JerseyCity Frankie

I have heard of at least one other instance where the U.K. and U.S.A. titles were altered, and it was one of the patrick O'Brian seafaring novels. The fifteenth novel in the series is The Truelove in the United States but in the United Kingdom it is titled Clarissa Oakes. I have never heard ANY explanation why the editors decided they needed a name change. All of the other titles in the series of novels are the same on each side of the Atlantic.

Moved on with the railings for the tops by adding netting.
This is thanks to Daniel for sending enuff netting for Hammock nets etc.


Ready to place later.


Also added flags to the lockers.


Frank
 

Richard,The Sailing Man of War was published by Conway Maritime Press in the UK. The English Man of War was published by the Naval Institute Press in America. I rather think that was only a decision by the U.S. publisher to alter the title slightly,the contents are the same.
 
Dave 

Thank you all for the LIKES!
 
Now let's discuss the kit gun barrels...
 
We know that the 1807 pattern 24 pdrs on Constitution measured 9' 6" and the OOB versions match nicely:
 

 
The kit provided barrels are perfectly fine, but they lack a certain menace... They seem a bit thin to me. With that in mind, I had included some of the white metal versions in one of my Bluejacket orders for comparison:
 

 
These are a nicer fit, I think... They have more of the requisite girth I'm looking for and they generally show similar proportions to the 1794 pattern preserved in South Carolina:
 

 
But where have I seen a barrel like that before...? Aha - the Heller Victory:
 

 
The Heller kit includes a bunch of these barrels to represent both the 32 pdr and the 24 pdrs on the lower decks. I have two Heller Victory kits, so it'd be no big deal to repurpose a set for my Connie build. Heck, I could utilize the Connie 24 pdrs on the Victory down the line...
 
Now notice how the trunnions are represented on the Heller versions... They sit off center down lower. We see this in the 1794 pattern barrel as well. This positioning allowed for a better depression angle when sitting in the gun carriage, but was inherently weaker than center cast trunnions. The 1807 pattern 24 pdrs apparently utilized the trunnions on the centerline.
 
Here is how the barrels would need to sit if the barrel is mounted properly:

This looks fine, but the upward angle is a little awkward sticking out of the gun port. Mounting the same barrel upside down gives a better angle out of the gun port and sits down nicely in the carriage:

But the gnawing fact remains that it is upside down. The solution is to remove the molded trunnions and add the properly centered trunnions:

 
Much better. Looks like I have more holes to drill... Be back in a week or so!
 
Thx
Evan

Thanks Dave, Tim , Daniel, and Chris!

Tim - the "Creating a Legend" book has some sketches of the concept of the interlocking planks, but they just reflect what I tried on my gun deck. Martin says they spanned about 40 feet between each interlocking join, but the restored ship has them much shorter...

Your insight regarding the transfer of crew and guns to the great lakes is very interesting. The timing of the crew transfer may have been the spring of 1813 rather than September 1812.  I don't think the General Pike even started construction until April 1813.  I think most of the Constitution crew from the Guerriere battle stayed intact and participated in the Java win. Bainbridge apparently sent several contingents of crew to the Lakes after he returned from his cruise and the Constitution began her more extensive 1813 refit.
 
http://usscm.blogspot.com/2013/04/you-know-how-to-beat-those-fellows.html
 
I've only seen a reference to the General Pike being armed with the "1794 pattern" 24 pounders - the shorter versions similar to what was removed from Constitution in 1808. Tyrone Martin says that the old Constitution guns were generally repurposed for the gunboat fleet favored by Jefferson.

It may be that some of these shorter Constitution versions still exist... Here are some 1794 versions displayed at the entrance to the old armory in Savannah, Georgia:



These are numbered 83 and 81 and researchers believe they are part of the original batch of 90 that were delivered to the navy for use in the new frigates. It may be that these were used to bombard Tripoli in Preble's day.

They measure 105 inches in length and are marked as weighing 46-0-0 hundred weight - about 5040 lbs. The Eagle emblem is very cool... We all need to sweet talk Daniel/Dafi into creating scale PE versions for our next builds!

http://markerhunter.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/early-american-navy-24-pdr-guns/

http://www.captainsclerk.info/speaks/book07.html

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/Warof1812/2006/Issue3/c_ussconstitutionguns.html

Good stuff!
Evan

Been looking into the history of this kit, the original 1965 release was Catalogue number H-386 and came without sails. In 1968 Revell added Cat No. H-398 which is the version with sails. Up until 1972 both versions were in the Revell Catalogue (the version with sails was more expensive).
The box art was changed to the one GLakie shows in his post in 1976
 
There was a third version produced - the 'Museum Classic' version from 1979 which had a prepainted copper hull, a wooden base with a brass plated nameplate and brass plated pedestals for the ship to stand on together with flock coated vac formed sails which were advertised as 'Realistic Cloth Like Sails"

OK here we go...
3 January, 2015. Thus begins my build log of Revell's 1:96 scale USS Constitution. I selected an older kit release because a lot of things I've read indicate that they have much higher molding quality over the newer kits. Mine has a box date of 1974 and it has a US Bicentennial logo, so I believe that it was produced between 1974 and 1976. I plan on "kinda" building her as she appeared under Isaac Hull's command. I say "kinda" because I'm not going into every particle of minutiae involved with how she really was configured. I'm just taking care of the obvious such as eliminating the forward gunport (bridle port) and the skylight above the Captain's cabin. Other than that this will pretty much be an out-of-box build. Feel free to follow along!

Hi all. Thanks to all for the Likes so far! Here are some more photos. These are mainly of the decks and bulkheads, etc. Future build logs will show the masts, bowsprit, figurehead, gold decorative work and the rigging (which I must admit, is the thing I enjoy the least and regularly stuff up the most!!). Anyhow, pls enjoy these photos first.

More internal accommodation details:

Hi everyone. Some more photos.

Hello everyone. Although my model of the 17th Century 70 gun Restoration Warship, Lennox, was completed in mid 2013, I've decided to do this build log for two reasons, one for instructive purposes (to show how NOT to do things) and secondly, as a means to offer the plans to anyone who's interested (first come, first serve). If you are interested in the plans, then pls let me know.
 
About the model: The model is built in Admiralty style, with large parts of the hull cutaway and deck exposed so that the interior work can be viewed. The hull is approximately 29 cms long, or 36 cm including the bowsprit. For the sake of clarity, I'll include photos starting from the bare framed hull, through to the finished model over a series of build logs.
 
Hope you enjoy. Comments and feedback welcomed as always.
 
The first photos start with the framed hull and further progress on the internal structures will appear in the following build logs.

Well its a busy time and found some brass/stainless rings for hanging the anchors.


With black rope raped around ring and later will add cotton thread for seizing, also plastic strips that come with Dafis resin anchors glued around wood plinths.

Next it was the crest to finish, not to happy with this as the lions are not very good,(old Mold I expect).
Made up the ships bell with Dafis etch and extra brass rod to allow the bell to swing later.
I assume that the handle on the top has a pull rope attached, anyone Know if this is correct???.


Last pictures are the catheads added crown to front that comes with the kit.




More later

Frank

I needed some in 1:48 too, so I designed and 3D-printed them. An anchor windlass too. And the stud link anchor chain.
 
Not having any reliable drawings or images to go by, they had to be figments and overly simplified at that. But good enough for this job, a waterline model on a railroad layout.
 
I do wish I had access to good drawings of such gear, would love to work up some better designs.
 
 

 

 

 

In my recent trip to the UK I stumbled across this. This is what I love about London - so much history, and the possibility you might happen upon somewhere where famous feet have trodden on!


 
Looks like you will need to put a flatscreen TV and a reading lamp on your Bounty Launch, Cap'n!

My two or three cents about pins and pinrails: Use the smallest possible pin you can find or make, this will prevent a cascading series of scale issues from developing later. Obviously the smaller the pins, the more can be fit on a rail. Every pinrail I have seen has the pins spaced evenly about 10" apart. Any closer together and the belayed lines passed around the pins would interfere with each other and the sailors couldn't get their hands in there.
Most of the pins I see on models are too big and have en exaggerated shape and if scaled up would look like three foot high wooden lightbulbs. Most actual pins are two inches wide at most and are seldom longer than 18". They do flare out on their upper halves, but only a bit and a human hand can still grasp them- the commercially available ones all too often flare out into nearly spherical globes. Also consider that once there is a line on the pin, the pin itself is no longer visible except maybe its very top. For this  reason I mostly just use wire or rod.
An issue that always arises is the apparent low number of pins, modelers often find their accurate plans do not provide enough places for all the lines to belay to. This is a very common problem.
As mentioned above, another very common problem is not fixing your pinrail strongly enough. There isn't very much tension on them but the pinrails on models do very often pull out or distort from the accumulated strain placed on them by the rigging, which apparently over time can contract.

My two or three cents about pins and pinrails: Use the smallest possible pin you can find or make, this will prevent a cascading series of scale issues from developing later. Obviously the smaller the pins, the more can be fit on a rail. Every pinrail I have seen has the pins spaced evenly about 10" apart. Any closer together and the belayed lines passed around the pins would interfere with each other and the sailors couldn't get their hands in there.
Most of the pins I see on models are too big and have en exaggerated shape and if scaled up would look like three foot high wooden lightbulbs. Most actual pins are two inches wide at most and are seldom longer than 18". They do flare out on their upper halves, but only a bit and a human hand can still grasp them- the commercially available ones all too often flare out into nearly spherical globes. Also consider that once there is a line on the pin, the pin itself is no longer visible except maybe its very top. For this  reason I mostly just use wire or rod.
An issue that always arises is the apparent low number of pins, modelers often find their accurate plans do not provide enough places for all the lines to belay to. This is a very common problem.
As mentioned above, another very common problem is not fixing your pinrail strongly enough. There isn't very much tension on them but the pinrails on models do very often pull out or distort from the accumulated strain placed on them by the rigging, which apparently over time can contract.

THE SAIL PLAN
After evaluating the historical period and other similar projects, I decided that the sail plan can be rather similar to the one made by Amati Venetian Polacre.
Other plans exist of other polacres of other countries, and the sail size are all more or less the same.
below can be seen some of the sail plans and rigging that I made with a CAD program.
I superimposed the orignal hull drawing.
The rigging is a rather complex part.
In the photos only few of the rigging that I made is showed.
Luckily, in the mid XVIII century the sail rigging was rather standardised, so I must not make too much odd hypotesis.
Note: I mirrored the top view of the hull, and evenly corrected, the drawing is still not correct.
So it means that the original drawing was probably focused on the hull drawing and only lighty on the bridges details.
 

More than 20 years ago I built from scratch a venetian xebec, from purchased plans.
The plans are available but are not made by the usual ships manufacturers.
They were made accordingly to original drawings coming from a Venetian archive.
In the photos can be seen some of the plans and the model that I made.
The model is rather big (around 90 cm long).
I always been puzzled by the strange shape of such xebec (a bit fat, hull not common on xebec).
 
Now finally I have found the original ancient drawings that originated such plans!
They are published in the book "Venetian Ships - Navi Veneziane" by Gilberto Penzo, Lint editor.
 
I discovered that the ship was a polacre, and the absence of sail plan probably generated some misunderstanding on the author of the plans thay I purchased.
The original drawings were a bit different and the typical polacre hull is more evident.
 
After that I decided to study a deep conversion of the model, in order to let it be more similar to the original one.
in the photos:
-one of the purchased plans, made in 1947 (first two photos).
-the original drawings (second two photos)
-the present model.
Well, I am not a true expert, but the final result will be less historically false than the present one, so in anycase will be a success for me!
Any critics to the project (even destructive critics!) and suggestions are always appreciated!
 

My shipyard is open again!
Now I am focusing on the standing rigging of the foremast.
-I installed two other cannons (10 more to be installed).
In one of the photos can be seen the single, double and multiple blocks that are needed for this section (one side only), in addition to the toggles for securing them to the deck.
-In other photos is shown how the cables of the standing rigging are secured to the top of the foremast.
I followed the various xebecs and galleys ancient drawings and models.
In the other photos are showed some of the them already installed.
In order to do so, I needed to prepare the ropes and blocks almost completely, before glueing them to the deck (other photos), otherwise the space available for making the various knots was not enough.
More will follow in the next days.
 

I'm a huge knot nerd and I am glad to see a conversation here about knots.  Naturally, sailors are the best at tying knots and ship model builders can only benefit by learning some of the knots of the sailor. Model builders though probably only need to know a very few knots in order to aid in rigging their ships. The Overhand Knot and the Clove Hitch being the two absolute essentials. I am a big promoter of the Constrictor Knot too as I think it easily has a place among the "top ten" most useful knots. If I was to make a short list of "least know but most useful knots" the Constrictor would be my only submission.
Sailors will argue endlessly about which are the ten knots everyone on a ship should know. They all agree the Bowline, Clove Hitch, Reef Knot, Sheet Bend and Rolling Hitch should  be on the list but will begin to argue about what the other five should be. There are so many choices. Personally I would leave the Sheet Bend off the list but I know this is a heretical opinion. I just never have any confidence in it as I have too often seen it misbehave in different types of line.

I have worked on actual schooners and there are occasions when the Throat and Peak hailyards are taken off the gaff in order to be used to lift very heavy objects aboard. In fact this process is used for every uprig and  downrig since its the best way to rig the spars on and off the boat. I image moving the guns on a cutter would be greatly simplified this way. If you think about it it makes a great deal of sense since the tackle is all set up, the crew is VERY accustomed to its use and its located perfectly. Having hooks makes its use that much easier.

My two or three cents about pins and pinrails: Use the smallest possible pin you can find or make, this will prevent a cascading series of scale issues from developing later. Obviously the smaller the pins, the more can be fit on a rail. Every pinrail I have seen has the pins spaced evenly about 10" apart. Any closer together and the belayed lines passed around the pins would interfere with each other and the sailors couldn't get their hands in there.
Most of the pins I see on models are too big and have en exaggerated shape and if scaled up would look like three foot high wooden lightbulbs. Most actual pins are two inches wide at most and are seldom longer than 18". They do flare out on their upper halves, but only a bit and a human hand can still grasp them- the commercially available ones all too often flare out into nearly spherical globes. Also consider that once there is a line on the pin, the pin itself is no longer visible except maybe its very top. For this  reason I mostly just use wire or rod.
An issue that always arises is the apparent low number of pins, modelers often find their accurate plans do not provide enough places for all the lines to belay to. This is a very common problem.
As mentioned above, another very common problem is not fixing your pinrail strongly enough. There isn't very much tension on them but the pinrails on models do very often pull out or distort from the accumulated strain placed on them by the rigging, which apparently over time can contract.

It’s a natural for ship model builders in that you can tie it in your hands even in very small line. In these photos I’m using heavier line in order to make it visible. First form an overhand loop. Note that in the photo there is a prominent loop and the two ends of the line. For the purposes of this demonstration you should think of the two ends of the line as a horizontal bar that will always remain straight. This imaginary bar is never manipulated with the fingers, only the loop is involved in tying the knot.

Here is the finished knot drawn up on a cylinder. Its nearly the same knot as the Clove Hitch but it stays tight when you pull on the ends and I actually find it easier to tie. If your tying a pair of shrouds or backstays you can tie it in the center of the line and the ends can lead port and starboard. 

I’m a big fan of the Constrictor Knot. It’s a very useful knot for fixing a line to a spar such as in the case of a stay or backstay attaching to a topgallant masthead on small models or on lighter lines on larger models. Its got a low profile and its easy to tie and when tightened it constricts as advertised. Clifford Ashley apparently invented it and its number 1249 in his book. It’s also mentioned in the original Ship Modelers Shop Notes in a Merritt Edson essay on page 187. Unfortunately the illustration included in Shop Notes tends to make the knot look difficult to tie. In fact most descriptions of the knot fail to show how easily it can be tied. Its litterly just a loop that is twisted once into a figure eight and the two lobes thus created are folded together to form the knot which can be slipped over the end of the spar in question. If the knot has a drawback it is that once tightened it can be very difficult, if not impossible, to untie. This photo shows the steps involved in tying it and below I will break down the individual steps. It may appear complex but it really boils down to a few simple hand moves.