CharlieZardoz

I think Tony is correct. You have to account that a portion of people who get into ship modeling (even if they have longed to build one for years, decades, blah) give it a go and just decide it's not for them. There's a certain masochism ... -er discipline that comes from doing detailed work which includes model ships that not everyone is cut out for. Seeing the list posted, yes a few were Connie's, one Bounty yeah but some were beginners kits, two Sultana's and one Armed Virginia Sloop which should be good starting points. So I think maybe including those on your list Chris may be part of the confusion here since those models were definitely the correct choice just the builders lost interest which is going to happen no matter how much or little the builders in question listen to the wisdom of experience.

Hi so the story of the plans is this. I gave up trying to go to the museum to find them at mystic then it came to my attention that in our brooklyn boat group had a copy and our head of group Dan Pariser gave his copy to one of our group members and made me a photocopy. So these copies are the only available version of the plan I know that are able to be sourced and not even sure where and when Dan got it from.

Hi so the story of the plans is this. I gave up trying to go to the museum to find them at mystic then it came to my attention that in our brooklyn boat group had a copy and our head of group Dan Pariser gave his copy to one of our group members and made me a photocopy. So these copies are the only available version of the plan I know that are able to be sourced and not even sure where and when Dan got it from.

Next we have the model built by Captain Percy Ashley at the Addison Gallery which looks to me like a very close approximation to the lithograph photo shown above if you take into account the placement of the gun ports etc.  Something I'd love to visit I wonder how it was built and if plans survive from the process.  

Greetings everyone! Been a bit quiet of late due to the fabulous summer but wanted to start a new post where those interested could gather information on the famous schooner/brig Enterprise.  While no plans of her exist, so much secondary information does that I cant help but feel an accurate model could easily be made of her.  Please feel free to add any docs/info to this thread though I'm trying to avoid the Constructo model which I've come to feel isn't a very accurate depiction of the ship.This is what I've come up with... enjoy
 
 
First below we have the half-hull model that exists in the Naval historical center which I'd love to get measurements of. This would be before her rebuilding and lengthening from 84.5' to 92'. I included some of the article from the Canney Sailing Warships book since it's a pretty interesting read.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Hello and greetings! I always find the idea of trying to reconstruct ships with little to no historical references daunting but also challenging. With some awareness of the history involved one can make an "interpretation" of such vessels as Magellons. The main thing to be mindful of is to be very aware of the exact time the ship was in service as there are subtle differences in ship design even of that time that one can notice decade to decade and be aware of or stumble over if not researched properly (see above about that stern tuck for example). The other is taking into account tonnage as a method of determining size and function. 
 
The only ship which seems to have had a reasonable attempt at reconstruction is Victoria and you can see examples of the ship below.  85 tons about 65 feet +/_ She strikes me as being a bit longer and more slender than a carrack like Santa Maria if I were to attempt a model of her I'd likely use alot of this material for reference. As for the others... that's really a challenge. These weren't naval vessels so there was no commissioned design but of a type one could assume larger ships looked closer to galleons while smaller ones looked more like caravels such as Nina. Personally I feel the more drab and unspectacular and weathered they looked the more close to reality they probably were. Exterior was covered in pitch and a modeler might want to add some subtle paint and detailing to avoid boredom but also these embellishments were likely not the case and its doubtful each had very little to distinguish themselves from the other. At any rate an interesting topic I wish you luck on.

Well you know gunboats can always be altered and added as i suspect they were at times 👌😉

Yes thank you! You can see in that diagram how the Superior had lower bulwarks more typical to other Baltimore clipper style ships and how Burrows obviously used these lines as a basis. One could extrapolate that by the time.of her sinking Enterprize may have looked somewhat more like the Boxer class which was her replacement and that class of ship being a modernized version of the original Enterprize at least in style and function. 

I believe we mean this one yes? Also keep in mind Enterprize (with a z) had several rebuilds and hard to pin down exactly what she looked like at each turn. At some point she had a poop deck but not like the one from the constructo kit. That's poop circa 1776 not 1805 it was likely similar to what the cruiser class or frolic/peacock had and likely removed before 1812. 
 
The reason why the constructo/dikar kit looks like it does it because Vixen was ordered to be a ship of similar lines and displacement to the Enterprize however in truth she was a downscaled Syren and not at all the same type of ship. 

Hi yall. As the proprietor of this forum post I shall endeavour to answer. So the only real holy grail worth pursuing is this plan that was made by John Burrows supposedly under the supervision of Howard Chapelle ? It is basically a very well designed plan located at the music Seaport museum and there are actually 2 versions the 1799 and the 1805 version w the minute alterations. What you see here is not the vixen or anything looking like th constructo kit. It's a variation of the Baltimore clipper La superior  which came from the same yard/builder or somesuch. It shows a far more shallow design but also high bulwarks like for a naval brig with heavier cannon. Did not have a bowsprit at least not in the early days and while this plan is conjectur it follows the design of the ship as depicted on the corne paintings of the battle at tripoli. As far as I'm concerned this is what Enterprize looked like pretty much. 

Well you know gunboats can always be altered and added as i suspect they were at times 👌😉

Yes thank you! You can see in that diagram how the Superior had lower bulwarks more typical to other Baltimore clipper style ships and how Burrows obviously used these lines as a basis. One could extrapolate that by the time.of her sinking Enterprize may have looked somewhat more like the Boxer class which was her replacement and that class of ship being a modernized version of the original Enterprize at least in style and function. 

I believe we mean this one yes? Also keep in mind Enterprize (with a z) had several rebuilds and hard to pin down exactly what she looked like at each turn. At some point she had a poop deck but not like the one from the constructo kit. That's poop circa 1776 not 1805 it was likely similar to what the cruiser class or frolic/peacock had and likely removed before 1812. 
 
The reason why the constructo/dikar kit looks like it does it because Vixen was ordered to be a ship of similar lines and displacement to the Enterprize however in truth she was a downscaled Syren and not at all the same type of ship. 

Hi yall. As the proprietor of this forum post I shall endeavour to answer. So the only real holy grail worth pursuing is this plan that was made by John Burrows supposedly under the supervision of Howard Chapelle ? It is basically a very well designed plan located at the music Seaport museum and there are actually 2 versions the 1799 and the 1805 version w the minute alterations. What you see here is not the vixen or anything looking like th constructo kit. It's a variation of the Baltimore clipper La superior  which came from the same yard/builder or somesuch. It shows a far more shallow design but also high bulwarks like for a naval brig with heavier cannon. Did not have a bowsprit at least not in the early days and while this plan is conjectur it follows the design of the ship as depicted on the corne paintings of the battle at tripoli. As far as I'm concerned this is what Enterprize looked like pretty much. 

Chapelle himself presented a plan for the superior in one of his books. There is probably a english made plan and a picture of the Superieur, it is possible that the above plan reconstruction of the Enterprize 1806 is based on this plan. However, we know that, among other things, the stern of the Enterprize was rebuilt before the shipyard in Venice, so it must have originally looked different and was therefore not completely identical to the Superieur. However, there are 2 pictures ( One portside at anchor and one underway from starboard ) of the Enterprize from the Roux family from the time after the renovation in Venice and still in the Mediterranean. which then show a strong similarity to the Superieur.

Hi yall. As the proprietor of this forum post I shall endeavour to answer. So the only real holy grail worth pursuing is this plan that was made by John Burrows supposedly under the supervision of Howard Chapelle ? It is basically a very well designed plan located at the music Seaport museum and there are actually 2 versions the 1799 and the 1805 version w the minute alterations. What you see here is not the vixen or anything looking like th constructo kit. It's a variation of the Baltimore clipper La superior  which came from the same yard/builder or somesuch. It shows a far more shallow design but also high bulwarks like for a naval brig with heavier cannon. Did not have a bowsprit at least not in the early days and while this plan is conjectur it follows the design of the ship as depicted on the corne paintings of the battle at tripoli. As far as I'm concerned this is what Enterprize looked like pretty much. 

Hi yall. As the proprietor of this forum post I shall endeavour to answer. So the only real holy grail worth pursuing is this plan that was made by John Burrows supposedly under the supervision of Howard Chapelle ? It is basically a very well designed plan located at the music Seaport museum and there are actually 2 versions the 1799 and the 1805 version w the minute alterations. What you see here is not the vixen or anything looking like th constructo kit. It's a variation of the Baltimore clipper La superior  which came from the same yard/builder or somesuch. It shows a far more shallow design but also high bulwarks like for a naval brig with heavier cannon. Did not have a bowsprit at least not in the early days and while this plan is conjectur it follows the design of the ship as depicted on the corne paintings of the battle at tripoli. As far as I'm concerned this is what Enterprize looked like pretty much. 

Aha yes new year shift in goals. Back to boats. Nyc night life is fun but not like widdling 😛

Aha yes new year shift in goals. Back to boats. Nyc night life is fun but not like widdling 😛

I have been wanting to get some close up images of the models from this museum. I know that have several quality models including Cumberland, Congress, Merrimack etc. If I ever snap some pics I'll upload them here

I have been wanting to get some close up images of the models from this museum. I know that have several quality models including Cumberland, Congress, Merrimack etc. If I ever snap some pics I'll upload them here