Cathead

For anyone who might be interested, I'll be giving the following talk in a few weeks: Steamboats symbolize a historic era in Missouri River exploration, commerce and transportation. Missouri River steamboats evolved over time, becoming ever more adapted to the basin’s unique environment while simultaneously altering it, much like an invasive species introduced into a new ecosystem. In this presentation, Eric Reuter will use hand-made scale models of Missouri River steamboats and other vessels to discuss the linked history of steamboat development and environmental changes in the Missouri basin, drawing on his professional and personal interests in the links between geology, ecology, history, and land management. Specific information, including how to watch, is available here. The time is 7 pm American Central time.

Sounds good. When you start a build log for the launch, let us know here so we can be sure to follow you over.

Nope, only built the MS version. Looking briefly online, I think the MS kit is likely more beginner friendly, but you could certainly make an argument for the OcCre version to help you learn how their kits and instructions work.

I've never built this, but there are a number of logs for it on MSW (including several active ones I'm following right now), so you could read through those to get a sense of the kit's overall quality and ease of construction. You could also send their builders a private message to ask about their specific opinions of the kit. I definitely agree, as someone with professional and personal interests in geology and ecology, that this ship is high on my "want" list. If this is your first wooden build, you might consider starting with a small, simple model that won't take you long and will help familiarize you with some of the basics of the craft. For example, Model Shipway's Bounty Launch was an early kit for me that taught me a lot while not being too challenging, and fits well in your era of interest.

As with many (most?) consumer products, expensive does not guarantee proportional quality, but cheapness likely guarantees low quality. The middle ground is often where you want to be. Do not underestimate the frustrations that a low-quality kit can produce in terms of poor or insufficient materials, bad kit design, and/or incomprehensible instructions. A well-done kit will have well-presented instructions, proper materials, and a sensible kit design. Providing you are not insisting on building only the most massive ships of the line or modern battleships, you can get such kits direct from retailers for sensible prices (Bluejacket, Model Shipways, Syren, and Caldercraft come immediately to mind). Getting addicted to bargain-hunting has a higher chance of wasting your time and money than saving it. There are threads elsewhere on MSW that discuss kit and manufacturer reviews. As for stashing, I too cannot understand this practice. If nothing else, consider that kit design and manufacturing has (and presumably will) continue to improve over time. So if you bought a kit 15 years ago and stashed it in the closet (or bought a 15-year-old kit online in an attempt to save money), you'll end up with a lower-quality kit than if you bought the modern, upgraded version. For example, the newer kit might have better laser-cut parts, higher quality metal castings, and improved instructions. As a personal opinion, I'd recommend in the strongest terms buying only what you can build in a reasonable time. In the unlikely chance that you miss out on a dream kit because the company failed, chances are kits will still be circulating online for a long time (due to all the other hoarders). Also, your skill sets, interests, and life circumstances can change, which is more likely than that you'll actually build a whole hoard of kits. You might choose to develop your skills toward scratch-building, a transition many of us make as it lets us make a unique model free from the design constraints of manufacturers. Or you might learn a new skill or hobby that leaves old ones behind. For example, I still have a few plastic ship kits sitting around that I never built because I discovered wooden modeling; I bought them with full intention of building them, but life changed and now they represent a waste of money that I have no interest in building because I've moved on.

So fun to see a second attempt. That's so rarely done in model building, but such an interesting way to test ones' improved skills and knowledge. It reminds me of the need, in science, for more researchers who focus on retesting/checking others' results. In theory I'd love to take another crack at my longship with all the insights I've gained, but I also really don't need two gigantic longships hanging around the house! I like your shield rail, I'm debating whether to add one to mine or not.

Residents of British prison hulks during the American Revolution would beg to disagree, though I defer to your superior knowledge in this case. Why were the French treated so much better than the Americans?

Does anyone have a good suggestion for understanding the rigging layout of a Viking ship? Unsurprisingly, the kit instructions are not only rather simplistic, but also don't seem to match the practices used on the Skuldelev reproduction. For example, on the standing rigging for the mast, the kit tells you to tie loops through the side of the hull (see photo below and image from the Dusek website below), while the reproduction seems to loop these around the rowing benches (see image linked here ). One resource I've found shows a different way to connect standard rigging to the hull (see image here) by running a short loop through a single hole and using a short rod to hold it in place. I like the look of this but am open to other suggestions. I also cannot figure out the rope pattern used on the L-shaped pieces (no idea what they're called in this context) that replace the deadeyes used in more modern sailing vessels (see image linked here). The instructions are also vague as to how this actually works, either in the model context or in real life. Any suggestions? I really want to understand how this is supposed to work and what a reasonably accurate practice would be. I'm pretty annoyed at myself that I followed the instructions and drilled holes in the hull already before doing research to realize (of course) that there might be other, more accurate practices. I don't know why I even look at the instructions at this point. Also, here's a better lengthwise view of the model that really shows how much visual interest is created by adding the bench supports and two layers of triangular braces along the hull (one along the deck and one atop the benches).

Gorgeous, thanks for sharing.

You could certainly start tapering the bow planks right away to absorb some of the curves that will keep getting worse as you go down, rather than doing some full-width and others entirely cut off once it gets to extreme. Best way to learn is by doing, though, so keep it up!

Started working on the mast foot, which is interesting in that it isn't attached to the deck, but rather runs atop the rowing benches for much of the hull's length. You can see a hint of this in the following Wikipedia image and a better view is in this link to a copyrighted photo: The kit's version is pretty simplistic, just two pieces of laminated plywood glued together with little shaping or detail. I decided to follow the reconstruction in making this more visually interesting. I also happened to lose the top piece, so made my own from scrap wood. I didn't try to match the prototype exactly, just went for a style I liked. For example, I shaped it to shed water on all sides rather than being planar on top. In addition, I liked the way the reproduction was arched along the bottom (between benches), so sanded in similar curves, which add nice visual interest: Here's the mast foot resting on the benches for testing purposes: And here it is painted a first shade of red: I'm going to weather this down from pure red, but you get the idea. I like the way it ties in with the cap rails, and the arching on the underside adds a subtle but attractive pattern between the benches. If you look closely at the last two photos, you can also see that I started adding braces connecting the top of the rowing benches with the hull. These are rough and simplistic compared to the real thing (see image linked here as well as the one linked above). I could have spent a lot of time trying to put in flowing curves and ensuring a perfect fit against the hull, but didn't. Part of this is that the hull, and thus the benches it supports, are somewhat irregular, so the end of each bench interacts with the shape of the clinkered planks differently, meaning that each brace would have to be independently carved to match its exact location at a rather small scale. Instead, I mass-manufactured simple triangle shapes and glued them in with some generic backing. They look great with a bit of distance, matching the rest of the model. I'm honestly a bit burned out on this project and ready to move on. So my standard is to improve on the kit but not go crazy for perfection or full accuracy. There are so many things I'd do differently if I were to do this kit again, but at this point am constrained by previous choices and errors so am just going for "looks cool to laypeople while not being totally offensive to experts". When I started this in July I did NOT expect it to be anywhere near as long or involved a project as it's turned out to be. I've done one side of these braces, so now need to do the 30 on the other side. Then I'll glue in the mast foot and decide what's next. Probably shaping the mast. Almost forgot, I've decided not to rivet the hull. Just don't have the interest or patience and am not convinced I can do it well enough to justify adding ~4000 more pieces to this kit. Most people won't know the difference and I'm putting some of that time into details that I think are more visually important (like all these braces along the interior hull, the improved mast foot, and so on). Sorry to the folks who were hoping I'd take the plunge. I'm open to it in a future project that's of higher overall quality. Thanks for sticking with me, and for all the encouragement.

Fascinating. How does one go about restoring something like this while still retaining the "original", i.e. not using too much replacement material?

Good innovation. Wood definitely does not like to bend in two directions, one of the challenges for modeling in this way. I've done something similar in the past by creating a flat pattern for the amount of vertical bend, then clamping the soaked plank around that pattern. As it bends easily in the other direction, I found that getting some of the vertical bend locked in allowed the rest to happen naturally. Your method also looks promising.

Just measured the hull as roughly 32" long x 4.5" wide in Yankee-speak. The Dusek figures quoted above come out to 33.5" long x 14.5" wide. I don't know why the length is different, but I assume the Dusek width accounts for the yard, which would make the final presentation model a lot wider than just the hull (it's probably not the oars since they show them bundled). She's a beast. I'm actually wondering whether to put up the mast and sail or portray them stowed and furled to save some space.

Benches complete:

Lovely work so far, keep it up.

That's a beautiful vessel and looks like a good choice to take the next step in your modeling skills. Looking forward to following your progress. Are you referring to the piece just right of the keel? It might be intended as a vertical clamp to be placed at either end of the keel to help stabilize it in that direction (not just from below). I haven't used this building slip, but for example see this image.

Looks like a good start. I'm not familiar with this kit, but the final product looks like a good level for a starter kit before tackling something more complex. Hope you'll keep us updated as you proceed!

Kris, I think many (most?) people, regardless of life situation, struggle to balance what they personally want (or are most interested in) with what works for their broader life, including loved ones. Your situation might make it more difficult in certain ways, but you're not alone or unique. So you have that going for you. Presumably your fiancé knows you and loves you, just like any fiancé (and vice versa) so really the question is how well the two of you can work out whatever differences you're going to have as your life together progresses. This model-time question may well be a good chance to start setting up a conflict-resolution system that works for both of you, because this won't be the last time you need it if you're as human as the rest of us. Mrs. Cathead and I have certainly spent a lot of time talking (and occasionally arguing) as we work out how best to share a life together. We each give up some of what we personally want because we're more important to each other than any of those activities. I'm sure you and your fiancé can do the same. For a hobby specific example, when I first got back into model-building, I set up my work area in a spare room in the basement, because it had a lot of room and let me play music and just "get away" in my own space. I assumed this was the best choice because it meant any mess or noise I made was out of the way. Turns out that doing so bothered Mrs. Cathead, because we otherwise spend most of our time together; we've worked together from home for over a decade, most of our living space is a single open-plan layout so we're almost never apart, and we share most intellectual interests. I thought I was giving her space, she thought I was withdrawing from her. So we compromised and I moved my working area to a small table in the corner of our living room. I gave up a significant amount of space, but added the enjoyment of being able to model while interacting with her and our house (for example, sharing the fun of seeing a hawk outside the window). Now we can talk, run ideas by each other, listen to the same music, etc. without being separated by my hobby. I actually like it way more than the old isolated workspace, but got there by giving up what I thought I initially wanted. In turn she accepts a slightly messy, sometimes ugly workspace that takes up space in our small main living area that could be put to other uses. I'm sure the two of you can work together to find a good solution. In my opinion, doing so is nearly the definition of "how to make a marriage work".

In addition to what the others said, I feel it comes down to whether both people in the relationship are being treated fairly. If she's getting the same amount of personal time that you are, to do whatever has value to her, then that's fair. If she isn't, it's not fair. It's helpful if spouses care about each others' interests (for both the interests and the quality of the marriage), but if that isn't the case, at the very least you both need equal time do to uninteresting things. But are there ways you can offer to involve her in what you're doing (with the equivalent offer to be involved in her hobby)? For example, Mrs. Cathead isn't deeply interested in modeling or maritime issues, but we enjoy talking over my projects and she often has good insights into decisions, methods, or final appearances as an outsider because she cares about me enough to care about what I care about. I do the same for her in areas that aren't my core interest (we do a lot of talking during garden-planning season because it helps her to run ideas past me even though it's very much "her" activity). Personally, I've never liked the way "Admiral" is used on MSW because it implies an imbalance in how people are treated in a relationship. Wives (most of us are men) are not, or should not be, considered some sort of bossy harpy forever getting in our way. You're equals, treat each other as such, and the rest should work itself out (or there are deeper problems that need addressing for which model-related issues are just a symptom). Ask yourself honestly if you're giving her the same free time and attention you expect from her, and go from there.

Great choice on the color. I certainly believe that, when fact is uncertain (and sometimes even when it isn’t), there’s room for artistry that improves a model’s visual appeal. After all, looking at it is part of the point!

That's an awfully complex way to make a hairbrush for your wife! Seriously, though, that's really cool.

A quick update as things progress. I decided to add small knees to every deck beam, and am glad I did, as they do add quite a bit of subtle visual interest, tying together the deck and the hull. I then carried on with the rowing benches, now up to 13 out of 30. There are slight irregularities in the supporting posts, but these ships were built by hand and I bet they weren't machine-perfect either. Just need to make 17 more benches! I have my assembly line method pretty well worked out and make 2-4 at once depending on what time I have. This means there are subtle color variations in each batch of benches, but that also seems authentic to me. I'm going to weather them further in place anyway. Thanks for the comments and likes that keep me going. We just hosted my father-in-law's memorial service online this weekend, which was a huge amount of work (Mrs. Cathead and I developed a slideshow covering his life and coordinated something like 10 speakers and a much larger audience). Your support has helped me keep working on this through a very difficult time.

That vertically movable rudder is really cool! Was that unique to Chinese ships? I don't think I've seen that elsewhere (not that I'm an expert).

Great job with the tape, makes very realistic iron. One suggestion on the rusting, I love using simple artists' pastels for that kind of weathering. You can easily get a cheap box of different colors at any art store, and hobby suppliers sell sets weathering pastels in subtler shades of color (I have one box that's all shades of red and brown and another that covers the black-white spectrum). They're very handy and add lots of texture to materials like wood, tape, and paper.