Cathead

I did some research on American paint history, and came up with this narrative. Commercial paints really didn't come onto the market in a widespread fashion until the late 19th century. Before that, paints were hand-mixed (such as on a farm) or at least made in smaller batches locally using grinders. Red was commonly made from a base of linseed oil (produced from flax, a common farm crop), which had an orange tinge. To this was added milk for texture and iron oxide to deepen the color. As a geologist, I agree with Wefalck that iron tends to produce an orange-red rather than a deep brown-red. Several American paint companies offer "historic" collections that were developed with the help of various preservation trusts and other organizations. For example, this collection from Benjamin Moore is supposedly based on 17th-early 20th century colors (i.e. before modern paint chemistry). I was immediately struck by the fact that all of the red shades in this collection do, indeed, have an orange tinge to my eye that fits the narrative about linseed oil and iron oxide. My guess is that their "Audubon Russet" or "Mayflower Red" might be good matches for steamboat red. Given that the vast majority of riverboats in middle America were built on the upper Ohio River, close to extensive sources of iron in the mountains to the east and south as well as extensive sources of milk and flax in the farmlands to the north and west, it makes sense that steamboat red would have followed this palette. But I'm just theorizing based on internet research here, I'm no expert in this regard. EDIT: Mrs. Cathead just asked what I was researching, and pointed out that we have linseed oil, milk (from our dairy goats), and iron oxide (from our bedrock and soils as well as, you know, farm rust) on hand. I may just have to play with mixing up a small batch of "historic" paint to see what I can produce. It'd be pretty neat to color my Arabia with a historically accurate stain.

Everything looks good. Glad to see you back at work on this.

Thanks for sharing. I agree that such times can make it hard to focus on a model, even if in theory it seems like a great escape from reality. I hope you'll be able to give thanks for good memories of your brother.

Cool! I hope you'll post that in the Riverboats general thread, too. Also, welcome, Scott! Nice to see another local on here. If you want to try a Missouri River boat, Kurt's link above contains plans for two very good ones, Far West and Bertrand.

That's a great question, don't know the answer off the top of my head. Will do some digging (unless someone else knows for sure).

Here's my understanding. Some of the real experts like Kurt or Roger may well weigh in and correct me if necessary. Red was common in nineteenth-century America because it was one of the cheapest paint colors to produce in the era before modern paint chemistry (along with white). That's one reason it became the standard barn color as well. The fact that most American riverboats were red and white was primarily economic. Red also didn't show staining or dirt as easily as white, which is one reason it was used for decks, wheels, and often for the stern area upon which the wheel threw water and/or the outhouses discharged (such as on Bertrand, below). A white superstructure made the boat look clean and attractive, while a red wheel, stern, and deck were utilitarian. I don't think there was any connotation of danger or warning; there was really no way for a passenger to approach a stern or side wheel, and the boilers were more dangerous anyway.

So, two weeks later, I finally get back to this. I consulted and experimented with both steamschooner's plans above and some I found for the sidewheeler Buckeye State (1850), and was convinced that I wanted a much narrower bow. I'm very happy with the half-hull approach I've been using, pinning each bulkhead temporarily in place, because it's been very easy for me to experiment with different hull shapes. Below is what I've settled on, a long, narrow bow that seems more typical of the era before spoon bows really came into use. I re-read Adam Kane's book and confirmed that the narrow "model" bow was prevalent until around 1870. We'll never know for sure just what Arabia's bow looked like, but this is a reasonable guess. You can compare this to the photos earlier in this log of the broader, more bluff bow I started with. I've also been working on fairing the stern frames, they're at least roughed in. Here's how she currently looks: The background to these photos is one reason my model work has been delayed; I've been replacing the deck outside our kitchen for the past two weeks (when I can find time) and that's both been taking up time and making me a bit less interested in other wood projects. I'm using all fresh-milled cedar from logs we cut last winter, cured through the summer, and milled this fall. It's nice to work with, and even though the color will fade over time, has a very pleasant aroma and look. I still have to build most of the bench-railings, only having done this short section so far. Next step on the model is fairing all the bulkheads to be sure I'm happy with the run of planking, then I'll duplicate these shapes on the other side of the model. Thanks for reading, and for being patient with my slow progress.

That just looks fantastic. Weathered enough to look realistic but not overdone, and lovely detail. This has been really fun to follow.

Two planks a day? You must be retired, you're cruising right along! One thing I realized on my build was that the aesthetic effect was improved by ensuring that the planking on both sides of the stem lined up; it looks especially nice when each line of planking matches its opposite partner. I didn't always get it right, but it helps to keep in mind as you move forward. You're doing great so far.

Hey, John, no worries! For the most part, I assume that others know more than me, and thought maybe these boats had another set of cleats right at the stern or something. Better to ask and potentially correct a problem!

Steamschooner, those are very interesting. I'll get back to you tonight when I have a chance to work on the model. Quick take, those bow lines still have the curves into the keel I would expect, as compared to the perfectly angular lines Bates shows. Jan, I have Kane's book, which includes limited information on bows. I'll try to write up a summary of his and others' comments on the subject in the next evening or two.

Roger, Thanks for your input. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing or not, so please bear with me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you; I definitely understand why the hull overall transitions from the very deep forward section to the very shallow, flat stern section. What I meant was, when looking at the run of planking from the transom over the next few frames forward, on the underside of the hull, the third frame (if you count the transom as one) was noticeably shallower than the frame on either side, meaning that the planking either dips in a "U" up into that frame or it needs to be shimmed for a smooth run of planking. I wasn't talking about the shape of the hull overall, but a localized dip in the run of the hull. As I type that, I wonder, maybe you did mean that there's not supposed to be a smooth run from the fuller middle to the flatter stern, but rather a sort of reverse S-curve that transitions more abruptly into the flat stern? This is hard to describe by words. John, In my kit, BlueJacket supplied two cleats for the bow and two that are placed near the stern, roughly opposite the stern rubbing strips. You can see them in black on my model. Were you referring to some additional cleats that should also be at the stern?

Thanks for commenting, Gary! That's a nice, clean model that makes me realize I forgot to build the bait tank.

Let's see if this illustrates my dilemma a bit more clearly (see photo below). The generic plans from Alan Bates show bow lines that are triangular; no curve to the frames/bulkheads. This is shown by the printed lines shown below. My first version of the half-hull bulkheads followed this design. However, that perfectly triangular version creates a really difficult run of planking that doesn't seem to match any photos I've seen elsewhere of steamboat hulls. For example, every image I've seen shows the first plank belong the deck (is that still called the sheer plank on a steamboat?) essentially vertical (perpendicular to the deck), yet in this triangular-frame design the first plank would be at a near-45° angle to the deck. This makes the planks curve in a really screwy way and doesn't create the nice, easy, mostly parallel run of planking that I would think most steamboat builders would have preferred over complex bends. However, the triangular version was also shown in my plans for Bertrand, and those were taken directly from the archeologists' drawings. In that case, I just "cheated" and planked the way the planks wanted to lie, mostly hiding it with paint, because I didn't understand enough about planking back then to really figure this out. For comparison, I cut a separate set of bulkheads following a more generic rounded form, and set these just behind the triangular bulkheads (below). This version creates a more rounded hull form that immediately produces a smoother, more natural run of planking even without fairing. So I don't know why the Bates plans show the triangular version when it seems to create such a problematic planking run, but I'm strongly tempted to use the curved version instead for practical reasons. Does that help explain the problem better? Any thoughts, anyone?

I've had good results with the blackening solutions sold by BlueJacket.

No, that is helpful; it's closer to what I think Arabia and is definitely not a spoon bow. However, it does look like Chaperon's bow is still much fuller than what I was intending; it looks like the frames even right out at the bow start out near vertical and only gently curve inward. For comparison, on Bertrand and the generalized plans from Alan Bates, the bow frames don't curve at all but form a straight-edged triangle from the deck down to the keelson. This makes for a sharper and more difficult curve to the planking. I think I'll need to mock up or illustrate the difference for this to make any sense. I probably should have dealt with this issue in the planning/design thread, but I was excited to get going on the real thing.

Kurt, I've been spending time browsing and searching that excellent collection, but darned if I can find a clear shot of a bow (or any part of the hull) out of water. The few construction photos are all from far away, surrounded by scaffolding, and in any case are all from much later periods (early 20th century). I've been able to find a few isolated examples in general Google searches, but it's just plain hard to find a clear image of an 1850s steamboat hull from beneath. One major factor, too, is that (in my understanding) the design of bows changed over time. Early boats mostly had very pointed bows (like a fast ship), but over time builders started adopting the spoon bow, which is much blunter and more rounded (like a collier), because this design made it easier to handle sandbars and levees. But that wasn't common practice in the 1850s, so it's very likely Arabia had a sharp bow. I can't be sure because even the museum's excavation photos show the bow still covered in soil. Most of the steamboat bow photos I can find use something closer to the spoon shape, making them likely less relevant as a model. I may just have to guess and try to follow a practice that would have made sense at the time (i.e. no extreme bending or overly fancy work). Do you (or anyone else) have other thoughts on how the planking transition might have been handled at the bow? Even in Bob's photo above, I can't tell what happens at the turn of the bilge, or whether/how the planks are tapered or formed to account for the rise in the bow.

I'm an idiot. That's so obvious once you pointed it out. I stared and stared at that and never saw it.

Is it that the slots at upper and lower left don't extend to the edge of the surface?

These boats generally carried no ballast other than cargo, and were stable even when unloaded. The center of mass is provided by the very heavy machinery (boilers, engines) on the main deck and the fact that the superstructures were generally very lightly built. The hull framing was generally oak (as opposed to superstructure of pine) which also adds to the lower center of mass. They would be very unstable in any real open water, but even the widest stretch of the Mississippi didn't have a long enough fetch to really generate significant waves (and any real waves would break their back anyway, as these boats lacked a true keel and were designed to flex longitudinally). A heavily-loaded riverboat could have its deck a few inches above the water and be safe to operate. That being said, a good severe windstorm or tornado could flip one of these, but by that point the wind had probably torn the lightweight superstructure apart anyway. It was an operational hazard. On the color, the real things were certainly painted, but there's definitely nothing wrong with the varnished look from an artistic perspective. I think it looks good on models, too. And it's especially appropriate for a kit like this, which doesn't exactly strive for historical accuracy, so there's no loss in making it look really nice.

Bob, that's a pretty useful photo, thank you, although it still doesn't show the exact place I most want to understand, the very sharp turn of the bilge between the side planking and the bottom. I have drawings of what this looked like on Arabia in the amidships frames, where they were essentially square, but not in the more complex geometry of the bow. Mark, when I was researching the design, I reached out to multiple museums and either got no response or a nice response saying they didn't have any resources that would be of help. Although in that case, I was specifically asking about Arabia, so I suppose I should try again with regards to general photos of bow construction. One challenge will be that the Arabia was built before the advent of widespread photography and I'm not sure how much designs changed by the time most construction photos were taken. But anything would still be something.

If you're thinking ahead to rigging, you might enjoy this thread I started on sail design for this kit. The short version is, when I started thinking about adding sails and really looked at the rigging setup in the kit, parts of it made no practical or functional sense. It's based on a real contemporary model, so there's a strong argument that it's correct even if it doesn't seem like it, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out how the rig as given could function on a real craft, so made some changes to match my opinion on a working rig.

The results of this weekend's work: a rough draft of the port side bulkheads. I haven't faired these yet, but the rough run of planking seems close. I do have to figure out the proper run in some odd places; having a flat bottom that transitions into an angled side is quite different from the fully curved and flowing lines of a normal ship, and I've never been able to find a really good reference for how steamboats were planked in some of the odd places (around the lower bow in particular). Overall view. I haven't bothered with the bulkheads right at the middle, as I can't pin them through the joint in the two keel pieces and they're perfectly rectangular. I'll add them once I start gluing things in. Bow view. This is where I'm least clear on just how the planking is supposed to lie. Does it wrap up onto the sides of the bow from the flat bottom, or does the flat bottom remain a separate entity with the side planking fitting smoothly along its edge? I've looked at the few photos I can find of planking in various builds of the Chaperon (the only accurate steamboat model I can find on MSW) and still can't quite tell the best way to proceed. Stern view. This is closer to a normal ship's hull form, so I'm less worried about this. The aft-most two frames need to be beveled a bit more toward the base of the keel. Thanks for reading.

I built this last year. Although I used all the kit parts, I agree that the castings for the carriage are of relatively poor quality in addition to not being as authentic as wooden parts. I also found that many of the rings were cast solid and needed to be drilled out, which was very difficult to do without breaking the soft metal of the rings. I think you'll definitely do well to build your own carriages and use good metal rings as needed. That being said, it's definitely a fun build and a neat little display piece (I did both this and the carronade, and they look good together in my opinion; a photo is here if of interest). Looking forward to seeing what you do with this kit.

Given that this is something of a seat-of-the-pants build, I wanted to figure out a way to lay out the hull framing and test it before doing any permanent work. This is the approach I hit upon: Rather than make bulkheads spanning the hull, I'm going to make them one side at a time, as if I was building a half-hull model. This way I can pin each half-bulkhead in place until I get the whole half-hull laid out. Then I'll fair the bulkheads (using tape to insert temporary spacers for stability) so I can test whether their shape produces the run of planking that I want. If it doesn't, I can easily pull any bulkhead and replace or reshape it as needed. Once I'm happy with this side of the hull, I can use these half-bulkheads as templates to make the other half. Sharp eyes may notice that #2 appears to extend too far beyond the line of the hull. This is intentional; it's hard to see here but that piece is higher than it needs to be on most of the deck side to accommodate both the horizontal camber and the longitudinal fall of the deck. I accomplished that by gluing an extra strip on the upper side, something I haven't done yet for #3-5. So #2 looks unnaturally long but it won't be once everything is shaped properly. That's the idea, anyway. The basic wood I'm using is a set of (poplar?) strips my stepfather passed along as scrap from his shop (he's a professional cabinet-maker and all-around woodworking artisan). I've been holding onto these for years, thinking they'd be useful for something, and it turns out they're nearly the perfect dimensions for framing in this hull. As all my modelling work happens on a tight budget, I'm very happy to put these to use. They're solid, straight, and nice to work with. For now, the work is just the repetitive measuring and cutting of half-bulkheads. The middle portion of the hull will be square, so I can mass-produce those a bit more quickly. The stern will be the most challenging, as here the hull curves back in on itself similar to an ocean-going vessel (unlike the far simpler sterns of sternwheelers), so there will be some extra-careful carving and shaping here. I'll update again when there's sufficient progress to show off. Comments, critiques, and suggestions are always welcome.