Jaager

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building.  It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense  Reqardless  of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so."
 
Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull.
It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. 
It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges.  A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money.
A mill can also double as a drill press.  But a drill press can be had for much less.  I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself.
Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress,  I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light.
To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal.  If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. 
If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do.  You will know the specs that either should have.  As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill  or a lathe.
(If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off.  The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block.  The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant.  Unless you are building a fleet of liners,  this is not worth what a mill will cost.)
 
For what you list: 
A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed.
My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander.  I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths.  That is 120 feet at my scale.  This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger.
A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less.  You will want planed stock  (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed).
For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table.
I also like the Byrnes disk sander.  It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful.  It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.
 
 
 

It might help if you visited this link:
For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
 

Kurt Van Dahm reviewed the following two kits as a relatively painless way to begin this business of building wooden ship models in the current issue of the Journal:
New Model Shipways Shipwrights Series!
Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory Model Wooden Model Ship Kit 1:24 Scale
Your Price: $29.99
Model Shipways Norwegian Sailing Pram 1:12 Scale
Your Price: $49.99
 
All of this is quite a bit different from building a plastic kit model.
 
Balsa is a species of wood that is of little or no use in what we do.
 
A multi deck ship of the line involves highest technological abilities of the civilization that built it.  It also was a significant outlay from a treasury.  The investment in time and skill to build a model of one is also of a similar degree when compared to the smaller and more numerous vessels of its time. 
I suspect that kits of these vessels defeat most of the beginners who attempt them .   It takes more hard won skill and experience than is at first imagined.
 
 
 

It might help if you visited this link:
For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
 

Kurt Van Dahm reviewed the following two kits as a relatively painless way to begin this business of building wooden ship models in the current issue of the Journal:
New Model Shipways Shipwrights Series!
Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory Model Wooden Model Ship Kit 1:24 Scale
Your Price: $29.99
Model Shipways Norwegian Sailing Pram 1:12 Scale
Your Price: $49.99
 
All of this is quite a bit different from building a plastic kit model.
 
Balsa is a species of wood that is of little or no use in what we do.
 
A multi deck ship of the line involves highest technological abilities of the civilization that built it.  It also was a significant outlay from a treasury.  The investment in time and skill to build a model of one is also of a similar degree when compared to the smaller and more numerous vessels of its time. 
I suspect that kits of these vessels defeat most of the beginners who attempt them .   It takes more hard won skill and experience than is at first imagined.
 
 
 

The ultimate wood for the fine detail work that you anticipate doing is Boxwood.  You live near a wonderful source of this for most of us ultra rare wood- the formal gardens of large country homes.  Sadly, many of these shrubs are dying from an invasive blight.  If you can connect with the gardeners that maintain these estates you should be able to get some of this wood that would otherwise be burned.  You would then need a small bandsaw to break it down into billets suitable for your Byrnes saw.
 
Roger

I doubt that it has any relevance for lower Florida,  but if I was back in central Kentucky, younger, and had the tools I have now, I would see about trying to accumulate a warehouse size supply of Apple billets.
 
Anthony,  That Castello is dear in both price and the vanishing prospect of obtaining more.  A thought - you might consider reserving it for making blocks and deck furniture - .
I suggest getting some Hard Maple to get practice on ripping.  It is as close as you are likely to come to being as hard as Castello,  you can get as much as you want and the cost is reasonable.  Get lots of practice using the Maple.  And who knows, you may come to like it.  Save the rare expensive wood for a magnum opus .

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building.  It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense  Reqardless  of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so."
 
Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull.
It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. 
It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges.  A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money.
A mill can also double as a drill press.  But a drill press can be had for much less.  I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself.
Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress,  I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light.
To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal.  If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. 
If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do.  You will know the specs that either should have.  As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill  or a lathe.
(If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off.  The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block.  The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant.  Unless you are building a fleet of liners,  this is not worth what a mill will cost.)
 
For what you list: 
A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed.
My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander.  I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths.  That is 120 feet at my scale.  This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger.
A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less.  You will want planed stock  (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed).
For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table.
I also like the Byrnes disk sander.  It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful.  It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.
 
 
 

It might help if you visited this link:
For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
 

Kurt Van Dahm reviewed the following two kits as a relatively painless way to begin this business of building wooden ship models in the current issue of the Journal:
New Model Shipways Shipwrights Series!
Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory Model Wooden Model Ship Kit 1:24 Scale
Your Price: $29.99
Model Shipways Norwegian Sailing Pram 1:12 Scale
Your Price: $49.99
 
All of this is quite a bit different from building a plastic kit model.
 
Balsa is a species of wood that is of little or no use in what we do.
 
A multi deck ship of the line involves highest technological abilities of the civilization that built it.  It also was a significant outlay from a treasury.  The investment in time and skill to build a model of one is also of a similar degree when compared to the smaller and more numerous vessels of its time. 
I suspect that kits of these vessels defeat most of the beginners who attempt them .   It takes more hard won skill and experience than is at first imagined.
 
 
 

It might help if you visited this link:
For Beginners -- A Cautionary Tale
 

Kurt Van Dahm reviewed the following two kits as a relatively painless way to begin this business of building wooden ship models in the current issue of the Journal:
New Model Shipways Shipwrights Series!
Model Shipways Lowell Grand Banks Dory Model Wooden Model Ship Kit 1:24 Scale
Your Price: $29.99
Model Shipways Norwegian Sailing Pram 1:12 Scale
Your Price: $49.99
 
All of this is quite a bit different from building a plastic kit model.
 
Balsa is a species of wood that is of little or no use in what we do.
 
A multi deck ship of the line involves highest technological abilities of the civilization that built it.  It also was a significant outlay from a treasury.  The investment in time and skill to build a model of one is also of a similar degree when compared to the smaller and more numerous vessels of its time. 
I suspect that kits of these vessels defeat most of the beginners who attempt them .   It takes more hard won skill and experience than is at first imagined.
 
 
 

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building.  It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense  Reqardless  of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so."
 
Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull.
It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. 
It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges.  A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money.
A mill can also double as a drill press.  But a drill press can be had for much less.  I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself.
Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress,  I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light.
To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal.  If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. 
If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do.  You will know the specs that either should have.  As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill  or a lathe.
(If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off.  The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block.  The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant.  Unless you are building a fleet of liners,  this is not worth what a mill will cost.)
 
For what you list: 
A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed.
My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander.  I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths.  That is 120 feet at my scale.  This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger.
A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less.  You will want planed stock  (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed).
For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table.
I also like the Byrnes disk sander.  It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful.  It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.
 
 
 

The following is what I have learned over the several years that I have been involved with model ship building.  It is just easier to write using the emphatic verb tense  Reqardless  of how it reads, I know "it ain't necessarily so."
 
Looking at what functions a mill performs, I see very few that are of a direct use for fabricating the components of a wooden ship hull.
It could cut a rabbet - but that is not one long notch that is the same for its entire length. 
It can cut mortises for the lands of carlings, knees, and ledges.  A sharp chisel will also do this for a lot less money.
A mill can also double as a drill press.  But a drill press can be had for much less.  I have had more than enough duty from a EuroTools DRL 300 clone to pay for itself.
Although the quill bearings are not designed for lateral stress,  I am thinking that it will serve to cut a notch in wood, if a sharp cutter is used and the cuts are light.
To my way of thinking, a mill is primarily used for working metal.  If you are not intending to fabricate your own metal tools, then a mill and a lathe will prove to be a frivolous expenditure. 
If you get to a point where you really need either, you will know that you do.  You will know the specs that either should have.  As a corollary to the Yacht Rule: if you have to ask, you do not need either a mill  or a lathe.
(If you are building a liner - a ship with a lot of guns, I can see using a mill to shape a block to the shape of the truck sides and using the saw to slice each one off.  The necessity of grain being in the correct orientation will limit the width of the block.  The kerf from each slice will be about the thickness of the truck side, so the waste is significant.  Unless you are building a fleet of liners,  this is not worth what a mill will cost.)
 
For what you list: 
A source of wood stock that is precisely the necessary thickness is needed.
My answer is a 14" bandsaw and a Byrnes Thickness Sander.  I buy 8x4 rough lumber and have it cross cut to 2 foot lengths.  That is 120 feet at my scale.  This is cost effective if you are POF and building at a scale of 1:72 or larger.
A Byrnes table saw and thickness sander will do if your bulk stock is 3/4" thick or less.  You will want planed stock  (4/4 (1") rough is 3/4" after it is planed).
For planks, Saw with the big fence - for the smaller stuff, the sliding cross cut table.
I also like the Byrnes disk sander.  It does the butt joints of my frame timbers quite well and is very powerful.  It has no speed control. so it is not meant for plastic.
 
 
 

There are definitive threads here covering sail making in scale.  Also about the fabric or paper that have been found to simulate sails as well as is possible - given the limitations in scaling the material both in weave and in thickness.   As far as furling the sails.  The consensus seems to be that the depth of the sail should be 1/3 - to avoid a bulky look. The material should be as light as possible.  It is just my feeling, but white sails are probably a conceit of painters.  I doubt that the canvas was bleached. 
Tabling and attachment of bolt ropes and rigging are also discussed.
 
Polyester, ugh!

This is why I offered the battens as a solution.  A stout stick -that is straight - on either side of the central spine - glued to it - ( and I would use bamboo skewers as thru dowels for mechanical hold) -should pull/push the plywood back to flat.  Maybe two rows of them.  
Now, if this is done before the moulds are fixed into place, they block the moulds from sliding down their slots in the spine.  This means that the moulds are first to fix in place. 
Now the moulds block the battens.  Holes are needed in each mould exactly where the battens go, so that they can be slud ( Dizzy Dean ) in place.  All this will be hidden.  The holes in the moulds can be larger than necessary. 
The spine needs to already be straight before the moulds are fixed.  The baseboard is meant to do this.  Once the spine is placed in the slot in the center of the baseboard, it should not be removed until the moulds are placed, the battens are placed and the first layer of planking is completed.
In my mind, I see the following:
Planning is necessary in where the battens are placed.  later trouble with where masts go or any later parts should be taken into count.
There is a reduction mating surface for the moulds at the spine - what with the holes for the battens, so corner blocks to reinforce the join with the spine are more important. 
The battens mean that those blocks are two or three pieces instead of one.  
With wood, an end grain bond is many times weaker then a side grain to side grain bond.  Plywood end grain is flat out awful when compared solid wood.  Even without the disruption produced by adding battens, the bond of a mould with the spine is not a strong bond.  I see the corner blocks as being prudent.

POB is not my thing, but I offer the following:
The curved spine is seeking its equilibrium shape.  A quick fix reshaping is essentially pointless.  After whatever reshaping you do, it will try to go back the where it is now.
The trick is to make that impossible, by using a mechanical repair.  That is add wood to the spine that will not let it bend.
 
A 1/2" or better 3/4" plywood (AA hardwood Birch) base board is a good start.  Make a centerline that is straight.  Place blocks on either side of the line that are a tight fit for the spine and will hold it straight.
As long as the spine is in the slot, it will be straight.
When the moulds (bulkheads) are fitted,  four square sticks - one at each corner where the mould and spine meet, will hold each square and 90 degrees. 
I would cut out a hole in each side of each mould to allow a strong stick (batten)  to run the length of the spine on either side of it - to keep it from bending.  But this does not seem to meet with much favor and if done well, the first layer of planking will probably supply all of the necessary resistance  to the spine regaining its curve anyway.   I am belt and suspenders and tend to over engineer.
 
Now, about this kit - there is one thing that is really awful:  the supplied deck.  I do not know where they got the unrealistic deck butt pattern, the way too dark seams and chalking, and silly choice of which trunnels to show and which to leave off.  You should consider either laying a new deck using individual planks - Maple is good - or using the supplied plywood piece and adding an individual planking of very thin veneer - again Maple is cost effective.   Read here about butt shift rules and if you wish to show deck trunnels ( I like them, but know that it is a modeler's conceit - and not realistic). Be a lot more understated in the color contrast.
 
This kit really is based on a Cherokee class 10 gun brig.  It is close to the Marquardt book.  It is a good choice. 

We crossed paths in the dark there.
The sequence in your picture ...   too busy
And, I had not seen a 5 strake repeating sequence before that post.  A 4  strake is enough.   And at least 2 beams  for adjacent strakes.  My shipyard would have a better planking timber supplier with longer planking  and I would have 3 beams  between adjacent butts 
If you are going to color the caulking seams,  give serious thought to walnut instead of black.  And I think it was Bob Cleek who wrote that there is no caulking between butts.  The length does not change - not matter the conditions,  just the thickness, which does no matter, and the width which does.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

When the site screen is a display for the whole of it, there is a column of links on the lower right.  One of them is for Sea Watch Books.
I just clicked the link and the entire series is still available.   I would not depend on that being a long term situation.  As I wrote in a parallel thread. 
my reading of the tea leaves,  of signs and portents suggests that if you ever want any of the book listed there,  sooner rather than later would be when you should
place your order.   I generally would purchase each year's new editions as a single order, so a large order is not unheard of there.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

I have every issue up until they went bankrupt.  I reacted poorly to the "You are SOL" letter, and did not subscribe to the follow on version.  It is a big hole in my library and it rankles that those issues are missing. 
But, they seem to be more steel than sail and the content very shallow.  But boy howdy!  The early editions were like going from a 25 Watt bulb to full sun as far as sail modeling possibilities.  Then the NRJ had some editors who were determined to get a lot of rare and obscure or hard to get original information available to us.  What with the addition of Conway books, it was a wonderful age.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.

When the site screen is a display for the whole of it, there is a column of links on the lower right.  One of them is for Sea Watch Books.
I just clicked the link and the entire series is still available.   I would not depend on that being a long term situation.  As I wrote in a parallel thread. 
my reading of the tea leaves,  of signs and portents suggests that if you ever want any of the book listed there,  sooner rather than later would be when you should
place your order.   I generally would purchase each year's new editions as a single order, so a large order is not unheard of there.

There were two sailing ships in the US Navy with name Constellation.  The first was a 36 gun frigate 1797.  The second was a 24 gun corvette 1855.   One was part of the first generation  of seriously sized warships built by the US Navy.  The second was the last pure sail warship built by the Navy.  The corvette still exists.  It is in Baltimore MD.  The city obtained it and use it as an attraction.  For budgetary reasons, the Navy pretended that the frigate was "repaired" into the corvette.  It was not.  The corvette was an entirely new vessel.  Baltimore thought that pretending that it had a vessel from 1797 would make it into a better attraction and tried to turn corvette into the frigate.  The corvette was 10 feet longer.  It  had one deck with guns.  It had an elliptical stern. When the corvette was turned over to Baltimore, it had undergone several repairs and "improvements" to match whatever the prevailing fashion was in each instance.  I would not be surprised if there was a spar deck for a while.  The definition of "frigate" means that there is more than one deck with guns, even if it was just two additional  guns on the quarter deck.  The frigate had a flat stern.  Now the frigate lived a long life, especially for something government built, built of wood, floating in salt water, and having been shot at.  In the run up to the War of 1812, the Navy - a new generation from 1797, modernized the fleet.  Check the thread here on the (mainly stern windows it seems) and which ship had how many and when it had them. 
 
Baltimore produced a hideous chimera when they tried to turn a much altered 1855 corvette into a 1797 frigate.  I think they have tried to undo that recently, but I have no first hand information.  The kit has and elliptical stern and a quarterdeck and a foredeck.  It is just plain awful.  Mark Taylor tried to make it into the 1855 corvette.  H did a good job of it - see his gallery posting - but I suspect that he would not do it again.  You can build it as presented and have a grotesque mismash.  You can follow Mark's example and essentially scratch build the corvette using the basic hull.  You can mostly scratch build the frigate by shortening the hull ad building a flat stern.   The sane course would be to store the kit on a obscure shelf and forget that you ever bought it and begin a top quality kit of a ship that really was.