catopower

Hi John, you'd think my Japanese would be improving with all this stuff. But, in actuality, it seems to be making me a more confused person... 
 
I HAVE, however, gotten quite proficient at scanning and clipping text and using Google Translate, and then sorting through the odd translations. It's a lot like tying ratlines. Don't think about it, it's a long process, you just do it one step at a time...
 
 

Hi All,
 
Finally a post!
 
As if my work wasn't coming along slowly enough, a car accident and heavier work load managed to bring my ship modeling of all types to a standstill.
 
After nearly two months of making no progress on anything, I finally found myself in a position to move forward again on the Umibune. I didn't managed to figure out too much regarding the making of scale figures for the model, but I did finish tying the bindings on the rails. I also decided on how I wanted to finish the aft deckhouse, or yakata.
 
I basically returned to the idea of installing only lower panels on the sides of the structure. There seem to be a multitude of ways that artists and model makers have interpreted this design, so I just went with something I recall seeing in a painting. Is it accurate? There really doesn't appear to be any way to know for sure. But, it seems reasonable. In the photos below, you can see the panels before installation, as well as how they look in place on the model. I originally built these slightly oversized, allowing me to adjust them to fit.
 

 

 
As you can see from the photos, I also attached the rudder. The rudder on larger Japanese boats are fit through a hole in the back edge of a heavy beam at the stern. The Japanese did not use gudgeon straps and pintles to hold the rudder in place, but instead, rudders were held up by a rope lifting system, like Chinese boats, which allowed the rudder to be raised or lowered as needed. The hole in the large beam provided the necessary lateral support.
 
The lifting rope is attached to a hole in the top of the rudder blade and runs through a block, which is attached to the aft-most roof beam. The design of the block was not described anywhere, so I based it on a block that appeared in Woody Joe's Higakikaisen kit. This is a teardrop shaped block that apparently contains no wheel, unlike a modern-style block.
I was motivated to use this based on a comment that was made to me while visiting the Hacchoro fishing boats of Yaizu in 2016. While showing me some of the features of the Hacchoro,
 
Mr. Hiroyuki Kobayashi, one of the people who are responsible for the Hacchoro boats, told me that while the Hacchoro replicas use a standard wooden blocks in their sail gear, the Japanese didn't originally have such blocks.
 

Modern blocks on the modern Hacchoro replica.
 
He didn't elaborate, but seeing the wheel-less blocks on the Higakikaisen model suggested to me that this was the design that the Japanese originally used and is what Mr. Kobayashi was referring to. Unfortunately, I can't find any photos of that type of block, but here's the one that I made.
 

 
This type of block would most certainly have too much friction with the rope passing through it to be very efficient. But, it's very possible that its function is more to help support the rudder than to lift it up. Possibly, a few strong sailors would physically haul up on the rudder and tiller as someone hauled on the rope to take up slack and to help support the rudder's weight until the rope was tied off to beam at the stern.
 

 
In any case, I glued the stropping rope around the block and siezed it into place. The ends of the rope were simply run over the top of the beam and tied off underneath a crossbeam. I have no idea how the original was attached. Probably just passed around the beam, the way a block is fastened around the yard arm on a Western sailing ship.
 
The rudder was put into place with a rope seized through the hole in the rudder blade and rigged. To help hold the rudder in place, as it's too light to simply hang from the support rope, a hole was drilled through the rudder post and into the great beam and a pin pass through. This allowed me to keep the lifting rope taught, while keeping the rudder nicely in position.
 
More on oars and the very unusual anchors next time.
 
Clare

Hi All,
 
Finally a post!
 
As if my work wasn't coming along slowly enough, a car accident and heavier work load managed to bring my ship modeling of all types to a standstill.
 
After nearly two months of making no progress on anything, I finally found myself in a position to move forward again on the Umibune. I didn't managed to figure out too much regarding the making of scale figures for the model, but I did finish tying the bindings on the rails. I also decided on how I wanted to finish the aft deckhouse, or yakata.
 
I basically returned to the idea of installing only lower panels on the sides of the structure. There seem to be a multitude of ways that artists and model makers have interpreted this design, so I just went with something I recall seeing in a painting. Is it accurate? There really doesn't appear to be any way to know for sure. But, it seems reasonable. In the photos below, you can see the panels before installation, as well as how they look in place on the model. I originally built these slightly oversized, allowing me to adjust them to fit.
 

 

 
As you can see from the photos, I also attached the rudder. The rudder on larger Japanese boats are fit through a hole in the back edge of a heavy beam at the stern. The Japanese did not use gudgeon straps and pintles to hold the rudder in place, but instead, rudders were held up by a rope lifting system, like Chinese boats, which allowed the rudder to be raised or lowered as needed. The hole in the large beam provided the necessary lateral support.
 
The lifting rope is attached to a hole in the top of the rudder blade and runs through a block, which is attached to the aft-most roof beam. The design of the block was not described anywhere, so I based it on a block that appeared in Woody Joe's Higakikaisen kit. This is a teardrop shaped block that apparently contains no wheel, unlike a modern-style block.
I was motivated to use this based on a comment that was made to me while visiting the Hacchoro fishing boats of Yaizu in 2016. While showing me some of the features of the Hacchoro,
 
Mr. Hiroyuki Kobayashi, one of the people who are responsible for the Hacchoro boats, told me that while the Hacchoro replicas use a standard wooden blocks in their sail gear, the Japanese didn't originally have such blocks.
 

Modern blocks on the modern Hacchoro replica.
 
He didn't elaborate, but seeing the wheel-less blocks on the Higakikaisen model suggested to me that this was the design that the Japanese originally used and is what Mr. Kobayashi was referring to. Unfortunately, I can't find any photos of that type of block, but here's the one that I made.
 

 
This type of block would most certainly have too much friction with the rope passing through it to be very efficient. But, it's very possible that its function is more to help support the rudder than to lift it up. Possibly, a few strong sailors would physically haul up on the rudder and tiller as someone hauled on the rope to take up slack and to help support the rudder's weight until the rope was tied off to beam at the stern.
 

 
In any case, I glued the stropping rope around the block and siezed it into place. The ends of the rope were simply run over the top of the beam and tied off underneath a crossbeam. I have no idea how the original was attached. Probably just passed around the beam, the way a block is fastened around the yard arm on a Western sailing ship.
 
The rudder was put into place with a rope seized through the hole in the rudder blade and rigged. To help hold the rudder in place, as it's too light to simply hang from the support rope, a hole was drilled through the rudder post and into the great beam and a pin pass through. This allowed me to keep the lifting rope taught, while keeping the rudder nicely in position.
 
More on oars and the very unusual anchors next time.
 
Clare

Thanks Mark, James, 
 
I think it might be a good way to formally indicate by the admins that the review meets the criteria established above. Some kind of stamp of approval.
 
Clare

Thanks Mark, James, 
 
I think it might be a good way to formally indicate by the admins that the review meets the criteria established above. Some kind of stamp of approval.
 
Clare

Thanks Mark, James, 
 
I think it might be a good way to formally indicate by the admins that the review meets the criteria established above. Some kind of stamp of approval.
 
Clare

Question: At what point do reviews get a nice red "review" tag? Or is that reserved only for reviews by admins?

Hello Toni,
 
I know some people that will be very happy to hear about this change. Thanks for the announcement!
 
Clare

Hello Toni,
 
I know some people that will be very happy to hear about this change. Thanks for the announcement!
 
Clare

Hello Toni,
 
I know some people that will be very happy to hear about this change. Thanks for the announcement!
 
Clare

For those of you trying to decide whether to become a full member of the NRG but did not want the hassle of a print Journal, the Board has an exciting announcement.  The Journal is now available in a digital version in addition to the print version.  Check it out by going to the NRG Home Page and follow the link. 

Hey, check this out!
 
I made my first Youtube video, a slideshow really, of the Shinmei-zukuri build. 
 
 
I think it turned out pretty nicely, so I think I'm going to have to do the same for my other builds. But, the most well documented are the fairly recent Woody Joe kits I built. Would be nice to have a square-rigger or at least a schooner in there somewhere.
 
Clare

 
   

Hello Olavi,
 
Sorry I didn't see your post before. I hope you got your shrine model and have fun and success building it! They have castles, temples, and shrines, but I like this one in particular, because it is such an old style architecture. I also like that it has a little landscaping, so it is about the sacred space and not just the building itself.
 
Gambatte kudasai!
Clare

Hello Olavi,
 
Sorry I didn't see your post before. I hope you got your shrine model and have fun and success building it! They have castles, temples, and shrines, but I like this one in particular, because it is such an old style architecture. I also like that it has a little landscaping, so it is about the sacred space and not just the building itself.
 
Gambatte kudasai!
Clare

Hello Clare, found your temple site by chance and instantly ordered a pack from Zootoyz. Precise laser cutting and very addictive. You did it beautifully.
 
Architecture model building can be very relaxing. Years ago I built a Lego architecture set, the iconic Villa Savoye by Corbusier and enjoyed it immensely A lot of round and transparent elements.
 
Domo arigato, Olavi

What's in the box...All instructions are in Japanese so a good translator app is necessary. However, with the multiple pictures, instruction in most cases will be self explanatory. Laser and strip materials are all packed in well marked sleeves as to, part number, name, dimensions and quantity of each. In my experience with the Hacchoro model, there is very little extra strip material, I would imagine the same is true here. Measure twice cut once, for sure. As far as I can tell it looks like the outer hull is done on a skeleton frame, it is removed, and then the inside framing is done. From what I have read the ancient Egyptians built in that fashion.
Sorry the files did not load in order. And there was a surprise gift enclosed as well, nice touch.

Well, I'm calling this model finished today. The last remaining items were rope coils and paint touch-up.
 
I'm never really very happy with my rope coils, but I'm not sure I can get them any better than this. As I mentioned before, I tried the Tom Lauria method, and while it worked well enough, I found I was more comfortable if I reverted back to the similar, but slightly different method outlined by J Brent in his YouTube video.
 
So, I have some thoughts on this model. I believe that the Prince de Neufchatel was an extraordinarily beautiful ship, and that was largely the reason I wanted to build this model. I was also in the mood for relatively simply and not too taxing a build, which I though this would be. I'm happy enough with the result, but I found it to be a very frustrating model to build and not my favourite by a long shot. The design flaws of the kit and really very poor plans presented some challenges that I didn't anticipate and took some of the pleasure away for me. I'm used to sketchy MS instructions, but they usually have excellent detailed plans, which makes it easy enough to figure out what to do. But not in this case and I had to resort to a lot of (sometimes unsuccessful) guesswork. Not helping the situation was the lack of consistent reference material for this ship. I managed to locate pictures of three different versions, apart from the MS version, but they all differed so greatly that they might as well have been of different ships.
 
I know some other builders are concerned about the inaccurate gun carriages on this model, and I agree that the kit supplied ones seem too big, but I chose to go with them anyway as my motivation on this one was waning.
 
I'm now getting ready to start my next build which will be the Charles W. Morgan and I'm hoping for a much more satisfying experience. It looks like a challenge, but the plans appear to be excellent and there is plenty of reference material available.
 
Many thanks for comments, likes, etc.
 
David




 

Hi Warren, it's a long time since I built Norske Love, but fortunately she is within 15' from where I am writing this reply.🙂
 
I followed the James Lees (Masting and Rigging) book for the Main Stay collar, arrangement after 1690.
The collar was a long strop with a heart in its bight, the line leading thro' a hole in the beak below the Bowsprit.
One end has an eye spliced into it and the other end rove thro' this eye and was seized to itself.
The eye lies on the Port side of the Bowsprit and should be served all over. This was a fine detail I omitted back in the 1980's when I built my version.

You can see the collar running down between the Knightheads before it rounds the Bowsprit and is seized thro' the eye.
 
Regards,
 
B.E.

Hello to all,
 
I'd like to introduce myself and what brought me here.  I'm not a ship model builder, unless you count my 2 foot long scale model of the Kilo Moana in Lego; although the hobby appeals to me so much that I may yet add it to my hobbies - and starting slowly, as advised to new members.  What brought me here is looking for help in identifying parts of steam and sailing ships.  I am a volunteer scientific diver with The Bodega Marine Lab of University of California, Davis, and I have been working more recently with NOAA and California State Parks on maritime archaeology of shipwrecks on the Sonoma Coast.  Especially through the late 19th Century, the rich coastal lumber trade combined with the treacherous, rough, fogy, rocky coastline resulted in many wrecks of lumber schooners and many other ships.  With the State and Federal agencies, we are interested primarily in identifying and documenting the maritime historical resources as the lay.  Most of these ships have passed into ocean entropy, of course, but if bits are found where ships are known or suspected to have wrecked, then I might look to you as experts in visual identification.
 
In conjunction with the older wrecks, I am currently undertaking a project to map the entire wreck site of the SS Norlina, A 385 ft cargo steamer which was launched as the SS Harfluer in 1909 and, after having been Commissioned USS Norlina in 1918-1919, wrecked on our coast at Salt Point in 1926.  Since it broke in half during attempted salvage operations, and was finally demolished with dynamite, one can imagine the size and scattered nature of the debris field.  So, since I am not an expert on steam (or any other) ship parts or construction, I thought to engage with this community to browse and pose identification questions once I have them formulated clearly enough.  There are many forms I see and have filmed diving through he wreck site which are clearly unique and I imagine are identifiable but that I can't identify.
 
By identifying characteristic items and cross-referencing their positions, I hope to map the site and virtually reconstruct the ship as much as possible from it's present state.  So far, the larger features are two main boilers, a triple expansion engine, a 40 meter drive shaft, a couple of propeller blades, several windlasses, and lots of double bottom hull and scattered iron beams.  It's a fascinating site, and I've put several raw dive videos from it on my youtube.
 
If this seems to you all to be an appropriate purpose to taking part in the community as a non-builder, please let me know.  Otherwise, I will just browse and learn without tying up bandwidth.  Also, if anyone has ideas of additional or more appropriate resources, please let me know!
 
Cheers,
John
 
 

James,
You are welcome.
No masking, I just used the supplied printed pieces to refer to when hand painting. I should also add that the plans and instructions were excellent, typical for every Amati/Victory models build I've done (4). I've attached a better close-up to show the decorative aspects.
 
Cheers!
Ron

I found this kit to be generally excellent. I modify all my kit builds extensively (including this one), but a significant amount of this kit's components didn't need replacing. I did NOT use the Kit's glue-on decorative (and very distinctive) printed paper patterns; instead, I chose to hand-paint them with much better results. For more accurate rigging, much higher-quality rope and blocks from Syren "upped the game" considerably.
 
Englishman, Chris Watton, is a first-rate kit designer. Amati is a first-rate kit manufacturer. Despite not using the planking, decking and masting wood supplied by Amati, IMHO the Revenge is still a worthwhile investment for builders not enamored with "scratch." My Revenge now sits in a dining room and generates "high fives" - even from friends and visitors who know nothing about what goes into our fascinating hobby. I've attached a hi-res pic to see some detail on what I did to modify this excellent kit and how I've chosen to display her.
Ron
 

This is the very beginnings of a build log. Until I have finished renovating the house, there’s no chance of actually doing any building – no time, and no space available. But in my free moments I’ve been researching and drawing up plans for a Byzantine dromon of the 10th-11th century. The name dromon (Greek = “runner”) was originally applied to a class of fast Roman galleys with a single bank of oars developed around the 6th century AD. Over the centuries, as the Roman Empire shifted its emphasis to the East and gained a new capital in Constantinople (modern Istanbul) and evolved into what we now know as Byzantium, the dromon changed as well, until by the 10th century AD it was a very different vessel with two banks of oars, lateen sails and armed with a devastating weapon, pyr thalassion – Greek fire.
 
Greek fire is generally accepted as having been made of naphtha, a naturally occurring substance similar to petroleum. Contemporary descriptions led Prof. John Haldon to work out theoretical design using only technology known at the time, and then put it into practice, with spectacular results (see https://books.google.com.au/books?id=q0hMf5vu7kgC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=%22Greek+fire%22+revisited:+recent+and+current+research%22&source=bl&ots=Kwp5Xa3U62&sig=tR81SBsNfAc_uDLyuXDxe9uPWKA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bjAzVc61C8TNmwWvv4HICw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Greek%20fire%22%20revisited%3A%20recent%20and%20current%20research%22&f=false  -
page 292 onward). Greek fire was used effectively in a considerable number of battles, destroying threatening enemy fleets. I was reported to have burnt on the surface of the water (and in the reconstruction that’s just what it does!).
The definitive source on the dromon is the excellent, thorough and painstakingly researched book Age of the Dromon (http://www.brill.com/age-dromon-0) by Professor John Pryor and Elizabeth M. Jeffreys, which draws together all the clues as to the nature of the vessel, from its early development to its apogee in the 10th and 11th century. The available information is rare, widely scattered and often difficult to interpret. At the time it was written no remains of any Byzantine war-galley had ever been discovered, let alone a dromon, contemporary descriptions were vague and patchy (and in the case of at least one writer of the time, often wrong). Contemporary illustrations are equally unsatisfying and the conclusions and resulting reconstruction reached are a considerable achievement. There have been a lot of theoretical reconstructions of dromons over the years, many of which can be seen if you do a google image search for “dromon”. Some of them are quite ludicrously wrong – often clumsy and far too heavy for a vessel propelled by muscle power. Prof Pryor’s reconstruction is the best and most believable I have seen, and is based firmly on the available evidence. It would also make a fast and effective warship, which most of the others wouldn’t.
 
The picture that emerges is of a long narrow vessel with 100 oars arranged in two banks of 25 on each side. Instead of an outrigger, the sides were flared outwards at the gunwales to allow a good angle of attack for the upper oars. The vessel was fully decked and had two lateen rigged masts and dual side rudders. There was a fortified forecastle, below which was the siphon for Greek Fire. On larger dromons each gunwale was built up amidships and fortified with a wooden ‘castle’.
 
In the centuries between ancient and mediaeval galleys, shipbuilding techniques had changed from frameless shell-construction (in which adjoining planks were fastened together by many small wooden tenons fixed into slots in the edges of each strake), to fully framed construction which was far stronger, and unable to be sunk by ramming. Rather than a ram, the late dromon had a long detachable ‘spur’, intended to break the enemy’s oars, to destroy its motive power and manoeuvrability. Instead of sinking opposing vessels, the dromon’s crew used projectile weapons – bows, slings, ballistas and even flung stones to cause casualties on the enemy’s decks until they could pull alongside, grapple and board. The oarsmen of the upper bank doubled as marines, leaving the lower bank to manoeuvre the ship into position.
 
Tests on Olympias, a full-sized reconstruction of an ancient Greek trireme built in the 1980s, determined that such long, thin, light vessels were very subject to the vagaries of the weather and were of very limited stability. It was discovered that it was impossible to row effectively in any sort of sea – waves one metre high were the upper limit – and a galley faced by bad weather had little choice but to run for shelter. Galleys were also poor sailers and could really only sail effectively in a gentle breeze – a heel of more than 10 degrees would swamp the vessel and it would have been all but impossible to sail into the wind.  A dromon’s storage ability was minimal and on long trips it would have to put into port on almost a daily basis to replenish stores, (particularly water, which oarsmen need to consume in great amounts to stay effective)
 
A galley’s length is determined by the interscalmium – the distance between the rowing benches. Age of the Dromon estimated the interscalmium to be about 1.0 metre (3’3”). Any closer together and the oarsmen foul each other; any further apart and you’re adding dead weight for the oarsmen to pull along for no reason. A galley with 25 benches in each bank would be about 25 metres long, plus extra for the bow and stern. A dromon was incredibly long for its width – the reconstruction in Age of the Dromon is 31.25 metres (95 feet 4 inches) long and its maximum beam amidships only 4.46 metres (13 feet 7 inches).
 
Just as the book was about to be published in 2006 an amazing discovery was made in Istanbul. During excavations for an underground railway in the Yenikapi district of the city’s southern edge, workmen stumbled upon the Harbour of Theodosius, silted up and buried centuries before. Under the mud were the remains of 37 Byzantine ships dating from the 5th century to the eleventh century AD. Most were merchant vessels, but at least 6 were war galleys – not dromons unfortunately, but galeai – smaller and lighter single banked galleys used for scouting, and from which our word galley comes.
 
The Yenikapi ships confirmed the theoretical dimensions of Age of the Dromon’s  reconstruction – of the two galleys which still had their upper works in reasonable condition, the interscalmium of one varied between 0.90 and 0.97 metres, and the other between 0.874 and 1.048 metres, averaging 0.96.  The length and beam of these galleys was consistent with the theoretical reconstruction.
 
These vessels were incredibly lightly built – the thickness of the planking varied from 20 to 30mm (3/4”-1 ¼”, almost unbelievable in a vessel of that length, and the frame timbers averaged 60mm (2 ¼ ”) square. The ships were prevented from hogging by stringers inside the hull and heavy wales. Presumably dromons were similarly constructed, with extra stiffness provided by the full deck.
 
I cannot adequately express my gratitude for the wonderful help freely given by Professor John Pryor and also by Dr Cemal Pulak of Texas A&M University.
 
Professor Pryor has been incredibly helpful to a lubber like me and I owe to him almost everything I know of dromons, and certainly my decision that I could actually go ahead and make a model of one with a reasonable certainty of getting it right. 
 
He also referred me to his colleague Dr Cemal Pulak, (who took part in the excavation of eight of the Yenikapi ships, including two galleys). Dr Pulak was kind enough to send me a copy of his paper when it was published (it appears in the in the international Journal of Nautical Archaeology 2015  44.1; pages 39-73), as well as a photo of a partial reconstruction of the better preserved of the two galleys he excavated, built at a scale of 1:10.
 
My model will follow Professor Pryor’s reconstruction as closely as possible, with a few modifications based on the Yenikapi finds and on some discoveries of my own when drawing up the model to scale.
 
However, before constructing the full model, I plan to make a midships section at 1:20, with three sets of working oarsmen, as Professor Pryor pointed out that though theoretically the two banks of oars of his reconstructed dromon should not foul each other (Olympias had a lot of trouble with broken oars from fouling between oars of different banks), they have not been tested in the real world. I've attached a PDF of the plans in their current state of development.
 
It should be very interesting.
 
Steven

dromon.dwg Model (1).pdf

11/28/2017


 
Just a short update on the coppering. This task is definitely the never ending story. I try to get three rows of the plates installed each time I work on the ship. The constant squeezing of the tweezers in one hand and the glue bottle in the other leads to some serious hand aching – like a repetitive motion injury. Three rows is just about all I can handle at one time.

I try to break the work session into several tasks. Planking the upper gun deck is one of the these tasks. Making the hatch comings another. I also mill the wood that I will need in future chapters. Holly for deck planking and Swiss pear fir the hatch comings.
I am using Temaya metallic copper paint to fill in some of the gaps where the plates don't align well. Not a real good fix, but, better than seeing the raw hull, light or black, showing through.



 
Here are some photos of the coppering.

10/4/2017
 
Finally completed the planking of the hull. Completed the lower wale anchor stocking. Installed the diminishing plank and blended the plank into the hull. Planked the stern area, bending the planks into the wing transom and stern post. Blended these planks into the hull as well. Ebonized the hull for an inch or so below the waterline using the India ink. Everything got another coat of wipe on poly. Did whatever ebonizing touch-up which was required.
Finally completed the planking of the hull. Completed the lower wale anchor stocking. Installed the diminishing plank and blended the plank into the hull. Planked the stern area, bending the planks into the wing transom and stern post. Blended these planks into the hull as well. Ebonized the hull for an inch or so below the waterline using the India ink. Everything got another coat of wipe on poly. Did whatever ebonizing touch-up which was required.
 
4 of the cannon have become detached. 2 of them have come out of the backing piece. They will glue back in easily. The other 2 came out attached to the backing piece. Luckily, I was able to get these out through the stern. These will not be able to be reinstalled ini the original manner. I am going to make a plug sized to the gun port, glue the cannon to the plug and glue the whole thing into the gun port. This should be OK since the gun port lid will hide most of the repair
 
Now it’s time to open the copper plates. I have been told that the Mantua kit is short a good amount of plates. I tried to make some plates using ¼ inch sticky backed copper tape using a ponce wheel. These don’t look anywhere as good as the Mantua plates. The alternative is to make a stamping jig that will stamp the nail head pattern and either cut the individual plates off the strip, or, lay strips of stamped plates. They also come out a little larger than the Mantua plate which is 6 x 15 mm ( a little short of the ¼ inch width). The Mantua plate also has the nail heads embossed on all 4 sides. This means you install them by butting them up against each other without overlapping. I tried this with a test set and it really works very easily using CA and just sliding them into place. We will see what we will see.

1:64 Revenge 1577 – Elizabethan Race Built Galleon
Amati/Victory Models
Catalogue # A1300/08
 
 

 
The Elizabethan Navy Royal warship Revenge was built at Deptford and launched in 1577. Revenge was a new type of warship, a ‘Race Built Galleon’. She was built following the direct ion of Sir John Hawkins and supervised, it is thought, by the master shipwright, Matthew Baker. Revenge was about 500 tonnes and carried a crew of around 250 men. Contrary to popular belief, the new race-built galleons were not dwarfed by the Spanish galleons but were of equal or sometimes larger size. It is very easy to see the lines of Revenge as a precursor to the Prince Royal of 1610, the Sovereign of the Seas of 1637, or even the Prince of 1670.

The armament of ships of this period varied greatly; guns might be added, removed or changed for many different types of reasons. Revenge was particularly heavily-armed during her last cruise. On this, she carried 20 heavy demi-cannon, culverins and demi-culverins on her gun deck, where the sailors slept. On her upper decks were more demi-culverins, sakers, and a variety of light weapons, including swivel-mounted breech-loaders, called ‘fowlers’ or ‘falcons’. She was considered the best all-round warship in the fleet, and in 1588 she served as the flagship of Sir Francis Drake, and was involved heavily throughout the Armada campaign. In 1591, Revenge and her captain, Sir Richard Grenville, both earned their place in history when the Revenge was overtaken by a Spanish fleet off the Azores. Sir Richard Grenville fought the Spanish fleet for 16 hours, crippling and sinking many Spanish ships before being forced to surrender. 
 
The kit
Revenge 1577 is an Amati/Victory Models joint venture, as was the HMS Vanguard 1787 that I reviewed recently. However, this particular kit was only released in 2015, having been designed by Chris Watton. Like Vanguard, Revenge is packaged into the same monster-sized box so will look pretty imposing when it arrives, plus it will really please your postman who will have to bring it to your door!


If you are remotely interested in this particular kit, you will have doubtless headed to Amati’s website for information on this release. That is given as thus:
 
20 sheets of plans 96 pages full colour building manual with step by step instructions Laser cut plywood, hardwood and MDF Double planked hull Highly detailed photoetched brass parts Precious paper decorations Brass culverins and burnished metal casted cannons  
…now it’s time to look deeper at this kit. 
 
Amati’s artwork for the box is perhaps a little more restrained than that of Vanguard, but still looks equally as impressive, with images of the completed model on the sides of the box. It’s also a fairly weighty box too. When you lift off the lid, you’ll note that the lid is merely decorative, with a single-piece rigid corrugated card box underneath. The lid is secured via large tabs and lifts up to reveal contents. The box is designed to hold large weights within and is very robust. Inside, we have several packets of laser-cut MDF, ply and walnut, a heavy pack with 20 plan sheets, a full-colour perfect-bound instruction manual, bundles of strip wood and dowel, printed flag set, and three large boxes of fittings/components. Everything is packed so as to minimise any movement of items within, and indeed, my sample looked like it had just been packed at the factory.



Opening the first components box, we see a pack of sail cloth, just in case you wish to fit them to your model. I know the convention is to leave sails off, but at lease the option is provided for you here. The material is very pale and would benefit from some ageing using whatever your preferred method. 





Two thick clear bags are now seen, and these include parts for the cannon, in two sizes. The main bags themselves contain some beautiful cast guns with decoration on them, and these have an antiqued finish. I would personally paint these in iron, and the embellishments should look excellent if you then buff them up. Unlike Vanguard, this kit provides wooden gun carriages, machined as a single piece. Again, I am more than happy with this inclusion, and they appear to be walnut. A long piece of thin, narrow copper sheet is included to make the straps from. Two further packs include the eyelets, plus wooden wheels and axles. Very happy with those.

Underneath these bags lie a few clear sleeves of photo-etch parts. Here you’ll find parts for the chain plates and for deadeye securing, doors, grates (maybe they were cast iron on these ships?), and also the Royal crest that adorns the transom. This is built up from two layers of PE and will require some painting. Two name plates are also supplied for the base. You will need to paint the lower relief and then drawn the part over fine abrasive paper to remove anything on the upper relief. 






The second box contains rope, rigging cord, anchor set, culverins, pre-shaped rudder hinges, brass pedestals to mount the model to the base, brass pins, copper eyelets, etc.






Our last box has more goodies for the rigging, such as various-sized deadeyes, blocks and belaying pins etc. You will also find here some brass wire, cast figurehead ornamentation, barrels, stair kit, and parrel beads. All components are securely bagged within their own compartments. 






Amati include some nice timbers in their releases, and here we have bundles of strip wood for the double planked hull (lime for first plank), deck etc. The deck planking actually has a paper identifying tag. Dowel is of walnut, and again, quality is excellent.



A single sheet of laser-cut ply contains the channels and rear gallery doors etc, and a further three sheets of ply are taken over with more channels, facings for the cabin access bulkhead, and the unusual Tudor circular mast-tops.


Two small sheets of wood (not ply) contain rudder and windlass parts, chain knees, and the lower keel. All parts are finely cut and will of course require any charring to be removed, although this is a fairly quick job. 


Two reasonably large sheets of ply contain the beak grate platform, transom, and more bulkhead walls with pre-cut windows and doors. These will of course be individually planked, and various timber fittings and rails added to them. Smaller parts can be found here too, such as cannon shot garlands and rigging cleats.

A further two thick ply sheets hold parts for the various decks, with the exception for the lowest main deck.

The largest ply sheets are fairly thin and for good reason, as they contain the upper bulwarks and sides with the gun port positions pre-cut. These will need to conform to the concave curvature of the hull at that point, hence the thinness of them. They are also joined by an interlocking pattern, so you achieve the correct placement of them.

More laser-cut ply here, with garlands, rudder and forward bow keel section etc.

Five MDF sheets contain all main constructional components, such as the false keel, bulkheads, lowest main deck, deck beams etc. Whilst the curved sides of the bulkheads look very fragile, several builds here on MSW show that there shouldn’t be any real concern as long as you exercise some care and attention.





You will doubtless have noticed that instead of the carved embellishments we see on later and Spanish vessels etc, this Tudor warship has coloured panels along the outer bulwarks etc. Thankfully, you won’t need to paint these at all as they are provided as pre-printed items. Now, the paper they are printed on is heavier than writing paper and is of a type which means that the printing won’t fade. I’m presuming it’s all acid-free paper etc too. Printing is super-high quality and against a wooden texture background for a reason I can’t fathom. Still, these look amazing when added and really bring the vessel to life. All paper parts are numbered, and sections of the sheet listed as for right/left side.

There are 20 sheets of plans for this model, but as well as parts maps which cover several pages, the remainder generally looks to contain information for masting and rigging the ship, plus adding the sails, if you wish. There are other illustrations of the model too, but the hull and fitting out is mostly done using the instruction manual.

When it comes to instruction manuals, Amati really do go to town. Their latest releases, such as the Orient Express Sleeping Car, contain glossy, full-colour photographic instruction booklets with clear English text (Italian also shown). Each stage of the build is clearly shown, and nothing should be ambiguous with this particular presentation. 




Lastly, unlike most model kits, this one does include a base, as previously mentioned. This is machined from MDF and will need sealing and rubbing back before painting. The edges of this are profiled too. With the brass pedestals and name plates, this should look very nice when complete.


 
Conclusion
This model was released in 2015 and comes from the stable of those designed by Chris Watton. Unlike his Nelson’s-era kits, this little gem doesn’t seem to get the recognition is deserves, although as I say, we do have some logs of the build here on MSW. Tudor warships, for me, really are beautiful in their style and execution. I’m a big fan of the Mary Rose (for which I also have a kit), but this particular vessel is more ornate than the Mary Rose and has the galleon-style features that we expect from a ship of this period. Timber quality is excellent, as are the various fittings, and of course, the instructions means that you shouldn’t go wrong during your build. The pre-cut gun ports and jigsaw bulwarks will also ensure a trouble-free project. Cornwall Model Boats currently lists this model for £364.99, and I think that represents really good value for money for a ship of this size (Length: 885mm, Width: 380mm, Height: 655mm)
 
My sincere thanks to Amati for sending out this kit for review here on Model Ship World. To purchase, head over to your favourite Amati-stockist of online retailer)