Jump to content
Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click on photo to order. ×

trippwj

NRG Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,152

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by trippwj

  1. trippwj
    No nastiness intended, Jay. Just standing up for the historical nature of Marquardt's work. He is not wrong when looking at his intent - as built, not as rebuilt/revised/redesigned over a 2 hundred year history. What Henry, Dan, Jonathan and Google provide is information from an entirely different era in the life of the ship. When one considers that nearly everything above the keel and a few floor timbers has been replaced, it is not surprising that there have been significant changes from what Humphreys originally designed, Claghorn built and Marquardt attempted to depict. On any historic ship, whether the Constitution, the Victory, or even 20th century vessels such as the Lexington or the Massachusetts, the changes in construction practice, intended use, and technological advances are evident - these were not static structures, but active duty vessels that were continually adapted to meet changing requirements. As I stated above, knowing the desired period you want to replicate (in this case the ship as she currently is configured) aids all of us trying to aid you in finding information and resources.
  2. trippwj
    Jay - That clears up my confusion - you refer frequently to Marquardt as being "wrong" where what you actually mean is that he is not showing the modern structures. My sole intent in the comment above was to point out that Marquardt wasn't wrong - he is quite accurate for the period he was portraying. Building it as close as possible to any period is a challenge - your efforts on this are impressive. It helps those of us that have been trying to answer questions, however, to know what you are trying to accomplish. I now know to disregard any of the info from Humphreys, Fox, Claghorn, Knox and so on and rather focus on the drawing from the CD that are primarily the 1927-31 rebuild. Those are closer to what you are working on than the historical data. As to other features (such as the powder rooms and so on), those, too, are quite likely to have evolved over the many rebuilds, so the 1816-1819 plans are not particularly relevant to the as-is condition you are trying for. As to your comment regarding building with hands and tools, that is also something I enjoy greatly, though achieve miserably (note the poor quality in my build logs). I happen to also find the historical (more academic aspect) a great challenge and a satisfying past time. Being able to dig back to the description of how a vessel was designed is, to me, a fun project. For now, though, I will drop back to lurker - I have very limited information that is not readily available (such as the CD from the museum) that I can contribute to the discussion of the ship "as is"
  3. trippwj
    I keep getting confused, Jay. Is your model intended to show "as built" (1797), War of 1812, or "as is"? Marquardt is closest to "as built", with some issues. The drawings by Ware (1816-1819) are closest to 1812 and for the most part agree with as-built. Anything from 20th century is not reflecting "as built" but "as repaired, rebuilt, repeatedly). Marquardt didn't miss the structures noted - they are more recent changes to the ship, not original design.
  4. trippwj
    The more traditional name for the unit was the "camboose". Caboose (also camboose, coboose, cubboos derived from the Dutch kombuis) is a term used for a small ship's kitchen, i.e. galley, located on an open deck. At one time a caboose related to a smaller kitchen aboard a merchantman, while aboard a warship it was called a galley. William Falconer's 1780 An Universal Dictionary of the Marine describes a caboose thus: "a sort of box or house to cover the chimney of some merchant-ships. It somewhat resembles a sentry-box, and generally stands against the barricade on the fore part of the quarter-deck". Sometimes the caboose was portable. Prior to the introduction of the caboose the furnaces for cooking were, aboard three-deckers, placed on the middle deck, and aboard two-decked ships in the forecastle. The term was sometimes also applied to the cast-iron stove used for cooking on deck or in galleys during the early 19th century, as well as an outdoor oven or fireplace.
  5. trippwj
    Greetings, Jay and Company. Been off-line for the most part since Sunday (travel to get orientated for new job). Mobbsie let me know my inbox floweth over - will get that taken care of shortly!
  6. trippwj
    In terms of the center beam, here are two plans from 1926 - the Orlop and Berth Decks with Planking removed. Berth Deck 18285-.pdf Orlop Deck 19506001.pdf Also see this one from Ware (1819) showing the location of the forward filling room on the Orlop deck. 1819 Ware plan Orlop.pdf Barrels of powder may have been stored in locations other than just the filling room - consider for a moment how many barrels of powder the ship would carry (about 11 pounds per round from a 32 pound gun, give or take a mite). There are, in the various papers I have not yet had transcribed, several discussing delivery of powder and shot for the Connie, as well as many discussions about the outfitting (which, since those are in my printed books, are currently about 130 miles from here). The point being that there would, assuming 44 guns needing 10 pounds per shot (on average) = 440 pounds per shot. Add to that the anticipated number of shots (let's be conservative and say only 20 per gun at the most) results in more than 8000 pounds of powder (at least 80 barrels at 100 pounds per barrel).
  7. trippwj
    Greetings - have found the document I was looking for. Here is what JH had to say about the Orlop Deck beams: Pillars or stantions 3 tier under the gundeck and one under the upper deck made to shift Lower deck beams of the best heart pitch pine sided 16 inch and moulded 14 inch. The longest beam to spring 6 inches and the rest by the same mould. Carlings in 3 tier 6 by 9 inches of white oak Ledges in 3 tier 5 by 6 inches of white oak, 2 between each beam Spur beam one of live oak on each side of the main hatch tabled kneed and bolted on the foreside of the beam on the after part of the main hatch 12 inch by 14 and for gundeck the same. Orlope deck to be laid 6 ft 2 inch below the upper part of the lower deck beams of the best heart pitch pine sided 12 inches and moulded 10 inch laid with 2 inch common plank kneed with one good live oak knee at each end bolted with inch bolts. It will be best to put the clamps on the ceiling 3 inch thick Gundeck beams One under each port and one between of the best heart pitch pine as near as the hatchways & masts will admit as per draft, sided 18 inch & moulded 15 inch. All other beams to be laid directly over and under the frame. UPPER DECK Beams placed over the gundeck beams sided 13 and 14 inches moulded of the best heart pitch pine Source for the above: Humphreys, J.Contemporaneous or Certified Copy (made for information of action) to Henry Knox. 1794. Letter Humphreys to Henry Knox. Dimensions and Articles for 44 Gun Frigates. Contemporaneous or Certified Copy (made for information of action). Uselma Clarke Smith Coll. #1378D. Historical Society Of Pennsylvania. http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=10736. Also see the attached transcription Knox, H. 1794. Letter, Knox to Tench Cox. Dimensions of Beams from Humphreys. Letterbook Copy. Sec Navy Requisitions on Sec Treas, RG45. National Archives and Records Administration. http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=12215. 1794-10-22 HK to TC dimensions of beams ZXA06-86-88.pdf
  8. trippwj
    One thing ti keep in mind is the difference between the magazine (location barrels of powder are stored) and the powder room (aft in the Connie, location where barrels were opened and cartridges/powder bags were filled). I believe only the powder room was coppered since that is where powder would be most exposed. Just arrived at hotel so will check Humphreys after dinner.
  9. trippwj
    Copper lined to prevent sparks and also water inftration. As to the center line beam, that is probably not original - will check what Humphreys described tonight.
  10. trippwj
    Interesting concept. One teensie fly - the stanchions (posts in your description) were intended by Humphreys to be moveable, not fixed. I need to verify the number of rows (I think it was 3 but not sure). I also need to do a bit of checking into those deck lights - not quite sure if they were original or later addition.
  11. trippwj
    Actually, the use of lead water lines was NOT outlawed until the 1970's (and according to the CDC, if a house was built prior to 1986, chances are good that there was a lead water supply line used). I doubt the Navy replaced the lead pipes for the 1931 cruise unless there was an issue concerning the functioning of the system. However, the 1870 date seems more realistic for the type of fittings shown.
  12. trippwj
    Regrettably, those are not included on the 2012 CD version
  13. trippwj
    I suspect that the pump in question is a newer addition (late 19th or 20th century). I need to check again into the description of the "fire engines" for the Constitution (believe it was in a letter from Fox but not sure).
  14. trippwj
    What they said, Augie! As to the adrift part, there are many of us in a similar state!
  15. trippwj
    The fill room you note was the most protected and restricted part of the vessel - this would be where the powder bags were actually filled. The powder bags would be passed via a small slit in a tarp to a receiver outside of the room.
  16. trippwj
    My goodness I am busy today - sorry if it seems I am hijacking your thread, Jay! Hank, in MSW 1 and again when MSW 2.0 came on-line, shared a spreadsheet he had compiled from the Josiah Fox Papers #773 - Hull Data, Here is an excerpt of the 44 gun Frigates (note that the Constitution was not included in the data). I believe the source is at the PEM in the Fox papers. You may be able to make some close approximations to the location of the bitts during the period of interest by relating to the United States and the President.
  17. trippwj
    This plan may take a bit more pondering. It is listed as Ware (1819) Spar Deck Beams, but appears to show both the spar deck (top half) and another deck (Gun Deck?) below it. 15154-.pdf
  18. trippwj
    Jay - Attached are two contemporary drawings that may be of use to you. Ware drawing (1816) of the Constitution Orlop Deck 1819 Ware plan Orlop.pdf Ware (?1820) Frigate United States decks. 87196001.pdf
  19. trippwj
    I would not be so harsh with Marquadt. His AoTS is an attempt to describe and show as built, based on best available information AT THE TIME! Considering how many times the ship has been rebuilt, any type of reconfiguration, including riding bitts, is probable. Do not look at any features today and assume they were always there! If you doubt the Marquadt drawings, find better sources yourself. I have shared many times the most authoritative source (Humphreys, Fox, and various others in the War Department), including links to the scanned documents. Even the venerable Tyrone Martin has gotten things wrong concerning the Connie.
  20. trippwj
    The British were not overly fond of white oak. From the reference above: The white oak (Quercus alba) of America was considered too susceptible to dry rot; and the British completely neglected the possibilities of the invaluable live oak (Q. virens or Virginiana) which grew along the coast of the southern American colonies. In the eyes of the British shipwright, the English Qercus robur, with its rugged individuality, was the best ship-timber in the world. The favouritism did not stop there, for naval contracts frequently specified 'good, sound Sussex oak'. The oaks grown in the clayey soil of that particular county had in the opinion of the English shipbuilders no equal.
  21. trippwj
    By the mid-18th century, the British were challenged for oak - they had a strong reliance on North American (primarily New England) timber - both white oak and pine for spars. With the loss of that resource, they relied heavily on Baltic timber. They had depleted much of their native oak and other good timber over the years - with only a few forests reserved for ship building. Since the maturity time for the trees was outpaced by the consumption rate, they had serious issues to contend with. I am not aware that they had live oak available due to the climatic conditions where it was found (swampy, warmer climes - Georgia and Florida in the US primarily). For a good discussion of the British challenges see: Albion, R.G. 1952. The Timber Problem of the Royal Navy, 1652–1862. The Mariner’s Mirror 38, no. 1: 4–22. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/00253359.1952.10658102.
  22. trippwj
    In the case of the President, it was likely a combination of factors that influenced the scrapping by the British. Due to the on again/off again schedule for her construction, it's possible that a combination of white and live oak was used, as there were very significant challenges getting live oak. When the 3 frigates got put on hold, one of the missions for Fox was to inventory the available supplies at the three yards and coordinate their shipment to the remaining 3 yards. When there was the prompt need to resume construction, what live oak that was available wasn't seasoned, perhaps contributing to the issue with rot. HOWEVER - for a ship of the era, a 20 year career afloat was pretty good, particularly if there were no significant rebuilds done.
  23. trippwj
    Ugh! I prescribe an ice cold adult beverage of choice, a comfortable chair and birthday cake while enjoying a fireworks display. Each revision brings a better result, kindly sir. Your work is amazing! Back to quiet lurking, I remain, Your ob't servant,
  24. trippwj
    Cricket sends: "Thank you, Mr. John!"
  25. trippwj
    More to the point, was Venice using bells! Let me do some digging around in some of the archeological records.

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...