Cathead

Charlie, on my screen the colors are coming out really strange. I'm seeing a rainbow of colors that don't really match what you describe in your text. Did the images get corrupted somehow, or is my computer reading them strangely?

I've been quietly working on various details, while neglecting this build log. This time of year I mostly model after dark, so photography conditions aren't very good, and as I'm also doing a lot of writing & editing work it's less attractive to spend my down time also working with words. But a month seems more than enough neglect, so here's what I've been up to. I'm not at all happy with many of the metal castings in this kit, so decided to remake some. The cross-trees are trash; the arms aren't even square and several of the cast-in rings broke when I tried to drill them out (they were cast solid). So I made new ones from wood with brass eyerings. It took three tries to get a version I was happy with. I also didn't care for the cast anchor stocks, so again made my own. All these parts should be wood, anyway. I stained everything and wrapped the anchor stocks with blackened brass strip, touched up with paint. I've also been working on the masts, booms, yards, and so on. Typically at this point, the diameter dowels supplied with the kit didn't fit the metal hardware, such as the various boom rings and crutches, that are supposed to fit on the masts. I had to do quite a bit of custom-sanding and filing of the metal parts to get everything right. The rings aren't even the same size, so on the mizzenmast, where two different rings are supposed to sit near one another, those two rings have very different diameters such that by the time you sand the mast down enough to make the smaller one fit, the larger one is too large. Sigh. It'll all work well enough. Overall I think these parts came out well. Here are some detailed views of the current status. The bowsprit/jib-boom assembly is installed and gammoned, the anchors are done, the pin-racks are made, and the carronade is finished and rigged. Sharp eyes may notice that I've replaced all the blocks, everywhere, with better ones from Syren. It took a few days to work up the courage for cutting out all the blocks I'd already carefully fitted onto the various deck eyerings, but I did it and it was worth it. I'm also happy with how the rope coils turned out for the carronade and anchor lines. The light in these last few photos is still a little odd; I took it outdoors late in the afternoon, and the white background produced an odd color balance. Oh well. I should mention a few mistakes made along the way. I rigged the whole carronade assembly off the model, then installed it, tying the outer-four blocks to their respective eyerings (pre-glued into the deck). Only after completion did I notice that I'd rigged the port side backwards; the forward tackle is supposed to go over the aftward tackle on both sides, but I'd done the it the wrong way on the port side. Much cursing ensued, as the gun was already glued down and I didn't think I could re-rig it in place because of tight clearances. Finally I used a pair of small pliers to work the whole eyebolt out of the deck, slid the entire tackle assembly out from under the rear tackle, and re-inserted the eyering once the rest of the tackle was on top. I don't know if anyone could follow that, but in the photo above it's now rigged properly. I also managed to glue the crosstrees onto the masts backwards the first time, but managed to get them off without breaking anything. Then I filed away the glue and re-installed them properly. Only then did I realize that I should have tied on all the blocks to the rings beforehand; now I have to do it up on top the masts. Oh well, that I can handle. I'll put equal blame on me for not thinking far enough ahead, and the instructions for being nearly completely useless. And here she is now, with an insert showing one of the hand-made crosstrees (as luck would have it, the less-good one which I didn't notice through the lens). The masts are glued in, with the proper rake established using a cardboard pattern traced from the plans and various temporary rigging lines. It's amazing what a few dowels can do to transform a hull into a ship. Of course, I now have to be extra-careful because I've gotten used to reaching around and over the hull to grab something, and now there are delicate bits sticking up into my arm-space. So that's how this revenue cutter enters the New Year. I'm about to have to start deciphering rigging diagrams, something that is equally fascinating and terrifying to me. Because I want to rig this model with sails, I may start with those first. Thanks for reading and for all your support in this very educational project. Happy New Year!

I am building the Corel Ranger right now, and will never build another kit from them.

Which model do you mean? The scale and material (plastic vs wood) may affect the paints you choose. For example, Revell has plastic kits in both 1/96 and 1/196 which are very different sizes, so you would need a different size paint set. And if you're asking about a wooden model, you might want different paints for wood rather than plastic.

Mike Dowling recently completed a very nice Chaperon build, and there are several other ongoing builds of other kits. Kurt didn't say so, but he's built an excellent Chaperon and can give a lot of advice and guidance. To my eye, the AL, Mantua, and OcCre kits are not particularly realistic; they may build an attractive model but are rather toylike in appearance, very out of scale and not all that accurate. The Amati and M-E kits appear far more realistic if you care about that aspect of a build. I have not built any of these so cannot give a direct review but there are enough build logs for all to at least get a sense of the materials and scope of work.

I've never built that kit, but to my eye it appears similar to most "riverboat" kits in looking out of scale and toylike. Such kits can make an attractive model, but shouldn't really be considered accurate.

What is the proper approach to gammoning between a bowsprit and jib-boom? I'm at this point in my Corel Ranger, which as the original post here suggests, is a schooner without gammoning connecting the bowsprit to the stem, just between the bowsprit and jib-boom, and both the plans and finished photos show no frapping turns, just a straight wrap around both booms. I can easily envision starting with an eye or slipknot looped around the bowsprit, then wrapping successively from fore to aft, but how should it be finished. I can't seem to find a clear answer anywhere.

It's not a stupid question, just one without a clear answer because there are so many variables. Model Expo's instructions seem to vary in quality depending on how old the kit is; the good news is that all of their kits' instructions are posted on their website, so you can review the entire process before diving in. It's a very helpful way to judge if a kit (and its instructions) are suitable. For example, Sultana has a regular set of instructions and then a long, detailed practicum (I haven't built this kit, but I've consulted its practicum before for some good drawings of certain concepts that apply to other situations). Personally, if something like Niagara is overwhelming you, maybe look for a simpler kit? A nice sloop with one mast where you can learn the basics of rigging and then apply them to a more complex situation? I've heard very good things about BlueJacket, though I haven't built one of their kits yet.

Ages of Sail has a (working!) 10mm bell, which is just under 1/2", and a couple others that are a bit smaller. Bluejacket has a 1/4" bell, a bit small.

What's the original size of the bell, and/or what size do you expect it to be in 1/4" scale?

Lovely; it's really neat to see it right side up. As for the flight deck, others beat me to it, but you could always install a few balloons instead and consider it a forward naval observation post!

Looks real nice. How are you doing the lettering? Is that a decal of some kind, or something else?

I'll "like" it as a gesture of respect for the bonds you felt and feel with those important to you. As an obvious cat lover myself, I empathize with your loss. Best wishes to your friend as well; over a decade ago I worked to recover from a serious neck injury that might have changed my life (well, it still did even though I fully recovered). Merry Christmas or Solstice or whatever else floats your boat (as farmers and land managers, we're partial to the solstice ourselves). I'm looking forward to reading more about your ambitious project whenever life allows you to get back to it.

Wow, very nice. So much for my guess.

He's a wizard, that's how. Glenndalf the Gre(at) walks among us.

I'm 37 rather than 77, so it's easy for me to say Go For It, but I do. Think of it this way: most of our projects have value primarily to ourselves. Few of our models will ever be good enough, or unique enough, to matter much to other folks down the road. It's the process that matters, the joy and occupation and mental stimulation that we get out of pursuing these projects. If you never finish, whatever you've accomplished kept you interested and happy during that time, and that's what matters most. A complete or half-complete model will essentially be the same thing long enough down the road, though if you do complete it there will be that much more happiness in your life. I've known, and known of, too many people that can't find anything productive or interesting to do with their time, retired or otherwise, and it makes me sad, as I feel I could have five lifetimes to explore all that I'm interested in. Think of the joy that it will bring, not only to yourself, but to all that care about you, that you have a project and a passion to interests and pleases you. Think of it as some of the cheapest health care you can find. Go for it.

Apologies for misunderstanding your original question and jumping to conclusions; I should have asked for clarification first. Oh well, just a few more pixels spilled. I wonder if some of the "dangling" in photos relates to the likelihood of these boats being photographed while pulled up on a levee where encounters with other boats were more likely. Certainly in Cap'n Bob's photo above, that boat is ashore and might well have another boat come alongside at any moment, so it makes sense to leave the fenders out even if the narrow photo view makes it look unnecessary. It would be interesting to compare photo sets and see if there's any correlation between onshore and underway in the arrangement of the fenders.

Oh, interesting, I see how that could also match leclaire's description. The photos are certainly helpful. In that case I don't know, but your guess of bumpers does make sense, particularly for boats commonly pulled up in the close-packed confines of a busy levee like St. Louis.

Thy patience has no bounds, good sir, nor thy fortitude in the face of such estimable challenges. As our dear bard once wrote, "How poor are they that have not patience? What would did ever heal but by degrees?"

I used artist's pastels on a few plastic models, such as in my avatar. It came out nicely and the pastel grain gives the surface some texture that helps obscure the plastic sheen.

Bob, It sounds to me like you're describing grasshopper spars, which were used to lever steamboats over/through particularly low-water places like sandbars. They were particularly common on rivers like the Missouri which were sediment-dominated (unlike the mostly bedrock Ohio and upper Mississippi), and thus so shallow that boats routinely got stuck but soft enough that doing so didn't rip their bottoms out. Here they are on my Bertrand, an 1865 boat from the Missouri River. You can read a much more thorough description of their setup, purpose, and use in the Bertrand build log, which has a whole post dedicated just to this feature. Grasshopper spars were a key technological innovation that allowed boats to navigate the upper reaches of Great Plains rivers that would otherwise have been inaccessible to steamboats, and really mark a boat geographically. The quick version of their function is that, yes, tney are free-swinging, but are linked to a steam winch/capstan. They hang from twin booms which can be positioned over the side of the bow as desired, and are then allowed to drop into the river, planting the dense, heavy poles into the sand. Then the winch is engaged, which tightens the lines running to the poles' tops, drawing the steamboat up out of the water as if on crutches. At the same time, the wheel is engaged to drive the boat forward (or backward, if needed), essentially levering the boat up and over (or off) the sandbar. This operation was repeated as needed until the boat was clear; the appearance of this repeated motion, and of the tall poles, gave the spars their name. These boats' hulls were so flexible (no equivalent keel to a sailing ship) that they could quite literally slither over a sand bar and back into deep water beyond. The spars gave the boat leverage at the bow to combine with the power at the stern (sternwheelers were most commonly fitted with these for upper river use, as sidewheelers generally couldn't handle conditions as shallow). Does this match what you were asking about?

Such a neat model, in both senses of the word.

Looking really nice. What did you build the boiler out of?

Looks very crisp.

I, too, think the brass is preferable, given that it's a closer match to the common yellowish tones of the boat as you've built it. If I were to use the same material for my boat, which is in a white and black color scheme, I'd probably go with blackened, once again to best match the color overall.