Force9

All...
 
A bit of miscellaneous progress.
 
I've added the channels and I think I've got them on very firmly. I took the liberty of reinforcing them with a small strip of .040 x .040 Evergreen underneath to increase the surface area when glueing to the hull.

 
I've also reinforced the pin rails by drilling thru the bulwark and inserting small steel pins. They were snipped to size, covered with some blobs of filler, and sanded smooth.

 
I did some spot primer in key locations to help determine areas in need of improvement then gave the two half hulls a complete coat. Still a bit of touch ups and tuning needed, but I'm getting closer to the painting phase.
 

 
Additionally, I decided to change course on the berth deck ventilation scuttles and gun deck scuppers. Originally I did not like the large openings for the scuppers and elected to cover them up and treat them as the ventilation scuttles. It gnawed at me enough that it wasn't a correct representation that I finally went ahead and popped off the previous work to expose the scupper holes and built new ventilation doors lower down in a more proper location. I even depicted one of the doors swung open to add some dimension:
 

 

 
A note to add regarding the ship's boats... I got pinged on another forum by a terrific modeler who is also building the Revell Connie using some of the Bluejacket parts. He was wondering if I was using the BJ resin whaleboats. I did purchase a couple of the whaleboats along with the resin pinnace. I was a little disappointed that they came with pre-molded floor boards - I would've preferred to add my own interior details:
 

 
Mine came in good condition - I know sometimes resin parts can be full of air pockets and blemishes, but these can be easily improved. My original pinnace came very warped and I wasn't able to correct the shape under warm water. The folks at Bluejacket cheerfully sent me a replacement.
 
Unfortunately, it looks as though I can't use these on my build. Apparently the whaleboats did not appear on Constitution until AFTER the Guerriere fight. Receipts and invoices indicate that Commodore Bainbridge first purchased whaleboats from local New England sources to replace some of the boats lost or damaged in the Guerriere battle. They've been associated with the ship ever since. The USS Constitution museum Log Lines blog had a nice article about this: http://usscm.blogspot.com/2012/09/whaleboats-for-constitution.html
 
I think that catches me up on my current progress.
 
Thanks for looking in...
Evan

Dave and Markus - Thank you for your continued interest and the kind compliments.
 
Tim - your insight is invaluable and the article you've provided is incredibly illuminating. I wish Ms. Desy would post this along with the other public articles in the online Naval Heritage Command Constitution tour site. (It should be pointed out that Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command.)
 
This passage is very informative:
 
 
HALF-PORT..., shifting shutters fixed in the stops of those ports, which have no hanging lids. Those to the quarter-deck and forecastle ports are in general in one, and made of two thicknesses of slit deals, and to the ports for the long guns have holes in them for the gun to run out; and those to the upper deck, In two parts called buckler half-ports; for long guns, the lower part is to the center of the gun, when run out and levelled, as they have a hole in them that fits close round the guns ; and to carronades, to the under side of the gun, if not too low, that they may be fixed over them. The lower piece of these half-ports is of fir, and in one piece, to fill up the stops; with a rabbet taken out of its upper edge, to receive the upper part, and with two strengthening bolts driven up and down through it. This piece is in general hung with hinges at the lower part, and kept in its place by sliding bolts. The upper part is made commonly of whole and slit deal, the whole deal up and down, and the slit deal, to cross it, fore and aft.” 2
 
This indicates that the permanent full lids seen in so many contemporary models up forward and along the quarterdeck is likely accurate. The rest of the ports would have the half-lid "stoppers" - at least as commonly practiced by American captains. Ms. Desy seems to confirm that the ports as represented by the Hull model are accurate. There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts suggest that those were installed afterwards. It may well be, however, that Captain Hull followed what appears to be the common American practice of having removable half lid stoppers on board. They would've (obviously) been removed for the battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. I wonder if this is a uniquely Yankee innovation? Tim, you've indicated in your earlier post that the Royal navy may not have followed the practice of gun port lids - at least not thru the War of 1812? I see one or two models in the NMM collection that show hinged half lids on British frigates, but not until the post-war period.
 
I think we're all a bit smarter as we walk through these sources and I'm feeling very comfortable with following the Hull model in this area.
 
The Abell engraving shown in the essay has a full lid over the BRIDLE port - not a gun port. It may be that Ms. Desy would need to reconcile the fact that the Hull model does not have the extra bridle port in front as the modern ship does... Technically the front THREE ports on both sides (the Bridle port and two gun ports) would need lids on the restored ship if the Hull model example is strictly followed. I wonder if the Hull model builders put hinged lids on all the ports positioned along the forward curve of the bow in their representation. I think the gun ports extend a little too far forward on the Hull model - there wouldn't be room to add the Bridle port.
 
I may consider only including a hinged lid over the very foremost ports (not the TWO foremost) on each side of my model to allow for the fact that the Revell kit will only have one port positioned along the forward curve of the bow now that I've eliminated the Bridle port. The next port is under the fore channel and a full lid would be blocked from opening fully. I'll have to experiment to see what looks right...
 
Thanks again Tim for the historical consultation and please keep an eye on my build.
 
Off to the workshop to revisit the scuppers and berth deck ventilation scuttles... I think I'll redo these based on some other considerations.
 
Stay tuned
 
Evan

Folks -
 
I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... 
 
Here are some credible sources all piled up:
 
Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble:
 

 
Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants:
 

 
"Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull:
 

 
 
Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew:

 
Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java
 

 
Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants:
 

 
Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids.  Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans.  We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage?
 
I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks.  It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them  mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow.  Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids.  It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers.  There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain.  We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before).  The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space.  The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era.  As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard.
 
I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem!
 
I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe!
 
Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.
 
Evan

Paul - I owe you a reply! Thanks much for your perspective - I appreciate your very nice compliments regarding my efforts. I also have a chunk of Old Ironsides purchased at the museum. I haven't yet decided how it can be incorporated - probably I'll make it into a small stand and display one of the ship's boats alongside the main model. I very much like the work of Tom Freeman - he's done some beautiful paintings of Constitution. And it should be noted that he does extensive research on his subjects and you can go count the number of gunport lids on his War of 1812 representations...

Tim - Thank you as well for your insight. I make no claims at being an historian, scholar, or researcher - so it is gratifying to have a professional chime in and echo some of my thoughts regarding the historical configuration of Constitution. I would also echo your underlying message - we don't know how the ship actually looked in her early wartime years. We can probably make a better guess at her 1815 appearance than her 1812 appearance... Many records were lost when Washington was burned and I think the records were better kept and organized later in the war. All we can do is suggest likely configurations based on snippets of fact and similarities to other resources. I would, however, hesitate to buy into the idea that these ships carried removable lids as standard practice. I'm not sure that I've seen many references to such outside of Preble having his carpenters make custom removable split lids. The arguments put forth for such an arrangement would apply equally, if not more, to the larger classes of ships that fight yardarm to yardarm in fleet actions, and we don't see that in play.

Jud - I think you've brought us full circle to where we started - one camp firmly in mind that it is insane to think of ships with no lids, and those of us who are crazy to think that the lids were not standard because so many contemporary sources show it to be the case.

Coincidentally enough I've just today received my copy of The Sailing Frigate - A history in ship models by Robert Gardiner. Page 59 includes a study of the beautiful and highly detailed model of the frigate Lowestoffe of 1760:



Gardiner notes: "With around 7ft of freeboard, gunport lids are unnecessary except where the ports open into cabins or other enclosed spaces..."

It seems to be the case that Frigates had generally higher freeboard than larger rates AND did not use the "gun deck" as living space. Frigates had the advantage of dedicated berth decks below for the crew. I put gun deck in quotes because until the early 19th century, the deck with armament was referred to as the "upper deck" in the Royal navy - which acknowledges the exposure to the elements - and the berth deck still retained the old "gun deck" label dating back to the days when these rates had lower deck gun ports. I personally believe that this goes to the heart of why the gun port lids were usually not there (with the understanding that there were some exceptions) - in the late 18th century and into the 19th the 5th and 6th rates generally had higher freeboard than other classes and had dry berth decks for the crew. The lids didn't commonly appear until the standard frigates evolved to the bigger spar decked type with enclosed gun decks sometime after the War of 1812 and into the early 1820s.

Regardless, I'm convinced that the lack of gun port lids posed no real danger to this class of ship - at least not enough danger to warrant their widespread use. The comfort of the crew was not significantly compromised since they lived on the deck below. I'm certain that I've convinced nobody to switch their views. Most modelers, I'm sure, will continue to include the lids so that their models don't seem naked... Kinda like that guy who shaves off his mustache and some people can't quite explain it, but something's not right.


I really do appreciate the feedback and I'm glad to spew forth my brain dumps to anyone who will burn through minutes of their lives reading this stuff.

Thanks again to all who follow along

Evan

Hello Popeye -  
 
Regarding the modern ship... I generally shy away from using her as a reference for my 1812 build.  If you talk with the folks at the USS Constitution museum, they'll tell you that the restored ship was based on plans dating into the 1840s.  Apparently this was the most complete set that Lt. Lord was able to get his hands on when restoring the ship in the 1920s.  I would certainly agree that gun port lids would be standard in that period. Fortunately, the current plans are to migrate the ship towards the War of 1812 configuration as opportunities arise during scheduled refits.  The open waist has already been restored and the bow and stern will be reconfigured across the next couple of refits.  I think Henry has indicated that the stern is next up.  I do expect, however, that gun port lids will always be in place - it is a practical need to help preserve the interior comfort for a public "museum" ship.
 
BTW - your wooden decks are looking great!  I'm very impressed that you accounted for the underlying beam structure and aligned your plank ends with the edges of the hatches.  Well done.
 
Evan

Evan ,
 
It's your model, and based on my own research, I agree with you on the gunport lids. There will always be people who disagree with just about anything. so don't worry about it too much. You're doing a spectacular job on the ship and I think you're going to end up with a museum quality model at the end of the build that will be the envy of all who see her. My version will have the yellow stripe from the top of the gunport lids down to the main wales based on the Thomas Freeman painting, "A payment in Iron". I have some wood taken from the ship I bought at the museum in Boston. It's available on the website, I'm still mulling over what to make as a small piece of actual ships wood to place on my model. Good Luck with yours.
 
Paul

Well, for what it's worth you have convinced me...but mine are already on ship so they will remain, like my transom, unchanged. You have, Evan, without doubt made my attention to detail awareness more acute for the the remaining portion of my build and I will continue to watch yours with fascination and admiration.

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

Paul - I owe you a reply! Thanks much for your perspective - I appreciate your very nice compliments regarding my efforts. I also have a chunk of Old Ironsides purchased at the museum. I haven't yet decided how it can be incorporated - probably I'll make it into a small stand and display one of the ship's boats alongside the main model. I very much like the work of Tom Freeman - he's done some beautiful paintings of Constitution. And it should be noted that he does extensive research on his subjects and you can go count the number of gunport lids on his War of 1812 representations...

Tim - Thank you as well for your insight. I make no claims at being an historian, scholar, or researcher - so it is gratifying to have a professional chime in and echo some of my thoughts regarding the historical configuration of Constitution. I would also echo your underlying message - we don't know how the ship actually looked in her early wartime years. We can probably make a better guess at her 1815 appearance than her 1812 appearance... Many records were lost when Washington was burned and I think the records were better kept and organized later in the war. All we can do is suggest likely configurations based on snippets of fact and similarities to other resources. I would, however, hesitate to buy into the idea that these ships carried removable lids as standard practice. I'm not sure that I've seen many references to such outside of Preble having his carpenters make custom removable split lids. The arguments put forth for such an arrangement would apply equally, if not more, to the larger classes of ships that fight yardarm to yardarm in fleet actions, and we don't see that in play.

Jud - I think you've brought us full circle to where we started - one camp firmly in mind that it is insane to think of ships with no lids, and those of us who are crazy to think that the lids were not standard because so many contemporary sources show it to be the case.

Coincidentally enough I've just today received my copy of The Sailing Frigate - A history in ship models by Robert Gardiner. Page 59 includes a study of the beautiful and highly detailed model of the frigate Lowestoffe of 1760:



Gardiner notes: "With around 7ft of freeboard, gunport lids are unnecessary except where the ports open into cabins or other enclosed spaces..."

It seems to be the case that Frigates had generally higher freeboard than larger rates AND did not use the "gun deck" as living space. Frigates had the advantage of dedicated berth decks below for the crew. I put gun deck in quotes because until the early 19th century, the deck with armament was referred to as the "upper deck" in the Royal navy - which acknowledges the exposure to the elements - and the berth deck still retained the old "gun deck" label dating back to the days when these rates had lower deck gun ports. I personally believe that this goes to the heart of why the gun port lids were usually not there (with the understanding that there were some exceptions) - in the late 18th century and into the 19th the 5th and 6th rates generally had higher freeboard than other classes and had dry berth decks for the crew. The lids didn't commonly appear until the standard frigates evolved to the bigger spar decked type with enclosed gun decks sometime after the War of 1812 and into the early 1820s.

Regardless, I'm convinced that the lack of gun port lids posed no real danger to this class of ship - at least not enough danger to warrant their widespread use. The comfort of the crew was not significantly compromised since they lived on the deck below. I'm certain that I've convinced nobody to switch their views. Most modelers, I'm sure, will continue to include the lids so that their models don't seem naked... Kinda like that guy who shaves off his mustache and some people can't quite explain it, but something's not right.


I really do appreciate the feedback and I'm glad to spew forth my brain dumps to anyone who will burn through minutes of their lives reading this stuff.

Thanks again to all who follow along

Evan

Paul - I owe you a reply! Thanks much for your perspective - I appreciate your very nice compliments regarding my efforts. I also have a chunk of Old Ironsides purchased at the museum. I haven't yet decided how it can be incorporated - probably I'll make it into a small stand and display one of the ship's boats alongside the main model. I very much like the work of Tom Freeman - he's done some beautiful paintings of Constitution. And it should be noted that he does extensive research on his subjects and you can go count the number of gunport lids on his War of 1812 representations...

Tim - Thank you as well for your insight. I make no claims at being an historian, scholar, or researcher - so it is gratifying to have a professional chime in and echo some of my thoughts regarding the historical configuration of Constitution. I would also echo your underlying message - we don't know how the ship actually looked in her early wartime years. We can probably make a better guess at her 1815 appearance than her 1812 appearance... Many records were lost when Washington was burned and I think the records were better kept and organized later in the war. All we can do is suggest likely configurations based on snippets of fact and similarities to other resources. I would, however, hesitate to buy into the idea that these ships carried removable lids as standard practice. I'm not sure that I've seen many references to such outside of Preble having his carpenters make custom removable split lids. The arguments put forth for such an arrangement would apply equally, if not more, to the larger classes of ships that fight yardarm to yardarm in fleet actions, and we don't see that in play.

Jud - I think you've brought us full circle to where we started - one camp firmly in mind that it is insane to think of ships with no lids, and those of us who are crazy to think that the lids were not standard because so many contemporary sources show it to be the case.

Coincidentally enough I've just today received my copy of The Sailing Frigate - A history in ship models by Robert Gardiner. Page 59 includes a study of the beautiful and highly detailed model of the frigate Lowestoffe of 1760:



Gardiner notes: "With around 7ft of freeboard, gunport lids are unnecessary except where the ports open into cabins or other enclosed spaces..."

It seems to be the case that Frigates had generally higher freeboard than larger rates AND did not use the "gun deck" as living space. Frigates had the advantage of dedicated berth decks below for the crew. I put gun deck in quotes because until the early 19th century, the deck with armament was referred to as the "upper deck" in the Royal navy - which acknowledges the exposure to the elements - and the berth deck still retained the old "gun deck" label dating back to the days when these rates had lower deck gun ports. I personally believe that this goes to the heart of why the gun port lids were usually not there (with the understanding that there were some exceptions) - in the late 18th century and into the 19th the 5th and 6th rates generally had higher freeboard than other classes and had dry berth decks for the crew. The lids didn't commonly appear until the standard frigates evolved to the bigger spar decked type with enclosed gun decks sometime after the War of 1812 and into the early 1820s.

Regardless, I'm convinced that the lack of gun port lids posed no real danger to this class of ship - at least not enough danger to warrant their widespread use. The comfort of the crew was not significantly compromised since they lived on the deck below. I'm certain that I've convinced nobody to switch their views. Most modelers, I'm sure, will continue to include the lids so that their models don't seem naked... Kinda like that guy who shaves off his mustache and some people can't quite explain it, but something's not right.


I really do appreciate the feedback and I'm glad to spew forth my brain dumps to anyone who will burn through minutes of their lives reading this stuff.

Thanks again to all who follow along

Evan

I think you'll also need to consider the chesstree... Having that in place probably compels you to lead the line into the gun deck.  I've elected to eliminate the chesstree and lead all sheets and tacks thru sheaves in the spar deck bulwarks that I still need to add.  This corresponds to the approach mapped out by Olof Eriksen in his research for the 1815 rig.  The Bluejacket plans by Larry Arnot show the sheets and tacks led thru the gun deck.  The Hull model also shows the large cleat on the spar deck:
 

 
Hope I haven't just added to the confusion.
 
Evan

I think you'll also need to consider the chesstree... Having that in place probably compels you to lead the line into the gun deck.  I've elected to eliminate the chesstree and lead all sheets and tacks thru sheaves in the spar deck bulwarks that I still need to add.  This corresponds to the approach mapped out by Olof Eriksen in his research for the 1815 rig.  The Bluejacket plans by Larry Arnot show the sheets and tacks led thru the gun deck.  The Hull model also shows the large cleat on the spar deck:
 

 
Hope I haven't just added to the confusion.
 
Evan

Folks -
 
I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... 
 
Here are some credible sources all piled up:
 
Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble:
 

 
Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants:
 

 
"Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull:
 

 
 
Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew:

 
Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java
 

 
Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants:
 

 
Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids.  Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans.  We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage?
 
I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks.  It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them  mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow.  Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids.  It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers.  There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain.  We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before).  The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space.  The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era.  As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard.
 
I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem!
 
I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe!
 
Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.
 
Evan

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

I think it is important to highlight the philosophy behind the design and construction of the American 44s... The role of the frigate in European navies required much versatility.  These were the "eyes of the fleet", commerce raiders, convoy escorts, and flagships in far distant stations.  Not so the American frigates.  We can see from the exchange of notes between Joshua Humphries and the Secretary of War that these frigates were designed with a single purpose - to kick the *** of the common class of european frigates - specifically the British 38s.  Anything bigger, they'd have speed enough to escape.  As Frolick notes, they were not particularly fast in relation to their opponents - Java, Guerriere, and probably Macedonian could all have run circles around the heavier Americans (heck - Java practically did!).
 
It has become fashionable in recent years to re-analize the American victories in the War of 1812 and demystify the idea that the American navy was better than the Royal navy.  Many times the implication is that British crews were better, but they lost because the American ships were so big in comparison.  This sidesteps the reality that British ships had oftentimes defeated much more powerful ones in the past and had expected to do the same with the American frigates.  British officers also regarded the 24 pounder long guns as too unwieldy for frigate actions and expected to outshoot the American crews.  In reality, they probably did, but with much less effect and they suffered greatly from the accurate and heavy return fire of the bigger ships.  I think it can be conceded that the British ships were generally fought with skill and fortitude against much more powerful opponents, but the truth is those frigates lost their fights long before the shooting started...  They lost their fights when Joshua Humphries put pen to paper and convinced Henry Knox to sign off on a class of frigate that other powers thought were too expensive to build and maintain and too slow to ever be effective in single ship actions.
 
Man were they wrong.
 
Evan

Folks -
 
I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... 
 
Here are some credible sources all piled up:
 
Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble:
 

 
Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants:
 

 
"Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull:
 

 
 
Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew:

 
Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java
 

 
Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants:
 

 
Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids.  Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans.  We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage?
 
I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks.  It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them  mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow.  Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids.  It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers.  There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain.  We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before).  The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space.  The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era.  As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard.
 
I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem!
 
I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe!
 
Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.
 
Evan

Folks -
 
I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... 
 
Here are some credible sources all piled up:
 
Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble:
 

 
Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants:
 

 
"Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull:
 

 
 
Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew:

 
Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java
 

 
Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants:
 

 
Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids.  Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans.  We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage?
 
I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks.  It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them  mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow.  Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids.  It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers.  There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain.  We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before).  The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space.  The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era.  As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard.
 
I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem!
 
I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe!
 
Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.
 
Evan

Folks -
 
I'll make one last pitch for the absence of the gun lids... 
 
Here are some credible sources all piled up:
 
Michel Felice Corné 1803 - commissioned by Commodore Preble:
 

 
Thomas Birch 1813 Constitution vs Guerriere - Based on interviews with participants:
 

 
"Hull" model 1812 - built by the crew and presented to Isaac Hull:
 

 
 
Michel Felice Corné 1812 Constitution vs Guerriere - commissioned by captain Hull and supervised by his purser Thomas Chew:

 
Nicholas Pocock Constitution vs Java - based on sketches by Lt Buchanan of HMS Java
 

 
Thomas Birch United States vs Macedonian - based on interviews with participants:
 

 
Now we can probably dig through each of these representations and find various flaws and discrepancies, but we can't dispute that ALL of these have something in common - no gun port lids.  Constitution, United States, Guerriere, Java, Macedonian... All shown without lids by different artists after consultation with crew and battle veterans.  We have log entries and journal accounts of water pouring in through the gun ports in heavy weather... But how can we modern folk reconcile the idea that these ships would sail without gun port lids and be so endangered on a voyage?
 
I think the absence of gun port lids is a vestige of the era when this class of ship had open gun decks - at least very open space along the waist - which were generally treated as "weather" decks.  It was common to not have lids on ports along the open waist and many of these ships would only have them  mounted on the most forward ports to minimize wetness from a plunging bow.  Sometimes the sternmost would also have protection against following seas, but all others would be without lids.  It was no big deal for the water to slosh in one side, across the deck, and out the other side and/or out the scuppers.  There are certainly examples of frigates being fitted with lids, but likely at the discretion of the captain.  We know from log entries that Preble had carpenters add lids during his tenure (which implies, of course, that none were there before).  The American spar deck frigates represented a transition away from the open waist and the utilization of the top deck for more guns and ship handling space.  The great success they had in the War of 1812 spurred the other naval powers to evolve their frigates away from the smaller open waisted types and into the big frigate era.  As the gun decks became more commonly enclosed, the gun port lids became more standard.
 
I certainly understand that most of my fellow modelers will not follow me down this path, but I would think that most would at least appreciate my reasoning and respect the fact that I'm basing my own representation on credible contemporary sources - specifically the Michel Felice Corné paintings and the Hull model - however illogical that may seem!
 
I'm glad that my build has inspired some deeper explorations of some elements of the great ship that defy conventional thinking... Stay tuned for the yellow stripe!
 
Thanks to all for the engaging discussion.
 
Evan

Thanks to all who've clicked the LIKE button on my build!
 
Patrick - Glad you like the storage of the spare topsail yard.  I've revised the update to include my earlier research regarding this approach... I do not know if this was typical of the period, but it does seem likely that something similar to this was in place on August 19, 1812.
 
James - thank you for your continued interest!'
 
Markus!  I appreciate the compliment on my amateur photography... I noticed a pool of sunlight hitting my table and thought it might help to highlight the details of the little boat.
 
Popeye/Sailor - Have no fear - everything is dry-fitted at this point.  I'm a long way from glueing the hull together... Many modifications yet and I'll likely paint much of the half hulls inside and out before joining them forever.
 
Evan

Thank you PopEye, Patrick, and Daniel for the kind attention...
 
Christian - Thanks for popping by... Feel free to incorporate anything of my build in your future efforts - I'm sure you'd create a fabulous Constitution should you ever make the attempt.
 
I'm trying to close out the details of the half-hulls so that I can get to painting...
 

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:
 

 



 
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.
 

I've begun to mount the channels.... Here is a test of the fit of the spare topsail yard stored on the main and mizzen channels:
 




 
I rather like the effect.
 
I needed to break up the tedium of the pin rails, so I started in on some of the boats.  Here is the smallest boat (punt) outfitted with the keelson (.040 x .040 Evergreen) and ribs (.030 x .030).  I had some small half-round .040" Evergreen that I stretched around the outer gunwale for the rub rail:
 



 
The transom was built up with .040 x .100 Evergreen and shaped with a few strokes of the file.
 
Thanks again for keeping track of my build
Evan

Thank you PopEye, Patrick, and Daniel for the kind attention...
 
Christian - Thanks for popping by... Feel free to incorporate anything of my build in your future efforts - I'm sure you'd create a fabulous Constitution should you ever make the attempt.
 
I'm trying to close out the details of the half-hulls so that I can get to painting...
 

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:
 

 



 
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.
 

I've begun to mount the channels.... Here is a test of the fit of the spare topsail yard stored on the main and mizzen channels:
 




 
I rather like the effect.
 
I needed to break up the tedium of the pin rails, so I started in on some of the boats.  Here is the smallest boat (punt) outfitted with the keelson (.040 x .040 Evergreen) and ribs (.030 x .030).  I had some small half-round .040" Evergreen that I stretched around the outer gunwale for the rub rail:
 



 
The transom was built up with .040 x .100 Evergreen and shaped with a few strokes of the file.
 
Thanks again for keeping track of my build
Evan

Thank you PopEye, Patrick, and Daniel for the kind attention...
 
Christian - Thanks for popping by... Feel free to incorporate anything of my build in your future efforts - I'm sure you'd create a fabulous Constitution should you ever make the attempt.
 
I'm trying to close out the details of the half-hulls so that I can get to painting...
 

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:
 

 



 
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.
 

I've begun to mount the channels.... Here is a test of the fit of the spare topsail yard stored on the main and mizzen channels:
 




 
I rather like the effect.
 
I needed to break up the tedium of the pin rails, so I started in on some of the boats.  Here is the smallest boat (punt) outfitted with the keelson (.040 x .040 Evergreen) and ribs (.030 x .030).  I had some small half-round .040" Evergreen that I stretched around the outer gunwale for the rub rail:
 



 
The transom was built up with .040 x .100 Evergreen and shaped with a few strokes of the file.
 
Thanks again for keeping track of my build
Evan