Cutty Sark Semi Kit 1/40 Prototype

[DomCee]

Yeah she sure did and all this and a lot more will be addressed.
I was the same as you, having known the ship my whole life and relying on those 2 sources but once I was involved in the restoration and got the hundreds of measures and the data from Greenwich both are riddled with errors.
The plans from the Cutty Sark are ok but the rigging was the main focus of the plans.
In saying that the mast lengths are not as built and if you look at pics and the plans things like the hawse hole is actually off by one frame and the line of the keelson and its extents is wrong but thats because Campbell did not have access to this info like we do. A large proportion is educated guessing, even the sheer is incorrect.
Longridges book re the hull is full of errors to actually largely because a lot is cases where something is "about 4 feet from" and not specific which really surprised me but unless you actually undertake this sort of project you would miss it. However he was the first to document the ship and although she was nota working clipper by that time its still full of info, mainly for rigging.

I think it will be a really good reference when you have finished for anyone who wants to build the ship with maximum detail and I will look forward to your up-dates on progress. Who knows, I may build a "proper" model before time runs out! Sadly, the best I can hope for now is something that "looks like" the Cutty Sark, from a distance and without wearing my glasses!

Good luck with the project.

 

[Norgale]

I am totally bewildered by all the things that are an "error" with these old ships. Makes me wonder if anybody can ever be sure about anything with their construction. Seems like there is no "right" way to build and no "wrong" way either. Let's face it, no two ships were ever built alike. Every builder did his own thing when building and most of it was not written down. So guess on, McBeth.

 

[rsds]

I am totally bewildered by all the things that are an "error" with these old ships. Makes me wonder if anybody can ever be sure about anything with their construction. Seems like there is no "right" way to build and no "wrong" way either. Let's face it, no two ships were ever built alike. Every builder did his own thing when building and most of it was not written down. So guess on, McBeth.

There are things on ships which are placed in a certain position, I take the hawse pipes for example as they require the Sheer plate to be cut and the trail boards to be built around them, they did not move but they are wrong in both the mentioned plans and located in between the wrong frames.
The ship underwent many repairs and reworked, that is correct but the some stuff does not change and that's what I was referring to. None of these plans are drawn to that level of precision or detail which is the whole point.

 

[rsds]

Anther example is in Longridges book he makes mention of the planking on the pop between the Liverpool house and break of the poop as running athwartships, this is impossible unless the deck was false and laid on plywood which it could well have been at that time as the whole deck was "fake". However the framing of the poop has zero longitudinal frames in this area, you have the break of the poop which has an angle on top with a 9" stringer plate to carry the margin and plank ends and another canted beam which forms the front of the Liverpool house and nothing else so planking had to be lengthwise as usual and as it is now on the ship.
This is the space looking from Port to Stbd and the Iron poop break plates on the left, the second shroud stay can be seen in the back rivetted to the bulwark plates