Marcus.K.

I don´t KNOW what was done in those days.. and I guess we will never know that. But I guess I would follow the tapered scheme here too. It just seems more logical to me. How did you manage to do that "tapering"? Did you cut each planks width individually?? And: if distances between hatches or other obstacles can be filled with only one (typical) plank, don´t try to follow the planking schematic beside the strakes. A longer single plank is always preferred - as it is more robust than 2 planks meeting on a deck beam. I am curious how it will look after sanding the surface. I am pretty sure it will look just perfect!! Can´t wait to see the result. You are doing a great job here!

"Don´t shoot until you see the white of their eyes!" But on the other hand: we should be aware that the expression "in the tops" may have been misunderstood by our author´s here too .. because they may have done the same misinterpretation - if it is a misinterpretation! That tread started, because we were thinking about "what is meant by "in the tops"?" And many of us think about the f(s)ighting tops - as this is the most common known expression with "tops", right? But maybe O´Brian did the same thinking? He for sure was very good informed about the age of sail. He may have read about "hammock stations in the tops" - and concluded: that must be in the "fighting tops" .. But maybe sometimes the hammock stanchions on top of the rigid bulwarks in quarterdecks and forecastles were also called "tops"??? And by that a myth may have started .. and by repeating it, it seems more plausible... Pls. don´t get me wrong: I don´t say it IS wrong. I just want to hint on the fact that I never seen any hammock stanchions in a fighting top so far. And I admit: I never looked for them up to last week - but .. I don´t recall any. ... we need more evidence to be sure. It would be good to find visual evidence by old models done in those days. Models showing hammock nettings and stanchions along the bulwarks - AND in their fighting tops. Up to now I do not recall any. Does someone?

Hello Haiko, Humphreys specification was done in 1794 or 1795 as far as I remember. And the 6 shipyards did not follow them 1:1 - as they had to deal with what was available and how they interpreted his specifications. And I guess nobody expected them to follow them 100%. Ship building in those days is not comparable with todays way of work. The specification weren´t that precise and the shipbuilders had a huge amount of freedom in interpretation - especially compared to today, where we have 3D CAD data of the vehicles to be build. And even today: deviations in the scale of several inches or centimeters is not a rare thing in todays bigger ships. They had to deal with wood! And they made it fit to where it had to fit! Individually for each plank and each component. No ship was the same as another - even if it had the same "concept" or "architecure". Even if we consider the fact that the young United States had huge amount of high quality wood (especially compared to the British Royal Navy which by then had exhaused British forests and had to purchase wood from everywhere); and even if we consider that the shipwrights did their very best to provide the highest quality (the most important specification by Humphreys: as his idea was to have rather a smaller fleet of best possible and durable ships than a bigger fleet with poor build vehicles): we need to respect the fact that pracmatical solutions to the acutal situation in the shipyard had to be done. We know the "deviations" vs. the "specifications" and / or "typcial habits" the scientists found in the VASA compared to any shipbuilding tradition involved in her build. The sometimes "improvised" pattern of planking, differences and unsymmetries between left and right bulwarks, etc.. Sometimes it was build as it worked out best. So a deviation of several inches compared to Humphreys design would not at all thrill and bother me. In addition of course to the fact that the model is build in a scale which does rarely allow that accuracy - and any observer would not be able to differentiate "correct" from "wrong" .. Have fun! Marcus

For future reference let me link here a thread in which we discussed the sweep of the main wale vs. the sweep of the gun ports (meaing the sweep of the gun deck). I always wondered what made the Doughty plan so much more elegant then todays ship. And beside the open rail which gives the ship a lower profile in the side view I think its the more curved sweep. As a short summary: I could convince myself (and I hope my comparision was convincing for others too) that the three big frigates were not following the sweep of Doughty´s beautiful drawing. While US Frigate President and United States even seemed to have had that exact same sweep in their planks compared to the gun ports and therefore the gun deck, it seems the Old Ironsides had a bit more elegance - and that it had since the beginning a bit more curvature in her main wale compared the the gun deck. And today´s ship still seem to follow the same lines in this. For more detailed info: click on my and follow this thread

Hey Haiko, I very much like your approach. And the way you prepare that gun deck with these interlocking strikes will be very close to what Tyrone Martin found as her earlier layout. Your deck planking matches his sketch pretty close and the more I look at it, the more I like it. Do you manage to generate the 6 feet white oak from hull inwards (as Humphrey specified)? Or is that outer strake too close?

Why did I miss this? Excellent work. Looking forward to see them on deck!

hm.. Broke says: "I am going aloft" in the beginning … so here he still is on deck. When he raises his voice and calls for Mr. Wallis he asks him to "come down". Then the next sentence I don´t understand: "between them Broke and Wallis heave his sixteen stone into the sighting top" .. "and Broke carried on to the masthead" .. that 2nd statement seems to indicate that they did climb into the fighting top - while Broke carried on. What is a "sixteen stone"? I don´t understand that first part of that statement. "between them B and W heave his sixteen stone ..."?? But in general it seems to be the fighting top - as they observe the Chesapeake and another lad even climbs to the mast head where he had a better view on the scene. I would not be surprised if they called it sometimes also sighting top - as a lookout would be placed there. I have been wondering if term "sighting top" could also refer to this thing here: in the background a watchman is standing on a board - a "sighting top" ??? - and would have a perfect view on "hammocks wedged in the nettings between the stanchions" .. right? But all that is "guessing" - and not "knowing" - and .. as mentioned: O´Brians text seem to hint on a top in the mast more likely.

Hy Joachim, are you sure O´Brian describes a "fighting top"? .. because the text describes "hammocks wedged into the netting between the stanchions" - that may point on those smaller hammock nettings on top of a ridgid bulwark too, right? .. well, o.k. "two one-pound swivel-guns a side" may hint on a fighting top.. but could also be the bulwarks of a ship as we know that for example Cook´s Endevour - as so many ships - had swivel guns on her caprails too ... hm.... The statement as such does not make sure we talk about a fighting top, right? Does the text say earlier or later that Mr. W?? and Jack are in the fighting top in that scene?

Thanks gentlemen for this discussion! Everyone showed gentlemen attitude and nobody tried to duck and hide ! My personal summary: the wording of those (written) statements may be misleading - more evidence is needed to judge the word "top" may refer to several things - among them the fighting tops, the "top" of the bulwarks or a lot of other things being "on top" of something else. protection for the marines in the fighting top not unlikely ! hammocks were also used to protect the ships deadeyes and lanyards that was a new information for me and those paintings are very interesting! Maybe that was done more to protect the "thinner" ropes of the lanyards - because if they would be hit by even a smaller shot by a handgun and destroyed, the stability of the thicker, stronger shroud and therefore the mast was in danger. The hammocks would protect those more "sensitive" weaker lanyards from lucky shots. hammocks - if used in the fighting tops - would not be stored in any "cranes" or "hammock stanchions" as on the ships bulwarks (not needed weight in the mast during normal life!!!) - as there were non. But sailors knew how fix them and maybe they were only used to hide from view - maybe not to catch the shots. I guess it depended on the habits of each ships crew how they did this. I will too look for any other hint and provide info´s if I am lucky

Hello tmj, I recently stepped over a drawing, which seemed to be older than the "traced" PDF the Navy Heritage departmend spreads as "Doughty´s plan". In fact that PDF says in its header (and that bottom line) that its just a copy of a dawing from "C&R Plan N° 38-4-2-a" if I read that line in the bottom correct: It is unclear who did this tracing - and when! When I was learning "technical drawing" (I am a dinosaur: I learned to do it with pencil and ink on one of those huge drawing boards I still own - before I learned to use CAD!) the information in a header with name of responsible, date and drawing-number was the very first thing which was checked by our teachers. A drawing with a gap in this information was not accepted. I found out there in world wide web ONE drawing, which seem to be older - and may be this C&R plan.. but unfortuntly its not really readable! .. and unfortunatly without any hint for it´s origine. Why do I think this is an older version? Because the lines and texts written in the hull seem to match perfectly with the PDF´s .. but the text in the PDF´s header on the right side misses - and instead it has it´s seemingly older header on left side. More importang: the rim of the paper seems to be much more timeworn and frayed than the PDF´s rim. But would Doughty have specified his plan as "Constitution"? Do we know if Doughty did specific drawings for each of the three big 44 frigates? I am frequently reading that there are "Doughty Plans" and "Fox Plans" .. but I never saw any plan refered to Fox? In the PDF Doughty is at least mentioned - but as we see: the PDF is not "his" plan - but a copy. Also the whereabouts of the original(s) is pretty obscure. No one seems to know? .. and more thrilling: no one seems to care?? I was asking the USS Constitution Museum and the Naval Heritage Command - but just got this PDF you have too. The precision in answering was pretty poor. But I have to admit: that was some years ago - maybe I should try again. Anyone any idea?

Thanks Henry, that looks like perfect knots for connecting to the stronger top and bottom rope - and for the "crossing" of the thinner zig-zag ropes. Great input! Much appreciated!!! I struggle a bit to understand, how the thin ropes would be treated at the eyes of the hammock stanchions.. A knot like the one shown here would not seem very simple. I was thinking that the thin ropes would be streched from thick bottom to thick top rope. Although thinking about it I realize that the "crossings" should be fixed with each other to avoid that the net would get in disorder - and "opens" too much somewhere.. So I guess your proposal are pretty good for the "pane" of each field between stanchions. If anyone has an idea for the eyes of the cranes ..?

Mates, lets assume I am a landlubber getting the task to create the net for hammock netting - and we on our proud ship, we want to do it "beautiful". My task is to use the hammock cranes with 4 eyes in each vertical post .. and of course there is a rope on top and on bottom of each side of the hammock crane in those outermost eyes. This is a Hammock Crane as used in the American Navy until about 1812-13. Four eyses in each post .. Our Captain ordered to have a zig-zag-shaped net - like this: The thick verstical lines with eyes are the hammock cranes the two horizontal lines are the limiting lines along the ship on top and bottom. Yellow are the zig-zag-lines generating the net. Green indicate knots to fix the zig-zag-"ing" lines .. It is easy to find those green "spot" as they are just the mid in between two posts - and then again their mid. A position easy to define as we just have to fold a rope 2 times to specifie that quarters. The knots itself may be done by the horizontal line - or by the yellow net - or by an extra short line? Ignorant Landlubber as I am: I wonder: which kind of knot with which rope would the boatswain accept? Master of the Ropes, Keeper of the Knots, may I seek your wisdom?

Ah - you mean those things? These are just rails for the fighting top - here "closed" with canvas. Although possible I do not think that those show evidence for having hammocks up there.. This one is done by @dafi - without the netting or canvas - but clearly a simple rail. The rails usualy war just simple rails - no hammock stachions. Or does anyone see any other evidence for hammocks in fighting tops? Or ... any other explanation for the word "tops" combined with storing hammocks in Old Ironsides?

Well, I think that has a reason: while the decks usually never were painted and the discrepancy between wooden planks and caulking dark brown, nearly black was easy to recognize, it would - on the other hand - be hard to see that different color on black painted ships hulls. And even where there was an ockre paint: that paint would most likely been painted over those caulking gaps. Although I admit, that one may doubt the paint would stick there a long time ... But again to the decks: there you would have this frequently "washing" with "holystones" - a process which frequently would make caulking more prominent to the eye - while the hull was only washed by seawater...

This especial discussion came from HERE. I measured the room between the cable bits in the 1817 Waldo Plans .. and .. there is less than 5 foot room in between those knees! Maybe a bit more - if the knees would be a bit smaller than the posts in the deck. See the sketch of a modified Waldo Gun-Deckplan - including (marked orange) Cable Bitts - and indicated 4,8x10ft platform for the stove. I used the plans scale as reference. Pls. not that the cable bits were moved one position to the stern - having them beside the "fore hatchway" - exactly the Ware Deck Plan for US frigate United States indicates this. In today´s ship the cable bits are moved on position forward - the one beside the for hatchway is now beside the foremast. In the USS Constitution Museum´s Blog : A stoved Boat the author Matthew Brenckle indicates that the stove installed in 1803 might have the height of only 27 inches high - as this is a dimension shown in a delivery note. He states that this oven must have been far to small (also comparing the mentioned price of only 100$ with a price for another later 1827 delivered oven for about 2300 $ ... and I kind of agree. ... And therefore I doubt that this 100$ stove was the main canboose of the ship. I think its more likely a 2nd stove - maybe for the captains pantry or so? ... or maybe for additioal meals. Boudroit shows in his beautiful "74-gun ship" books, that they had several ovens in those ships - even a baking oven for bread. I doubt that our frigate - although being designed to compete with a 74-gun-ship if the weather allows - had a baking oven. Such a big thing would have been mentioned, I guess. But Boudroit shows also several smaller ovens and holding furnace - which would maybe not have been mentiond in the official bills (or may not have been filed) - as they were comparably more cheap (see: 100 $ vs. about 2000 $ !!). This 1827 stove Brenckle points to - showing a drawing for "a frigate" has a width of 6 feet and 3 inches - and that may just fit between cable bitts - if they were moved by 1827 and were also widened a bit. Or: they were for another frigate ? I thinks I need for my 1803-04 version to go for a more slim design for my model - as I will make use the Waldo Deck design. That leads to a ca. 4.8 feet times ca. 10 feet flagstone podest for the oven .. done most likely in granite as it was available in Boston area that time and as this is a very robust and persitant support, being able to widthstand heat, salt water, mechanical stress What do you think about it?