Okay, that is what I was thinking and this old diagram of mine is showing...
But it shows lower shrouds, topmast shrouds and topgallant shrouds. This diagram also shows three sets of three per side...
Earlier in the thread we had discussed three sets of two as what we needed. Do we need the third set up top? On the SOLs, the Mizzen Mast shroud is only going to be 3mm wide and 8mm tall. Not to mention it will have very few "lines". So is it going to be worth the extra trouble and expense?
Here is my .02c on this issue. I am with David and Mad Hatter on the accuracy of the placement, ie; placing the top of the ratlines/shrouds inboard of the tops. Also on my 1/1200 models I never bothered with the t'gallant shrouds either. You can still model the backstays with line or your paint brush method and those lines can cover for the missing shrouds.Originally Posted by The Royal Hajj
Okay, that is what I was thinking and this old diagram of mine is showing...
But it shows lower shrouds, topmast shrouds and topgallant shrouds. This diagram also shows three sets of three per side...
Earlier in the thread we had discussed three sets of two as what we needed. Do we need the third set up top? On the SOLs, the Mizzen Mast shroud is only going to be 3mm wide and 8mm tall. Not to mention it will have very few "lines". So is it going to be worth the extra trouble and expense?
I don't think that placing them on the outside of the tops would look right from a sailors perspective, especially having climbed real ones!! In a larger scale you could model the futtock shrouds which attach to the side of the tops but at the opposite angle. (you can faintly see them in the diagram above).
As for the bottom of the shrouds, they should attach to the top of the channel on the side of the ship as pictured in your sample. Technically you have a pair of deadeyes which the lower end of each shroud is run though to form a lanyard for tightening. The bottom deadeye is attached to the top of the channel on the outboard end. I have seen Langtons with the deadeyes painted on. Normally you would have chain plates under the channel which you can see in the diagrams, but at our scale they are not modeled. This should not interfere with cannon barrels on the model, except possibly for quarterdeck guns.
I would be interested in buying these if you do them.
Eric
I can see the argument that they may be small enough to not be missed, but I'd just like to put forth the argument for consideration: are they small enough that they're not worth omitting? They look to be about maybe 10% of the area of the main ratlines? I'd think that they might be small enough to fit in the otherwise dead spaces of the sprue, with a marginal addition ot materials cost, then leave it to the customer to decide whether they're worth fiddling with.
On the frigates, the after top most shroud would only be 2mm wide by about 7mm tall... that's about 30% smaller then the one below it (printed green in the image I just posted). The aft middle was so fiddly, I'm not even going to bother with the very top one. While it's true they don't use much material, the do add to the setup costs as they have to be drawn out. I just don't see more then maybe 1% of the customer actually using them, so not really worth it.
Looking at the pictures of the models that Keith posted I think that if you rig backstays to the mast tops that dead space will be covered.
I would not have a problem with the shrouds covering the flags. I'll probably try to move the flags anyway.
Eric
The problem is not that the shrouds cover the flags, but that the flags interfere with the shrouds reaching the masts. It's hard to see in that photo, but the aft lower shroud on both the British ships is unable to connect to the mast because the flag is in the way.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks