Cutty Sark by bcochran - Revell - 1/96 - PLASTIC

[bcochran]

6 hours ago, shipman said:

re #204 thank you.

unfortunately that supplier says they won't ship to UK!?!

I'll see if I can get more and mail it to you.   I emailed him asking if he will have more.

 

I just bought 10 ft. for you.  $24.51 USD  How do I get it to you?  I sent you a message.

Edited May 9, 2022 by bcochran

[rwiederrich]

On 5/8/2022 at 6:59 AM, bcochran said:

Yes, but they were clippers

I'm sorry to let you down...but neither of those ships were ever *Clippers*.  They were full rigged ships(though the Star of India was reduced to a Bark, and is currently).  The Balclutha was an iron hulled(same as the Star) ocean carriers(Or Windjammers).  Neither were classified as *clippers*.  The True clipper era lasted from around 1848 to 1869...Around 20 years...and they were generally built of wood(American) and composite...wood and iron frames(British).  Americans built large ones, (1700~4555 hundred tons), compared to (900~ 1200 tons) for the British.

 

Iron hulled ships(and wood hulled) with high  cargo capacity that came after the clippers...were known as the DownEasters...(Or Windjammers), clipper looking, but much larger cargo capacity and shallower deadrise....resulting in a flatter bottom.  *Extreme* clippers held the fastest records, do to their sharp entry and exits and extreme use of canvass.  Speed was a true clippers goal...NOT cargo capacity.   Hope this helps?

 

Rob

Edited May 10, 2022 by rwiederrich

[shipman]

Thanks Rob, most of that I am familiar with, but hopefully others will also benefit from your explanation,

[bcochran]

52 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

I'm sorry to let you down...but neither of those ships were ever *Clippers*.  They were full rigged ships(though the Star of India was reduced to a Barkentine, and is currently).  The Balclutha was an iron hulled(same as the Star) ocean carriers(Or Windjammers).  Neither were classified as *clippers*.  The True clipper era lasted from around 1848 to 1869...Around 20 years...and they were generally built of wood(American) and composite...wood and iron frames(British).  Americans built large ones, (1700~4555 hundred tons), compared to (900~ 1200 tons) for the British.

 

Iron hulled ships(and wood hulled) with high  cargo capacity that came after the clippers...were known as the DownEasters...(Or Windjammers), clipper looking, but much larger cargo capacity and shallower deadrise....resulting in a flatter bottom.  *Extreme* clippers held the fastest records, do to their sharp entry and exits and extreme use of canvass.  Speed was a true clippers goal...NOT cargo capacity.   Hope this helps?

 

Rob

Thanks, I am not that knowledgeable on ships as you can tell.

[rwiederrich]

9 minutes ago, bcochran said:

Thanks, I am not that knowledgeable on ships as you can tell.

Hopefully the goal of your visits here at MSW is to acquire ship knowledge as well as the skills to model them.  You've come to the right place for all things *Ship*.

You're doing a great job thus far.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

49 minutes ago, shipman said:

Thanks Rob, most of that I am familiar with, but hopefully others will also benefit from your explanation,

Clippers are my specialty, though it was a short Era.....much design principles we have today came out of it.

 

Rob

[shipman]

On 5/6/2022 at 8:33 PM, bcochran said:

I like the way your poop cabin looks.

Think before you upload.

Great chat up line in certain company LOL.

[bcochran]

6 hours ago, shipman said:

Think before you upload.

Great chat up line in certain company LOL.

I was told the name poop deck comes from the idea that in old times, statues of saints were placed on that deck for good luck.  The statues were called pupae or something similar, I am not sure of this word.  But that word comes from pupil because your reflection in someone's pupil looks like a statue or pupae.

 

The statue deck became the poop deck.

 

So a cabin on the poop deck is a poop cabin to those in the know.  Of course, it is also the Liverpool cabin on the Cutty Sark.

Edited May 10, 2022 by bcochran

[rwiederrich]

10 hours ago, bcochran said:

So a cabin on the poop deck is a poop cabin to those in the know.  Of course, it is also the Liverpool cabin on the Cutty Sark.

Or the *carriage house*.....  If you are inclined.

 

Rob

[gak1965]

On 5/8/2022 at 12:39 PM, bcochran said:

What is the large rope along the lower area of the bulwark for?  It is hanging by ropes tied to the rail, I think. It might be some kind of protection against things crashing into the stanchions and such during rough seas.   I read in Lubbuck's book of several times when the deck as completely underwater and all that could be seen from above were the masts sticking out of the foam. Items not tied down must have crashed into the firm stationary parts of the deck.

That photo doesn't look like it was taken while they had any kind of sails set. I see that it is lightly attached to the rails, but you might just as easily suggest it is a mooring line (I think I see it going into a chock in the upper part of the photo) being kept off the deck, perhaps to prevent it from sitting in water and rotting?

[bcochran]

Water in the fire buckets

[bcochran]

Finally getting the port pin rails attached.  The boats and a few more items and the ship without rigging will be complete.

[rwiederrich]

Just wonderful

 

Rob

[bcochran]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Just wonderful

 

Rob

Thank you Rob means a lot

[bcochran]

Here is how I drilled the rails for the deadeye placement. I marked the rail using the kit deadeyes where to drill. Using the blue tape to keep the holes in alignment, I drilled with a .pin vice.

[Bruma]

Nice job!

If I remember correctly, there were discrepancies between the placement of the deadeye suggested by revell and the placement shown in cambpbell's plans. 

Obviously, you can place yours where you want, I just want you to be advised about that, correcting later on will be almost impossible... 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

24 minutes ago, Bruma said:

Nice job!

If I remember correctly, there were discrepancies between the placement of the deadeye suggested by revell and the placement shown in cambpbell's plans. 

Obviously, you can place yours where you want, I just want you to be advised about that, correcting later on will be almost impossible... 

 

 

Personally....I would make accommodations for the deadeyes to be slightly inboard to allow you clear and ample access to thread them.  As previously mentioned here or elsewhere...good clearance from the rail is beneficial.  They are more closely aligned with the belaying pins anyway.

Rob 

[bcochran]

1 hour ago, Bruma said:

Nice job!

If I remember correctly, there were discrepancies between the placement of the deadeye suggested by revell and the placement shown in cambpbell's plans. 

Obviously, you can place yours where you want, I just want you to be advised about that, correcting later on will be almost impossible... 

 

 

Thank you Bruma nice to see you here.  I have been following your build, and you have given me very much help and inspiration. As you are probably very aware, the Revell Cutty Sark has a lot of inaccuracies.  The one I noticed recently while watching YouTube videos of the real ship is that the bulwarks on the model are very shallow.  In the videos, the deck house roofs are just visible above the bulwarks, looking at the ship from the side.   Knowing that, when I look at the model, the deck houses look way out of proportion to the kit's bulwarks. Accepting that and all the other inaccuracies, I can find, you might say I am using Revell as my ship's plan. 

 

Kevin has pointed out that Campbell's plan can be critiqued also.  If you look at his forecastle, how would you get from the main deck to the forecastle?  He has no steps there.  He has pin rails where Revell and the actual ship have steps.    Even Longridge points out where he has taken liberties with his model due to the difficulty of making certain parts. His deck house panels are one example.

 

Knowing all that, I am comfortable living with my model's inaccuracies.  I could make a pretty long list of them.

Edited May 12, 2022 by bcochran

[bcochran]

Well, the bulwarks are done. This is a milestone for me since I have been putting off completing them. I have the boats to add, and a few small parts, then comes the masts and yards.

 

For me, rigging is new. Even without studying ships, I knew about deck fittings and such, so building that part of a ship was not a very hard mental process.  But I know virtually nothing about rigging.  I am studying it, though.  My plan is to read the reference books I have and compare what I learn with Revell's directions.  I feel I don't want to go ahead with anything until I thoroughly understand why I should be doing it a certain way.

 

I am sure to learn from Burma, Kevin, Rob, Shipman and anyone else who feels like helping out. I really appreciate all of you.

Edited May 12, 2022 by bcochran

[Ian_Grant]

Fortunately, Revell's rigging instructions are very well drawn and thought out. Which is more than can be said for a certain plastic ship model company whose name begins with "H".

[Kevin-the-lubber]

50 minutes ago, bcochran said:

In the videos, the deck house roofs are just visible above the bulwarks.

This is the deck being too high. The hull itself seems fairly true to scale but this one strange decision imparts on many things, from the hencoops to the windlass. If I was starting over (and there are still moments where I eye up the spare kit) I'd almost certainly lower the deck, but I guess one could also reduce the height of the cabins. But I think anything other than lowering the deck and you'd be chasing your tail.

 

Well done getting the pinrails in, and the fore and stern rails. I have quite bad warping on these kit parts which is what tipped the decision to remake them.

[rwiederrich]

49 minutes ago, bcochran said:

Thank you Bruma nice to see you here.  I have been following your build, and you have given me very much help and inspiration. As you are probably very aware, the Revell Cutty Sark has a lot of inaccuracies.  The one I noticed recently while watching YouTube videos of the real ship is that the bulwarks on the model are very shallow.  In the videos, the deck house roofs are just visible above the bulwarks.   Knowing that when I look at the model, the deck houses look way out of proportion to the kit's bulwarks. Accepting that and all the other inaccuracies, I can find, you might say I am using Revell as my ship's plan. 

 

Kevin has pointed out that Campbell's plan can be critiqued also.  If you look at his forecastle, how would you get from the main deck to the forecastle?  He has no steps there.  He has pin rails where Revell and the actual ship have steps.    Even Longridge points out where he has taken liberties with his model due to the difficulty of making certain parts. His deck house panels are one example.

 

Knowing all that, I am comfortable living with my model's inaccuracies.  I could make a pretty long list of them.

Many of those inaccuracies can be contributed to the time frame the model is being replicated....Prior to the Portuguese's extensive remodeling and addition of the aft poop cabin access doorway/hatch and relocation of her forecastle rail.....she appeared much like the Revell representation.  I can only assume Campbell's depiction covered or excluded some of these modifications.   When she nearly capsized and was demasted...she underwent still more mods.  Some are and are not replicated in other places.  And the worst issue, is that sometimes these mods criss-cross.  Some are found on models depicting mods that were NOT available at the time others were.

I found these poor historically accurate inconsistencies on many models of CS...not to mention in paintings....evidenced, while researching  my own build of the Great Republic.  Miss-matching mods with the era they did not appear in.

 

This is why it is so important the modeler does their homework when attempting to model a vessel at a particular time frame of its history.

 

Beautiful rendition...indeed.

 

Rob

[wemattson]

I think it is so cool that there are three wonderful Revell Cutty Sark builds going on simultaneously with a lot of constructive advice being shared by and amongst the builders.  All three are very inspirational and have me very excited to get started on mine once I clear the decks of some of my other projects.

[rwiederrich]

44 minutes ago, bcochran said:

Well, the bulwarks are done. This is a milestone for me since I have been putting off completing them. I have the boats to add, and a few small parts, then comes the masts and yards.

 

For me, rigging is new. Even without studying ships, I knew about deck fittings and such, so building that part of a ship was not a very hard mental process.  But I know virtually nothing about rigging.  I am studying it, though.  My plan is to read the reference books I have and compare what I learn with Revell's directions.  I feel I don't want to go ahead with anything until I thoroughly understand why I should be doing it a certain way.

 

I am sure to learn from Burma, Kevin, Rob, Shipman and anyone else who feels like helping out. I really appreciate all of you.

Apart from the missing white paneling on her aft cabin(I'm assuming it is).  Your build is as accurate as I have seen of CS as she flew the British ensign.

Great job.  Now the challenge is maintaining such accuracy in her masting/rigging.

 

Rob

[bcochran]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Apart from the missing white paneling on her aft cabin(I'm assuming it is).  Your build is as accurate as I have seen of CS as she flew the British ensign.

Great job.  Now the challenge is maintaining such accuracy in her masting/rigging.

 

Rob

The white panel on the aft cabin is covered by the ladder, and in the center is an open door. I did not know if the door had white panels or not. I think I remember reading that it didn't. Also, on the stern side the door is hinged and on the bow side it slides open.

 

In the picture, it looks like the door has white panels also. I think I will add that touch. In the picture it looks like the door opens to starboard while Revell has it open to port.

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by bcochran

[bcochran]

12 minutes ago, wemattson said:

I think it is so cool that there are three wonderful Revell Cutty Sark builds going on simultaneously with a lot of constructive advice being shared by and amongst the builders.  All three are very inspirational and have me very excited to get started on mine once I clear the decks of some of my other projects.

When you start your Cutty Sark we'll have another log going!

[bcochran]

1 hour ago, Ian_Grant said:

Fortunately, Revell's rigging instructions are very well drawn and thought out. Which is more than can be said for a certain plastic ship model company whose name begins with "H".

What do you think we should use for bulleyes?  I was thinking about using Revell's by drilling them out and replace the plastic rope with real.

[shipman]

#235

 

That's a good photo of you, Kevin and Bruma when you visited the ship to compare notes, the black and white treatment gives it that period flavor 🤓

 

'bulleyes?

 

Deck height bogey... I'm sure you've all noticed the outside of the bulwarks have a good depiction of the wash port lids, the bottom edge would give a datum for a properly lowered deck. These panels are rarely featured in photos.

 

Anchor chain deck run... If I ever get my finger out (next winter/) my solution which would satisfy me at least, would re build the hatch in front of the winch and take the liberty of making it narrower!

I may even consider iron deck plates for the chain to travel on.

That whole anchor chain paradox continually 'bugs' me.

Edited May 12, 2022 by shipman
New paragraph.

[bcochran]

The deck today.  I hope to finish up the rest of the plastic parts this weekend and start rigging next week.

[bcochran]

19 minutes ago, shipman said:

#235

 

That's a good photo of you, Kevin and Bruma when you visited the ship to compare notes, the black and white treatment gives it that period flavor 🤓

 

'bulleyes?

Revell calls them bulleyes.   Who is who in the picture?