CharlieZardoz

Hello again, and thanks for looking in.
 
Construction continued with the sheer strakes which incorporated the bulwarks of the working decks at the bow and stern.  They are at different levels, with the bow being part of D Deck, while the stern is at the E Deck level.  For the bow I took wider strips of styrene which were 0.015” thick.  I thought I needed the extra thickness for structural strength above the support of the hull block. 
 
The lower edge of the new strip was fitted to the upper edge of the prior plates and parallel with the top line of portholes, then it was taped in place.  Using a compass I marked the inside with a line setting a consistent height of 4 feet (1/4”) for the bulwarks.  The strips were removed and shaped to the line.  I located and drilled three round holes for the hawser leads and two slots for the fairleads, although these were hidden by solid hinged doors such as the one that can be seen just aft of the bow.

 At the stern the strakes around the compound curves had to be built up one at a time, then faired into a final vertical bulwark.  I made and discarded several sets of paper patterns before getting it to match the photographs.  Here I did my first significant split painting.  I sprayed dark grey primer on both sides of the hull with the inside of the stbd bulwark masked to keep it white.  Then I masked the port side and painted the stbd side black.  I got some underspray but I decanted some of the primer and cleaned it up with a brush. 
 
The deck is also split.  Many of the photos of the troop ship have decks that look a lot like they match the grey of the deck houses and bulwarks, so we decided they should look it on the model.  It also gives a stark contrast between the two representations.  To keep the lines of the deck planks visible I misted the paint from a distance to make a translucent layer.  This deck is a test piece and was ultimately replaced.

My guide for the bulwarks was this photo of the troop ship.  The wood deck ends several feet from the bulwark, leaving a gutter space for the triangular supports for the bulwark.  Also in that space are two four-post fairleads near the bow and two three-post ones further aft near the chain winches.  A fairly wide caprail tops the bulwarks with a small breakwater mounted on top at the bow.

The supports were chopped from a ¼” strip using an inexpensive commercial device I bought a while ago.  It has served faithfully as long as I replace the blade frequently.

The fairleads were built up by taking thick strip ¼” wide, cutting pieces to length and sanding a bevel into the inner edge.  Short posts were cut from solid rod as carefully as I could.  Using the squarest ends they were glued to the bases with white glue which gave me some time for adjustments as it set.  When the glue was dry the posts were all reinforced with CA.  When everything was sturdy I lightly sanded to tops of the posts level and even.  Then they were topped by small discs punched out of a sheet with a leather-working punch.

The fairleads were primed dark grey, as were a number of bollards and winches that started life as Bluejacket castings.  They were set in place to help locate the fairleads exactly.  The fairleads then located the bulwark supports and the spacing between them.  This then determined the locations of the stanchions which support the next deck, and they are marked in black.

Everything was removed and the bulwarks, supports and perimeters were given contrasting colors.  I decided on a dark grey for the port side to match the primer on the fittings.  A better deck was made, a margin plank applied, and the port side misted grey before being glued down.

Another test.  The port side fittings are a light grey, the stbd ones are buff colored, as seen in a few photos.  The buff ones are good, but on the port side I did not like the contrast between the light fittings and dark bulwarks. 

At the bow I made the fairleads and bulwarks the same light grey.  I like the look better, and it is closer to what I see in the photos.  I will probably do some dark washes at the end of the build to bring out a bit of contrast.  Now I could mask the interior of the bulwark and paint the liner side gloss black to a point just past the end of the working deck.  The stbd caprail had been left off until now to keep it pristine white, and now it was attached, making a very clean color separation line.

In the middle of this area is a large deckhouse spanning the full width of the deck.  Side panels sit on top of the caprails and curve into them.  A number of portholes pierce all sides of the house, with two wide corridors running through the house, which could be closed off with double steel watertight doors on the forward face.  The forward mast, several boats and davits, winches and ventilators cover its roof, but those details are for much later.

The deckhouse is built up from a ½” basswood for the body of the house, with a 3/32” roof.  It is sheathed in styrene which extends just a bit above the roof.  This lip will anchor the brass railings that will go on later.  Portholes on the sides were installed as before, but I left the ones on the liner side bright brass.  On the forward face I cut two large doorways with rounded corners and flanked them with doors made from strip.  The portholes on this face are PE from Tom’s Modelworks, Nice, but ultimately I did not like them.  It was a question of visibility.  They just did not stand out well enough. Handrails on the liner side are bright brass wire.  On the liner side, soft iron wire.  This is the basic pattern that all future deckhouses will follow.

From the opposite angle you see that the PE portholes on the troop ship side have disappeared completely.  The portholes on the face of the main deckhouse are much more visible and match those on the hull.

The aft side of the deckhouse has the same corridor openings, but without the watertight doors.  The round pillars are bases for tall, thin horn ventilators.  The roof has been pierced for staircases, cut small to be expanded later.

All along I have been taking test photos to judge my progress.  Here is one to check the symmetry of the hull and the details.  If you have a sharp eye, you will notice that the small triangular roof extension at the forward corner of the deckhouse is smaller for the liner than for the troop ship.  This is just the first of many subtle and not so subtle differences from one to the other.

The same techniques were used to build up the small, but detailed, 4th Class entryway which fits on deck between the deckhouse and the superstructure.  Some more detailing is needed, but it will help locate stairways, cargo cranes, and other fittings.

Here are some of those details for the bow deck, including three hatches and a number of bollards.

And here they are set in approximate place.  Now, as I write this, I can see that the entryway that I spent a good bit of time on is too big.  It crowds the hatches and will get in the way of future fittings, including a gun platform on the troop ship. 

I will have to make up another one.  But not now.
 
Be well
 
Dan

I found this letter years ago in the National Archives Microfilm Rolls. Dated December 31st, 1811, Washington Navy Yard Commandant, Captain Thomas Tingey, wrote his report to Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton. He had been ordered to survey the hulls of the Frigates Boston and New York, then in ordinary in the yard, to see if they could be repaired for service. The nation was spiraling towards war with Great Britain, and the US Navy needed every ship of war it could get.
 
"Sir,
 
The master and the foreman of the ships carpenters , having been asked to re-examine the state of the Frigates New York and Boston - have reported the following as to the state of the Frigate New York:
 
The whole of the floor timbers and first futtocks are of white oak - twenty six of the floors (being those in the extreme ends) and the whole of the first futtocks must be replaced with new. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks and top timbers are of live oak, cedar and locust, and appear tolerably sound, particular(ly) those of live oak. The fore and the after end of the keelson, all the ceiling, decks, beams knees, together with the Wales, upper works and part of her bottom plank, will require to be new. Probably a few of the knees may answer again, or be better fitted in a smaller ship.
 
Of the Boston, they state that, the whole of her frame being white oak, "consequently a great part is rotten, but being a better quality than that of the New York", her floors and first futtocks appear to be in a better state. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks, and the top-timbers, stern frame, hawse pieces and breast hooks must be new, together with most of her ceiling, all of her beams, knees, decks, upper works and part of her bottom plank.
 
Maturely considering the foregoing report, and from my own knowledge of the state of those ships, I am clearly of the opinion that, to repair them completely,  (having no dock for that purpose), it would cost full as much, as to build new ships of equal rate. I therefore respectfully recommend that the New York be broken up, and a new ship built to repair her. But inasmuch as the form of the bottom of the Boston, is worth preserving (being probably the swiftest sailing ship in the world), I cannot hesitate to recommend that she be repaired, not withstanding the extent of the expense." 
 
As this is respectfully submitted, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, Your Obt. Servt., Thos. Tingey"
 
Note that although both ships were only twelve years old, both were completely used up. Such was the poor quality and temporary utility of northern white oak for ship-building. But the hull form of the Boston was so impressive that Tingey desperately wanted to preserve it. This implies that the navy did not possess a copy of her draught at that time, even though a copy of her builders draught was found in the National Archives. 
 
 

The plan I posted above from naval architechure 1805, isn't of cruiser but of another ship. I mean I would read the nrg journal and see what they say about it, buuuuut it really boils down to when was the Davis model created vs when was the Salvini plan discovered? If the salvini plan was found after the Davis model was made then it couldn't have been a reference for his Lexington.

Explain please?
 
 

The plan I posted above from naval architechure 1805, isn't of cruiser but of another ship. I mean I would read the nrg journal and see what they say about it, buuuuut it really boils down to when was the Davis model created vs when was the Salvini plan discovered? If the salvini plan was found after the Davis model was made then it couldn't have been a reference for his Lexington.

So I finally found the booklet William James commented on in his Naval Occurrences book. Unfortunately, it was up for auction last year.
 
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.76.html/2017/books-manuscripts-americana-n09657
 
(6) Manuscript booklet “Dimensions American Ships,” including the Chesapeake, President, Constitution, New York, Adams, and Enterprise, approx. 55 pages with very detailed description of dimensions of hulls, masts, sails, etc., annotated “found in Chesapeake” in pencil on front cover, paper wrappers (4 x 6 3/8 in.; 102 x 163 mm).
 
One of the preview images in the auction is a page of Constitution's spar dimensions.

Thank you John! So yeah I am never one to leave well enough alone when something doesn't feel right. So atm Ive started working on some minor corrections to parts I though hmm could I do better? First and foremost are the gratings, the holes were simply too big. I realized the grating set is likely for a 1/48 model so I scaled it down and scratch made my own using the laser .75% to 1/64 scale. The new grating goes much better with the plans Ive seen and aside from some minor corrections of the hatch coaming, it fit in perfect. Now just have to make the smaller hatch but what do you think?

Thanks so much Mike! I am very excited for the next bunch of steps. As you can see I've already added some decking material and glued the hatches down once and for all. I added some extra parts on deck just to get a look at it all together. So now it's a question of what comes next... 
 
The plan is to finish planking but that means adding those waterways and edge planks and also means adding a toe rail. But  alsoI plan on painting the too and bottom of the wale black. So it'll have a nice strip across. Then I also need to copper. As you can see the little sailor guys are exhausted just thinking about it all.

Good morning! Decided to do a mini-update today I added all the treenails to the finished side of the hull. Basically I the process was poking them out with an awl then filling the hole with colored putty (which I darkened with paint) then used the colored pencil to define the area a bit more and here is how it looks!  I know some of my steelers are a bit off location but that will be colored with copper anyways. I realize now that the nails are effectively showing where the ships frames are (an obvious concept but I now I see the logic behind it). Next step now will be doing the other side hopefully won't take me nearly as long

The new grates look so much better, Charlie

Thanks for the advice Dan. Was wondering if the coamings should be rounded a bit, I knew that if I did so there would be no going back so I've been holding back on it but now that the deck is being done Ill adjust.

Thank you John! So yeah I am never one to leave well enough alone when something doesn't feel right. So atm Ive started working on some minor corrections to parts I though hmm could I do better? First and foremost are the gratings, the holes were simply too big. I realized the grating set is likely for a 1/48 model so I scaled it down and scratch made my own using the laser .75% to 1/64 scale. The new grating goes much better with the plans Ive seen and aside from some minor corrections of the hatch coaming, it fit in perfect. Now just have to make the smaller hatch but what do you think?

Yeah you know what, that's a very obvious weirdness. I mean a plan of that time would always have the keel horizontal having the plan to the waterline is.... wrong. One day ill try and track down where these plans came from and IF they have any merit at all.  I will want to see that plan Chapelle worked on at the mystic seaport library. He apparently did an unofficial conjectural plan (mentioned a few pages back). Id be curious to see what this plan looks like if for only research purposes.

Yep yep I would highly recommend your ready the NRG article if you can. That image I posted is from the issue, it's a British brig from 1804 which I believe was a template for HMS Wolf likely others, but the bows are almost identical. The Davis stern looks kinda Americanized but even that stern looks like neither era it's very extreme. There are many erroneous models from those era and plenty still on the shelves! If you want to build a kit try a newer kit they have less auspicious origins...  otherwise scratch modelmaking will always lead to the result you wish like my Active!

Nice! Curious to see what you have in store. Also just to go back to past posts about the Enteprrize quarterdeck, that Constructo model shows a style from 1776 with the railing and cabin door which looks a lot like Fair American or Halifax. When the little deck was on Enterprise it was very likely similar to the sort of fore and aft decks that the cruiser class had.  Again another example on how older models really had a lot of anachronistic issues. 

Here it be! And yeah it looks that crummy in the book as well lol.

Let me scan it from the book and see if I can get a decent size of it.

Hi Ian, I haven't had a chance to scan from Davis's book to try and explain what you are proposing, however you want to read NRG journal 31 page 137 which critiques the Lexington he built which was also used as the basis for the Aeropiccola kit of Lexington from way back when. So bottom line looking at the hull lines both ships do look rather similar don't they? But from what I can tell Davis took a plan profile of a Brtitish brig from 1804/5 probably the HMS Wolf and then augmented the size to like 78.5' long?  Which actually wasn't event the length of Lexington but whatever, I believe you are trying to insinuate that Davis's Lexington could be made to represent and somewhat factual representation of Enterprize? Here's my thoughts, I feel it wont because Davis's model is old and Davis in general was kind of not always the best with facts and back in those days there weren't many people doing this to make a generic early 19th century brig and then slap a name on it wasn't so hard back then there was less information. Millar's book, on Revolutionary war ships by contrast was great in that it really showed what colonial ships had in common back then, the Lexington having a quarterdeck and looking very much like a merchant conversion ship. The Enterprize by contrasted looked very much like a brig from 1800 which in turn consisted of ships like HMS Wolf, Cruizer and then the American Syren, Argus, Vixen etc. When I lined up the plans yeah there were differences but generally the same concept based on builder practices of the time. And in turn if you line up British brigs and then American ones youll see some distinctions between the two again based on builder practices.
 
My point is What Davis did was take a plan of a generic British brig, change the dimensions and then add some American styled flourishes and decided yeah that could be Lexington... but that's not very good history. He didn't really understand what a brig from 1776 would look like so the ship ultimately looks like a british brig from 1804 with some American touches, and shrunk down several feet hence why it looks like a plausible Enterprize. He also didn't scale the masts correctly they are oversized. Near as I can tell the Salvini plans were not discovered when Davis made his model so any chances of their being identical is pure coincidence.
 
So what did Enterprize really look like? Well if you take Salvini plan A and Vixen and line them up they are almost identical, save for some slight differences in tumblhome (which was historically referenced) but that's pretty much it! I am now of the opinion that Enterprize was never lengthened in Venice so she probably kept her 85' size up until the war of 1812 when she was significantly changed. So when I do make a model of Enterprise ill probably use Salvini plan A, line it up with Vixen, do a bit of tweaking and that's it. I would effectually be making a model of Salvini plan A and slapping Enterprize on it like I am the Active revenue cutter. It's making an inference but at least it's building a model from an actual legitimate plan, not a hodge podge of stuff like David's Lexington or Hahn's vaulted Hannah model (which has tons of issues as well). I will say though that the Davis Lexington is pleasing to the eye so I did try to decide if it could represent a ship of any sort but yeah 75' is too small for brigs of that time so I really don't know what else to do with it other that admire it as a noble attempt at -er something lol. :0

Those are great Talos! Look at those lines wheewhoo! Do you posts these in a different forum I'd love to follow your progress. Consequently I have an image of the South's attempt to convert the Raritan as well. I guess they really didn't have the resources to convert these ships to ironclads, but poor Germantown and United States were taken into the navy as floating batteries and then scuttled. Neat stuff!

Those are great Talos! Look at those lines wheewhoo! Do you posts these in a different forum I'd love to follow your progress. Consequently I have an image of the South's attempt to convert the Raritan as well. I guess they really didn't have the resources to convert these ships to ironclads, but poor Germantown and United States were taken into the navy as floating batteries and then scuttled. Neat stuff!

Thanks, Charlie. Some of these get posted on my naval thread on Baen's Bar, others get posted in the naval subforum on Civil War Talk (where frolick also posts) like the Plymouth ironclad. This is the first place I've posted the Burrows pics, however. The major reason Plymouth never ended up converted is they ran out of time and she was too deep to make it up the James River when the North recaptured Gosport.
 
https://civilwartalk.com/threads/uss-plymouth.144001/
 
 

The stern looks like the Syren's in the Tripoli painting,  Eagle and false windows.  My Syren about 35 years ago,  some day have to go back and rig her--

Thanks for the advice Dan. Was wondering if the coamings should be rounded a bit, I knew that if I did so there would be no going back so I've been holding back on it but now that the deck is being done Ill adjust.

Thank you John! So yeah I am never one to leave well enough alone when something doesn't feel right. So atm Ive started working on some minor corrections to parts I though hmm could I do better? First and foremost are the gratings, the holes were simply too big. I realized the grating set is likely for a 1/48 model so I scaled it down and scratch made my own using the laser .75% to 1/64 scale. The new grating goes much better with the plans Ive seen and aside from some minor corrections of the hatch coaming, it fit in perfect. Now just have to make the smaller hatch but what do you think?

Thank you John! So yeah I am never one to leave well enough alone when something doesn't feel right. So atm Ive started working on some minor corrections to parts I though hmm could I do better? First and foremost are the gratings, the holes were simply too big. I realized the grating set is likely for a 1/48 model so I scaled it down and scratch made my own using the laser .75% to 1/64 scale. The new grating goes much better with the plans Ive seen and aside from some minor corrections of the hatch coaming, it fit in perfect. Now just have to make the smaller hatch but what do you think?