GLakie

Thanks George and Jp, and the likes.
 
Jparsley - you can see the taper jig in the first two pictures of my last post, on the saw. It is basically a sled that has an angle adjustment that rides along the fence of the saw.

Thank you Dan. As I said in one of my comments above, I am going ahead with the information as I see it.
I have made repairs and, after my vacation next week, will proceed with new vigor.
 
Do you happen to know if the Navy in 1927 created any drawings other than the plan views? I would dearly love to see a side and/or section view. But, again, if they are not available I will create my own. The one you sent me is very fuzzy when I zoom in.

Jay,
 
There are so many historical gaps with Conny I believe that it is virtually imposible to represent her at any one period of time, specifically her early days, for I believe changes were made to accomodate her function as a superior fighting machine and not documented for what was important was survival at the time rather than historical documentation.
 
Of course the exception are the most recent changes which were not done to get her ready for war.  The Museum has a research center which is available on an appointment basis if one wishes to do more historical research but I believe that there are many dead ends there based on my previous comment.
 
I believe that I mentiones earlier the work of Gene Bodnar based on Marquardts book which created a great sectional model which the museum had purchased. He found errors, especialling in the scailing of the different sections, but moved on without getting distracted and I personally feel that this is the best way to go.
 
I am adding a few comments I found as they relate to the 1927 restoration which may help in making a point and even then what they did was based on assumptions rather than fact, in my humble opinion.
 
 
Dan
 

You still don't understand. The information (old drawings from 1812 or what ever) you provided me clearly showed that the aft riding bits were in a different place than what Marquardt shows. As a consequence the oven, chimney and two hatches were also in the wrong place or eliminated.
I am not going to rehash all of this, but you can reread all my comments earlier. I will leave it that.

No nastiness intended, Jay.  Just standing up for the historical nature of Marquardt's work.  He is not wrong when looking at his intent - as built, not as rebuilt/revised/redesigned over a 2 hundred year history.  What Henry, Dan, Jonathan and Google provide is information from an entirely different era in the life of the ship.  When one considers that nearly everything above the keel and a few floor timbers has been replaced, it is not surprising that there have been significant changes from what Humphreys originally designed, Claghorn built and Marquardt attempted to depict. 
 
On any historic ship, whether the Constitution, the Victory, or even 20th century vessels such as the Lexington or the Massachusetts, the changes in construction practice, intended use, and technological advances are evident - these were not static structures, but active duty vessels that were continually adapted to meet changing requirements.  As I stated above, knowing the desired period you want to replicate (in this case the ship as she currently is configured) aids all of us trying to aid you in finding information and resources. 

Marquardt was and is wrong with his drawings by putting major pieces of equipment in the wrong place and eliminating hatches on two decks. You may find that of no consequence but to me that was a major mistake and cost me lots of time to correct.
  You mentioned in one of your posts here the following to me (and I quote you): 'If you doubt the Marquardt drawings, find better sources yourself'. 
I have done that and they are called Henry, Jonathan, Dan, Google and more. So, no more nasty remarks, please. At least, not on my build log.

Jay -
 
That clears up my confusion - you refer frequently to Marquardt as being "wrong" where what you actually mean is that he is not showing the modern structures.  My sole intent in the comment above was to point out that Marquardt wasn't wrong - he is quite accurate for the period he was portraying.
 
Building it as close as possible to any period is a challenge - your efforts on this are impressive.  It helps those of us that have been trying to answer questions, however, to know what you are trying to accomplish.  I now know to disregard any of the info from Humphreys, Fox, Claghorn, Knox and so on and rather focus on the drawing from the CD that are primarily the 1927-31 rebuild.  Those are closer to what you are working on than the historical data.  As to other features (such as the powder rooms and so on), those, too, are quite likely to have evolved over the many rebuilds, so the 1816-1819 plans are not particularly relevant to the as-is condition you are trying for.
 
As to your comment regarding building with hands and tools, that is also something I enjoy greatly, though achieve miserably (note the poor quality in my build logs).  I happen to also find the historical (more academic aspect) a great challenge and a satisfying past time.  Being able to dig back to the description of how a vessel was designed is, to me, a fun project.  For now, though, I will drop back to lurker - I have very limited information that is not readily available (such as the CD from the museum) that I can contribute to the discussion of the ship "as is"

I never mentioned what era my model would represent. Right from the start I figured that the drawings in Marquardt's book would show how the ship is built and I followed them not realizing that, as you point out, they do not represent what the ship looks like today. What I did say in the beginning is that I wanted to do a cross section after building the full model. That model certainly does not represent the ship as built but more what she looks like right now.
 
When I go through the ship using the Google images  I can see what I would like to show in my model. Too bad the book was either not clear enough or I missed the point. It does not matter to me any longer. I am not interested in the history, like you, but like to build things with my hands and tools. I will continue making this model using input from others as best as I can and taking some liberties if need be.
Marquardt's book has been parked on a shelf.

I keep getting confused, Jay. Is your model intended to show "as built" (1797), War of 1812, or "as is"?
 
Marquardt is closest to "as built", with some issues. The drawings by Ware (1816-1819) are closest to 1812 and for the most part agree with as-built. Anything from 20th century is not reflecting "as built" but "as repaired, rebuilt, repeatedly). Marquardt didn't miss the structures noted - they are more recent changes to the ship, not original design.

Really great work Brian
I can quickly nip around the corner from my computer to look at my AVS and you should be confident that the ropes cover up many things. The sheaves on my jib boom were drilled holes and a slight etching to mimic the sheave. Even that small effort is lost to the eye when the rope is threaded through. None the less your work on the mast and spars is much better than mine was and I think it'll shine through in the finished ship. Probably said it before but when that sprit and main mast goes in the dimensions of the overall ship make you go WOW!

Well Robb I don't have any easy way out for you and from looking at a pic I Googled, I say you'll end up having to scratch-build those pieces. Shouldn't be too bad if the plans show the 1:1 view of the cross trees. The up-side is that there's only 2, as opposed to a 3-masted square-rigger. 
 

Sweeeeeet!  

Your planking looks great Ulises! 

Update about the decks.
 
Orlop deck #2 is in the works. It is completely new with beams and carlings of the size and locations as shown on the Navy Restoration Plans. Only the ledges are the same size. ignore the placement of the ledges, they are just loose. But they are different in the Marquardt's drawing.

The berth deck was almost going to be redone completely. I made it as close as I could from the drawings in Marquardt’s book, but now realize that the beams and carlings he shows are not correct either. At least the restoration drawings show a different layout. Looking up from the orlop deck or hold inside the ship you can see the carlings zig-zagging between the beams (something Marquardt missed, as well as those carlings going down the center line).

 
 
I pondered about redoing the berth deck all over again. After all, my intentions from the start have been to concentrate on the structural aspects as well as the living conditions aboard this lady.
Then I remembered what I also wanted to do: OPEN UP THE WHOLE THING.
 
That means a large ‘hole’ in the starboard side where frames, beams enz  are removed to show what the inside looks like. Harold Hahn (bless his soul) did this with his Pelican, but it was a hole in the side of his full size model. I have not seen anyone doing it with a cross section.

I don’t know the details yet, but I still plan to have the port side complete. Then the front as well as the back will have full frames and beams. Some of that will be partly planked. But in between there will be a large gap. Frames will still be going up from the keel (only part way) and still remain near the top with the rail. But much of the rest of the structure will be hacked away. I won’t do this until all decks are in place.
 Get the idea? It is just my way of making sure all those details inside will be visible.
 
Now, when I look at what I have, I can work around most of the ‘errors’ related to beams, enz. The berth deck I have will remain but will be chopped where it hurts.

She's looking splendid Bob!  A fine job! 

Solving problems is one of the things I enjoy about our hobby - good work!

Thanks Michael, glad you enjoyed. Thank you for the kudos and comments, much appreciated. Photography is kind of a hobby also...at least I play at it. Your build is looking fantastic. thanks for stopping by. My internet here is very limited so I can only get online every day or so at best. spending my time making scratch clam chowder, grilled lobster, lobster rolls and pigging out. I might not ever want to see a lobster again after I leave here. Currently in Lubec, Me., farhest eastern city and point in the US.

Mark   It looks like all that work redoing the planking astern has worked out nicely.  You got some good advice from a number of people and the result is MUCH BETTER looking.  You should be proud of what you did.  Well done friend!

As an additional piece of useless information.  The traditional last car of a railroad train that housed the train crew is called a caboose because it held a stove to provide for the crew.

Looking sweet, Chuck! 

Sharp looking rigging on the pivot gun, Matt!     Kudoes to your crew.

Sorry Brian. I know you said you were working with Boxwood, and for some stupid reason, when I saw the reddish color of the wood, Pear stuck in my mind.  (Sometimes, a mind is just a terrible thing)   
 
Cheers

Nice work on the sheaves Brian, and the mast. First crack on that is great. Must be a pure pleasure working with Pear. 
 
Cheers

Lookin' good Mark! 
 
Cheers 

Could it be something used for lifting the grate? It looks like it's meant to be removed from the wall, by pulling the keepers and sliding it off of those tenons.