wq3296

Greetings Peter, The large scale mock-ups are fine, but you lost me when you said their purpose is to "evaluate construction details". What construction details are you evaluating that aren't already clearly shown on the drawings that come with the kit? Plus, there are at least two other FAs on MSW that show this kit being built from top to bottom. Apart from an exercise, I don't see what your mock-ups add the the information already available on this ship. What am I missing? Nice work on the mock-ups, but page 15 of the MS kit instructions (assuming you have them) specifically note that a margin plank and joggled plank ends are inappropriate for a ship of this era. Do you have other information that would supersede the MS instructions? wq3296

Greetings Barehook, Bluejacket has swivel guns in various sizes. See www.bluejacketinc.com, Item 57 under Fittings. wq3296

Thanks Bob. wq3296

Greetings Bob, I am curious about the shape and size of the lodging knees, and the fact that you have deck framing members tied into them. I haven't seen this before, but that doesn't mean the build is wrong: just that I may be in the dark on this subject. How did you decide to build the knees that way? Thanks. wq3296

Greetings Mark, I built the Enterprise by Constructo several years ago and it is still one of my favorites. I have never used ammonia, preferring water and steam to bend wood. I have read recently that ammonia will actually weaken the wood because the ammonia destroys the wood fibers. In my opinion, if you can't induce the wood to bend with water and/or steam forget about it. Plus, ammonia bottles come with warning labels. wq3296

Greetings Von... I have two Mamoli kits under my belt: Rattlesnake and the Caracca Atlantica. Both kits were very good in my opinion - no complaints. The wood is of good quality, drawings and instructions are suitable for even moderately experienced builders, and the metal components are of decent quality. If you are interested in building a ship that is different from the usual warship, the Caracca Atlantica is a good choice. Sails are provided with the kit and some of the wood components are pre painted. wq3296

Greetings Paul, Glad to see you made it work. The first two kits I built were by Constructo. I found nothing wrong with them that a little patience and ingenuity couldn't cure. Constructo kits seem to be less expensive than others and, since you get what you pay for, the wood quality may not be up to the quality of higher priced kits. However, this should not be an excuse for a model that is not well done. Based on your photos it looks like you are doing a good job with the wood supplied. wq3296

Greetings E&T, With all due respect to your exhaustive experimentation, you lost me. As your final step, you sprayed the parts with a flat finish. I think you could have achieved the same result by using flat black spray paint directly on the brass and avoided all the extra work and expense. One of the posts mentioned using steel instead of brass which, in my opinion, makes more sense for pintles and gudgeons and other parts. These items were originally made of wrought iron which would have oxidized through any coating applied to them. Accordingly, steel would mimic iron in that it would start out grey and age to a light rust color, possibly eliminating the need for blackening. Don't misunderstand - your work was instructive, but I don't think the result of your method justifies the effort involved: particularly when you suggest coating it with a finish anyway. wq3296

Greetings, I've used black construction paper - no need to paint. You may also use it for pintles and gudgeons, depending on scale. wq3296

Greetings Modeler, Sorry, but I have to ask: what is the point of your comment?

Greetings Frank, According to the book entitled A shipyard in Maine (about schooners built by Percy and Small between 1894 and 1920) planks up to 45' long were used to construct their schooners. All this proves is that builders used whatever was readily available and easy to work with. As to your build, I can't see how you could be wrong so long as you use a plank of reasonable length (12' to 20' or more) and, more importantly, follow the rules regarding joint placement. wq3296

Agree that in haul tackle may have been unhooked when guns went into action, but certainly kept close by in the event guns had to be hauled in due to miss fire, cease fire order, etc. Further, I wonder if out hauls were disconnected prior to firing since they would inhibit recoil once the guns were run out and fired. I have noticed that out haul gun tackles seem to have their correct double blocks attached to the bulwarks with hooks to facilitate quick removal of the tackles. wq3296

Greetings USS... Agree on the guns, but not on the ship design. Humphreys's hull designs for these six heavy frigates were absolutely innovative. Diagonal hull riders, wider and stronger gangways to create a spar deck suitable to handle heavy guns, tight spacing between pairs of frames (2"), new construction methods, etc. were all unique features credited to Humphreys. I am not surprised that a heavy French frigate could take out a 74. If they were anywhere near as fast as the Constitution they could control a battle. wq3296

Henry, I agree - nothing really new about a Bugatti Veyron, but when you put all the best concepts together into an integrated package, you get something special. I expect that she and her sisters were miles ahead of anything from the Europe. Rich, If you need another good reference, see A Most Fortunate Ship by Tyrone G. Martin. Also, there is a wealth of information on the Constitution Museum web site. It might help if you need to know the colors of the actual ship. wq3296

Greetings, Disclaimer: I am not an authority, and my opinion is based on books written by others. The Constitution and her sister ships seem to represent the epitome of frigate design for that era - late 18th century into the 19th century. These so called heavy frigates blended speed, fire power, strength, and seaworthyness into a very potent fighting platform. I expect they could punch well above their weight class. Further, the Constitution probably would have been a match for ships even above her rating if handled well. I expect her speed would have given her an advantage over plodding 74s, and maybe some first rates, even with a deficit in metal through weight. wq3296

Greetings Sal, I see you are from Connecticut. I'm from RI. In my opinion, Wayne's answers are absolutely correct, and I couldn't add anything to them. wq3296

Greetings Gary, I believe Ken requested suggestions on how he might rig his guns, and good faith suggestions were offered up. I think folks ask questions in order to learn how to do things better. I have learned much from this forum, because there are folks here who have more experience or knowledge than I. My point is that if you learn how to do things better, why wouldn't you want do them better? To me, it's a matter of building a better ship and not about doing it my way because it feels good. Let's not turn this site in an Oprah Winfrey show of "I'm alright and your alright". Our goal should be to assist each other in building better models based on hard facts. wq3296

Greetings Jud, It is understood that deck beams do more than hold up the decks. In fact, they function as a diaphragm to brace the perimeter of a ship: much the same function as the floor structure in a building. wq3296

Greetings All, First time I have ever heard this. I believe that the main function of the breeching line was to control recoil after the gun was fired. It may be that it was also used to secure the guns while under way, but I don't believe that was the main function. While underway, I expect that the guns would have been hauled in as far as practical, closer to the ship's center line. Their weight, if they were not hauled in, could cause the ship to roll more heavily. Gun weight was a serious design issue. In fact, one of the reasons many ships had so much tumble home was an attempt to get the gun weight as close to the center line as possible. I am not so sure how much of the gun firing rigging was used to secure them while under way - probable the reason why hooks are used on the tackles. wq3296

Greetings Nigel, I guess it would depend on how far structural analysis as a practical design tool had progressed during that time period. My sense is that it hadn't progressed enough to where the designers/builders were calculating the placement of columns, knees, etc. This leaves us with "rule of thumb" design. I have read, in one of Chappelle's books I think, that major aspects of ship design was based on proportion. Even spar diameter was related to length of the spar, which was related to overall mast height, which was related to ship LOA, and so on. So, if you knew the LOA of a particular class of ship, you were off to the races and could pretty much design the major dimensions for a new ship. Plus, let's not forget good old design by previous experience - also known as trial and error. A good example of this gone wrong is the Vasa sinking, which I am sure you know about. As with building design, girders span between columns, and beams span between girders. I guess the ship equivalent would scantlings, pillars, and carlins. You could use a modern timber design manual to arrive at reasonable spans for a given timber cross section based on the wood you are using from the kit. This should range you in close enough for what you want to do. Grog time. wq3296

Greetings Nigel, Et Al, Good discussion all around. My thoughts: Not disputing the information provided because it is reasonable. However, see latest issue of Ships in Scale for the article on L'Hermione, Photo 9, page 17. Photo shows new keel on its side, ready for placement. Note the horizontal scarph. Many other good photos in this article showing her in frame. She's French built. Now that I've had a chance to think about it, vertical scarphs make perfect sense, particularly for scarphs that are unsupported by a column or other structure. A vertical scarph seems as though it would be better at resisting deflection. The location of the neutral axis would not change because the two full depth beams are apt to act together. With a horizontal scarph, each beam member would have its own neutral axis and may act independently, depending on how they were fastened. For supported scarph joints, it probably doesn't matter because the support would take the load. In Longridge's book, he has a section on scarphs and reports that, on British ships, the keels had vertical scarphs but keelsons had horizontal scarph. Our discussion here is about deck beams, but I guess the type of scarph used by different builders for various applications was subjective. Thank you all for a good discussion from which I benefited. What's next? wq3296

Greetings Druxey, Thank you for the response. We may be saying the same thing. To me, a horizontal scarph means that the beams are cut through horizontally so that the resulting combined beam has a top and a bottom piece. A vertical scarph results in a combined beam having a left side and right side. Is that how you see it, and did you mean mean to say vertical scarph in the same context as above? wq3296

Folks, Nice post. From an engineering point of view, I can't see why builders of wooden ships would ever use timbers of that length for deck structure, even if available. No matter how you slice it and dice, intermediate support columns or bearing walls would absolutely be necessary under a very long deck beam because it would deflect a considerable amount just from its own weight. These are the same principals used in building design and construction today. See Longridge's book on the Victory - it looks like a forest below decks for all the columns in place. Accordingly, if columns are required anyway, why not use shorter deck beams designed for a specific acceptable deflection? Shorter beams would be easier to install and readily available. Further, except for the keel and other members that are fully supported, I expect that the scarcity of long timbers was not the reason why they weren't necessarily used for deck sub structure. The requirement for columns necessitated by the live and dead loads associated with sailing ships would over ride the need for super long deck timber, in my opinion. Note that ideally, the scarph joints would be horizontal type centered over column locations where you have minimum moment but maximum shear load, which is resisted by the reaction at the column. I would suggest you use the scarphed joints and place them at regular intervals. I doubt they were placed randomly, particularly on a 17th century war ship. In some instances where long spans were necessary and columns were not workable, I expect deck beams would have been lapped side by side, with the length of lap made long enough to occur well past the point of maximum moment which would be center span. I am not sure how far structural design had advanced during the 17-18 centuries, but considering some of the cathedrals built during that time, I expect it was fairly advanced and would have extended to ship building. Note that I am offering what I think are common sense solutions based on time tested engineering principals. Of course, there may be information available that says I'm all wet. However, if you think I'm all wet please provide hard evidence to support your position. Nice topic and thank you for bringing it up. Maybe we can all learn something. wq3296

Thanks Ken, Yes it does. I thought the plan gun ports were too small, so I made mine 3/8" square. At the 1:48 scale, the openings are 18" square which seems logical in terms of trying to "fight" the guns at the size supplied. It just makes sense. I use thin black steel wire to make the eye bolts and hooks for the gun rigging. You strop the block with the wire and terminate it in a hook. My wife got the wire from a craft store. I use it for other rigging components as well. wq3296

Greetings Spider... You may want to include BlueJacket Ship Crafters on your list - Great models, and they are made in the State of Maine, here in the USA. I do agree with the post that said there are too many variables to do a proper comparison. How can you be objective unless you build a similar kit from each manufacturer, and each at the same price point? Suffice to say that you get what you pay for. A BMW and a Holden are both cars, but by virtue of value, which would you you rather have? wq3296