Cathead

Thanks again to all of you. I've moved on to my next project, the Corel revenue cutter.

Sorry, Glenn, I don't have any special insight. Any idea of Heroine used heat guards around the chimneys? You make a good point about consistently keeping it simple, rather than extrapolating beyond current knowledge. Part of my questions was when/how you're going to run the chimneys through the boiler deck. Will you make a separate assembly leading up to that deck, for ease of installation soon, then drop the rest of the chimneys in on top later on? Or will you make it all one assembly that you'll run through the boiler deck framing, and plank around later on?

In this context, "western" means the river basins west of the Appalachian Mountains. When steamboat technology was developing in the early 19th century, this area (including the Ohio basin) was still the frontier, and nearly isolated from the developed part of the country along the Atlantic seaboard. Much of the design and technology that went into steamboat construction on the upper Ohio River, where almost all the boats used along the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers (and their tributaries) were built, was fairly indigenous and not imported from elsewhere. This is especially true since conditions on these rivers were very different from most rivers draining east into the Atlantic. So we talk about "western river boats" to mean the unique set of designs and construction methods that arose in that region, distinguishing these craft from the very different boats built for eastern rivers like the Hudson. Even as late as the Civil War, this region was still considered the "West"; it wasn't until the development of railroads that the Mississippi basin really became integrated into the rest of the country. It gets a bit messier once you go west of the Rockies, to boats operating on the Columbia and other Pacific rivers. But as far as I know, these mostly derived their designs from the original "western" boats and so still qualify as such.

Roger, do you know if similar designs evolved along the Missouri, where conditions were quite different, and even harsher, than on the Ohio? Given that most Missouri River boats were built along the upper Ohio, it's certainly logical that the design you describe was supplied to boats destined for the Missouri, but I could also see a new subdesign developing in that basin to meet unique local conditions. I've never thought much about this aspect of Western River steamboats before, and appreciate you bringing it up.

Speaking from my own knowledge, many riverboats used a dark red paint on their lower decks, wheels, etc. And white is very definitely accurate. Though for true correctness you might stain the lower bit muddy!

Mike, I agree with Chuck, and heck I could send you the plans I used for my Far West, as I don't need them anymore. Anyway, great start, keep it up!

(Image via Model-Expo, from whom I bought the kit). This kit is meant to represent one of many ships built in the early nineteenth century for the US Revenue Marine (fore-runner of today’s Coast Guard). However, no “Ranger” was ever built for that service during this time period, so the model only approximates a real prototype. The closest real vessels, according to my research, seem to be the two Alabama-class topsail schooners built in 1819 (Alabama and Louisiana). This conclusion is based on several factors: Recommendation of the Coast Guard Modeling website Comparison to plans available from the USCG website Dimensions given by USCG fact sheet for USRC Louisiana My own calculations. The resources above list the Alabama-class cutters as having a 52’ keel and 18’-6” beam, while Wikipedia also lists a length on deck of 56’-10”. The table below shows the kit’s measurements (taken from the plans), the kit’s size at full scale converted to feet, the actual dimensions from the sources above in feet, and the difference between the two scaled back down to kit size, in cm. Deck: kit(cm) 28, kit(feet) 62.6, real (feet) 57.0, diffrence (cm) 2.5 Beam: kit(cm) 9, kit(feet) 20.1, real (feet) 18.5, diffrence (cm) 0.7 Keel: kit(cm) 22.5, kit(feet) 50.2, real (feet) 52.0, diffrence (cm) -0.8 The kit does not perfectly match the Alabama-class cutters, most notably in deck length, but it’s closer to those than the other options (the 56’ Surprise class or the 60’ Search class). At this scale, only a true historian of the Revenue Marine will notice that the model is a few centimeters off; as I intend to build it as a fictional ship rather than as Alabama or Louisiana, this will matter even less. The overall hull shape, sail plan, and deck layout seem reasonably similar, and I will probably use the USCG drawing of Louisiana as a guide when the kit plans are uncertain or I prefer the former’s appearance. For example, the USCG drawing shows two swivel-based carronades of different calibers, which I find intriguing, and overall it’s more crisply drawn than the poor-quality photocopy in the kit. I could only find a few previous build logs for this kit, which are listed here for future reference (if I’ve missed one, please inform me): Ranger by matt s.s.: heavy kit-bash of the model into a glorious pirate ship. Ranger by trippwj: unfinished log, not updated since 2014, progress as far as beginning planking; intended to follow plans for the larger Search class vessels. Ranger by Small Stuff: unfinished log, not updated since 2014, many photos missing, progress as far as bulkheads. Ranger by Woodmiester12: unfinished log, not updated since 2015, progress as far as first hull & deck planking. So it looks like I’ll embarking on a fairly new adventure here, the most challenging model I’ve tackled to date, especially with the rather poor instructions in hideous English translation. Some may ask why I’m attempting this somewhat problematic kit when BlueJacket just released what is, by all accounts, a high quality kit of a similar revenue cutter. The answer is quite simple: I purchased this kit before learning of the BlueJacket release. Both I and Mrs Cathead love the look of topsail schooners, and I thought the challenge of working with a foreign kit would be good for developing my skills. Now that I’ve bought it, I’m going to build it. And for those of you wondering why I’m not tackling another steamboat, there is a twofold answer: one, the previous sentence, and two, it’s going to take me significant time to do the research and design necessary for a new scratchbuild. I’d like to do something that doesn’t have plans, like the Missouri River sidewheeler Arabia, and that’s a long-term project. So I’ll work on this revenue cutter in the meantime to keep my hands busy and my skills developing, and work on my steamboat plans in the background.

This is great. I've gone through and renamed my logs.

Those windows...I'll need to wipe the drool from my keyboard. What's your plan for running the chimneys through the boiler deck?

Mike, I'm not sure what it means to be a "friend" in this system but it sounds benign enough! For reference, this site is where I ordered plans for the Far West. I'm sure Kurt, Roger, and others will be quite helpful if and when you want to start looking at ideas. In the meantime, sorry for contributing to the takeover of your log, and look forward to the resumption of the topic at hand.

I'll follow along, and wish you much enjoyment from the project!

While I've never handled the AL kit, to my eye it looks toylike; out of scale and inaccurate. An attractive model can be made from it, just not a realistic one. So it depends on what you want. If you're really into realistic steamboats, there are a number of craft with good plans available that you could scratchbuild. From what I've seen, your skills are more than enough for that undertaking.

Kurt & Roger, Any insights into the whaleboat-like craft shown in the final photo, which as Kurt noted is more similar to the kit boats? I didn't know anything like that was used on the rivers, I assumed everything had a flat transom like a regular rowboat. The photo boat seems shallower draft than the kit boats, too, unless I'm seeing it wrong. Mike, thanks, but I'm an amateur compared to Kurt and others. I can't wait to learn more about this from you and the rest.

Cool, can't wait to see what you do with her. Thanks for the kind words.

Hey, Mike, welcome back. I'm so glad to see a new log for this kit, as an American riverboat aficionado. I'll be very interested in following along and learning more about what the kit is like, as from afar it seems to be one of the few reasonably accurate steamboat kits out there.

The longboat is finished! Work really slowed down as summer kicked in, and I struggled some with getting the standing rigging right, but it's done. I'm not happy with the quality of the deadeyes supplied in the kit; the holes are drilled in really uneven patterns, but I chose the best ones and made do. I had difficulty getting the tiny ironwork right, too, as you can likely see in the photo below, but like the rest of the model, it passes the "more than a foot away" test. Especially since the only folks who will likely ever see it will know less about sailing than I do! I made four oars, but left out the anchor and windlass handles, because I decided I wanted the hull to look cleaner and less cluttered. The sails add a lot of life to the model, and I decided that was enough. I built a simple base, mounting the boat on thin wire inserted into holes drilled into the keel and base. This allowed me to bend the wire slightly, heeling the boat over onto her port side a bit, as she would be with the sails set this way. I think it adds some life to the display. Here's a photo gallery of the completed longboat. I'm pretty pleased with the overall outcome. It wouldn't win any awards at a show, for sure, but it's pleasing to the eye. The sails and the new color scheme make it feel unique, and gave me a feeling of ownership over a very common kit. Many thanks to all of you who followed along, offered advice and encouragement, and politely overlooked my shortcomings. And thanks to Chuck for such an interesting little kit.

So pretty it gives me the shivers.

Ah, you're right, I hadn't zoomed in. Apologies. Lovely work.

John, those are fantastic! I hadn't considered the model railroad side, despite being one of them for so long, but it certainly makes sense that there would be a few kits for smaller craft from that direction, and that they'd be high quality. Thanks for sharing!

Kurt, yes, there has to be a market and I'm certainly not a marketer and certainly not a neutral observer. Of course I think a nice steamboat kit would sell, I'm deep in the rabbit hole. I don't understand why there are so many more build logs of the AL kit than the MSW kit, when the latter seems so much higher quality and an equally interesting craft from a visual perspective. Many kits naturally draw upon craft that are still in existence, like Constitution or various craft at Mystic. And the Civil War period is highly popular in general. Well, there are multiple river craft from that general period that have physical museums dedicated to them (Cairo, Arabia, Bertrand), existing remains to view, and in some cases even good plans (Bertrand and Far West at a minimum). If it's economically viable to offer models of Civil-War-era ocean-going ships, to my narrow eyes it seems viable to offer models of riverboats that are simpler in design and construction than most ships. But I enjoy scratchbuilding, too, so this doesn't really affect me directly. I just have a hard time understanding why riverboats are beyond the pale when I look at how many other kits of truly obscure ships are out there.

Very nice indeed. I like how subtle they are; the pattern blends into the hull without dominating it. And that first photo of USS Porcupine gave me a chuckle. I'm curious: there are a few stretches where there are none, why is that? For example, in your last photo, upper middle, right along the waterline there aren't any on either side of the line, and in the photo above that there aren't any along the waterline in a stretch at upper right.

Yeah, that's been my guess, too. I brought up the idea of a good scale steamboat model in the "kit makers" thread, with examples of boats that have plans and good information available, but neither responded. As a writer and educator, I'd love to work on the instruction manual for a good steamboat kit.

Here's a question I've been pondering for some time, though I don't want to offend anyone: Why are many steamboat kits so bad? To my eyes, at least, some of the kits I see look terrible. The AL King of the Mississippi, for example, looks very out of proportion with inaccurate detail. I can't look at it without seeing a child's toy, even when the modeller has done a very nice job. It really makes me wish I had the skill set and resources to design and offer a good steamboat kit.

Thanks, Kurt. Ironically, I just passed through Branson on Friday coming back from a quick visit to in-laws in Arkansas, and I'll miss the September St. Louis event because we'll be away on our annual vacation (in Maine this year, hoping to visit BlueJacket). But these are things we plan ahead for and it's a lot harder for me to take isolated trips for personal stuff like shows. Oh well. I know there's a small show in Columbia later in the fall, may try to hit that one. Sorry to derail the thread. Back to riverboats.

Thanks for the input, guys. I'm afraid I don't get out much these days, for reasons of workload and budget, and don't think I could justify a trip to model show more than a few hours away. Would love to, but it'd be hard. Do IPMS shows accept wooden models?