right the Horst Wessel (later Eagle) was about twenty feet longer than the Gorch Fock (later Tovarisch). 

One source of confusion about all this has always been the set of plans drawn by the late, great Harold Underhill.  He made those drawings in conjunction with his book, Sail Training and Cadet Ships.  He was working from the original plans of the Gorch Fock.  In the text of the book, Underhill gives the lengths of all the ships in the class, and is completely up front about the fact that the plans only represent one of the ships.  Unfortunately the plans have been sold by several vendors over the years as representing the Eagle.  It's my understanding that, with the notable exception of the Imai 1/200-scale kit, every commercial Eagle kit ever produced (including the old Revell one) has been based on the Underhill plans.  (I don't know about the Mantua one - but frankly I have yet to see a Mantua kit that merited the label "scale model.") 

Another problem is that the Eagle has undergone many modifications in the course of her career - modifications ranging from armament (she carried a few anti-aircraft guns in her German years) to the change of name on her wheelbox to the construction of a deckhouse at the break of the quarterdeck to the painting of the "Coast Guard Slash" on her bow to the addition of a mass of antennas on her mizzenmast - and big electric floodlights at the top of each mast, to illuminate the deck during on-board parties and ceremonies.  I haven't seen her closeup since I made that drawing in 1994, but I'm quite sure she's changed in some noticeable way since then.  The kit manufacturer would have to be careful, and determine just what configuration the kit was to represent.

I agree completely that the Eagle would make a beautiful subject for a 1/96-scale plastic kit.  (Believe, me, though:  plenty of traditionalist ship modelers do think wood is the only "legitimate" material for a ship model - regardless of what material the real ship was made of.)  Maybe one of the big manufacturers will read this thread and spring into action.  And if anybody thinks that's actually going to happen - well, I can also get you a good price on a bridge in Brooklyn.

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

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Saturday, August 19, 2006 9:00 AM
 jtilley wrote:

Believe, me, though:  plenty of traditionalist ship modelers do think wood is the only "legitimate" material for a ship model - regardless of what material the real ship was made of

I know, I know, although I've never been able to fully understand why. I can certainly appreciate that sort of thinking if the subject being modeled was in fact constructed of wood. But what sense does it make to use wood for a ship that was constructed of metal. I would think the "traditionalist" would insist that the model be made of metal as well, anything else being a compromise. Using wood to represent a steel ship is no better or worse in my opinion than plastic.

As for obtaining plans for the Eagle, how might I go about doing that? I've actually produced a few resin kits in my time (automotive subjects admittedly) and if I had a good set of plans and some interest might be persuaded to carve at least a hull of the Eagle for starters.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:07 AM

Wood ship modelers fall into several categories.  Some of them are genuine scale modelers - and their ranks include some of the best modelers in the world.  Those people think rationally.  They sometimes express reservations about plastic in terms of its durability.  (There's some logic there; styrene hasn't been around long enough to prove it will last for centuries.  I part company, though, with those who contend that wood is categorically more stable over the long term than plastic.  I've seen too many wood models that have fallen apart, due to environmental problems or, in some cases, the inherent instability of the wood.)  Others, I'm afraid, get into the hobby because of a strange romance that seems to be attached to it.  They aren't particularly interested in maritime history, they don't especially care what real ships look like, and they get suckered in by the HECEPOB (that's Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank On Bulkhead) kit manufacturers, whose products, for the most part (there are exceptions) don't meet any reasonable definition of the term "scale model."  Those people sneer at plastic kits because they aren't "real" models.  Personally I have little patience with those folks - but to each his (or her) own.  It's not for me to pronounce that something's wrong with somebody else's hobby.

The first step in researching any Coast Guard ship should be a visit to the Coast Guard website, www.uscg.mil.  Click on the "History" icon and you'll be on the web page of the Historian's Office.  There you'll find instructions for submitting inquiries about photos, plans, etc.  The current Coast Guard Historian, Dr. Bob Browning, is a first-rate gent and understands the requirements of modelers.  (There is, in fact, a small "Modeler's Section" of the web page.)  He also, unfortunately, is perpetually swamped.  His office and his staff are tiny, and I suspect it takes him a while to answer all the queries he gets.  But he does answer them.

Taubman Plans Service (www.taubmansonline.com) also sells plans for the Eagle.  The listings are confusing, because she appears under at least three differenct catalog numbers - including one that gives her a hull length of 66" on 1/96 scale.  (That, of course, is ridiculous.)  I'm not sure what's included in any of those packages.  The Taubman printed catalog includes a small reproduction of a sail plan; it's clearly the Eagle all right - not the old Underhill drawings of the Gorch Fock.  I think some, at least, of those Taubman plans are copies of Coast Guard drawings - which means they're thoroughly reliable, though the amount of detail may be variable.  The Taubman website includes a phone number and e-mail address; I'm sure a phone call or e-mail would clarify the situation. 

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

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Walworth, NY
Posted by Powder Monkey on Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:17 AM
 jtilley wrote:

It's my understanding that, with the notable exception of the Imai 1/200-scale kit, every commercial Eagle kit ever produced (including the old Revell one) has been based on the Underhill plans.



I beleive that the Imai 1/350 scale model is also the correct length. I took the plan for that ( boxed as a kit from Lee) and scaled it up to the size of Dr. Tilley's drawing. It is a pretty good match. I also have the old Scientific wooden kit, and the difference in length is noticable

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Saturday, August 19, 2006 9:55 PM

I got my copy of the USCG Eagle plans from the Coast Guard Museum Northwest, in Seattle.  A very modeler-friendly staff, and they sell a wide variety of USCG plans for reasonable prices.  A google search will turn up contact info.

One thing to watch out for-- the plans are a mix of scales.  IIRC, there is a set of USCG general arrangement drawings and deck plans in 1/96, . but the rigging plan is in german, and drawn in 1/100 scale.

Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:19 PM

Regarding the Imai 1/350 Eagle - I haven't had one in my hands for many years, so I shouldn't pretend to know for sure what plans it's based on.  On 1/350 scale, that discrepancy of about 20 feet works out to less than 3/4 of an inch.  In photos, to my eye, it looks a little short for its beam and the space between the main deckhouse and the mainmast looks like it might be a little cramped.  But pictures can be deceptive about things like that. 

It's also quite possible that the drawing on the isntruction sheet was recycled from the Imai 1/200 kit - whose dimensions are dead on target. 

In any case, if the Eagle has the right proportions, those of her near-sisters in that 1/350 series must be wrong.  Imai used the same hull for all of them.

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

  • Member since
    May 2006
Posted by thunder1 on Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:41 PM

Professor Tilley states that ..."people sneer at plastic kits because they aren't 'real' models." This is true but I have found in my experience that the same holds true for plastic builders vs wooden builders. Consider: in 1990 a ship model competetion was held in Newburyport Mass(USA), the theme being USCG models(celebrates the USCG 200th anniversary). All modeling mediums was represented, many catogories, a lot of talent was present at the Custom house museum that summer. Well, Mr.Tilley  was one of four judging staff, all the judges were giants in their field, men of modeling and nautical knowledge.

  I was a first place catagory winner with my model of a Coast Guard motor lifeboat(scratchbuilt, plank on frame, 3/4"=1') the famous Chatham MLB 36500. Believe me, I was shocked that I won anything, I'd never been in a competition before. And the competition was very worthy, some of those entries were most excellent both in research as well as quality of workmanship. And I don't think any of the entrants was a professional builder, just regular guys  in a hobby for the enjoyment. Feeling pretty good about my building "prowness"(ha-ha)  I entered a IPMS contest  that fall, my first foray into a general modeling contest. Entering my "award" winner, I garnered a fourth place, beaten by a plastic kit destroyer, a plastic Heller galleon, and,  gasp, a resin model of a frog man sitting on a 1/2 model of a one man sub, probably took one night to paint it and glue it to a base. Being the good sport that I amBig Smile [:D] I asked an aquaintence how did I go wrong? After all I reasoned, I put 6 months of work in this model, even the helm wheel was an accurate copy of the real one, took me a week just to figure how to fabricate that one  item. And my model was judged by professional folks, not some deputised club members. His answer was simply "this is a plastic kit contest, your wooden model doesn't belong here" . I was stunned that he said that considering the metal painted figures, flat art and resin  kits that were present at the predominately plastic contest. But I detected that the plastic builders were not impressed with anything so esoteric as getting a set of plans, and turning a pile of wood into an accurate representation of a real wooden ship/boat. In fact I was  politely advised by a judge not to enter anymore wood models in a plastic competetion, they just wouldn't be a  winner.  I took that man's advice.The following year I entered a plastic, photo-etched, highly detailed Queen Mary(kit) and took first place, ya gotta play by the un-written rule I guess. I feel there is a certain mindset of "us against them" in both the wood and plastic communites. Too bad, both groups have a lot to offer in technique and experience. Just my opinion, any thoughts....

Regards

Mike M.

All around "good sport"

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Sunday, August 20, 2006 6:22 PM

Well Mike, I'll have a crack at your question. IPMS competition is a little bit hard to understand if you’re not familiar with it. Accuracy has almost no merit, models are judged almost exclusively on technical merit. In other words, how well the model was built. Is everything aligned perfectly (stantions, masts, rigging, etc.), are all seems filled that should be, is the paint free of brush strokes and smooth, are the decals aligned perfectly and is the decal film visible, etc? This usually eliminates most of the models on the table. Once that is determined, than attention to detail is judged. And finally, if there is still need of more eliminating factors, accuracy might be called into question, providing someone with proper credentials is available to make the call.

At first, I didn't understand why this style was utilized, but having been in more than my share of contests, it does make some sense. For one thing, if you as a modeler can't get the basics down, all the embellishment in the world won't hide the fact that the model was still poorly built. Also, given the sheer number and diversity of models entered in competitions, to expect the judges to be experten in all aspects of each category is unreasonable. Anyhow, it works for some modelers, and doesn't for others. Personally, I don't ever enter a competition with the hope or desire of winning, I just enjoy sharing my work with others. If the judges see fit to award my work with a trophy, fine. If not, fine. I know how well I built my model, and where the mistakes lie, and surely don't need anyone telling me how good or bad a job I did. I am my biggest critic. Which is why I am usually very surprised if anything I enter does win!

As for the "us against them" mentality, I don't understand it, and certainly don't subscribe to it. If a model is well built, I couldn't care less if it was built of plastic, wood, or paper mache', a good model is a good model...period. And I've learned that exploring all types of mediums can help in whatever your preferred medium is. I've built balsa wood flying models, plastic kits, resin, scratch built, you name it using every type of material you could imagine. As far as I'm concerned, what you use to build your model is your business, I'm only concerned with the result. For instance, if you are building a steel hulled ship, but prefer to use wood for constructing it, that’s fine by me...providing I don't see wood grain where the full sized ship used steel. However, if you can achieve a steel smooth finish with wood, more power to you.

Anyhow, that's my two cents worth!

Tory

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:19 PM

Thunderjet

    What Goshawk wrote is very true.I'm a IPMS National judge and proud of it.I the IPMS contest first things looked at are the build .No seams, straight mast nothing crooked, no glue showing mainly basic building skills. In the sailing ships catagory if you are building a wood model  no shiny brass cannon's and fittings these where not really how a sailing vessel looked.I know people spend a lot of time on the wooden ship hulls with the double planking. But if they have gaps in the planking the'll be judged for that.Are these models still great models yes,should the modeler be proud damn right. Now if models are equal in build thenthey go accuracy.But let me tell you no judge is going to know everthing about every sailing ship out there or gray ship either.If a model is 1/4" to long in scale he isn't going to know it and if judge tells you he measured your ship and thats why it lost I'd questioned that.In 2001 in Chicago a very well known pro builder brought a great ship to the nationals.It took second it had glue and seams showning it was still a great ship his customer loves it. but it didn't meet the IPMS criteria what we judge for.

   This year in KC a wood ship took the sailing class it was very well built. I took second with a plastic model. This gentleman's model  was build better than mine and I knew it.This year a basically wood ship the USS Kidd won best ship and best of show.The IPMS has wood, metal, resin vaccu formed models all competeing .Its about the only contest that lets everything enter.whenyou enter a contest you have to know what the judgng criteria is and go with. If you go to local shows the ship judging will be less because of the lack of knowledgeable people.

   Remember build for your self.If you go to a contest know the rules.How a group runs a contest is not wrong just know what's in store. We all know we don't build perfected models.Everyone of them has a problem.But keep building thats the fun.And bring them to a contest so other people can see your work that's the fun.

Rod

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:24 PM

Since this thread seems to have run off in this particular direction, I can't resist the temptation to get up (briefly, I promise) on a soapbox I've occupied before.  I don't believe in model competitions.  I've taken part in quite a few over the past fifty years.  I suppose it's conceivable that somebody just might talk me into entering another one someday, but I doubt it - and I'll never judge one again under any circumstances. 

I concluded a long time ago that competitions do at least as much harm to the hobby as they do good for it.  One big reason is that, as Goshawk and Millard have pointed out, each contest has different standards and different points of emphasis.  At this point in my life I just can't get interested in arbitrary standards established by others.    The most egregious example of this kind of thing is a highly prestigious European ship modeling organization that, as I understand it, bans weathering from all models in the contests it sponsors.  To my notion, that attitude stifles the creativity and individuality that, in my view, make the hobby worthwhile.  I greatly value the opinions of other modelers, but I'm not about to change my approach to the hobby just to win a trophy in a contest.  If I do win it, all it means is that, in the opinion of those particular judges, my model was better than the others that happened to be entered - i.e., that Donald McNarry, Harold Hahn, and quite a few other modelers who obviously are better than I am didn't show up.  At this point in my life I don't feel like I have anything to prove to anybody, and I don't need a judge to tell me one of my models is superior or inferior to somebody else's.  I'm perfectly capable of figuring that out for myself. 

Another problem with those events is that they tend to bring out the worst in the competitors.  I've made a fool of myself more than once at model competitions, and I've witnessed some displays of temper and childishness on the part of so-called adult modelers that were downright embarrassing.  The last competition I judged was the one sponsored by the Mariners' Museum in 1990.  The best models in that competition were among the finest I've ever seen; the opportunity to study them up close was one I'll always treasure.  But I've never seen such a collection of babyish prima donnas in my life as I did when that contest was over.  One loser pestered the museum with e-mails for months, claiming the judges were incompetent, or crooked, or blind, or whatever.  He eventually reached the point of threatening to report the museum to the authorities.  (The letters stopped coming when he was informed that there are no such authorities.) 

I continue to be a booster of the concept of non-competitive model exhibitions.  Our ship model club (which operates out of the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort; 2:00 on the last Saturday of each month, September through May; next meeting September 30, 2006, visitors and new members always welcome) holds such an event every May in conjunction with the Museum's annual Wooden Boat Show.  All the club members bring in their models, which get exhibited to the public in the Museum auditorium.  I take digital pictures of all of them, with photo lights, and a studio-type background, and make CDs of the photos to pass out to all the members at the next meeting.  We set up a booth where kids can make their own models of fishing trawlers, using "kits" prepared by the guys in the boat restoration shop.  (Price: $3.00.  Average time expended on each model:  15 minutes.  Typical reaction:  sheer ecstasy.)  Everybody talks ship models, every modeler comes away with new ideas, everybody has a great time, and nobody gets mad at anybody else.  That, to me, is what the hobby is all about.

I know lots of people get a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction from model contests, and it certainly isn't for me to say those people shouldn't take part in such events.  But they're not for me.

Well, that wasn't as brief as I hoped.  But I've ranted on the subject at greater length on other threads.  Sorry about that.

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

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Monday, August 21, 2006 9:20 AM

All good points John.

The problem I have with non-competitive model exhibitions is finding them! I wish I lived nearer to your club, I would most certainly attend a meeting to see what your group is all about, but alas I am in New Jersey (I know..."What exit?"!). I do belong to a small but terrific model club that welcomes all types of modeling in any medium or scale. We do not discriminate or alienate any one who builds anything. And fun is paramount. We are somewhat informal and do not have competitions. We do have theme nights and have done a group build or two, but otherwise we all build what we like and how we like.

The one benefit of competition is that it does force modelers to actually FINISH something to display. You can't enter a half finished model in competition, at least not expecting to win anything. When I belonged to another model club, we held several competitions each year. There were the usual sour grapes and hurt feelings that go along with contests, but at least every model displayed was finished. With my present club, since there isn't any real impetus to finish the model for a theme night or group build, a lot of guys simply don't finish their models and either bring the model in whatever state of completion it is that night, or don't bother at all. So which is better? I don't really know, although having the contest force the discipline to finish the model seems to be needed by more than half the modelers I've known. I personally will knock myself out to finish a model in time, whether for a theme night, group build or contest. But that's me and I can't expect others to work to my discipline. However, I do enjoy viewing finished models, not half or mostly finished models.

Just my opinion though, not worth anything more than that!

Tory

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: vernon hills illinois
Posted by sumpter250 on Monday, August 21, 2006 11:26 AM
 Some years back, I attended a Northern Illinois Modelers Open (NIMO) contest. I entered a kitbashed C&NW/Metra commuter train, and a freelanced "space ship". I left with two second place awards.( both catagories were sparsely represented). What I really got out of the contest, was a whole new respect for "fit and finish". The difference between 1st, and 2nd place in the car catagory, was the prescence of a partial fingerprint on the inside of a fender well. I did not envy the judges, who had to make the final decision. When I said respect for fit and finish, it was in the sense that, that level was attainable. I may never attain that level, but it is not, a goal without merit. One can also respect something, without forcing themselves to achieve it, in order to be satisfied. The backside of awards?, The models that I have recieved awards for, may have been the best I could do at the time, but I can do better now, so the awards don't have the same impact. The important thing is, the competition provided incentive to improve, not to compete. The competition provided access to higher levels of quality, to which I could attempt to reach, and finally, the understanding that all the awards, rapidly lose their meaning, because, as you continue to build, you improve, and go beyond the point that the award represented. If you view contests as a victory/defeat moment, you will always come up short. If you can view contests as a learning experience, you can benefit from them. The most important thing to remember, is the relaxation, pleasure, and satisfaction you can get from your hobby...my hobby, I do for me.

Lead me not into temptation ..................I can find it myself

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Monday, August 21, 2006 12:20 PM

   I know contest are not for everyone.But I've found that by going I've improved my skills two full.Most of the time we built in total seclusion working at our craft.I find that going to contest gets me in contact with other modelers we get to share our ideas.for me seeing a model in person really helps me learn.I've found more than 98% of all modelers like to share and talk about there stuff.You'll always run into a couple of people who are on the negative side,but hey go down to the local store and you'll probable running into the same kind.

    Alot of IPMS contest have just display tables for guys that don't want to compete but want to show there model's.I know at our contest last year we had over forty models on that table.

  Sorry for taking this thread down the wrong road. Lets get the 1/96 Eagle Kit yeah buddy.

Rod

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Monday, August 21, 2006 4:06 PM
 jtilley wrote:

The first step in researching any Coast Guard ship should be a visit to the Coast Guard website, www.uscg.mil.  Click on the "History" icon and you'll be on the web page of the Historian's Office.  There you'll find instructions for submitting inquiries about photos, plans, etc.  The current Coast Guard Historian, Dr. Bob Browning, is a first-rate gent and understands the requirements of modelers.  (There is, in fact, a small "Modeler's Section" of the web page.)  He also, unfortunately, is perpetually swamped.  His office and his staff are tiny, and I suspect it takes him a while to answer all the queries he gets.  But he does answer them.

John,

I just put a letter in the mail to the Coast Guard requesting information on plans of the Eagle. I will wait for them to respond and hope they can supply me with what I need. We'll see.

I really feel strongly that a decent large scale model of this ship would be a winner. Once I have the plans in hand, I will see whether doing it as a resin kit (actually mixed media would be a more appropriate term) is feasable. I will from time to time come back here for suggestions and feedback as well as posting some progress photos. One thing I can promise, it won't be happening quickly. I work a full time job that is 2 hours away from my home, so with 4 hours of my day spent commuting I don't have a lot of spare time. But if I decide to do it, it will eventually happen.

Stay tuned...

 

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:42 AM

Millard, Thunderjet, and Sumpter all make extremely valid points about model competitions.  (Thunderjet - I remember that Newburyport contest quite well; it was the next-to-the-last one I ever judged.  One of the other judges was Bob Browning, the CG Historian.  There were some superb models in that room; you have every reason to be proud that yours got such a high rating.  Another thing I remember is that as soon as the event was over, all four judges had one high priority on their minds:  get ouf of town, ASAP.)

Back in the days when I was entering contests, I had several experiences similar to Thunderjet's:  I entered my models in IPMS competitions and didn't win anything, because the judges (and almost all the other competitors) were airplane modelers and didn't bother to look at ship models.  Some sort of peculiar, counterproductive "group think" seems to take over on such occasions.  That's one of the many reasons I quit entering. 

I agree completely that looking at other modelers' work is an excellent way to improve one's own work - and to increase the amount of fun one gets out of the hobby.  I thoroughly enjoy studying, and learning from, other people's work; I can't think of a single occasion when I've been to a model exhibition and failed to learn something from it.  (That includes all types of modeling.  Model railroaders, aircraft modelers, and figure painters all have things to teach ship modelers - and vice versa.  In my personal opinion, the five dumbest words in the vocabulary of the model builder are:  "I'm not interested in that.")  And such events do stimulate people to get things finished.  But I don't see why any sort of evaluation has to be part of the process. 

Our ship model club decided early in 2006 to have a group project:  anybody who wanted to participate would build a model of a Chesapeake Bay skipjack.  There would be no judging and no prizes; we simply put together all the sources of information we had (including books, plans, magazine articles, and photos we'd taken on trips to the Bay), with the idea of trying to finish some skipjack models in time for the annual exhibition in May.  (I didn't take part, because I had another model under way, but I did contribute some plans, books, and pictures.)  The club membership varies from meeting to meeting, but it has somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty regular members.  More than a dozen skipjacks got finished in time for the exhibition. 

Goshawk is right, unfortunately:  non-competitive model exhibitions are relatively rare.  I wish that would change. I repeat:  I'm not trying to launch a holy crusade to wipe out model contests.  Lots of people seem to enjoy them, and it's not for me to say they shouldn't.  I would, however, encourage anybody who's involved in a model club to give the non-competitive approach a try.  It might be a dud, but you might be pleasantly surprised.

Goshawk - I'll be interested to hear about what you get from Bob Browning's office.  He's an extremely busy man, and has to travel a lot; I suspect it may take him a while to get to your query.  But I'm confident that he or one of his assistants will give you a serious, helpful answer eventually.

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

  • Member since
    October 2005
Posted by CG Bob on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:17 AM
 thunderjet wrote:

  I was a first place catagory winner with my model of a Coast Guard motor lifeboat(scratchbuilt, plank on frame, 3/4"=1') the famous Chatham MLB 36500. Believe me, I was shocked that I won anything, I'd never been in a competition before. And the competition was very worthy, some of those entries were most excellent both in research as well as quality of workmanship. And I don't think any of the entrants was a professional builder, just regular guys  in a hobby for the enjoyment.Regards

Mike M.

All around "good sport"

I've seen Mike's model of the 36500 and can attest that it is a "4.0" model..  Nice job stew burner.

Bob Gesking, USCG (Retired)

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:12 AM

At the risk of repeating myself--   You're likely to get much faster response from the Coast Guard Museum Northwest in Seattle.  You can google the name to find the contact number, call them, and get a set of plans on the way to you in a jifffy.

I know  the CG Historian's Office is overworked and under-staffed.  You'll proabably have a bit of a wait.....

I can't say enough nice things about the staff at the Seattle Museum......

 

Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    June 2005
  • From: Walworth, NY
Posted by Powder Monkey on Friday, August 25, 2006 11:14 AM

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Friday, August 25, 2006 11:23 AM

Can anyone confirm that these are the plans that are accurate? I know jtilley had mentioned that Revell used the wrong plans when they did their Eagle, I wouldn't want to make the same mistake.

Professor Tilley, are you out there?

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, August 25, 2006 11:50 AM

The seller on 3-bay says there are five sheets.  Three are illustrated.  The one on the left - the combined sail plan and outboard profile - is the one I drew for the Coast Guard Historian's Office in 1994.  (It's in the public domain; there's nothing illegal about anybody's selling it, but copies can be had for free from the Coast Guard.)  The hull lines appear to be the set that was prepared in the early nineties by the Coast Guard in conjunction with a major overhaul of the ship; I'm pretty sure they're based on direct measurements, and are therefore accurate.  The simpler sailplan appears to be one of the surviving German drawings of the Horst Wessel, and therefore are also reliable - insofar as they depict her as-built configuration.  I don't have any way of knowing what the other two sheets are.

This looks to me like a package of plans somebody ordered from either the CG Historian's Office or the CG Museum in Seattle.  The plans are fine, but there probably are cheaper ways to get them.

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

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Friday, August 25, 2006 11:55 AM

Thanks John, I appreciate you reviewing them.

Since they're not going cheap (relatively speaking) I might just wait until I hear from the CG Historian's office.

Tory

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:09 PM
In the other thread that had also sort of morphed into a discussion about a USCGC Eagle in 1/96, "Goshawk" mentioned that he was thinking about looking into the feasability of doing an Eagle in resin. 

Another alternative might be fiberglas-- that way the hull would appeal to both static and RC modelers. (I'd love to build an RC model of Eagle someday...) 


Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:44 PM

That's a very good idea, although I have to admit that I just HATE working with fiberglass!

Would the R/C folks really be interested in building something that small as an R/C boat? In 1/96 scale the Eagle would be 28 7/8 inches long at the waterline with a beam of 4 7/8 inches. Isn't that a little tight for R/C operations?

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:29 PM
You're right, it is bit small-- I'd probably build it as a power-only model.  (I  have seen the Revell Kearsarge and Alabam kits converted to RC models, and they are about the same size, so it can be done.)

The advantage to 1/96 scale is that this is a common scale for RC warships-- lots of models, hulls, and fittings are available in this scale.    It would look cool in the water next to a 33 inch long Bear class cutter and a 47 inch long Hamilton.  (I have a Hamilton, someone else in my RC boat club has a nice Bear.)

If I was to build her as a sailing  model, I think I'd double the scale to 1/48. 



Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: New York City
Posted by Goshawk on Saturday, September 16, 2006 9:31 AM

Just an update for all those interested. Yesterday, a tube came in the mail from the USCG containing six sheets of plans for the Eagle. Three sheets were in 1/8" scale of the various deck plans, one sheet was in 1/100 scale of the sail and rigging with all writing in German, one sheet in no listed scale was of all the hull lines, and one enormous sheet in 1/4" scale was of a hull section showing all the decks and fittings.

Not all in the same scale, but pretty comprehensive none the less. And all for free. Kudos to the Coast Guard for their support of modelers.

Now, if I do create a 1/96-scale model kit of this ship, will I owe Blohm und Voss a royalty payment?

And more important, would anyone actually purchase it?

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.