tmj

I've successfully cleaned up some of the .PDF file lines, and reconstructed enough of the smudged details, on that drawing, to finally begin lofting some extremely accurate frames. Due to my desired scale vs. readily available materials... this design will actually have 5 additional frame locations as compared to the original count. This won't affect anything other than adding a tad bit more work. 79 frame locations (original) vs. my 84 frame configuration... "hmm?" With that many frames to loft and fabricate, "who cares about five more frames?" To stick with my desired scale, the frames would have needed to be .3989" thick, for original design. That's too oddball a dimension, so I opted for .375" which works out great! Standard thickness of materials can be used to construct the frames without a lot of waste via thickness planing of much heavier material. It's an acceptable compromise. Getting to this point has been a slower 'go' than I had anticipated, and also an exercise in frustration, to say the least... but it's also a very 'necessary evil' in my strife for historically accurate lines. Had I better drawings to work with, I'd surely be well beyond this stage by now. Working from a .PDF photocopy of a 'not so pristine' drawing that is 225 years old adds a whole new level of difficulty to the project! That's okay. The end result will be well worth the preliminary efforts required! Next up will be the individual frames, one at a time. While I will know the exterior shape of those frames, I now need to come up with the 'internal' geometry and thickness(s) of those frames. More research will be involved, of course, but I can do that 'after' lofting the exterior geometry of the frames.

I posted a question about some curious drawing features, shown in Humphrey's original drawing, in a another venue of this forum dealing with plans, etc.. I'm asking the same question, here, to double my odds of getting a good answer. I've noted, in red, two curious features/lines on the half-breadth section of this drawing that leave me scratching my head. There's actually a few more similar lines shown on the original drawing, once I zoom in on things, but if these two obvious features can be explained... I'll know how to interpret the rest. What do the lines that run well 'outside' of the hull's actual design represent? Also, what is that 'curious' looking geometric feature that resembles the cross-section of an extremely high lift/low speed glider airfoil? I'm doubting that these things are truly necessary for my accurate reconstruction of the hull, for this model ship, however. I'd really like to know just what they represent and why they were important enough to be included on Humphrey's 1794 drawing. Someone will know what these lines/things represent. If you are that person, please chime in and enlighten me!

I've not posted any updated progress on this build, but bear with me. "It's coming!" Just because I've not posted anything doesn't mean that I'm not actively working on it! As soon as I have something truly worth sharing... you folks will certainly be the first to see it! 😊 I've so far encountered numerous 'technical difficulties' in my reconstruction of the original 1794 images, of the USS Constitution's lines, via the .PDF files that I am forced to work with. I first have to convert those .PDF's into something that CAD can actually read. It's an easy process, however. PDF's aren't very precise, therefor... certain details, features, etc. tend to get lost and sometimes confused/truncated in the conversion process of such drawings. In reconstructing the drawings, for accuracy, I need to effectively reconstruct portions of my 're-constructions', due to those curious/lost details... if 'that' makes any sense! The mid ship section of the 'Body Plan', required for the accurate forming/modeling of the shapes required for those mid ship frames has so far proven to be the worst offenders, via the loss of detail, via the conversion process... forcing me to also have to reconstruct the shear and half-breadth lines/plans for better proof and accuracy. That being said. I'm also running into the same issues of lost details and curious truncation with the shear and half-breadth views. "Aarghhh!" I'm now wondering if I will actually be able to pull this off, with the level of accuracy that I seek! "Damn the torpedo's... Full Speed Ahead!" I'm still gonna "Get 'er Done", albeit. It's obviously going to take quite a bit longer, on the ol' drawing board, than I initially expected the design stage of this build to take. I could cheat, but I won't. "That would be 'cheating!" I'm not going to cheat and take the easy way out, just to 'bang something out' and settle for hand-grenade, 'horseshoe', or commercial marketing accuracy. I'm going to split them curious hairs, scratch my head, do some math, drink a beer or few... and do my best to do 'er right! Stay tuned... "The show will begin... shortly!"

Very interesting, Wefalck! Very interesting, indeed!! Enlighten me further! How would the ship's captain know 'exactly' how much ballast to take on... and how to properly distribute the various weights of those ballast materials in order to create desirable sailing conditions/situations for a particular cargo/journey, in various weather conditions, seas, etc.? Let's go to extremes on this one. Let's talk Tea Clippers. Their cargo would be rather light, as compared to heavier loads of other trade goods, thus requiring a great deal more ballast, to achieve proper 'weight and balance' for the upcoming voyage. Clipper ships were also the old world equivalent of modern day racing vessels, seeking speed, per se. That being said, they had to take this into consideration when loading ballast... as the lower a ship rides, in the water, the more 'upright' the ship will ride, thus maximizing the amount of energy that can be generated and effectively utilized by her sails (a ship laying over on her side bleeds off a great deal of energy, while also exposing more surface area, upon the dense water, via the hull, which creates added drag and slows the vessel down). Would a clipper ship captain, looking for speed, opt for a heavier ballast load thus achieving a more 'upright' attitude, riding lower in the water, or prefer a lighter load of ballast that would allow the ship to ride higher and also list more dramatically, in high winds, intentionally bleeding off a certain amount of energy? Either way, I see a lot of stress being imposed upon the masts and sails as well as drag upon the hull. Seems like a "Catch 22" to me, but I'm sure that was some sort of a happy medium, science, and/or general 'rule of thumb' involved with this. Interesting stuff! Anyway... back to where my thoughts began with this reply. "How did the ships Captain determine how much ballast to take on, and how to properly distribute the weight?"

With the sails furled, two problems arise. Number one... the sails would become semi-frozen, brittle and quite difficult to safely 'unfurle' without potentially causing damage to the fabric, should conditions improve enough for stowed sails to be needed. Number two... with the sails remaining full... the ship would be in constant motion, provided there were winds/breezes blowing. Those winds/breezes, and the full sails would keep the hull in motion, 'rocking' in the ice/water, and thus preventing its hull from becoming 'still' enough to become frozen solid into the ice cap thus becoming 'impossible' to break free, for movement, once conditions improved enough for forward travel to become possible, again. Notice how the ship is listing to the starboard side. "Thar be a breeze coming from the port side!" Also note the water in the foreground of this photo. Note the attitude/deflection of the sails shown in that photo. Looks to me as though that the ship is intentionally being steered towards the foreground, where the water is... rocking port to starboard, via the winds... and slowly cracking the ice, to get there, a few inches at a time. As for what those folks are doing outside of the ship... "who knows?" Perhaps they just got a touch of 'cabin-fever' and needed to go for a walk about! 😏

While living in Florida, I accidentally became friends with a salvage diver and started doing repair work, etc. on his equipment. Two years later, I learned that he was actually a 'treasure' diver. I left Florida 9 years ago, but we're still friends to this day. I don't work on his equipment anymore, however. While living in Florida, he once told me something about what he looks for when searching for old wrecks in last known areas where those wrecks supposedly went down. "BALLAST STONES!" He claimed that these types of stones will be unlike the shapes of any natural stones found in the area. They will also be strung out over a distance, leaving a trail from the point in which the ship first hit a reef, buckled in heavy seas, etc. "'Follow the stones' and find a wreck, maybe... but not always!" The finding of ballast stones only proved that there was indeed a vessel that lost its ballast at that location. Nothing more. Once the ships guts were spilled, the ship, itself, could easily be shifted to 'god knows where', along the ocean floor, due to strong currents, hurricanes and hundreds of years of time. That being said, for whatever it's worth, makes me wonder about Ballast Stones, in general. They seem to be smooth, roundish, oft times 'elongated' stones that spent tens of thousands of years chilling out and being polished in rivers located close to the shipyards. I'm also thinking that maybe it's only the 'largest' of those ballast stones that are ever found leading to the actual discoveries of old wrecks. In donning my 'engineers' cap... I'd think that the largest and heaviest stones would be placed close to the keel, and as the stones are piled up and moving 'away' from the keel, the stones would become smaller, lighter and eventually serve a purpose more needful in 'fine-tuning' level stability than actual ballast. I'm probably dead wrong on this, but lacking any true data on the old world science of weights and balance, for 18th century sailing vessels, I have no choice but to use my imagination and guess. If I'm guessing correctly, how were the stones used for 'fine-tuning' secured in place and kept from moving/shifting in heavy seas? I'm sure that some of you folks are far more savvy to this ballast stone 'thing' than I am, so let 'er rip! Tell me what you know about 'Ballast Stones' and how I can best replicate something that resembles historic accuracy. I don't want to use gravel intended for fish aquariums to represent ballast stones in my sectional models! 😫

There is only 'one' source of Hahn's style 'kits' that I personally know of, and they're only short kits supplying few laser cut parts, plans and the raw materials for you to layout and cut your own frames from... http://www.a wood supplier.com/shipkits.html

As per my drawings, I believe that they will be hinged and hung. Now that you ask... I'll need to revisit the gun port drawings and give them a closer study. I just haven't gotten to that point yet. From what I remember, from my quick glance at 'that' drawing, they were to be hinged and pulled open. I could easily be wrong, however. In thought... I'd suspect that hinges would be much more of a viable and secure action/operation than the total 'removal' of such components. Removal would likely prove to be a bit awkward, so I think. I can see 'removed' lids accidentally being 'deep-sixed', on a regular basis, due to human nature and clumsy hands... unless affixed to the ship via 'Ah-Sh*t proof' lanyards! I'll certainly look into this! If it's original design dictates removable gun port hatches, that's what she'll get! If not, she'll get what was originally prescribed as per designed. 😊

I'm looking at your building fixture. It appears to be an upside down version of 'Hahn's' building style, which means that you will actually be building it right side up!

LOL on the CAD thing. I started using Acad way back when, when DOS was not only cool... but also the only operating system available! If I'm not mistaking, I believe that I also had a top of the line DX40 system to run my Acad on! I'm sure that I just 'dated' myself, seriously, and there are likely folks on this forum who don't even know 'exactly' what DOS, or DX40 truly means, ("Whatever, Boomer!") "What can I say?" Old habits die hard and I've just gone with the familiar flow throughout the years. "Please, don't hold it against me!" 😎 As for the scale size that I am seeking, you are 'spot-on' correct. Size 'has' indeed been a major consideration in my desires, however. The larger scale size mentioned will be for a sectional prototype, only. An experimental 'Lab-Rat' and test bed, per se. The real deal will need to be of a more realistic scale, as I don't wish to custom fabricate hundreds of oddball sized fittings, etc. for such a bastard scale. Length would also be a problem at larger scale. Too long and tall for comfortable display anywhere other than a museum! I'm hoping that my sectional test-bed will prove worthy as a sectional display, once all is said and done, but I'm not counting on it. It's main purpose is going to be for the development and refinement of curious techniques, precise methods, and aesthetically appealing results that will be eventually utilized and applied to the actual build intended for display. Whether my lab-rat passes muster for display, or not, doesn't matter. It will serve a valuable purpose, either way... I'm gonna take you up on that offer for a copy of your Plate IV drawing. I'm interested to see what it shows! Many thanks for the offer! I'll shoot you a PM in a day or so!

I've made a bit of progress on the CAD based restoration and clarification of the 'sheer' plan view, however. Nothing worth showing, yet. I still have a long ways to go. I probably 'should' have started my CAD work with the body plan, first... but I've always believed in tackling the 'worst problems first'! I prefer for things to progressively get easier as they go along, whenever actually able to do so. There are a lot of curious areas, as viewed via my copy of the sheer plan, depicting obvious faded/missing details, smudges in blank spots that 'could be' an indication of something, or maybe just a 'smudge' and nothing more. I'm also seeing shapes of certain structural components/features that don't really make any sense from an engineering perspective, nor worth the extra effort and time required to physically produce those curious shapes. I'm 'thinking' that these curiously shaped areas, and timbers, may be nothing more than Joshua Humphreys origin draft depicting an 'artistic conception' of something that was later refined, once actual construction of the ship began. Hard to say. More research will be required, in these areas, before I cast my final drawings in stone. The Body plan will be next up for bat. I see a few issues there, too. Issues that will also need a bit more clarification, research, etc. Once I get to the 'line' drawing... I'll be going 'feet wet' and relaxing while on the home stretch! The line drawing looks to be in rather good shape and should be rather easy to work with... provided its details do not conflict with any 'other' details depicted via the sheer, or body plans. "I'm keeping my fingers crossed on 'that' one!"

My Mid-Section 'prototype' will be modeled from the area lying between the red lines, as depicted in the following drawing.

“Huzza! Her sides are made of iron!” (Unknown sailor, USS Constitution, 19 August 1812, battle with HMS Guerriere) "Building a new Navy for the 'new' United States" The American Revolution ended in 1783, and the new United States sent its merchant fleet afar to trade in spices, fish, leather, etc. to rebuild its economy. However. The last Continental Navy warship was effectively sold in 1785, and US merchant vessels thereafter sailed unprotected. This lack of protection soon became a problem, especially when sailing off of North Africa in the 1790's, and finally Congress authorized a new navy, in 1794, to protect the fleet. Between 1797 and 1800, 6 frigates were launched: United States, Constellation, Constitution, Chesapeake, Congress, and President. USS Constitution, launched 21 October 1797, is the sole survivor (USS Constellation, in Baltimore Harbor, is the 1854 warship of the same name). Joshua Humphreys designed theses frigates to be the strongest, fastest, and most heavily armed warships of the era. Constitution’s hull is 3-layers of wood: exterior & interior oak planking and dense live oak framing (ribs) spaced 'close together' as the middle layer. At the waterline, the ship is over 22” thick... and this thick, strong and dense hull makes up her “iron” sides. When hit with enemy fire, Constitution’s hull either repelled the cannon shot's, and/or effectively absorbed them, due to her massive hull, thus helping to prevent serious damage to the ship while also minimizing casualties to her crew. Between 1798 and 1854, Constitution was victorious in 33 engagements and a great deal of her fame rests in her 3 stunning victories over Royal Navy vessels in the War of 1812. The USS Constitution is the oldest commissioned ship on the U.S. Navy roster. Still seaworthy and served by Navel officers and crew to this very day! _______________________________________________________ ... and so the build begins! I've acquired a copy of Joshua Humphreys original hull design from 1794, courtesy of the 'Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment, Boston'. This will make for a proper start to this historic project. My goal is to reconstruct an accurate depiction, in scale, of the USS Constitution as she was originally designed, by Joshua Humphreys in 1794. This build will begin with my restoration and clarification of the original hull drawing, via Autocad, as there are portions of this original drawing that have obviously lost a bit of needful detail via the ages. Mid-ship frame details, via the body plan, will likely be difficult to accurately recreate, therefore, I'll likely make those frames a bit proud both internally 'and' externally, for safety... and simply fair them down to their proper forms once it's time to fair the hull's frames to shape. I've not yet decided as to the true scale that I'll actually be building her to, however. I'm currently 'thinking' somewhere around 1/75'ish. Larger, maybe, but definitely no smaller than 1/75. I'll also likely build a rather lengthy mid-section 'prototype' prior to going for the full length build. I can see a lot of potential 'difficulties' to be encountered in such a complex build. A prototype, whether I finish it, or not, should prove to be a good 'test-bed' from which I can figure out just how in the h*ll I'm going to pull this off to personally 'acceptable' standards. It's going to be very interesting and time consuming, for sure! This is what I'm starting with. It's Humphreys original draft of the constitution's original hull as designed in 1794. Sorry for all of the edits to this post. I was trying to post the hull drawing that I received, in .pdf format, from the Naval History & Heritage Command, but no joy. You'll have to settle for this much smaller 'jpeg', instead of the actual 5' foot long drawing...

Been doing some research and reading customer reviews. "Hmm... nevermind!" 😲

Any of you folks familiar with this kit and its manufacturer/supplier? I'm liking what I see, up front, however. I'd like to get a few opinions before I 'pull a $250 trigger'. https://www.model-space.com/us/hms-victory-cross-section-model.html

I totally agree with your differential between the terms 'Bashing' vs. 'Improvement/Augmentation'. There is 'definitely' a distinct difference between the two! "Bashing", as I see it, represents an intentional alteration to the original design of something, with forethought, for whatever reason... with the specific intent being to void something of its true and original design parameters (much like a good deal of the model ship manufacturers seem to be doing). To 'BASH' something that is already inaccurate in detail, in order to restore its original design details is not bashing, at all. It's "Historically Accurate Alteration!" When you take an old 'Jensen Das Ugly Stik' and add bomb bay doors and shielded bottle-rocket launchers to its wings... "That's Kit Bashing!"

Greetings, all! I've been a beginner for twenty five years and have YET to complete a single model, however. I 'have' collected many POF kits, and also a 'boatload' of plans for scratch building. Sorry folks, none of this stuff is for sale. It's all gonna be for my long term retirement and enjoyment! My reason for not completing any of these kits, nor scratch building from any of the plans has nothing to do with a lack of skills, nor interest. Quite the contrary! The very first POF hull that I built, (Cutty Sark), turned out quite beautiful for a first time build. Something for a first time model ship builder to be extremely proud of, of which I am! It wasn't until I was well into fabricating the deck furniture, for this first build, that things started to go south. The more I worked on the model, the more curious I became about details and 'true' historical accuracy. The more I learned about historical accuracy, the more horrified I became with the obvious 'monstrosity' that I was inadvertently building! My heart sank, I lost interest and put it on the shelf, inaccurate deck furniture and all. I'll finish it, someday, as it looks really nice... but I'll not name it "Cutty Sark". It'll just be a 'no-name', nice looking piece of artwork and skill, sitting atop a shelf. "Too proud of the craftsmanship and the time involved to toss it into the BBQ pit, too embarrassed of its inaccuracies to officially name it!" During the time that I was going through the motions of building that first hull, the more I realized how much I enjoyed the model ship building process. I quickly went overboard and started buying models and plans, willy-nilly, left and right. Huge mistake! By the time I figured out that most of the stuff that I had purchased was, and/or was likely to be very inaccurate... it was too late. I already owned it all, and still do!!! If someone just wants to build a nice looking ship model, go for it. Beauty is in the eye of the 'builder', and most all kits can provide exactly that, if your skills are up to the task, however. If one is into true accuracy and detail, as I am... "do your homework", 'FIRST'! "Don't be like me!" I simply 'assumed' that the manufacturers of these models did their very best to replicate accuracy. The truth is, "not so much." I've since tinkered with a few of my kits, not doing much work, here and there... but just couldn't really get into it, not knowing if what I was doing had any real historical accuracy involved, or not. I shelved 'everything' for a later date. I haven't touched 'anything' for 8 years... but I'm wanting to get back into it, but I also want to do such in a much more informed, rewarding and satisfying manner! Looks like there will 'now' be a lot of "Damage Control" in my future, LOL The above being said... "There 'is' a silver lining to this old, dark cloud. I picked up a lot of ship models for about a third of the price that those exact same models are currently being sold for, today. Lots of good wood, rigging items, etc. that can surely be put to good use, albeit. The plans and instructions, for these old models, might well serve a much better purpose in lighting the fires, in my BBQ pit, than in the building of an accurate ship model! I joined this forum to tap into the knowledge of folks who are in the know, who also know the proper 'ins and outs' of doing good research, where to find the data, info, etc.., and hopefully to make another friend or few. I'm now approaching retirement and intend to get back to it and start building everything that I had once purchased, kits as well as plans. Definitely gonna be a lot of kit bashing required, but that's okay and also a given, with true accuracy being a goal! With the help of you folks... I hope to build a lot of excellent models that are both accurate, and properly done! 😊