Heller 1/50 Chebec (nearly there now, final bits and pieces)

What I have to say about the Heller 1/100 Victory would bore everybody in this Forum to death. We’ve discussed it in depth quite a few times; a Forum Search on “Heller Victory” will bring up quite a bit of interesting material. But since the subject has come up, I’ll offer the following as points to think about.

In my personal opinion it’s one of the half-dozen best plastic sailing ship kits ever. That fact does not, however, make it immune from some fairly significant mistakes and weaknesses. The biggest problem with it is so obvious that lots of modelers probably don’t notice it until they’re well along in the task of building it: the kit provides no means of attaching the yards to the masts! It’s certainly possible - and not especially difficult - to make a set of parrals from scratch, but it seems like a kit in that price range ought to provide something to hold its major components together.

The kit is, in many ways, a showpiece for the capabilities of styrene. But styrene is not the best material for all parts of a sailing ship model. Unless the modeler enjoys the sound of breaking plastic he will throw out the hammock netting stanchions, eyebolts, and belaying pins. I agree with Crackers about the blocks and deadeyes; it just isn’t possible for a two-piece rigid mold to produce a part with a hole through it and a groove around its circumference. (Exception: the geniuses at the late, lamented Japanese company Imai managed to pull it off through the use of slide molding.) Unfortunately the cost of aftermarket blocks and deadeyes (my personal favorites are the cast Britannia metal ones from Bluejacket) in the necessary numbers will exceed the cost of the kit. (But there’s no reason to buy all of them at once.)

While you’re in the process of junking the kit’s blocks, deadeyes, etc., also trash the ridiculous jigs and other gadgets that were designed to “fake” the rigging of the shrouds and ratlines. (I won’t go into that subject again here; we’ve wrestled it out in several other Forum threads.)

There are some strange lapses in detail on that kit - almost as though the responsible people just forgot things, or several people, with widely varying standards of quality, worked on the design of it. The ship’s boats are awful; simple, hollow shells. The steering wheel looks downright crude compared to the rest of the kit.

Critics have had mixed reactions to the McKay “Anatomy of the Ship” book. Mr. McKay’s draftsmanship is some of the best I’ve ever seen (I don’t consider myself worthy to sharpen his pencils), and the sheer volume of information in the book is almost unbelievable. Unfortunately, though, it contains some pretty significant errors. Most of those won’t be terribly relevant to the modeler working from the Heller kit, but they do detract from the value of the book. (The most egregious example: the wales are shown as thin strips of wood spiked to the outside of the hull planking - as they are on the restored ship today. Originally the wales were enormous pieces of timber fastened directly to the ship’s frames. And the bilge pumps are shown penetrating the bottom of the hull - which, in reality, they don’t. Etc.)

Quite a few years after writing and illustrating that book, Mr. McKay collaborated with Dr. Allan McGowan on another (unfortunately more expensive) one: H.M.S. Victory: Construction, Career and Restoration. For that project Mr. McKay prepared a heavily revised set of drawings. The ship’s rigging is actually shown in more detail, and more clearly, in that later work. I recommend both.

In terms of rigging, though, the book I always recommend first to Victory modelers is an old standby: C. Nepean Longridge’s The Anatomy of Nelson’s Ships. Contrary to what the title implies, it’s a detailed account of how Dr. Longridge built his famous, 1/48-scale model of the Victory (now in the Science Museum in London). It includes a set of fine drawings by George Campbell (which probably would be regarded as definitive masterpieces if Mr. McKay hadn’t come along), and (a real blessing for the modeler) detailed verbal descriptions of how all the lines of the standing and running rigging lead. I’m not sure whether it’s in print now or not, but used copies should be fairly easy to find at reasonable prices.

We’ve also had lots of discussions on the subject of sails here in the forum. This one might be a good start: /forums/t/33775.aspx?PageIndex=1 . The Model Ship World web forum also has a revised and expanded section on the subject: http://www.modelshipwrightsdatabase.com/Articles/10ScaleSails.htm .

I’d better stop here, lest I inadvertently hijack the thread. The Heller Victory is a basically sound kit, and certainly has the potential to produce a fine model. But be aware that a lot of the pieces in the box (several hundred of them) need to be replaced by either scratchbuilding or spending a considerable amount of money on the aftermarket. And for the average, part-time hobbyist, to do that kit justice will take several years of work. I agree with Crackers: Grem56 is perfectly capable of doing it. But I also understand perfectly if Grem56 doesn’t feel like making that kind of time commitment. Frankly I feel that way myself.

Dear Professor Tilley: Thank you for your indepth analysis of the Heller VICTORY kit, which I have as a future “to do” project. I never considered your critical observations of the flaws of this Heller kit until your comments now. Therefore, I have taken a copy of your critique and placed it inside the kit box for a future occasion when I’m ready to work on this model.

Montani semper liberi ! Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

Crackers [8-|]

Hello John and hello Crackers, feel free to hijack the thread [;)] Both your mails are very informative. I think John sums the problem up nicely: I have the model, ( and to be honest more models in my stash than I will ever be able to build in this lifetime), I have the tools, the space, I even have Longridges “anatomy” sitting on the shelf grinning at me [:)] The thing is that if I start this model I will be drawn into a build that will take years to do justice to and I am not sure that is what I want to do [:^)] It’s a sheer luxury problem bothering a spoiled model builder [:$] It’s also very frustrating that the longer I wait starting the less chance there is I will finish it…

Cheers,

Julian [*-)]

Julian, you, as Dutch sea dog with salt water in your veins, will not pass away soon, and thus, have plenty of time to complete ALL of your kit models. So, make plans to begin your VICTORY ship model. We would love to see your completed model. You do excellent work on your projects

Montani semper liberi ! Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

Crackers [8-|]

Now that is ship I might be tempted to build : the Reale. The model is beautiful with the exception of the flags which are rather dire to say the least [;)] I got hold of this model a couple of years ago for quite a reasonable price. I hear that it has or will be reissued this year. The hull is magnificent, long and sleek with fleurs de leys sculpted on the bulwarks.

cheers,

Julian [8-|]

Julian, I know just what you’re talking about. I spent about two and a half years on my little H.M.S. Bounty and slightly more than six years on the frigate Hancock. Please note: those figures represent total elapsed time from beginning to end. Particularly in the *Hancock’*s case there were months when I didn’t touch it; those six years included a two-month research trip to England (with the hull of the model in my suitcase), one academic degree, and two changes of residence (from Ohio to Virginia to North Carolina), with the inevitable tearing down and reconstruction of workshop space.

Some years ago I started another big, time-consuming, scratch-building project: the clipper Young America. I got the hull about halfway finished before I realized that I was getting more frustration than fun out of the exercise. I don’t have a great deal of time to spend on model building (though I’m sure I’d have a good deal more if I pushed myself), and there are so many attractive, interesting subjects out there…A few years back I made the conscious decision to concentrate on shorter-term projects for a while (probably until retirement, which is probably four or five years down the road). I had a great time with the little Model Shipways pilot schooner Phantom, the beautiful Revell Viking ship, and several 1/700 warships. My current project is a little tugboat, based (loosely) on the old Model Shipways Taurus kit. It’s going to be a thoroughly generic vessel from around 1900, named A.M. Tilley (after my wife) and home-ported in the great metropolis of Beaufort, North Carolina. I’m embarassed to admit that I’ve now been working on it for over a year - but I’ve had a great time with it. I think it will be done (really!) in a few more weeks. I think my next model after that will be a 1/700 U.S.S. North Carolina (a favorite subject in this neighborhood, and the subject of both an excellent kit from Trumpeter and a fine set of detail parts from White Ensign). After that I may do a generic, early-twentieth-century American fishing schooner and name it after my father. And after retirement - well, maybe I’ll dust off the Young America.

Oh - and I’ve got a Heller Reale in the attic; I picked it up quite a few years ago for about $25, in a hobby shop that had gotten sick of looking at the box. I agree with Julian’s comments - including his observations about the flags. (I’m wondering if the solution to that one may lie somewhere in the world of computers.) My only other significant reservation about it concerns the oars; Heller represented their handles as nondescript plastic blobs. Adding more detailed handles to one oar wouldn’t be much of a problem, but…

One of my old violin teachers said to me once, “You don’t know how lucky you are to be an amateur. You have the luxury of personal taste. You only have to play music you like.” I feel the same way about ship modeling. It’s the sort of hobby that can be enjoyed many ways - through scratch-building, through wood kits, plastic kits, resin kits, paper kits; enormous models and tiny ones; models that take weeks, months, or years.

As for the Heller Victory - I probably should come clean and make it clear that I’ve never built it. When the kit was new, back in about 1977 (I think), the British magazine Model Shipwright sent me one to review. Since the publisher’s schedule wouldn’t allow me time to build the thing, what I submitted - and MS published - was strictly an “in the box” review. I gave the kit away prior to one of the aforementioned changes of residence; that was in 1983, and I haven’t seen the kit outside the box since. So my comments undoubtedly deserve to be taken with several large grains of salt.

I will, though, mention two other points relating to the kit’s accuracy. It claims to represent the ship as she appeared in 1805. It probably doesn’t. In the past few years a good deal of high-powered research into the *Victory’*s history has been done. The historians still aren’t absolutely sure what she looked like at Trafalgar, but it’s fairly widely accepted that the bulwarks on the forecastle deck were shoulder-high (rather than knee-high, as the kit - and the McKay and Campbell drawings - represent them). There are other differences, but that’s the most conspicuous one.

Then there’s the matter of the entry ports on the middle deck. They’re quite prominent features of the ship today, they appear on all the published drawings, and lots of modelers have criticized the Heller kit because it doesn’t have them. (Instead, it has a simple, vertical row of narrow step cleats running up the ship’s side all the way to the quarterdeck.) There’s plenty of room for argument here, but I’m among those who are inclined to think Heller got it right this time. The McGowen/McKay book contains reproductions of quite a few contemporary paintings of the ship from that period; none of them shows the entry ports. Neither does the famous painting, “The Battle of Trafalgar,” by J.M.W. Turner (who is known to have gone on board the ship shortly after the battle to make sketches): http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=BHC0565 . Neither does the contemporary model in the National Maritime Museum that apparently depicts the ship after her 1803 refit: http://www.nmm.ac.uk/collections/nelson/viewObject.cfm?ID=SLR0513 . There have been several discussions of this point in ship modeling web forums; I don’t pretend to know the answer. If I were building the Heller kit (heaven forbid), I’d probably be inclined to give it the raised forecastle bulwarks (with a couple of long guns as well as the two carronades), and leave the entry ports off. (And, of course, I’d throw out the plastic “sails” before leaving the hobby shop, and replace all the blocks, deadeyes, stanchions, eyebolts, belaying pins, etc.). Would I really rather do that than the Young America? Well, I’m not sure - but probably not. But I reserve the right to change my mind.

One other point about that kit. The example I reviewed seemed to be molded from high-quality styrene (albeit in some rather garish colors). But I’ve read complaints in recent years of more recently manufactured examples suffering from rubbery and/or overly-brittle plastic and serious warping problems. I have no idea whether the most recent incarnation of the kit (Heller seems to be back in business now, after several years’ hiatus) have such problems or not. But if I were in the market for one (heaven forbid) I’d want to look at it carefully before parting with my hard-earned cash.

Go for it Julian ! I applaud your decision, but please keep us Forum members posted on your construction progress. The REAL is a beautiful and impressive model, while the rigging should not pose a problem for you. After you finish your present project, make the REAL your next :“must do work.”

Montani semper liberi ! Happy modeling to all and every one of you.

Crackers [8-|]