1/96 Revell Cutty Sark accuracy question...

[jannie]

Good day all

 

I feel rather embarrassed for asking this (so many people on so many forums who view obsessive Accuracy in model kits with disdain), but in the early 1980s I built the Imai kit of the Cutty Sark - this was the 1/120 scale version. I considered it to be a pretty accurate model and it captured the sleek lines of the original ship extremely well. I never considered the Slide Rule and Scale Drawing approach when building it, the kit was just a complete pleasure from start to finish and that is all I recall. Imai did actually include scale drawings from the Cutty Sark Museum, so I assumed that it "probably is accurate enough". Unfortunately the model did not survive the collective childhoods of my kids that were born  soon after (my son at age 5 wanted to impress his little sister with the sheer distance he can throw a tennis ball - inside our home, I was not that impressed myself though to put it mildly). Anyway, I consoled myself that I will "one day" buy the larger Revell 1/96 scale kit of the same ship.

 

...So I did actually buy the Revell kit and it has been sitting in my stash for the past 15 years(!!!). Something that strikes me every time when I want to get going on the kit is that the hull seems somewhat "beamy" (too wide when considering the ratio of hull length vs. beam/width), compared to how I remember the Imai model. Many of the early Revell or Monogram kits  - I think the Cutty Sark dates from the early 1960s - are somewhat known for dubious accuracy, dating from a time when plastic construction kits were more often than not thought of as toys.

 

Do anyone have any comments in regard to hull shape accuracy of the Revell kit? I have tried to google around and there are lots of build progress discussions but seems like Accuracy in regards to these old Revell kits is a taboo subject.

 

-- Jannie, almost ready for retirement and clearing my workbench...

[Francis Macnaughton]

The opinion of Prof John Tilley on any sailing ship kit is always worth having.   He posted many items in the FSM forum and was obviously a fan of the Imai Cutty Sark:

 

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/7/p/65003/650801.aspx#650801

 

He also seems enthusiastic about the Revell kit although he doesn't comment specifically on accuracy as far as I could see in a quick search:

 

http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/7/t/151475.aspx?page=2

[jannie]

Thanks for the suggestion, Francis. TBH, after reading Prof. Tilley's comments, I'm of a mind to "abandon" the Revell kit and invest in the Imai kit... I have seen it from time to time on Ebay. I'm not really a "Mr. Moneypockets" - it's just that the Revell kit is (other than size-wise) somewhat underwhelming compared to the Imai version.

[kpnuts]

Hi I built the revell thermopylae kit a while ago and whilst it was an enjoyable build its accuracy is very poor I mention this as it is really a reboxing (with a bit of extra tooling of their Cutty Sark kit) as is the pedro Nunes so I would be very wary of the accuracy of the kit.

Apparently revell did this with a lot of their earlier kits. Hope this helps.

[Peter Roberts]

I don’t mean to hijack this thread, but may be relevant? - any idea on how the Airfix kit compares in terms of accuracy?

 

[Noel Smith]

The Airfix Cutty Sark has been around a long time now (from way back in the 60's I think). a bit smaller than the Imai and the big 1/96 scale Revell kit) but looks to be pretty good. It must be a good seller as it seems to appear regularly in the Airfix catalogue each year, and has been for a long time along with the Victory kit. I had one once and it looked quite accurate to me. Revell it must be remembered have released smaller kits of the Cutty Sark that were more simplified that their big one.

As KP Nuts said be wary of the big Thermopylae/Pedro tunes versions where Revell used the Cutty Sark hull for these kits. The hull lines of Thermopylae (that became the Pedro Nunes eventually) are different to those of the Cutty Sark so therefore these versions are inaccurate. Thermopylae and Cutty Sark were very similar in size so I guess that is why Revell's thinking was to use the Cutty Sark's hull mouldings to save on costs.

 

Besides the scale plans available from the Cutty Sark Preservation Society, there are two books that I would recommend. One is titled Cutty sark by C Nepean Longridge that was published by MAP (Model and Allied Publications) and describes the model he made that is on display in the Science Museum in London. The other book is a special that was sponsored by Airfix edited by Noel C L Hackney published by Patrick Stephens that describes building and detailing the Airfix kit. There were two other Airfix specials by the same author on the Airfix Victory and the Mayflower kits.

[Peter Roberts]

Thanks Noel - the Cutty Sark books sound like they are essential reading.

 

 

[Noel Smith]

Peter, the two books I recommended have both been out of print for many years. EBay and second-hand specialist booksellers may be your best bet to obtain either. I managed to obtain a rare car modelling book from a company named Simon Lewis Transport Books via their website. Failing the internet, the McGregor plans from the Cutty Sark society are by far the best that you will be able to obtain. I have a set and can vouch for now well detailed they are, and probably the cost will be reasonable too

[Norseman 3:16]

Does anyone have any experience of the Arii (Micro Ace) 1:160 Cutty Sark kit?