uss frolick

Wayne,
Planking is a skill and an art. I don't think there's a way to learn this skill until you actually do it. One plank at a time is the best way.
 
I believe the Mayflower would be an advanced project. Here's what I'd do: gather up all of her parts and materials, stow them away for a future build, then tackle a more friendly project (Willie Bennet, AL Swift, etc..). Others will have sound advice to, I reckon.
 
I hope this helps.
John (instrumentation and controls guy)

Hmm... interesting.. I searched and found two pages of references.  Here's some links:
 
http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/2503-uss-constitution-model-shipways-vs-mamoli/
http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/3694-uss-constitution-which-one-moved-by-moderator/
http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/7344-uss-constitution-vs-uss-constitution-model-shipways-vs-bluejacket/

I know there have been a number of threads discussing this, or the various kit manufacturers in general. I am building the Mamoli kit with a lot of bashing. If I chose again, it would probably be the Model Shipways version. It is larger and has more detail out of the box. Since it is larger, adding more detail to it is a bit easier. The instructions for Mamoli are not very detailed. It assumes the modeler will know many things, so an activity that might take weeks, might be a sentence in the instructions. The BlueJacket kit bill's itself as the most accurate and it seems that many modelers who are familiar with it agree. However, this is a solid wood kit so you have to be prepared to carve the hull.
 
Accuracy of a Connie kit is always up to a lively debate since no one knows for sure what she really looked like (exactly) during the 1812 battles. There are MANY discussions on this forum regarding that.
 
All of these kits are substantial in that you will probably be several years in building any of them. Build logs of all of these can be found on this forum.  Look through them. I am sure any of the modelers will be happy to give you more information if you PM them with specific questions regarding their build or experiences.
Bill

From 1941 to 2002, The American Neptune was America's premier journal of maritime history and arts. The journal's articles, written with clarity and scholarly substance, are of interest to all who enjoy accounts of ships, the seas, and those who've sailed them - for mercantile gain, their nation's interest, or the love of voyaging and exploration. They cover a wide range of subjects (art and artifacts, people, events), geographical areas (American and international) and time periods (prehistory through modern day) and were written for scholars, professionals and enthusiasts. The journal, founded by a group that included Samuel Eliot Morison and Walter Muir Whitehill, was issued as a quarterly (Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall).
 
I have been looking for various past issues of the journal, and found today that the Peabody Essex Museum has begun to post ditized PDF copies of the journal in the Phillips Library Digitial Collections at http://phillipslibrarycollections.pem.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p15928coll3 
 
Currently Volumes I, II and II are posted (1941 through 1943), with the first 2 issues for Volume IV also posted (1944).
 
The Phillips Library is the documentation and research division of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts.    The collection presents a detailed account of the global nature of commercial outreach by Essex County residents in the 18th and 19th centuries during the “golden age” of shipping.  Logbooks, merchant account books, shipbuilder’s records, customhouse records, and documentation of travels and exploration to the Pacific can all be found within its print and manuscript collections.  At one time, Salem was the largest trading port on the east coast.  Logbooks in the collection document the relationship between Salem and Japan as early as 1799.  China trade is also represented through manuscripts found in the collection and by the Frederick Townsend Ward print collection, one of the world’s largest collections of Western-language materials on Imperial China.
 
 

You know, there was a Newbie who posted the question "Who makes the best model ships", over in another thread, and I almost answered "Rafine".

I've now done the channels and the remainder of the hull moldings on the port side. I had considered using the kit laser cut channel pieces, since I intended to paint them black, but found that the spacing for the chainplate notches didn't fit the spacing of my gun ports. It's hard to know at this point why that turned out to be the case. In any event, I ended up making them from boxwood strip, sanded to fit the hull. The channels were pinned and glued to the hull. I did use the kit laser cut pieces for the tiny support knees. The moldings, as with the prior pieces, are boxwood strip sanded to a simple half round shape, wet heat bent to fit the hull and painted black.
 
Next, I'll do this work again on the starboard side.
 
Bob

You know, there was a Newbie who posted the question "Who makes the best model ships", over in another thread, and I almost answered "Rafine".

Cont...
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

You know, there was a Newbie who posted the question "Who makes the best model ships", over in another thread, and I almost answered "Rafine".

You know, there was a Newbie who posted the question "Who makes the best model ships", over in another thread, and I almost answered "Rafine".

Brigantine "Newsboy" 1854 pictures:

A relatively simple, but tedious, job underway. I am making and installing the remaining gunport lids (earlier, I had done a few just to see how they would look and fit). As can be seen from the photos, I added the PE brass hinges and eyebolts only  to the lids that won't be covered by the channels. For whatever reason, the tight tolerances under the channels wouldn't allow for them (they will be completely covered and invisible in any event).
 
The lids are made from boxwood strip matching the hull planking with an inner piece painted red. The PE hinges are from the kit. The lids are pinned as well as glued for strength.
 
Next will be the channels.
 
Bob

When as a kid - long, long ago - I used to think the wales were a thick bumper to absorb the damage when rubbing against the dock - like tires on the side of a tugboat ! Oh well ...
 
Actually, the wales are a part of a system which include the frames, the clamps on the inside, the hanging and lodging knees and the beams, to prevent the ship from opening up sideways. Think of a frame as a rose. The natural tendency of this pretty flower is to open out or to bloom. In a ship, this would be catastrophic, obviously, and the above system evolved to prevent this. The reason that the 74's  gundeck beam is, say, 12 inches molded by 10 inches sided , is not to hold the heavy weight of the cannon, but to secure the sides of the ship in place. Working in a heavy seas stresses the "rose", and in older ships, the knees can pull out of the clamps, the ship opens up, fills and sinks. See Patrick O'Brian's "The Ionian Mission", for when that happens to the "Rotten Old Worcester", and Jack has to cocoon his ship by wrapping his midships tight with his own hawser cable.

But whales taper at the stern ...

But whales taper at the stern ...

But whales taper at the stern ...

I suspect that they didn't make items to tolerances of hundredths of an inch!

I'm just back from a week long golf trip with my wife and three other couples, and after playing 6 times in 7 days, I was ready for a rest from golf and eager to get back to modeling. This combination resulted in a burst of activity.
 
I returned to work on the forecastle. First I realized that I had left off the knees on the belfry/barricade, so made and added them. Then I made and added the splash guards at the bow. These were cut from boxwood and bent to shape. Next, I made and mounted the 8 required timber heads. Theses were done from boxwood strip in the usual fashion of shaping each of them fully before cutting it from the strip. They were then painted and pinned and glued in place.
 
The last and most intricate work was making up the catheads. These were made from boxwood. notches were cut with a chisel to fit over the rail and the remainder of the shaping done with files. I did simulated sheaves, as I have done throughout this build. Next, I made and mounted the cleats and thumb cleats. Lastly, I added the necessary eyebolts. The catheads were then mounted in place.
 
I'm now moving on to the rough tree rail, which  will be the last of the forecastle work.
 
Bob

Hello I've been here for a long time did not appear. I decided to show you one of my work. This figure of an angel on the French Le Ambitieux. I love the model of this ship, which makes an Italian master. It was in his review and saw this figure of the angel. It wanted to try to do it yourself. And that's what happened. I did it for fun, it's not an order.







 
 
This photos from the competition, they were held in May in St. Petersburg. I went there to participate with their works.

David,
 
Thanks - I just wish I still had 20-20 acuity with hand/eye coordination - bifocals can be good and bad - esp. when trying to do modeling details. And I do have one of those visor-noculators (my word ) - such is life!
 
Hank

Well, after some time since my last update, I have a couple photos of the current status of the superstructure and After Air Defense Stations to show the progress I'm slowly making on the model. Once again, the assemblies are simply put in place, nothing permanent at this point:

 


Comment - Some of you more astute battleship nuts may notice the modification to the After Air Defense Station Tub - the bumpout on the side was unique to NEW JERSEY, added during her 1967-68 refit. I'm currently working on the two Target Designators which will be loc'd on either side of the MK. 37 director base inside the tub. I have two of those TD's also loc'd on the 08 Level Conn Station and they are just barely visible in the lower photo. These are not the Mk. 1 TD's that were used on the IOWA's from WWII - Korea.

I've started tryiing to make resin radar dishes for the Mk. 25 and Mk. 35 radars that are associated with the Mk. 37/Mk. 56 F.C. Directors - this (resin molds/casting) is something new to me and will be a learning curve, for sure! The Mk. 56 directors will also be scratch built (possibly molded, don't know at this point).
 
Hank

Richard and Clare;
 
Prior to begining my build I collected a lot of research on Dallas.  Then one day I was Reading Don Canney's book US Coast Guard and Revenue Cutters and he stated that Dallas and It's sister Suprise were the 51 ton Daughty design cutter.  I was shocked.  Chapelle says 80 tons.  How could this be?  So I called him, told him of my shock and requested his source.  A few weeks later he called back and directed me to the David Gelston Papers at Mystic Seaport.  Gelston was the collector of revenue in NY City.  The papers contain the correspondence From Secretary Dallas that orders and directs its building by Adam and Noah Brown.  The papers contain the contract and later the certification of the ships mesurements.  I began researching more and collected a research partner along the way.  YUP  51 tons.     No doubt.  I am in the process of writting an article or two.  I have a very rough draft so far.   An other problem is that two vessels were built at the same time.  One went to Savanah.  The other went to Mass.   Not SC.  I now call my model the Ship that Is NOT the Dallas.  Still looking for data to determine a name for any 80 ton Cutter built to the Daughty large plan.    The Ship was contracted for in August of 1815,  Launched in Oct 1815, Delivered to its captain in NY City in Dec. 1815 and is reported at Savannah shortly before the end of the year.  The ship served until Nov. 1821 when it was sold out by public auction in Charleston SC.  I have a complete copy of the Record Of Movements.  For the early boats there are a lot of errors and inconsistencies.  King just references Chappel.  I called him up also and spoke with him.   As to a build log, probalbly not.  I build SLoooooooooooooooow.  It is also  at a reletively advanced stage.  Masting almost done, deck furniture almost done.  I had a lot of modifications.  Hull is complete but for coppering.   Contract says it was Coppered to the bends.  Other contracts for contemporary cutters called for copper plating the hulls.  Also have a reference in a letter regaring damage to the copper on the actual boat.  Perhaps some pictures, do not know yet.  I think that answered all of you questions.  If I missed one let me know.   However, I have a couple.
 
Where is the spell check on this thing?
 
How were those splash board made?  By the way I modified the stern.  I added stern timbers, planked it and then trimmed it in Ebony.
 
Phil Roach
NRG Director
President Southwest Florida Ship Modeler's Guild

I'm with wq regarding the absence of gun port lids - at least on frigates.
 
We've had a healthy discussion of this topic in my Constitution build log.
 
I have a copy of The Sailing Frigate - A history in ship models by Robert Gardiner. Page 59 includes a study of the beautiful and highly detailed model of the frigate Lowestoffe of 1760:



Gardiner notes: "With around 7ft of freeboard, gunport lids are unnecessary except where the ports open into cabins or other enclosed spaces..."

It seems to be the case that Frigates had generally higher freeboard than other rates AND did not use the "gun deck" as living space. Frigates had the advantage of dedicated berth decks below for the crew. I put gun deck in quotes because until the early 19th century, the deck with armament was referred to as the "upper deck" in the Royal navy - which acknowledges the exposure to the elements - and the berth deck still retained the old "gun deck" label dating back to the days when these rates had lower deck gun ports. I personally believe that this goes to the heart of why the gun port lids were usually not there (with the understanding that there were some exceptions) - in the late 18th century and into the 19th the 5th and 6th rates generally had higher freeboard than other classes and had dry berth decks for the crew. 
 
In the case of USS Constitution, however, we have several sources to illuminate the use of half port lids to keep out heavy seas.  Margherita Desy is the official historian of the USS Constitution attached to the Naval History &Heritage command and she studied the issue in preparation for the next refit.  
 
Definition of half port used by Ms. Desy from John Fincham, An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-Building... (Portsea, UK: William Woodard, 1825), 200.:
 
HALF-PORT..., shifting shutters fixed in the stops of those ports, which have no hanging lids. Those to the quarter-deck and forecastle ports are in general in one, and made of two thicknesses of slit deals, and to the ports for the long guns have holes in them for the gun to run out; and those to the upper deck, In two parts called buckler half-ports; for long guns, the lower part is to the center of the gun, when run out and levelled, as they have a hole in them that fits close round the guns ; and to carronades, to the under side of the gun, if not too low, that they may be fixed over them. The lower piece of these half-ports is of fir, and in one piece, to fill up the stops; with a rabbet taken out of its upper edge, to receive the upper part, and with two strengthening bolts driven up and down through it. This piece is in general hung with hinges at the lower part, and kept in its place by sliding bolts. The upper part is made commonly of whole and slit deal, the whole deal up and down, and the slit deal, to cross it, fore and aft.” 2

This indicates that the permanent full lids seen in so many contemporary models up forward and along the quarterdeck is likely accurate. The rest of the ports would either not have any lids fitted or would have the removable half-lid "stoppers" - at least as commonly practiced by American captains. Ms. Desy seems to confirm that the ports as represented by the Hull model are accurate. Here are some quotes from her study:
 
 
The oldest recorded model of USS Constitution is the one built in 1812 by the ship’s crew for Capt. Isaac Hull. He, in turn, donated the model to the East India Marine Society (now part of the present-day Peabody Essex Museum/PEM) not long after the model was constructed. Hull claimed that it was quite an accurate depiction of the ship as she looked around the period of her battle with HMS Guerriere. There are no port lids on the gun deck, with the exception of the two single-door lids on the two forwardmost gun ports 
 
 
The PEM model depicts single doors on the two forward ports on both sides of the ship. It is very likely that Constitution had single doors on these two ports because of their vulnerability to being stove in during storms or when sailing in heavy seas.
 

 
Confirming this supposition that the two forward-most ports carried single doors is the well-known Boston image of USS Constitution from the War of 1812 period, engraved by Abel Bowen.
 
 
...The aftermost gun ports may have had slightly different gun port covers for captains’ cabins ports. We’ll begin with another definition of “port-lids”:
“PORT-LIDS, a sort of hanging doors, to shut the ports at sea. They are fastened by hinges to the edges of the upper sill, so as to let them down when the cannon are drawn into the ship, whereby the water is prevented entering the lower decks.
Upon the main deck, and particularly in ships carrying only one tier of cannon, half ports are used: they are a kind of shutters with a circular hole in the centre, large enough to go over the muzzle of the gun, and furnished with a piece of canvas, which is nailed round its edge to tie upon the gun, whereby the water is prevented entering at the port, although the gun remains run out.” 
 
There are [several contemporary paintings that show] canvas covers in the gun ports farthest aft on the vessels – the location of the captain’s great or forward cabin. The canvas covers in the captain’s great/forward cabin gun ports would have kept out some water when sailing in general or light weather, but more important, would have allowed diffused light to enter the cabin during all daylight hours, no matter the weather. If the weather was really inclement, likely half ports could have been fitted into the ports to secure them from heavy seas.
 
Conclusion of findings and recommendations for restoration:
In conclusion, in compliance with the mission of the Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston which includes in part, “ensur[ing] material compliance and documentation with the historic requirements of [Constitution], maintaining [the ship] as close to its 1812 configuration as possible,” 19 [emphasis added by author] the gun port lids of USS Constitution should be as follows:
1. Adapt the half ports presently found on Constitution: A. Retrofit the upper half port so that the lid is completely removable, but so
that it can be secured in the port with bolts.B. Retrofit the lower half port lid so that the lid drops to 90° and projects outward from the hull of the ship
2. Substitute two single gun port doors on each of the two forward-most ports in the bows of Constitution
3. Retrofit the two aftermost ports, at the captain’s great/forward cabin with canvas, as per the sail plans and artwork depicting such configurations on Constitution, Congress, and President
 
 
There does not seem to be any indication of hinged lower half lids in place during the Guerriere fight. The receipts presented in Ms. Desy's essay suggest that those were installed afterwards. It may well be, however, that Captain Hull followed what appears to be the common American practice of having removable half lid stoppers on board. They would've (obviously) been removed for the battle with Guerriere. It may be that the lower half ids were not hinged and permanently mounted until later in the war - or at least not until sometime after the Guerriere battle. The research around the canvas covers along the captain cabin ports is extremely interesting. 
 
Fun stuff.
 
Evan

Wow - I had not realized that it has been over a month since I gave any update!  Sorry about that!
 
Have not gotten a huge amount done - my very special grandson has been here for the summer, so have been spending most spare time doing stuff with the boys.  Between whale watching, Independence Day, the British Invasion and visits to other nations (Campobello Island, Canada), along with cleaning up from our hurricane, not a lot of time in the build yard.  I have, though, made a small bit of progress.
 
First, I have, indeed, gotten my first planks on the hull installed.
 
Not the best looking, but since this will be double planked I am not terribly upset.
 

View from bow - on (not quite in line, but follow the deck line nicely).
 

View of stern (tough to see, but it is planked under there).
 

View along the starboard side from the stern.
 
I also placed an order with Bluejacket (local to me, so gave them a try) for some 1/64' ply for the false deck.  Delivered in 3 days, very nice looking stuff.  So, I started on the false deck.
 
Since there were no good plans for the deck itself showing the bulkhead locations, I started by taking off the dimensions for each bulkhead (with great thanks to the Admiral, who lent her support to the cause).  I captured the maximum diameter of each bulkhead (fore and aft face), the minimum width inside the hull, and the distance from fore of one to fore side of the next aft (all were the same thickness).

 
Transfered these onto a large sheet of paper
 

Faired the lines with a ships curve. Note the gap indicated at frame 2 - it exists with the first planks I put on.
 

Verified the fit of the sheet into the hull after trimming out the bulkheads, then used this to shape and fit the plywood false deck.
 

Once that was done, I then used the plywood to trim a printout of the deck plans - will use this to in turn place the various deck openings that need to be made in the false deck before I install it to the hull.
 

So, that's where things are right now.  Continuing to work the Essex for another month before switching back to the Emma C. Berry.
 
Suggestions, observations, recommendations are always welcome!

Hello,
 
The review for today is:
THE SLOOP OF WAR 1650-1763
Ian McLaughlan
2014  Naval Academy Press, Seaforth Publishing, 288 pages  12”x10”.
 
I was more than pleasantly surprised when I received this book to review. This large book is an extremely well researched and documented tracing of the development of the sloop of war. Mr. McLaughlan has carefully opened the door to the research of this class that, by the end of the Napoleonic wars became the most numerous of all the classes of ships involved in that conflict.
 
McLaughlan starts his story by diving into the murky beginnings of sloops by looking at shallops and oared whaling craft and how they were adapted to the military needs of wartime in the 1650’s. That period led to the development of lots of sizes and rigs of small craft. This development grew along several needs until the 1704-17 period. During this time the advice or scout boat, brigantine, escort, bomb ketch and fire ship became consolidated into a basic sloop design.
 
By 1732 some degree of standardization was established with the snow rig most favored. Only a few ships of that time used the ketch rig. The 1740’s saw the development of the ship rig and the raised quarterdeck and by the end of this book’s coverage the raised deck, ship rigged sloop as characterized by the Swan class of ships had become a staple in the Royal Navy’s fleet.
 
There are some notable features in this book that need highlighting. The author starts with a detailed and well-illustrated chapter on rigs and rigging. This gives the reader a reference to all of the types of rigs to be encountered in the book. Also, two chapters are devoted to the concurrent developments in French design, leading to the classic corvette design used by the French navy and privateers.
 
This book is heavily illustrated with photos, drawings and plans from the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. Of particular interest to modelers is that all of the NMM plans are identified by their file numbers which will make ordering from them easier.
 
Two appendixes are also important to note for modelers. The first one gives mast and spar dimensions while the second serves as a primer on how to read the plans the plans of some of the ships in the book.
 
I have two wishes concerning this book. I hope that other researchers use this benchmark book as platform to add to, prove or disprove any of Mr. McLaughlon’s pioneering work. My second wish is that the author gives us volume two that will take us through 1815.He will need collaborators to help with American and French sloop building efforts and I hope that he will be able to find that help. Finally, I hope to see some modelers  build some examples from the wonderful collection of interesting subjects.
 
By now you can tell that I like this book. It is a must have for anyone interested in the smaller warships of the 17th and 18th centuries.
 
Bob Friedman