Force9

Wes - Apparently the first skylight of any type didn't appear until 1847 (according to written evidence): http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/manuals/ConstitutionSkylight.pdf I'm certain you'll find other goodies to utilize your terrific skills to create/enhance! I know that a small hatch was added just forward of the helm prior to the war to facilitate better communication down to the gun deck. Otherwise the Hull model might be the best guide for the hatch layout circa 1812. The drawings of the President done after her capture could help, but would not be definitive. There are also deck drawings of United States by Charles Ware that might be representative. Good stuff! EG

Wes - For whatever it is worth... The 1812 Constitution would NOT have had a skylight. Research by Tyrone Martin suggests that the ship didn't have any skylight until much later in her career. Your build is terrific - very crisp detail! Evan

Scott - thank you for the encouragement. I'm still trying to finalize the deck details in preparation for painting. Hope to get there soon!

Hello Folks - Dave - I do hope that there is enough clearance for the guns. Tony - I'm glad I can generate a "Wow"! Much appreciated. James - Thank you for the compliment. I'm sorry to see that you're having health adventures. I would think the camboose will do well enough - I can't imagine that there is much discernible difference to an earlier version. And woe to the rivet counter who would actually know the difference! Thank you all for continuing to follow along. Evan

Marcus/Daniel Regarding the stanchions. Joshua Humphries' original builder notes include an entry for the stanchions/pillars: "...Three tiers under the gun deck, and one under the upper deck, made to shift." This is the layout reflected in Tyrone Martin's "Creating a legend." He says that in addition to a row of stanchions on the centerline, each 24 pdr had a stanchion beneath it on the berth deck for support with a single row of removable pillars down the middle on the gun deck to support the spar deck. This would correspond to Marcus' understanding. I think, however, that it is likely that stronger support was put in place once the carronades became standard on the spar deck. Even though they are a lighter gun, there were more of them put on the deck than the smaller caliber guns originally specified at launch. We forget that a warship of that era was essentially a wooden parking garage. The spar deck in theory has 24 Volkswagons parked in two neat lines (not accounting for the 1812 chase gun). The gun deck has 30 medium SUV Chevy Yukons... These things are heavy and periodically they are thrown into reverse gear with a foot full down on the gas pedal. A lot of weight and a lot of stress to distribute across a complex wooden frame. I never finished Naval Architecture school... Okay, I never started... Heck, I forgot to even apply!... But, my understanding is that the amidship beam stanchions were a permanent fixture and a key component of the ship's structural integrity along with the knees, decking strakes, diagonal riders, etc. There were also temporary stanchions distributed across the deck for additional support that were removed for battle or to use the capstans, etc. All of these components served to reinforce the entire structure and helped to transfer the considerable weight of the ship and the powerful forces/stresses of the guns down to the keel. I couldn't find many sources on the exact positioning of these beam stanchions. The restored ship is generally a great source for how NOT to configure a model for the 1812 period, so I basically fell back on the Marquardt AOTS. He shows permanent stanchions around the main hatch on the gun deck. The common rule is for the breeching lines to be three or four lengths of the gun barrel. With that in mind, I don't think the recoil of the guns would reach these stanchions - even at the most narrow point of my current setup. It may be that other modelers have more intelligent insight, but I hope my approach will suffice for now. Thanks again for the interest and for stimulating great discussions! Evan

Popeye/Sailor,Tex, Daniel, Marcus, Kim and Verne - Thank you all for the kind accolades. I'm trying to get everything ready to paint the decks before the holidays. Hopefully I can smear enough color in the right places to make this all believable. Professor - Thank you as well. I dunno that I deserve the Sierra Hotel level of praise, but I'll keep putting my efforts out there and hope that it continues to inspire others to revisit this classic kit and explore her history and design in more depth. Thanks again to all! Evan

The workshop is back to shipshape and things have settled down enough for some build time... The gun deck has come along: The first need was to finally get the beam stanchions in place. These were some of the first items I attempted for this deck, but I couldn't get anything satisfying... I first thought to just use some stanchions from the extra Heller Victory kit in my stash, but those were too wimpy. I bulked up my own version and test fitted those... Still too wimpy. And worse, I couldn't seem to keep them consistently straight and true. Finally I decided to use my thickest rod and position them into holes drilled through the decking. I did the base and caps using the square tubing in my styrene pile. I reamed it out with the appropriate drill bit matched to the rod and slid them into position along the rod with enough sticking down to pass through the deck. That did the trick. To keep all the deck features secure I added some rod underneath to fit through similar holes drilled into the deck: The appropriate holes were drilled through all along the deck to accept the various components You'll notice that at some point I decided that the pumps should all sit on a raised platform amidships. Just seemed like the right thing to do. Here are some views of all the gun deck features test fitted: I've put one of the Admiral day cabin bulkheads from my Heller Victory in place to see what it might look like if I added the Captain's suite to the deck. It has potential, but I think I'll stick with my stated intention of not including this and keep the gun deck cleared for action. Spare anchor stored amidships: Manger Pumps I think I'm just about ready to paint the darn thing! Thanks for following along Evan

Your hull planking looks terrific... Following along with much interest! Evan

Folks I'll have a new post soon... In the meantime - here is a plea from the folks at the USS Constitution museum: Impact of the Partial Government Shutdown on the USS Constitution Museum We wanted to keep you - our visitors, members and supporters - apprised of the impact the government shutdown is having on the USS Constitution Museum. Though we are a private not-for-profit that receives no direct federal funding, we are situated within Boston National Historical Park, a federal property which is now closed to visitors. As a result, we unfortunately cannot welcome the many visitors we usually greet this time of year. Our exhibits are empty of school kids exploring, our program staff working at computers instead of in our galleries, our donation boxes empty and our Store shelves fully stocked. October is one of Boston's busiest months for tourism, with increased cruise ship traffic, leaf peepers, conventions and more. Add into the mix school kids on field trips and the Museum is generally buzzing with activity this time of year. This same time last year, daily revenue generated through on-site donations, Store sales and group visits averaged nearly $7,000 a day. For every day the shutdown continues, this is critical revenue we must generate elsewhere. While we are hoping resolution comes quickly, there are a few ways you might be able to help: Make a tax-deductible gift to our annual fund Get an early start on the holiday season by shopping our online Store Write to your legislators to express your concern over the impact of the closure. Let us know if there are affinity organizations or companies that might be willing to share our story with their constituents or employees, directing them to our website. Spread the word! Share with Facebook friends, on twitter and more. Other ideas welcome! We recognize that we are just one of many organizations feeling the impact, and hope in the end the burden is minimal for all. Unfortunately, it looks as though this might not be as short lived as originally hoped. We appreciate your support, and welcome any suggestions you might have as we ride out the storm. And in the interim, take a few minutes to make a virtual visit to the Museum, and explore our collections and more online at www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org Thank you - Laura O'Neill Director of Development 617-426-1812, x. 112 loneill@ussconstitutionmuseum.org

The color of the mast hoops is interesting - there is much debate on what is appropriate. I think it was most common across the world's navies to paint them black to contrast with the mast color up until the battle of Trafalgar. We know that going into that battle, Admiral Nelson had his fleet painted a uniform pattern as an IFF measure... Having been in so many fleet engagements, nobody understood the fog of war better than Nelson. And he knew that his upcoming tactics would entail an incredible intermingling of the combatants with banks of gunpowder smoke obscuring everything. Oftentimes it would only be masts looming above the smoke or a bowsprit emerging from a gray haze that would indicate a nearby ship. With this in mind, he ordered that all of his ships paint over their iron hoops to match the mast color as a way of making the British ships distinct. (The combined French/Spanish fleet was still utilizing rope wouldings instead of iron hoops) It is interesting to note that the HMS Victory was restored in the 20th century to the most accurate historic Admiralty records available - which clearly indicated the black iron bands on the masts. This is surely how she emerged from her Great Repair shortly before Trafalgar and that is how she appeared up into the 1970's. But research revealed the Victory's signal log with an entry showing Nelson yelling at a couple of his ships to paint out their @#!*&^ mast bands to match the rest of the fleet as they formed up for the great battle. Apparently these were outlying units that hadn't gotten the word to paint them out to match the masts, which suggests that Nelson had ordered this change very shortly before Trafalgar. It should be pointed out that the Turner painting and the Clarkson Stanfield work both sat showing the painted out mast hoops for over 150 years. These paintings were heavily influenced by veterans of the battle. Gradually the British navy adopted the Trafalgar painting practices and the American navy generally followed suit. The Hull model shows the mast hoops on Constitution painted out and the credible contemporary paintings do as well. But all of this, of course, can/should be superseded by artistic license - it is your model. Happy modeling! EG

Verne - The manger was generally a small pen in the forward most part of the gun deck. The anchor hawse holes would lead into the animal pen. You could build up a small bulkhead about chest high to a scale sailor using the molded deck strip that is already there as an anchor. You'll need to allow for the bowsprit coming thru in that area... I haven't decided to include it in my build - not very visible and I think it was struck when the ship was cleared for action. Perhaps you'll inspire me to go that route. Look for it on page 71 of the Marquardt AOTS book - item 23 on drawing D1/3. Hope that helps EG

Careful John... The museum generally has a strict no photos policy in most of the exhibits. Upstairs, be sure to flip open the lid on the little wooden box hanging on one of the walls. Inside is a hand drawn diagram of the Java battle done by one of Constitution's officers. Very neat... It shows how much maneuvering went on - lots of twists and turns. In fact, Old Ironsides absorbed two stern rakes from Java. Also not to be missed, the original George Ropes paintings of the Guerriere fight are exquisite jewels to admire. Ropes was the deaf mute protege of the famous painter Michele Felice Corne. Enjoy the great ship. EG

Folks - Just back from an RV adventure around the American West... Tahoe, Yellowstone, Zion, etc. Always great to get out in wide open spaces... Always amazed at how many Europeans rent an RV and make similar treks. They are universally polite and seem genuinely in awe of the scenery. Looks like my build log has a life all its own... I can probably leave for a month or two and the thing will double in size! Kim - a very impressive collection of cardboard boxes full of plastic... I know you like to build 'em two at a time, but that does seem to be a few lifetimes worth in your pile. Regarding wooden decks... I am steadfastly trying to stick with plastic for this effort - no wood except for the base. This is an exercise in plastic modeling skills. I'm confident that I can do a respectable job without resorting to the real thing... For those who will consider wood, I know there is a new veneer deck set from the folks at Scaledecks.com... The first version doesn't seem quite up to their other deck offerings - it doesn't have a butt pattern or margin planks with joggling, etc. My understanding from postings on another forum is that they are working to improve that on the next version. http://shop.scaledecks.com/1-96-USS-Constitution-Old-Ironsides-Deck-for-Revell-096-001.htm The workshop is back in business and I am hoping to start back on my build soon. EG

Verne - Regarding the yellow ochre stripe... Ochre would've been the standard color scheme for the US Navy thru most of the earlier years - mostly in line with the practice of the British navy. Documentation clearly shows Isaac Hull moving to a white stripe with green bulwarks during a pre-war refit. The US Navy seems to have moved to the more distinct white stripe in the pre-war years - probably to define their own identity by breaking away from British tradition. In fact, there is only written evidence to support the yellow stripe late in the war when Charles Stewart notes the change in his log. I just think it makes sense that the American navy commanders attempted to fool enemy commerce into thinking they were friendly frigates during most of the war - particularly since this is what we see reflected in all of the credible contemporary paintings. I think the British navy did the opposite - at least in some cases. My understanding is that HMS Shannon had a WHITE stripe and Chesapeake had a YELLOW stripe when they met in battle later in the war. I don't know that it was a policy imposed by the respective navies... I think individual commanders were given wide leeway to change their paint schemes - often at the Captain's own expense.

Verne - I'm just back from a family RV trip across the great American West. I was passing thru the wonderful Salt Lake valley on the way home from Yellowstone and saw an exit for Murray... You live in a beautiful part of the world! Just catching up on the various build logs and I see that you have made rapid progress and have a terrific build going... BTW - the large chain pumps led down to the lowest part of the ship and were used to pump out large volumes of water - usually when the ship was in danger. The smaller pumps were used for more mundane tasks - washing the decks and filling buckets with water, etc. They led down to cisterns just below the waterline that stored sea water drawn from small inlets in the side of the ship. Looking forward to following along... Evan

Radman - No need to panic... The curvature is intentional and represents a nice detail by the folks at Revell. All sailing ship decks would have "camber" to allow the water to runoff. In fact, the gun deck should also have this, but it was not added in the kit. You'll also see this camber reflected in the fore fife rail/pin rack included in the kit and on the edges of the main hatch opening - another nice bit of attention to detail. EG

Hello Mike - I'm glad you find my build log and I hope it proves inspiring and useful! Verne - Nothing wrong with redoing a few things until you feel comfortable with the result... I've done my share of that as well! Just set an easy pace at the beginning and you'll find yourself hitting the right stride as you get deeper into the build. I'd echo the other sentiments that we hope to see you set up another Connie log so that we can follow your progress. Daniel... I'll admit to being a bit perplexed about the deployment of the lower stunsail booms. Mr. Eriksen is convinced after his detailed research that there never was a lower stuns'l for the main on the Constitution. He thinks that the wider sail area of that stuns'l sail would blanket the foremast one and was therefore eliminated. Have a look at the interesting photos of the USS Monongahela under sail in light air: (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monong.htm) Granted, these photos date from the 1890's when she was a midshipmen training ship, but it does seem to corroborate the idea that only the foremast had lower stunsails deployed. I'm sure there are more experienced modelers/researchers that can shed more light... Thanks all for the continued interest!

Dave - No... The forward ports on the gun deck would NOT have a gun normally positioned... Perhaps during a chase they might manhandle one of the nearby guns into position to fire in hope of a lucky hit, but these ports were added by William Bainbridge after the Guerriere battle as "bridle ports" to use to facilitate towing and anchoring. The Revell instructions are incorrect and guns should not be placed here. Good catch. Evan

Hello Verne... Wonderful to see another modeler take on the 1/96 Connie. I applaud your willingness to delve into some research to tune up your representation of the great ship. Firstly, I think the "wooden bumper" seen in my photo of the spar deck bulwark is likely one of the forward pin rails. These are often left "natural" and not painted since they experience more wear as a working part of the ship. You can position these in accordance with the Revell instructions or follow some other guidance like the Bluejacket manual. They'd certainly be appropriate for 1812 (or any era!) The gun deck knees are an interesting quandary and I don't know that I have the end-all answers. I'll give you my reasoning... The current restored ship is not representative in most respects to her 1812 configuration. Lots of reasons why, but the best I can understand from various sources over the years (including docents on the ship and folks in the Constitution museum) is that the 1927 restoration utilized the most complete historic set of plans extant - which date to the mid-19th century. Folks who restore ships prefer to rely on historic documentation and forego speculative sources and that seemed to be the best way to go back in 1927. These are the basis for the 1927 drawings that you can access online at the official ship site (or purchase on CD from the Navy Museum or the Constitution museum). More modern thinking has pulled in other sources that include documentation for sister ships as well as historic artifacts like the Hull model to generate a more accurate understanding of her appearance during her glory years. In fact, I think there is congressional legislation in place that requires USS Constitution to be restored (and maintained) to her War of 1812 appearance going forward. To that end we will see more and more changes across the next few refits to bring her bow and stern into an 1812-1815 context. That being said, the knees as represented today almost certainly do not reflect her 1812 versions. My photo of the current ship shows both vertical and diagonal knees fitted. The two best historic sources are the drawings made shortly after the war by sailing master Charles Ware, and the drawings of her sister ship USF President made by the British shortly after her capture. I think the Ware version shows vertical hanging knees, but no diagonals... The President drawings show diagonals, but no vertical knees. Take your choice - nobody can really gainsay you either way! The brilliant model by Gene Bodnar closely follows the Marquardt conceptualization shown in the Anatomy of the Ship (AOTS) book. That rendition is highly speculative and includes many elements that have been discredited in recent years by careful scholarship by Tyrone Martin and others. Gene was careful to make sure folks knew that he was not out to create a model with any historical exactitude that matched contemporary sources. If anyone had a problem with what he was including (or not including) then they should take it up with Marquardt and not him... It should be noted that Marquardt chose to follow the guidance of the President drawings for the knees - same as I did. I hope your thumbs have recovered from their riveting ordeal and I look forward to following your progress. Please feel free to fire away with more questions and those of us who've gone ahead will do our best to provide guidance and explain our own approaches along the way. Thanks for the interest Evan

Lads... My garage workshop suffered a setback a few weeks ago - I had piled so much junk into the garage attic space that a joist cracked and the whole ceiling threatened to crash down. Catastrophe was narrowly averted with some quick bracing... The company that originally added the attic in my garage years ago has come forward and has been making repairs on their dime - no cost to me. They really have stood by their work and put forth the effort to rebuild it properly. All that being the case, I'm offline for a bit longer in terms of model building. Hasn't stopped me from delving further into research... I'm currently mucking about with the channels on my kit - trying to clean them up and otherwise enhance them. The question of lower stun's'l booms fitted to the channels has got me thinking (uh oh). The Revell kit includes lower stun's'l booms for both the fore and main channels (The mizzen, of course, would never have stun's'l sails deployed below the Crojack yard. Some argue, in fact, that no stun's'l sails were deployed on the mizzen. More later...) The Hull model, however, only shows booms fitted on the fore channels: Of course, this could be one of several omissions made by the crew in their haste to complete the model. But why bother with any lower booms at all if they were trying to save time with shortcuts? Marquardt in his AOTS agrees that there should only be one set of booms fitted, but he argues that they should only be on the main channels and not on the fore channels. He reasons that the storage of the anchors on the fore channel precludes the possibility of having swinging lower stun's'l booms attached. Hmmm. Olof Eriksen notes these same discrepancies in his CONSTITUTION - All sails up and flying. He compared the Hull model to the Brady The Naval Apprentice's Kedge Anchor (1841) and the rigging journal kept by Midshipmen Anderson during the 1834-35 refit and found that all three agree with the stun's'l booms only fitted to the fore channels - none on the main. Howard Chappelle in his History of the American Sailing Navy includes an interesting appendix with a copy of the builder notes for an 1826 sloop of war. Included is a reference for "swinging stun'sail boom irons" to be fitted only on the fore channels. More interesting is the inclusion of "channel cranes" for "supporting the spare spars and yards... one on the main and one on the mizzen..." This approach would seem to agree with the Charles Ware drawing of the frigate United States: The legend for this drawing labels L as Stunsail BOOMS and M as Spare Main Topsail YARDS. This would seem to refute Marquardt's assertion regarding the anchor storage blocking the stun's'l boom on the fore channel. Finally, we have this tidbit from Constitution's log following her engagement with Guerriere: Whew... Based on this exploration... When all the dust settles I will only have lower stun's'l booms rigged to the fore channels on my model, but will also include spare topsail yards resting in "channel cranes" extended from the main and mizzen channels both port and starboard. All part of the fun! Thanks for following along. Evan

Hello vacotton... Thanks for joining the dialog! I haven't had much luck with heating and bending styrene... I find the path of laminating strips together to form curves to be much more reliable and controllable. Besides, I'm sure hot styrene would not smell good! Evan

Hello Dan... The color scheme is controversial - it all depends on perspective and source... I will eschew the limited written records and instead use the Corne paintings for guidance. They clearly show a yellow stripe with the rest of the hull trim in white - suggesting that the crew did the minimum needed to assume a British guise while leaving the rest of the white livery intact: Nobody can gainsay you either way... I would strongly urge you to avoid gold/gilt trim - that was not done in the War of 1812 navy (and probably not ever done!). Your ship is looking terrific. EG

A bit of work on the bow... It will come as no surprise to folks that I don't like the kit representation of the bow details. The molding for the head timbers and railings is pretty lousy: There is no consistent guidance across all of the various sources to know exactly how these should look - or even how many head timbers there were in 1812. Here are some representations: Modern version: Corne Paintings: Hull Model: In the end I just elected to replace what was on the kit with something a bit more crisp. I wanted, however, to have the head timbers bow outwards in a graceful curve instead of the inward version as molded. I went ahead and laminated together two strips of .060 x .125" styrene (Evergreen 156) using a convenient paint spray can to get the appropriate radius. I taped the strips to the can and came back next day: I replaced the head timbers one at a time - starting with the most forward (and smallest) one. I left the middle rail intact for support and guidance for the new elements(!): Some careful filing and test fitting iterations are needed to get everything aligned to the final shape. I'll still have some tuning to do before final glueing. Finally I came along with some .030 x .030" strips to add some detail: I'll likely come along later and give some attention to the weather cloth and upper rails. Thanks for looking EG

I think you owe Henry a Cannoli from Mike's as well...! Glad to know you made it aboard and had a great tour! Looking forward to your pictures.. (Oh... and I hope your anniversary went well too!) I doubt you can fit it in, but a visit to the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem will reward you with the incredible Hull model AND the beautiful series of paintings by Corne of the Guerriere battle. I'm sure the town was a bit glum after the Bruins debacle. Make sure to grab a bowl of chowdah while your in town. Evan

Hello Jasseji This is the best I've got to show how I ended the bow section: Hope that helps Evan