USS Constitution by Modeler12 - Cross-Section - Bow Area

[Modeler12]

Thanks Henry. Then the sketch that Jonathan provided me makes more sense. There is a wall with a door through which the fellow inside the magazine would pass the pouches etc.  

Man, that must have been a very tight squeeze.

 

Just one more question (I am sorry to bother you so much). The drawing above shows both scuttles with men passing the pouches up. Did it look like there was a wall between the two and could you see any posts at the center line of the ship. I understand now that you could see the metal tanks looking aft, but now I am curious what you could see looking towards the center of the ship.

[popeye2sea]

I'm sorry I can't help you there.  I was lying on the deck holding the camera down into the space and I did not take any pics in the midline direction.  I would have had to hang into the space to see that way.

 

Regards,

[Modeler12]

I'm sorry I can't help you there.  I was lying on the deck holding the camera down into the space and I did not take any pics in the midline direction.  I would have had to hang into the space to see that way.

 

Regards,

I can just imagine, Henry, you lying there on the deck all decked out in an 1812 uniform with your head into the hole. Some one coming by would have been scared to death. You're a real gem.

[popeye2sea]

Ha Ha, they would have thought they were seeing a ghost.

[Modeler12]

Ha Ha, they would have thought they were seeing a ghost.

You know that little 'fill room' down there would be a perfect hideout for a ghost or two. 

Maybe you can start a rumor:

'The Constitution Ghost continues to dwell among the gun powder kegs waiting for the right time'.  

[popeye2sea]

Jay,

 

Here is a photo of the stove as it looked in the 1906 refit.  If you blow up the picture you can see that what looks like a stanchion at the left rear corner of the stove is actually a pipe.  And there are three fill valves above the kettles built into the rear of the stove.

 

Perhaps this is the terminus for the discharge of our fresh water pump on the berth deck?

 

 

Regards,

[DanO]

Jay,

 

Are you going to include the television on the table in the crews lounge?

 

LOL

 

Dan

[DanO]

Jay,

 

A photo I took in 2009 of the stove area.

 

Dan

[Modeler12]

Jay,

 

Here is a photo of the stove as it looked in the 1906 refit.  If you blow up the picture you can see that what looks like a stanchion at the left rear corner of the stove is actually a pipe.  And there are three fill valves above the kettles built into the rear of the stove.

 

Perhaps this is the terminus for the discharge of our fresh water pump on the berth deck?

 

 

Regards,

I bet you are right, Henry. The drawings that Dan supplied me about the fresh water lines (and pump) showed that there was a lead pipe going all the way to the oven. I also have this picture that shows the valves on top of the stove and the cut-off end.

On my stove model I only show two kettles but that will have to stay (my mistake).

[Modeler12]

Dan, no TV, no beer, no fun.

Where do you get all those drawings? The CD you mentioned?

 

Here is another puzzle for you, Henry and everyone else:

Next to the mysterious hatches on the orlop deck going down into the dungeons, is a nicely carved, wooden 'something or another'. It is not a handle and to me it looks like part of a sheave with two holes for rope. What is it and what is it doing where it is?

Notice the cloth covering the hole in the hatch. It is just like I saw in that cartoon Jonathan showed us.

 

Notice also the Google name on the bottom of the picture. I hope hereby that Google will agree that these copies are for a good cause and will not be used for commercial purposes. That goes for all of the copies I show that were taken by their cameras. I also assume that Google got permission to do all of that and make the results available to the museum and/or National Park Services.

Do I need to expand? Any lawyers out there?

Edited July 28, 2015 by Modeler12

[GLakie]

Could it be something used for lifting the grate? It looks like it's meant to be removed from the wall, by pulling the keepers and sliding it off of those tenons.

[Modeler12]

I have tried to send a private message to Wayne, but apparently he does not want to receive those.
 

The message has to do with the fact that I changed my mind about the Navy drawings and I am using them to create my own. Nothing earth shaking, but I would like to communicate with Wayne unless he feels differently. So, Wayne, send me a reply, please.

[Modeler12]

Could it be something used for lifting the grate? It looks like it's meant to be removed from the wall, by pulling the keepers and sliding it off of those tenons.

The grates are not that heavy. Henry apparently had no problem.

I agree that those nicely made keepers are surely new.

And the whole thing is not related to any of the electronics, lights, switches, and safety alarms.

But perhaps it is some kind of protection for foreign visitors to indicate that this is not a place like you find in China.

[trippwj]

Greetings, Jay and Company. Been off-line for the most part since Sunday (travel to get orientated for new job). Mobbsie let me know my inbox floweth over - will get that taken care of shortly!

[popeye2sea]

Dan, no TV, no beer, no fun.

Where do you get all those drawings? The CD you mentioned?

 

Here is another puzzle for you, Henry and everyone else:

Next to the mysterious hatches on the orlop deck going down into the dungeons, is a nicely carved, wooden 'something or another'. It is not a handle and to me it looks like part of a sheave with two holes for rope. What is it and what is it doing where it is?

sheave 1.jpg

Notice the cloth covering the hole in the hatch. It is just like I saw in that cartoon Jonathan showed us.

 

Notice also the Google name on the bottom of the picture. I hope hereby that Google will agree that these copies are for a good cause and will not be used for commercial purposes. That goes for all of the copies I show that were taken by their cameras. I also assume that Google got permission to do all of that and make the results available to the museum and/or National Park Services.

Do I need to expand? Any lawyers out there?

 

The cover with the round scuttle and the grate are both fairly light and easy to move.  The object on the wall serves as a hand hold for going below, but I think it also functions to hold the grate up when the scuttled cover is on the hatch.

 

Regards,

[lambsbk]

Henry - have I got my bearings wrong or does that 1925 camboose  face forward?

Edited July 29, 2015 by lambsbk

[popeye2sea]

It certainly looks that way from the photo.

[lambsbk]

Well. That settles it for me. There is obviously nothing on that ship that could be considered stationary over the years.

 

...sorry to jack your thread here Jay. 

[Modeler12]

Henry - have I got my bearings wrong or does that 1925 camboose  face forward?

It depends on what you consider the front of (what I call) the stove. The view in the picture was taken looking aft. This is the area of the stove that had the boiling pots that served most of the crew. This must have been a very busy area during mess.

 

I, in this log, am starting at beam 11 looking towards the bow and call this view of the stove 'the front'.

PS I am curious why you call this a 'camboose'.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Modeler12

[trippwj]

I, in this log, am starting at beam 11 looking towards the bow and call this view of the stove 'the front'.

PS I am curious why you call this a 'camboose'.

The more traditional name for the unit was the "camboose". 

 

Caboose (also camboose, coboose, cubboos derived from the Dutch kombuis) is a term used for a small ship's kitchen, i.e. galley, located on an open deck. At one time a caboose related to a smaller kitchen aboard a merchantman, while aboard a warship it was called a galley.

 

William Falconer's 1780 An Universal Dictionary of the Marine describes a caboose thus: "a sort of box or house to cover the chimney of some merchant-ships. It somewhat resembles a sentry-box, and generally stands against the barricade on the fore part of the quarter-deck". Sometimes the caboose was portable.

 

Prior to the introduction of the caboose the furnaces for cooking were, aboard three-deckers, placed on the middle deck, and aboard two-decked ships in the forecastle.

 

The term was sometimes also applied to the cast-iron stove used for cooking on deck or in galleys during the early 19th century, as well as an outdoor oven or fireplace.

[popeye2sea]

As an additional piece of useless information.  The traditional last car of a railroad train that housed the train crew is called a caboose because it held a stove to provide for the crew.

[Modeler12]

Update about the decks.

 

Orlop deck #2 is in the works. It is completely new with beams and carlings of the size and locations as shown on the Navy Restoration Plans. Only the ledges are the same size. ignore the placement of the ledges, they are just loose. But they are different in the Marquardt's drawing.

The berth deck was almost going to be redone completely. I made it as close as I could from the drawings in Marquardt’s book, but now realize that the beams and carlings he shows are not correct either. At least the restoration drawings show a different layout. Looking up from the orlop deck or hold inside the ship you can see the carlings zig-zagging between the beams (something Marquardt missed, as well as those carlings going down the center line).

 

 

I pondered about redoing the berth deck all over again. After all, my intentions from the start have been to concentrate on the structural aspects as well as the living conditions aboard this lady.

Then I remembered what I also wanted to do: OPEN UP THE WHOLE THING.

 

That means a large ‘hole’ in the starboard side where frames, beams enz  are removed to show what the inside looks like. Harold Hahn (bless his soul) did this with his Pelican, but it was a hole in the side of his full size model. I have not seen anyone doing it with a cross section.

I don’t know the details yet, but I still plan to have the port side complete. Then the front as well as the back will have full frames and beams. Some of that will be partly planked. But in between there will be a large gap. Frames will still be going up from the keel (only part way) and still remain near the top with the rail. But much of the rest of the structure will be hacked away. I won’t do this until all decks are in place.
 Get the idea? It is just my way of making sure all those details inside will be visible.

 

Now, when I look at what I have, I can work around most of the ‘errors’ related to beams, enz. The berth deck I have will remain but will be chopped where it hurts.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Modeler12

[trippwj]

I keep getting confused, Jay. Is your model intended to show "as built" (1797), War of 1812, or "as is"?

 

Marquardt is closest to "as built", with some issues. The drawings by Ware (1816-1819) are closest to 1812 and for the most part agree with as-built. Anything from 20th century is not reflecting "as built" but "as repaired, rebuilt, repeatedly). Marquardt didn't miss the structures noted - they are more recent changes to the ship, not original design.

[Modeler12]

I never mentioned what era my model would represent. Right from the start I figured that the drawings in Marquardt's book would show how the ship is built and I followed them not realizing that, as you point out, they do not represent what the ship looks like today. What I did say in the beginning is that I wanted to do a cross section after building the full model. That model certainly does not represent the ship as built but more what she looks like right now.

 

When I go through the ship using the Google images  I can see what I would like to show in my model. Too bad the book was either not clear enough or I missed the point. It does not matter to me any longer. I am not interested in the history, like you, but like to build things with my hands and tools. I will continue making this model using input from others as best as I can and taking some liberties if need be.

Marquardt's book has been parked on a shelf.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Modeler12

[trippwj]

Jay -

 

That clears up my confusion - you refer frequently to Marquardt as being "wrong" where what you actually mean is that he is not showing the modern structures.  My sole intent in the comment above was to point out that Marquardt wasn't wrong - he is quite accurate for the period he was portraying.

 

Building it as close as possible to any period is a challenge - your efforts on this are impressive.  It helps those of us that have been trying to answer questions, however, to know what you are trying to accomplish.  I now know to disregard any of the info from Humphreys, Fox, Claghorn, Knox and so on and rather focus on the drawing from the CD that are primarily the 1927-31 rebuild.  Those are closer to what you are working on than the historical data.  As to other features (such as the powder rooms and so on), those, too, are quite likely to have evolved over the many rebuilds, so the 1816-1819 plans are not particularly relevant to the as-is condition you are trying for.

 

As to your comment regarding building with hands and tools, that is also something I enjoy greatly, though achieve miserably (note the poor quality in my build logs).  I happen to also find the historical (more academic aspect) a great challenge and a satisfying past time.  Being able to dig back to the description of how a vessel was designed is, to me, a fun project.  For now, though, I will drop back to lurker - I have very limited information that is not readily available (such as the CD from the museum) that I can contribute to the discussion of the ship "as is"

[Modeler12]

 

Jay -

 

That clears up my confusion - you refer frequently to Marquardt as being "wrong" where what you actually mean is that he is not showing the modern structures.  My sole intent in the comment above was to point out that Marquardt wasn't wrong - he is quite accurate for the period he was portraying.

 

Marquardt was and is wrong with his drawings by putting major pieces of equipment in the wrong place and eliminating hatches on two decks. You may find that of no consequence but to me that was a major mistake and cost me lots of time to correct.

 

You mentioned in one of your posts here the following to me (and I quote you): 'If you doubt the Marquardt drawings, find better sources yourself'. 
I have done that and they are called Henry, Jonathan, Dan, Google and more. So, no more nasty remarks, please. At least, not on my build log.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Modeler12

[trippwj]

No nastiness intended, Jay.  Just standing up for the historical nature of Marquardt's work.  He is not wrong when looking at his intent - as built, not as rebuilt/revised/redesigned over a 2 hundred year history.  What Henry, Dan, Jonathan and Google provide is information from an entirely different era in the life of the ship.  When one considers that nearly everything above the keel and a few floor timbers has been replaced, it is not surprising that there have been significant changes from what Humphreys originally designed, Claghorn built and Marquardt attempted to depict. 

 

On any historic ship, whether the Constitution, the Victory, or even 20th century vessels such as the Lexington or the Massachusetts, the changes in construction practice, intended use, and technological advances are evident - these were not static structures, but active duty vessels that were continually adapted to meet changing requirements.  As I stated above, knowing the desired period you want to replicate (in this case the ship as she currently is configured) aids all of us trying to aid you in finding information and resources. 

[Modeler12]

You still don't understand. The information (old drawings from 1812 or what ever) you provided me clearly showed that the aft riding bits were in a different place than what Marquardt shows. As a consequence the oven, chimney and two hatches were also in the wrong place or eliminated.

I am not going to rehash all of this, but you can reread all my comments earlier. I will leave it that.

[DanO]

Jay,

 

There are so many historical gaps with Conny I believe that it is virtually imposible to represent her at any one period of time, specifically her early days, for I believe changes were made to accomodate her function as a superior fighting machine and not documented for what was important was survival at the time rather than historical documentation.

 

Of course the exception are the most recent changes which were not done to get her ready for war.  The Museum has a research center which is available on an appointment basis if one wishes to do more historical research but I believe that there are many dead ends there based on my previous comment.

 

I believe that I mentiones earlier the work of Gene Bodnar based on Marquardts book which created a great sectional model which the museum had purchased. He found errors, especialling in the scailing of the different sections, but moved on without getting distracted and I personally feel that this is the best way to go.

 

I am adding a few comments I found as they relate to the 1927 restoration which may help in making a point and even then what they did was based on assumptions rather than fact, in my humble opinion.

 

 

Dan

 

[Modeler12]

Thank you Dan. As I said in one of my comments above, I am going ahead with the information as I see it.

I have made repairs and, after my vacation next week, will proceed with new vigor.
 

Do you happen to know if the Navy in 1927 created any drawings other than the plan views? I would dearly love to see a side and/or section view. But, again, if they are not available I will create my own. The one you sent me is very fuzzy when I zoom in.