USS Constitution vs Cutty Sark - which to build first?

[Frank Burroughs]

I am going to build two Men 'O Wars after the whaler model.  For my fourth model I am looking at the 1/96 scale Cutty Sark or the 1/96 scale USS Constitution.   Buying the Revell Cutty Sark 05422 pre-owned from France.  Really good deal on that ship and a 1901 research ship.  It is worth the shipping!  I am looking for the USS Constitution also.

 

on the USS Constitution i see the Revell | No. 85-0398 | 1:96 scale 2014 model has new parts.  It is hard to find, new or pre-owned.  Is it the best model kit of this ship at that scale?  I know this is subjective.  But, some molds are better than others.

 

Cutty Sark or USS Constitution, which would you build first?

Edited September 5, 2023 by Frank Burroughs

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

   I did both Revell kits in my teens (neither survived as they were not cased, nor was my craftsmanship that good).  There are a number of builds on both in MSW, which are great sources of info to make the build go smoother and perhaps expand on what's in the box (a 'soft' kit bust).  Later versions of these kits will tend to have more flash and less definition - and on some case more 'rubbery' plastic.  Having the masts bend under rigging pressure seems to be the main thing to avoid.  Doing the shrouds (less ratlines, which can come last) and forestays from the deck up seems to increase rigidity, but things can still get dicy at the topgallant mast level.  Some have substituted wood where possible for thinner mast sections or yards.

[VitusBering]

I haven't built the Constitution so I can't really advise - only guess that it is more complex than the Cutty Sark based on build logs here.

 

I'm building a hybrid H-399 (1974) and 05422 (2017) Cutty Sark. I completely agree with Snug Harbor Johnny that the later kit does have more flash and a softer plastic composition. If (eh, when) I build this kit again it will be after I acquire a 3D printer to make my own more robust versions of some of the more fragile components.

 

I had to undo and redo the mizzen backstays and rig the forestays first to prevent the mast from bending horribly. Lesson learned.

[popeye2sea]

I don't agree.  If you rig Cutty Sark the way it is supposed to be, with it's combination of chain, wire, and rope rigging, and add all the missing fittings for various whip tackles that are not depicted in the plan, it is a far more complex rig than Constitution.

 

Regards,

 

Henry

[VitusBering]

44 minutes ago, popeye2sea said:

I don't agree.  If you rig Cutty Sark the way it is supposed to be, with it's combination of chain, wire, and rope rigging, and add all the missing fittings for various whip tackles that are not depicted in the plan, it is a far more complex rig than Constitution.

 

Regards,

 

Henry

 

You may well be right, I'm just now starting the running rigging and do plan to add much more detail than is listed in the instructions for either kit. It does promise to be  a daunting task. And, as I said, my words were based on a shallow knowledge of the Connie kit.

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

1 hour ago, VitusBering said:

 

You may well be right, I'm just now starting the running rigging and do plan to add much more detail than is listed in the instructions for either kit. It does promise to be  a daunting task. And, as I said, my words were based on a shallow knowledge of the Connie kit.

    When I count up the number of square sails on an extreme clipper - 18 if one is not including 'sky sails' (or the fabled 'moon sail') - and multiply that by 12  (an average of 4 bunt lines per sail .. more below but fewer above, plus 2 sheets per sail, and 2 - either clew OR down haul - lines per sail,  2 luff lines and 2 braces),  you get something like 216 lines if one want to "fully" rig such a ship under sail - and thats just for the square sails.  Now add 8 halyards per mast (24), outhaul inhaul and sheets for 9 staysails (27) plus at least 6 lines for the spanker and the total is at least 273 separate lines that need belaying.

 

  Of course there are a few that I've overlooked ... and that is why I've decided to simplify (somewhat) how I'll rig my restoration of an old Gorch Fock model to reduce the amount of "spaghetti".  No wonder the popularity of "harbor rig" of a ship where the sails (and their lines) have been taken down to represent a vessel held in port for long enough to take the sails down.  One can get by with sheets, clews, halyards and braces - and you can get the number of belayed lines down to 150 or less ... still quite an undertaking.

[Frank Burroughs]

Good advice from all.

[VitusBering]

21 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

    When I count up the number of square sails on an extreme clipper - 18 if one is not including 'sky sails' (or the fabled 'moon sail') - and multiply that by 12  (an average of 4 bunt lines per sail .. more below but fewer above, plus 2 sheets per sail, and 2 - either clew OR down haul - lines per sail,  2 luff lines and 2 braces),  you get something like 216 lines if one want to "fully" rig such a ship under sail - and thats just for the square sails.  Now add 8 halyards per mast (24), outhaul inhaul and sheets for 9 staysails (27) plus at least 6 lines for the spanker and the total is at least 273 separate lines that need belaying.

 

  Of course there are a few that I've overlooked ... and that is why I've decided to simplify (somewhat) how I'll rig my restoration of an old Gorch Fock model to reduce the amount of "spaghetti".  No wonder the popularity of "harbor rig" of a ship where the sails (and their lines) have been taken down to represent a vessel held in port for long enough to take the sails down.  One can get by with sheets, clews, halyards and braces - and you can get the number of belayed lines down to 150 or less ... still quite an undertaking.

 

I hear you loud and clear.

 

I know I'll have to make hard choices with my Cutty Sark. I've said all along I don't intend to build a museum piece or even a generally historically correct model. I want to find a balance of customization that goes well beyond the simplistic original kit but doesn't end up as a messy spider web.

 

Even then, it will be an interesting endeavor because the kit, of course, has no provision for pretty much of anything in the way of running rigging.

[mtdoramike]

On 9/3/2023 at 11:40 AM, popeye2sea said:

I don't agree.  If you rig Cutty Sark the way it is supposed to be, with it's combination of chain, wire, and rope rigging, and add all the missing fittings for various whip tackles that are not depicted in the plan, it is a far more complex rig than Constitution.

 

Regards,

 

Henry

I agree with Popeye, the rigging of the Cutty is quite elaborate. 

[Frank Burroughs]

Sounds like I should build USS Constitution before the Cutty Sark.

[NoelSmith]

The National Maritime Museum in London sells copies of George Campbell's plans of the Cutty Sark. 

Have a look on their Cutty Sark Collection. Probably the very best set of plans available of the ship and also the most reasonably priced too when compared to commercial model makers plans from other sources.

Also, the long out of print book by Noel C L Hackney published by Patrick Stephens in the UK was an Airfix Special book. Although aimed at building the smaller Airfix kit, the book contains a wealth of information about rigging the ship and lots of details with regard to painting  the model.

Mr. Hackney wrote two other Airfix specials for The Mayflower and HMS Victory by the same publisher.