bcochran

28 minutes ago, Ian_Grant said:

Being a teenage boy when I built the CS in the 70's, I painted Nanny with flesh colour and dark hair, and two tiny dots of red paint for nipples. Sheesh.

 

If I ever refurbish her (the CS) job one after cleaning will be painting Nanny white. 😀

If I am not mistaken, I think the Portuguese painted her.

Main mast complete and temporarily stepped and Nanny the witch.

14 minutes ago, shipman said:

Hi, again.

 

Following your link to hismodel, all I can find are reproductions of Revell instructions; nothing remotely resembling Campbell plans.

 

I just got the Campbell 'General Arrangement' plan (hull) off ebay. Interestingly, the quality is very clear, not the usual over reproduced blurry copies which are now so common.

I put the download link on my post    here it is again:  https://www.hismodel.com/_filemanager/download.php?Id=110 

About Campbell deadeye placement, if you look at the rigging plan, look at the main mast lower deadeyes.  Below the ship outline he has 11 deadeyes and a place for a cap stay.  There are 6 large deadeyes and 5 small deadeyes.  Now if you look at the rigging plan for the main shrouds and stays he has 5 large dead eyes and 7 small dead eyes just as Revell has, plus what I think is the cap stay.

Below is the download link to HisModel  zip file of Cutty Sark plans. You can use your mouse to enlarge and read. They are free and very clear to read.  They are Campbells plans.  Each page is a type of running rigging or standing rigging. He has done the work for you of separating the type of rigging from Campbell's plan.

HisModel has color coded the blocks and deadeyes which refer to the size of the block or dead eye and the size of rope used.

Here is the download link:

https://www.hismodel.com/_filemanager/download.php?Id=110 

3 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

I don’t think yours will look plastic in the ‘plasticky’ sense, it’s already had too much tlc for that. And I bet that, over the years to come, many a person will assume it’s something other than a kit.

 

I’ll probably be happy with standing rigging if needs be. I barely understand where any of the ropes connect to at this point so the whole thing will be a learning curve. My trouble is that I’m reluctant to settle for a kit part if it looks relatively easy to make a better version, one thing leads to another and I end up where I’m at, remaking almost everything.

 

ps. The boats in the kit are also out of scale compared to Campbell. They should be about 15% bigger. I’m just playing around with remaking one at the moment, to understand how to do a hull in F360, and noticed that when I brought the plans into the software.

By the time we are done, we will have a whole list of Revell's Cutty Sark's inaccuracies.  The downside of it is that I know of them.  Since I am not going to change the kit that much, I'll have to live with them. It would be neat if some company would learn from us and remake the kit without all of them. (Kevin, you could make a set of 3D printed corrections and sell them on Shapeways.) The one that bugs me the most is the shallowness of the bullwarks.  Having watched all the YouTube Cutty Sark videos, it is so evident when looking at the deck houses from outside the ship at that level.   Revell's deck houses stick up too high.  I also have looked at many Cutty Sark wood models (not scratch built ones) and they almost all look worse than Revell's.   In an ad for Billing Boats' Cutty Sark, it says about the kit's fittings, "most are in perfect scale", meaning some aren't. 

In the next life, if I become an expert scratch builder ...............

9 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

The fife rails tip is one thing that really lodged in my head. Is CA gel the same as CA thick? Or even thicker?

I haven't used gel CA yet.  I am going to Michael's or Hobby Lobby tomorrow to find some. If none there, I will look online.   Since I have several sets of the etchings minus the stern decorations, I have lots to practice with.

The setting sun was making shadows on my ship that I thought were interesting.

On 5/12/2022 at 10:24 PM, Kevin-the-lubber said:

Shipman - now there’s a thought. But one I’d only turn to as a last resort. As a variant on that theme, it’s quite easy to model and print rope I.e. to remake the revell parts but better, but I know I’ll get far more satisfaction from doing it for real. 
 

Rob, wise words. I don’t want to get bogged down and, a bit like bcochran, wil be happy enough if the end result looks reasonably “shippy” and not too much like some plastic moulded toy.

 

bcochran, you and me both. But I have a feeling that between the three of us, including Bruma, we’re going to learn a lot more about rigging by the time we finish. I also really struggle with the very fine detail and small parts. These hands were made for building full size ships, not miniatures. I think the revell blocks have ring bolts don’t they, and I’ll probably do the same, just pretty them up by serving the ropes.

 

Ian, I think that’s the nail being hit on the head. At this point my reference is the kit parts. Once I’ve done the reading on them, I start to see what’s missing and whether I want to remake that part. This has been fairly easy so far as the ‘body’ is relatively simple, but nevertheless I’m figuring out some stuff, like the deck height, too late in the day.

I will be real happy if I complete my model with rigging and get it on a shelf somewhere under a protective enclosure.  I never intended it to look like anything other than a plastic model. Any more work than I am putting in, and I would give up at some point down the road.  I understand rigging is tedious and monotonous at times,  but I look forward to learning how a sailing ship's gear worked.  So rigging will be a learning experience for me.  All my life, I kept busy learning new things. It's good brain exercise.

1 hour ago, Bruma said:

CA gel worked for me. It has a slightly longer curing time, and it is easily applicable with a toothpick. The excess is also easy to remove with a clean toothpick.  

 

 

You are doing a fantastic job, and I'm sure you will do better than me! 

Did you already glue the fife rails around the masts? If not, do not glue them! It will be easier to rig the mainstay and the maintopgallant stay. 

 

 

Yes, I glued the fife rails.  I remember you saying how hard it is to rig around them, but I didn't pay attention.

7 hours ago, Kevin-the-lubber said:

The glue tip is going to be useful for me. Although I tried to make the new deck as close as possible there will still be some slight gaps here and there. You said it’s white glue, does it dry grey or did you paint it?

 

Note to self: if I ever use my spare kit I’ll replace the entire waterway; this issue could be easily avoided by having the deck sitting on top of, rather than butting up to, the waterway, and be more true to the ship into the bargain.

The glue is white until it dries, then it is semi transparent or a milky gray like in my pictures.  If it gets on the waterway, it is almost invisible.

starboard

There is something I didn't mention that I did with this model.  There are several places where the deck and waterways do not meet, and a gap is left, mostly at the point of the forecastle deck, and the stern around the rear and sides of the poop deck. A few places of the main deck near the bow also needed filling.  I filled the gaps with a bead of Elmer's white glue applied with a tooth pick.  The result is the gap is filled, but isn't very noticeable.  It does not draw your eye's attention like an open gap does.

In the pictures, you can see the dark grayish dried glue which filled in the gaps. Sometimes a few applications were  needed. On my USS Constitution model, I filled the gaps with strips of styrene and sanded them even with the waterways and deck.  With the Cutty Sark I did not want to sand any of the wood deck overlay.

I have assembled all the ship's plastic parts except for anchors and trail boards, masts and spars. I am waiting for the bullseyes I ordered to rig the bow sprit and jib boom.  When done, I'll add the anchor and trail board.

Hismodel has sent me a replacement set of photo etch decorations. I need to add them to the trail boards, starboard side of the wheelhouse and the stern.   I have no confidence in my ability to work with the etchings today. Maybe I'll have it soon. I'll work on the trail boards first, using Hismodel's methodology and the advice you all gave me here.

So today I will begin assembling the masts and tops. I need to get a small vice to hold them in while working on them.   I will use Bruma's log for ideas on building masts. Thanks Bruma.  I'll never have your abilities, but I'll do what I can.

I am pretty pleased with my build so far.  There are places where things got a bit messed up, but they aren't too noticeable. 

I just keep adding more parts as it takes shape.

I ordered some bullseyes this morning, so rigging the bowsprit is on hold until they arrive.

I got lucky and bought a copy of Longridge's book with the pocket in the back holding the large folded plans.

I think the Revell bumkins are very fragile.  The instructions say to use thread to represent the chain that the real ship has attached to the bumkins. I could have used chain, but that would not have strengthened the piece.  I used music wire, painted black, which is stiff, to make the bumkins more rigid and to represent the chain. It also will handle the tension of the running rigging attached to them.

I lashed the boats down. Probably not prototypical, but it's what I came up with.  I looked around and didn't find any ideas, so I made my own. Lubbers who see my model will think I know what I am doing.  I am not going to make boat covers, though they were on the real ship.  I have not seen any really convincing way to make them that I'd be comfortable with.

My next work will be to rig the bowsprit and jib-boom.

I have several references that I am going to try to read and compare.  It is important to know what piece of rig you are working with, thus it is important to know their names.

I show two sets of Revell instructions.  The yellowed one is the oldest copyright in 1964  Venice, CA. The other is from 1987.  The older one has the names, the newer one does not, but it gives the order to follow when rigging. 

I show the others I have.  I find Revell easier to follow, but it has no dialog. Underhill and Hackney both have dialog.  Hackney is written as instructions to follow.  Underhill is more technical, which you have to apply to your model using your understanding of the text.  Underhill's figure 8 is almost the same as Revell's plan.

So my plan is to compare each.  I will most likely follow Revell and Underhill.

I completed the bob stay without bullseyes as Underhill shows. I think I'll do it over when my bullseyes arrive.  I've had quite a few do overs since I started. I'm sure to have many more.

The boats, boat boom, bowsprit, jib boom, spare  spars and all eyelets are complete.  I need to start rigging the bowsprit.  I ordered 3.5 and 2.5 bullseyes from Model Expo, so I'll wait on those to rig bowsprit.

50 minutes ago, shipman said:

Hi,

agree, at first the instructions are a little confusing.

Until I did a thumbnail sketch from above, and proceeded to draw the lines.

Even at a first and only attempt the result indicated what Hackney had in mind.

That revealed the booms held by up and over loops and the boats held by diagonal crosswise threads.

Surprisingly neat. Once the principle is understood it is clear how logical the process is, using the minimum of thread and attendant clutter.

Give that a go!

 

Looking at your boat placement, compared to boat storage on the actual ship reveals some proportional differences.

For instance the inner edge of the lifeboat crutches is directly over the sides of the deck-house, ie moving the boats further apart, resulting in plenty of room between for the dinghy and booms of your choice.

I recall similar advice I gave Bruma many moons ago; for which he was happy.

 

Out of curiosity, I'd love to see film of the apparent palaver necessary to launch such boats sideways between the cranes which are always separated within the length of the boat.

I don't want to move the boat skids.  So I think I will look for a picture of the actual boats and lashings.

Does anyone understand Hackney's description of how to tie down the boats?

I have an extra boat and want to do this modification on my ship.  I understand the drilling of holes in the boat skids, but weaving the ropes makes no sense to me.  Airfix shows the booms parallel to the ship sides and Revell has the booms athwart the ship.   Airfix also has boat masts which look like walkways to me. See Airfix instructions attached.

3 hours ago, shipman said:

Are you sure that is the same Campbell?

That's a book I have, unfortunately not to hand.

 

The first edition of Longridge has the Underhill plans as seperate fold-outs, tipped in.

Larger scale plans (though the same) can still be purchased.

https://www.skipper.co.uk/catalogue/item/clipper-ship-cutty-sark-sail-and-rigging-plan

 

You may find a source for these your side of the pond.

 

Leo, hi.

You may well be correct, though it seems a lot of trouble adding 4 feet.

I'm not sure of the dimensions, but could that be a reference to one or other of the deck-houses?

At first glance they may look identical, but as sure as I am, sitting on my Penny Farthing, they arn't.

 

 

I read there was a change in size somewhere.  The problem is I have read many references, I don't know which one has it.

Shipman,

This is for you from Campbell's plans.

1 hour ago, Ian_Grant said:

You asked in Kevin's log about how the stays are attached to the masts.  For the lower masts, they are usually double, looped around the mast head and seized together close to it. Also seized near the bottom, close to the rigging screws or whatever each side of the mast ahead. Those on topmasts are double, seized together too. For topgallants, they are single and a tight eye is formed and seized and forced over the masthead.

 

If the Revell instructions show a loop with a knot at its neck, they are correct. They're not meant to be tight to the mast, except in the case of topgallants/royals.

 

You seem to be a guy who wants to produce an accurate model. I recommend "Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier" by Harold Underhill. Excellent book, many many diagrams.

I have been reading Underhill's book in preparation to work on rigging.

4 hours ago, shipman said:

#246

'I also read that when first built, there was only one deck cabin, the second was added a couple of years later, though Hackney didn’t mention which one.'

 

Yes, the fore deck-house wasn't there originally.

 

Nice to know I was thinking along the right lines about the anchor chain/hatch arrangements. Though I have most if not all of the significant books, I don't recall mention these details specifically.

 

Delighted you all enjoyed the photo 'game'.

I remember there being disagreement on whether there were or were not two deck houses originally.  I'll have to look up my source. IIRC the plans called for one, but two were built in what I read. I'll get the source for us.

On Campbell's plans near the forecastle, he has "The original design was for 22 men as shown but with no after deck house.  The latter existed in 1871, if not when launched, and it is likely that the forecastle accommodation was only partly used with spare bunks."

The aft deck house was where the apprentices bunked along with the bosun, cook, sailmaker and carpenter.   If it wasn't there, then they would have to bunk with the ABs in the forecastle I would imagine.  The fore deck house had the galley and bunks for 12 seamen.

I added my picture, so you can see how much I resemble the chap on the ship.  That is Santa Barbara harbor behind me.