USRC Ranger 1819 by Cathead – FINISHED – Corel – Scale 1:64

[Cathead]

Captain, as far as I can recall, I've used only the kit-supplied wood. You can check back in the early portion of the build log to be sure.

 

Good luck on this one. I have to say, I think it's a difficult kit for a starter, because the instructions are weak and the materials are not ideal. I wish you the best of luck and I hope you start a build log so others can follow along and watch/help.

[Captain Cutter]

Ok. Your pictures looked like the 3x3 piece but the company emailed me saying it was the thinner piece. Do you remember experiencing any issues with that piece being incorrect or did it work out smooth?

[Cathead]

Captain, reviewing the manual, there's a 3x3 mm strip and then some 1.5x1.5 mm strips. Of those, you need to use the 3x3 for the keel while reserving the 1.5s for the rails. Do you have another thin walnut strip that doesn't match either of those dimensions?

 

The 3x3 is just a tiny bit wider than the internal keel, which is something like 2.5 mm. There's a tiny bump in width after you glue the two together. You can sand this down if desired; I found that it made no visual difference when laying the planking over it. It would be nice if the company could get their dimensions the same.

[Captain Cutter]

Ty very much.

[Cathead]

Both jibs are made and (mostly) rigged. I ran out of rigging line at this stage; there's more on order from Syren, which should arrive any day now. I'm starting to get a little terrified of the rat's nest of loose rigging lines, none of which I want to fully tighten and glue until everything else is rigged.

By the way, for anyone reading this who's interested, I also wrote up a summary of the method used to make the paper sails for this model.

 

Once I get my new rigging line, I'll finish the jibs and start installing the two square foresails. That's going to be some tight work.

[Cathead]

A couple quick updates from this weekend's work, then another major decision to make. First, I've added the upper sail on the mainmast. I'm afraid I don't know what it's properly called.

Second, I took a stab at adding footropes to the larger fore yard (not sure of the terminology here, either). The basic challenge here is how to make these look like they're hanging down properly when in fact there's hardly any weight on them at all. I came up with a basic jig to hold the ropes in place while I tied everything off, then applied PV glue to harden the ropes in place. Here's how it looks, completed, but with the jig left in place on one side for illustration. I think it came out ok.

 

And now for the big decision. The kit design calls for two square sails on the foremast; a very large course hanging from the yard shown above, and a smaller topsail above that. That course was actually the first sail I made for this model, it's been sitting quietly on a shelf for quite a while awaiting its turn. But at this stage of the model, I'm wondering if I should use it or eliminate it. Here's the thought process.

 

If I include it, that large course really blocks quite a bit of the rest of the model when viewed at many angles. It also seems a bit unrealistic given the other sails I have set; would anyone ever have a large course like that set when all the other sails are set? It doesn't make sense from a sailing point of view, at least in my limited knowledge. I test-fit it to show Mrs. Cathead, and she agreed that the model looked better without it, more balanced and easier to see the rest of the detail.

 

Then, if I decide to eliminate the full course, the question becomes whether I rig up a furled course on that lower yard, or leave the whole thing off altogether. Here's where research comes in; while going back through lots of imagery, both photography of recent vessels and paintings/drawings, the vast majority of images show similar vessels with no lower course at all (not set, not furled), just the upper foretopsail. See, for example, this USCG image of USRC Massachussets (USCG images are public domain):

 

Of course, to my eyes the wind direction, sails, and pennants/flags in that painting appear to be mutually impossible, so who knows how accurate it is. But there are lots of images like it online showing no lower fore sail. And here's another USGC image, this one an actual photo of a revenue cutter:

 

Again, no square sail below the foretopsail, not even furled. On the other hand, the drawing of USRC Louisiana I've consulted a lot clearly shows a lower course. For comparison, here's the original kit image with the big forecourse set:

 

 

But I'm leaning toward leaving it off entirely, as I can find abundant imagery showing such vessels without such a sail at all, this is very much a free-lanced ship anyway, and frankly I think it looks better without it. I can't pretend I haven't considered that this would also simplify the remaining rigging, but that's not a primary reason. It just really seems that the model will look more balanced without it, more like the many images I can find of similar topsail schooners with only a foretopsail set along with the fore-and-aft sails.

 

Any thoughts?

 

[glennreader]

This rig is similar to that of the Etoile that I am currently making. The Etoile carries the sail in question, it is only used when running with the wind directly behind. When not in use it is not furled it is taken down and stowed out of the way. It is hoisted on two blocks, one at each end of the yard. The only other rigging is the sheets. There is a picture on my log showing this. It is in post #9, as it is in French the sail is labelled the Fortune (I am not sure how this translates). The vast majority of pictures I have found show the ship without this sail.

 

Looking at the sail plan in your first post, this looks like a more permeant fitting, with all the rigging a square sail requires. But maybe if this sail was not used much the Captain had it taken down. In the end the rigging would have been up to the ships master.

 

I am also having the same debate, whether to rig this sail or not. Though I am not as advanced as you; I am still working on the hull. My thoughts at the moment are to make this sail and see how it looks. With the minimal rigging involved it would be easily removed. Also I will include the tackle for hoisting this weather or not I actually rig the sail. I would like to make this model with the sails set and full of wind, which I think points towards leaving this sail off. This will be my first attempt at this, I do not know how successful I will be.

 

I have been following your articles on sail making and am looking at taking a similar approach myself. I especially like how the panels of the sail look.

 

I hope this is helpful,

 

Glenn

[Cathead]

Glenn, what a useful response, thank you! The Corel image doesn't mean much; there's a lot about this kit that relies more on imagination than any real prototype practice, so I don't tend to follow their approach as "correct" in any given way, so just because they show that sail fully permanently rigged doesn't mean it was so. I had not considered that such a large sail could/would be taken down entirely, but it does help explain why so many such ships are shown without it even though it would be very useful when sailing downwind. I'm intrigued by the idea that it was only rigged with a block at each end of the yard; as you say, that could be modeled without the fuss of a furled sail but still acknowledging the existence and possibility of the sail. I will consider this, and thank you again!

 

 

[Cathead]

I made a major mistake, and have not yet decided how best to fix it. Before that, though here's the good progress I've made. Apologies for the slightly fuzzy images; it's really windy outside today and I don't want to take outdoor photos.

 

All sails attached, running rigging complete (the clothespins are holding a test of some standing rigging alignment):

I decided to display the foretopsail at a sharp angle, both because this model will be viewed primarily from the side (thus making this sail more visible), and because it fits the overall layout of appearing as if the wind is coming from the rear port quarter. I like how the footropes look on the lower yard:

Some detail of the running rigging along the masts and pin racks (again, sorry for the image quality):

I've also made my final decision on the standing rigging. I'm going with (per mast, per side) two topmast shrouds, run through spreaders, and down to blocks and rings on the deck (I installed another ring near the mainmast to accommodate this), and two proper stays run down to two deadeyes, with ratlines for both masts. This meant I had to pull off the original channels and deadeyes I'd installed from the kit materials, as they were now in the wrong place and orientation, and come up with my own from scratch. I ordered deadeyes from Syren, which are wonderful, but coming up with a good scratchbuilt set of channels and so on was really hard for me. After much experimentation, I settled on the approach shown below, which isn't ideal but looks fine from a little distance (like most of the model). I realize they're not entirely accurate, but they're the best I've been able to come up with and I want to move on.

Now for the mistake. Remember how I wanted to have the foretopsail displayed at a sharp angle, as if the wind were coming from the port quarter and so it would be move visible from the side? Well, turns out I overdid it. After gluing in all the lines and starting to test the setup of the standing rigging, I realized that I'd gone too far, and the yard was now behind where the running rigging would need to be. In the image below, compare the spreaders at the crosstrees and where the yard is: both the stays and shrouds would need to drop in front of the angled lower yard to reach their assigned positions on the deck. Oops.

 

Fixing this won't be easy; all the lines holding the yard are already glued in, with rope coils glued on top. All I can think to do is cut those lines and try to discretely splice in some new line (on the starboard side) and reduce the line length (on the port side) to rotate the yard back to a shallow enough angle to allow the standing rigging to descend properly. That's not going to be easy, and any knots are really going to show. But the only other option I can think of is to leave the standing rigging off on this (non-display) side, which doesn't seem very acceptable. Any other good ideas?

 

[Cathead]

So I fixed the rigging problem by cutting out the lines and re-rigging, simply slipping the new lines in under the rope coils. It's hardly visible. I'll take better photos later, but right now I'm struggling with another problem.

 

I've made very good progress on the standing rigging and have begun to rig ratlines. What I can't figure out is, what happens near the top of the ratlines on a small craft like this? The shrouds narrow in so much that at some point it seems pointless to keep tying ratlines, but without them how could anyone finish climbing to the tops? Larger ships have a wider spread of shrouds, and often use a spreader bar and other shrouds up to the topmast spreaders, but I can't find any documentation on how this was handled on a small schooner like this one. I've looked at MS's Pride of Baltimore and BlueJacket's revenue cutter, but neither one actually has ratlines, so that doesn't help.

 

Here's a photo of my ratlines underway; I stopped when it started to get to narrow, but that's still a long scale distance to the tops. How should I finish these off?

 

[cog]

Take a look at the topgallant shrouds on e.g. frigates, like this post from Dan Vadas

[Cathead]

Thanks, Carl. Unfortunately I still can't see enough detail there to figure out just what's going on. But following your suggestion that the topgallant shrouds could be a model, I went and looked at the detailed instructions for Syren, which still uses a small spreader bar (that's probably not the right term) between the shrouds. The problem is still that every other model I look at uses more than two shrouds per mast, spread over a wide base, meaning that the total width is wider and so it's easier to get higher and closer to the tops before the whole things gets too narrow. I finally found some images of the modern HMS Pickle, such as here or here, which only has three shrouds rising from a fairly narrow base. I think I'm going to call modeller's license, assume the caption had some leeway in the rigging of my fictional vessel, and install a small spreader between the two shrouds and then a couple of stays rising up to the topmast spreaders. In Syren, these were simply tied in place rather than being rigged to any blocks, so I'll do the same here. As in various other choices on this model, whether or not it's "right", I'll at least be able to justify it based on some form of prototype practice.

[cog]

Probably a bit more "modern", but you might find it useful, in this case no rat lines are used, but wooden bars.

[Cathead]

The model is done. I made some executive decisions about the standing rigging and just worked through them. I didn't take any photos during the rest of the work, partly because I was ready to be done with this project and just wanted to keep working without setting up special photo sessions, and partly because I didn't think I was doing anything that hadn't been documented a number of times before. For example, I did the ratlines and deadeyes by making a wire spacer for the deadeyes and tying the ratlines using a lined wooden guide, but those approaches have been better described by others.

 

Also, as some of you may have read in the news, it's been extraordinarily wet here in Missouri with devastating rain and flooding, and that's meant very poor photography conditions (dark indoors and wet outdoors). The model has been done for a week, but I finally found time and conditions to take some photos outdoors. I used a blue background to try and emphasize the reddish colors in the model; the white background I tried first washed out the colors too much.

 

Example of the standing rigging. I settled on two sets of shrouds and topmast stays per mast per side. I think they came out ok. You can also see the sweeps lashed to their stanchions and the safety lines, or whatever they were called in the early 1800s. I need to repaint the nailheads holding the channels in, I rubbed the original paint off handling the model.

 

Examples of ratlines and shrouds. I carved and painted a small spacer for each set of shrouds and inserted it about a man's height from the tops. This seems to produce a sensible pattern to the ratlines. I tied the latter using an overhand knot, which I realize is less accurate than a knot that turns each end inward (as opposed to outward) but I spent a whole evening trying to master the "right" approach and couldn't. Few viewers around here will recognize that the tips of the ratlines shouldn't be outside the stays. Otherwise I think they turned out ok.

 

I made a flag by laying out back-to-back flags on the computer and printing them on the same bond paper as the sails. I then brushed wood glue on the backside and folded them over. The effect has a nice, rough, cloth-like look that's far better than shiny plastic and holds its shape better than cloth (just like the sails). I rejected the flag from the kit not only because it was shiny, but because based on my research its design had never been used in US history (wrong number and pattern of stars). I chose a 24-star flag, which was used from 1822-1836, about the right time period for this post-War-of-1812 revenue cutter. It also happens to be the flag that represents my state of Missouri (the 24th state), a nice touch.

 

As the last step, I made a base from a chunk of Black Walnut harvested on our farm, which I chain-saw milled to rough size and then cut down using a table saw and router. The pedestals are from Model Expo. I also made a nameplate for the stern, again designed on computer and printed on bond paper, then glued to the stern. A bit of ink rubbed off in this process, but I think it just looks nicely scuffed and weathered. The name has a specific meaning for me. Many of the revenue cutters from this period were named for their region of intended service; for example the Louisiana and Alabama, the closest prototypes to this vessel, served in the Gulf of Mexico. My family has a long, multi-general history of visiting North Carolina's Outer Banks, a fascinating set of thin, sandy barrier islands that have been the scene for many important bits of American naval history, including a great deal of smuggling and piracy. It's one of my favorite pieces of coastline in the world. Thus, I named this vessel Ocracoke after the most significant harbor in the Outer Banks, a town with many fond memories and associations to me. I don't think any such cutter was ever based there, but in the fictional world of this model, there most certainly was.

 

With those steps completed, I declared the model done. I have mixed feelings about this project. I found the kit very frustrating, with terrible instructions and mediocre quality materials. Yet I also learned a great deal from working through those problems, and am really very happy with how the model turned out. It has lots of small errors or problems that an expert or contest judge would instantly notice, but I also think it came together in a very aesthetically pleasing way, and I can justify/explain every bit of rigging and equipment on it whether or not it's strictly prototypical (for example, I made sure the flag hoist would really work). So here are a few completed photos. I'm not entirely happy with the color balance, but do like how the blue background sets off the model.

 

Thank you to everyone/anyone who's followed this somewhat disjointed build log. I've appreciated your interest and support. I've already started planning my next project, another scratchbuilt Missouri River steamboat, and will be building a Maine lobster boat for my mother to keep my hands busy during the extensive design period for the former.

 

[ccoyle]

Very handsomely done, Eric!

[cog]

She looks grand! Wonderful work on her.

[Gregory]

Great little ship! 

 

I plan to build this little kit, and your build is a great source of inspiration and technique.

[Cathead]

Thanks, Gregory, though I have to say I wouldn't recommend this particular kit.  HMS Pickle from Caldercraft or the Revenue Cutter from Bluejacket are similar craft and from much better manufacturers. But, hey, it's certainly possible to do a decent job with the Corel kit with patience and cursing, so have at it if you prefer and good luck! Start a log, there are very few completed builds for this kit and your experiences could help others, too.

[Stevinne]

Very nice build. It looks beautiful. Congratulations.

[Cathead]

Hey, Bob, thanks for the nice comments. Sorry for the slow reply but I just returned from vacation. You ask a very good question about the order of standing vs running rigging installation. I, too, had read the same advice as you, but obviously went the other way. I spent a bunch of time thinking through my workflow, particularly as I was adding sails, and I felt that the standing rigging would be in the way of rigging the sails properly. I even set up some "test" rigging to explore this, and kept feeling like the shrouds got in the way. Of course, things ended up getting in the way in my approach as well. So it may or may not have been the right way to do it, but I did very much appreciate being able to tie down all the running rigging on the belaying pins near the mast without having to work around and behind the shrouds.

 

As for the kit, yeah, if you have it already and don't mind the challenge, might as well go for it. Obviously it can be completed into a reasonable finish, and I learned a lot from struggling through it. But I wouldn't purchase it again, there are too many better options.

[Bill Wells]

It does look good. However, there was no revenue cutter Ranger.   I noticed you siaid you consluted the Coast Guard's drawing of the revenue cutter Louisiana.  This drawing is inaccurate.  Louisiana was a pilot boat schooner built in New York in 1819.

[Cathead]

Bill,

 

Thanks for checking in. The build log is titled "Ranger" because that's the name of the kit, making it easier for other builders to find it; I know there was no such real vessel. I always intended this to be a fictional "representative" build, and if you look closely you'll see I named her "Ocracoke", on the alternate-timeline assumption that she was stationed near my favorite part of the US coastline.

 

As for the Coast Guard drawing, I had hoped it was accurate coming as it did from a USCG historian, but I knew I wasn't going to get all the details right anyway given how screwy the original kit was and my overall lack of sufficient knowledge. I read a few books on the history of pilot schooners and revenue cutters and did my best to capture the essence of these fascinating craft. Luckily for me, here in the rural Midwest, there are very few people who can or will notice my mistakes!

[TommyG567]

Great job on your Ranger or should I say Okracoke.  I'm four years late but I am finding your log very useful in my Ranger build. I have never found a wood ship kit to be easy and this is no exception. I'm three months into the project and have the hull, masts and bowsprit completed and am in the process of rigging the cannon. I will be trying your sail making method. Thanks for your help.

 

[Cathead]

Thanks, Tommy! I'm glad to hear it. Sounds like you're pretty far along, but if you'd like to start a build log anyway and I'd be happy to follow along as you finish it off.

[Capella]

On 3/14/2017 at 1:40 PM, Captain Cutter said:

I just bought this kit. My first ship ever. I was hoping you can tell me about the lathe to the Keel. Did you use the 1.5X3X320 (mm) dark wood piece? 

 

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Captain Cutter 

 

Hey, Cap'n Cutter.

 

This ship is also my first shot at wood ship models. I bought it probably around 2010 or so. I started it, got to finishing the first layer of planking and then life happened.

 

Then COVID happened and I finally picked it back up. I'm currently about a quarter of the way into the rigging.

 

How did yours turn out?

[Capella]

Cathead. I'm so glad that I ran across this log.

 

I purchased this very kit around 2010 as my first endeavor into the world of wood model ships. I worked up to the first planking and set it aside when life and such got in the way.

 

11 - ELEVEN - years later I decided to pick it back up (I restarted last fall) and am now a little into the rigging.

 

My workmanship is certainly nothing great to look at  - the kit calls for painting the hull, wales, bulkheads and such and it was a great way to cover up the myriad of ooopse, gaps and cover-ups. But my mantra throughout has been, "this is my FIRST ship, and it's MY ship." Critics be damned. 😉

 

The rigging is proving to be quite challenging. As this is my ffirst wood model ship I'm sticking to the kit plans - but as you well know sometimes it's just not possible to do what the plans call for.

 

I am heartened to know that my frustration with working through the instructions is not solely due to my inexperience, but is also due in part to the poor instructions and poor quality workmanship of the parts and materials provided. I am sure that my next project will be a much better experience.

 

Reading through your log has been inspiring. Thanks for sharing your project with us!

Edited March 11, 2022 by Capella

[Cathead]

10 hours ago, Capella said:

But my mantra throughout has been, "this is my FIRST ship, and it's MY ship." Critics be damned.

 

This is a great attitude! I'm so glad you're sticking with the project despite the kit's myriad flaws. If you're finding this worthwhile, you have a bright future ahead building kits from better sources!

 

Do you have a build log? If so, I'd be happy to follow along and offer advice if needed.

[Capella]

4 hours ago, Cathead said:

 

This is a great attitude! I'm so glad you're sticking with the project despite the kit's myriad flaws. If you're finding this worthwhile, you have a bright future ahead building kits from better sources!

 

Do you have a build log? If so, I'd be happy to follow along and offer advice if needed.

 

I do not have a build log - didn't even know that was a thing until last fall when I picked it back up.

 

I plan on starting one for my next project - whatever and whenever that will be...

[Cathead]

Well, if you have questions, you can always send me a direct private message through MSW's system. To do this, click on a member's name to go to their profile, then hit the prominent "message" button right next to "follow member".

[Capella]

8 hours ago, Cathead said:

Well, if you have questions, you can always send me a direct private message through MSW's system. To do this, click on a member's name to go to their profile, then hit the prominent "message" button right next to "follow member".

 

I do have a question that's I've been struggling with as I've started working through the rigging:

How do I achieve those cleanly wrapped lines around itself after passing through an eyebolt or something similar? I couldn't find a good example of that in the images in your build log (maybe I missed one), but the plans indicate them frequently and (to my surprise) I agree that they should look that way. I'm finding it extremely difficult working with such small diameter/gauge ropes/lines and achieving something even close to what it should look like on an actual ship.

 

Thanks!