USS Constitution by Force9 - Revell - PLASTIC - Revisiting the classic 1/96 kit

[Jasseji]

Hey Force9,

 

Do you have maybe a picture of the bow section of your gun deck ?

I wonder how you finished off that styrene planking - i am starting with it tomorrow and wonder how i should do the bow part

[Force9]

Hello Jasseji

 

This is the best I've got to show how I ended the bow section:

 

 

Hope that helps

Evan

[Jasseji]

perfect, thx

[Force9]

A bit of work on the bow...

 

It will come as no surprise to folks that I don't like the kit representation of the bow details.  The molding for the head timbers and railings is pretty lousy:

 

 

There is no consistent guidance across all of the various sources to know exactly how these should look - or even how many head timbers there were in 1812.

 

Here are some representations:

 

Modern version:

Corne Paintings:

Hull Model:

 

In the end I just elected to replace what was on the kit with something a bit more crisp.  I wanted, however, to have the head timbers bow outwards in a graceful curve instead of the inward version as molded.  I went ahead and laminated together two strips of .060 x .125" styrene (Evergreen 156) using a convenient paint spray can to get the appropriate radius.  I taped the strips to the can and came back next day:

 

 

I replaced the head timbers one at a time - starting with the most forward (and smallest) one.  I left the middle rail intact for support and guidance for the new elements(!):

 

 

Some careful filing and test fitting iterations are needed to get everything aligned to the final shape.  I'll still have some tuning to do before final glueing.  Finally I came along with some .030 x .030" strips to add some detail:

 

 

I'll likely come along later and give some attention to the weather cloth and upper rails.

 

Thanks for looking

EG

[Marcus.K.]

Very interesting. I never looked into the detail in which direction the curve was done .. strange that Revell chose the wrong one? I very much like your version! 

[lambsbk]

Nice work Evan, as always.

[texxn5]

That looks very nice Evan, I like what you're doing.  I painted mine gold like the directions showed, and also because I like the way the gold looks on her, yet I know that even now they are white.  How are you going to paint them?

John

[KimatHm]

Neat Trick...!!! That worked out rather nice...!!  I'm Impressed...Being innovative always deserves a 'Kudos' !! Kim

[vacotton]

As for the knees.  I am wondering if it would be feasible to bend them so that they resembled the real ones on the r/w ship.  Then join them up to the beams under the spar deck.  I have read that styrene when gently heated can be bent.  

[lambsbk]

Unfortunately it also contracts. Great care has to be taken to ensure this does not happen. Optical shops use hot sand to control temp. I wonder if that would not be a bad investment (maybe someone selling off their equipment).

[Force9]

Hello vacotton...

 

Thanks for joining the dialog!

 

I haven't had much luck with heating and bending styrene... I find the path of laminating strips together to form curves to be much more reliable and controllable.  Besides, I'm sure hot styrene would not smell good!

 

 

Evan

[Force9]

Lads...

 

My garage workshop suffered a setback a few weeks ago - I had piled so much junk into the garage attic space that a joist cracked and the whole ceiling threatened to crash down.  Catastrophe was narrowly averted with some quick bracing... The company that originally added the attic in my garage years ago has come forward and has been making repairs on their dime - no cost to me.  They really have stood by their work and put forth the effort to rebuild it properly.  All that being the case, I'm offline for a bit longer in terms of model building.

 

Hasn't stopped me from delving further into research...

 

I'm currently mucking about with the channels on my kit - trying to clean them up and otherwise enhance them.  The question of lower stun's'l booms fitted to the channels has got me thinking (uh oh).

 

The Revell kit includes lower stun's'l booms for both the fore and main channels (The mizzen, of course, would never have stun's'l sails deployed below the Crojack yard.  Some argue, in fact, that no stun's'l sails were deployed on the mizzen.  More later...)  The Hull model, however, only shows booms fitted on the fore channels:

 

 

Of course, this could be one of several omissions made by the crew in their haste to complete the model.  But why bother with any lower booms at all if they were trying to save time with shortcuts?

 

  Marquardt in his AOTS agrees that there should only be one set of booms fitted, but he argues that they should only be on the main channels and not on the fore channels.  He reasons that the storage of the anchors on the fore channel precludes the possibility of having swinging lower stun's'l booms attached. Hmmm.

 

Olof Eriksen notes these same discrepancies in his CONSTITUTION - All sails up and flying.  He compared the Hull model to the Brady The Naval Apprentice's Kedge Anchor (1841) and the rigging journal kept by Midshipmen Anderson during the 1834-35 refit and found that all three agree with the stun's'l booms only fitted to the fore channels - none on the main.

 

Howard Chappelle in his History of the American Sailing Navy includes an interesting appendix with a copy of the builder notes for an 1826 sloop of war.  Included is a reference for "swinging stun'sail boom irons" to be fitted only on the fore channels.  More interesting is the inclusion of "channel cranes" for "supporting the spare spars and yards... one on the main and one on the mizzen..."   This approach would seem to agree with the Charles Ware drawing of the frigate United States:

 

 

The legend for this drawing labels L as Stunsail BOOMS and M as Spare Main Topsail YARDS.  This would seem to refute Marquardt's assertion regarding the anchor storage blocking the stun's'l boom on the fore channel.

 

Finally, we have this tidbit from Constitution's log following her engagement with Guerriere:

 

 

...our standing and running rigging much cut, and One Shot through the Fore Mast, one through the Main Mast,and one through the heel of the Fore Top Gallant Mast, and the Starboard Cross Jack yard arm cut away, as also the Spare Top Sail Yard in the Main chains, and the B[ ? ] for the slings of the Main Yard broken, our spanker Boom, and Gaff Broken by the Enemy, when foul of our Mizen Rigging...

 

Whew... Based on this exploration... When all the dust settles I will only have lower stun's'l booms rigged to the fore channels on my model, but will also include spare topsail yards resting in "channel cranes" extended from the main and mizzen channels both port and starboard.

 

All part of the fun!

Thanks for following along.

Evan

[texxn5]

Evan, you are really getting into the historical accuracy of the ship...I commend you. Intersting research going on, and should really be interesting in your build.

[vacotton]

Hi Evan,

I am taking your lead on my first ever kit-bash: The 1/96 Constitution.  I have just finished the grueling task of putting rivets into the spar deck bulwarks and I must say, you were right.  Hard on the thumbs.  I stripped the .010 styrene off twice before  figuring out the right pattern to punch on to the veneer.  I finally printed out your photo of the actual Constitution gunwhale and used that as a guide.  Won't really know how it turns out until I put a coat of paint on.  Going down to West Valley Hobbies now to shop the exact color per that photo. Does anyone know if that wooden bumper was on the spar deck bulwark or was that a recent (last 90 years) addition?  If it is appropriate for the 1812 version, I would like to add it in.

 

As soon as my work is presentable for a few photos, I will start a log for you guys.  

 

One other question:  Do you plan to build a berth and Orlop deck?

Verne

Edited July 30, 2013 by vacotton

[vacotton]

Hi All,

I have been doing some research on the knees on the gundeck and I ran across the navy plans of the ship prior to the 1927 rebuild.  It shows vertical joists in place along with the diagonal knees, yet two other folks have modelled the knees without the uprights.  Here is a photo from Gene Bodner's work entitled "Constitution in Six Cross-Sections in 1:32 scale".

 

 

And here is the link:  http://modelshipbuilder.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?1405.120

 

And then here is the pdf of the hull profile encountered by the Navy rebuild team in 1927. 25184-.pdf

and the link: http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/frDrawings.html

 

Before I move forward, I would like to get some input from you seasoned salts about this.

 

Thanks and best regards,

Verne Cotton (vacotton)

25184-.pdf

Edited August 2, 2013 by vacotton

[lambsbk]

I really should let Evan comment on this as his research is excellent. The second link is from the 1927 refit plans and are available from the Constitution Museum in Boston.Notice the absence of the Orlop deck diagonals which were removed in 1927 and replaced at the most recent refit due to an increase in the hog of the ship by more than 12 inches. Some folks are modeling their build to match this 1927 refit. The first link, I believe, goes to a build that is also at the museum. There are several parts of this build which I don't think go back to 1812 (although I am no expert.) Nonetheless, it is an excellent model without equal. Do you have a reference to the pre-1927 plans. That would be a great resource. Thanks.

 

Dave

Edited August 2, 2013 by lambsbk

[vacotton]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your help.  I do not have access to the pre-1927 plans.  If there is a link to them, I really would be interested and if I run across them in my travels I will make them available on this forum.

Verne

[Force9]

Hello Verne...

 

Wonderful to see another modeler take on the 1/96 Connie.

 

I applaud your willingness to delve into some research to tune up your representation of the great ship.

 

Firstly, I think the "wooden bumper" seen in my photo of the spar deck bulwark is likely one of the forward pin rails.  These are often left "natural" and not painted since they experience more wear as a working part of the ship.  You can position these in accordance with the Revell instructions or follow some other guidance like the Bluejacket manual.  They'd certainly be appropriate for 1812 (or any era!)

 

The gun deck knees are an interesting quandary and I don't know that I have the end-all answers.  I'll give you my reasoning... The current restored ship is not representative in most respects to her 1812 configuration.  Lots of reasons why, but the best I can understand from various sources over the years (including docents on the ship and folks in the Constitution museum) is that the 1927 restoration utilized the most complete historic set of plans extant - which date to the mid-19th century.  Folks who restore ships prefer to rely on historic documentation and forego speculative sources and that seemed to be the best way to go back in 1927.  These are the basis for the 1927 drawings that you can access online at the official ship site (or purchase on CD from the Navy Museum or the Constitution museum).  More modern thinking has pulled in other sources that include documentation for sister ships as well as historic artifacts like the Hull model to generate a more accurate understanding of her appearance during her glory years.  In fact, I think there is congressional legislation in place that requires USS Constitution to be restored (and maintained) to her War of 1812 appearance going forward.  To that end we will see more and more changes across the next few refits to bring her bow and stern into an 1812-1815 context.  That being said, the knees as represented today almost certainly do not reflect her 1812 versions.  My photo of the current ship shows both vertical and diagonal knees fitted. The two best historic sources are the drawings made shortly after the war by sailing master Charles Ware, and the drawings of her sister ship USF President made by the British shortly after her capture.  I think the Ware version shows vertical hanging knees, but no diagonals... The President drawings show diagonals, but no vertical knees. Take your choice - nobody can really gainsay you either way!

 

The brilliant model by Gene Bodnar closely follows the Marquardt conceptualization shown in the Anatomy of the Ship (AOTS) book.  That rendition is highly speculative and includes many elements that have been discredited in recent years by careful scholarship by Tyrone Martin and others.  Gene was careful to make sure folks knew that he was not out to create a model with any historical exactitude that matched contemporary sources. If anyone had a problem with what he was including (or not including) then they should take it up with Marquardt and not him...  It should be noted that Marquardt chose to follow the guidance of the President drawings for the knees - same as I did.

 

I hope your thumbs have recovered from their riveting ordeal and I look forward to following your progress.  Please feel free to fire away with more questions and those of us who've gone ahead will do our best to provide guidance and explain our own approaches along the way.

 

Thanks for the interest

Evan

Edited August 3, 2013 by Force9

[lambsbk]

Evan I wonder if you would chime in on this one as well. (since the 'shipyard' still may be under repair - very sorry to hear about that but glad there wasn't a major disaster) The forward ports (1 and 2) of the gun deck are for the positioning of 24 pounders. But after fitting the forward bitts, cable bitts, camboose, anchor chain and bow sprit I can not see how they could have run those gun positions in and out without some major repositioning. Did they man those positions? Even the train tackle would be tricky. What do you think?

 

Dave

[Force9]

Dave -

 

No... The forward ports on the gun deck would NOT have a gun normally positioned... Perhaps during a chase they might manhandle one of the nearby guns into position to fire in hope of a lucky hit, but these ports were added by William Bainbridge after the Guerriere battle as "bridle ports" to use to facilitate towing and anchoring. The Revell instructions are incorrect and guns should not be placed here.

 

Good catch.

 

Evan

Edited August 3, 2013 by Force9

[youngtiger1]

Hello Evan,

 

You are doing amazing job on an old kit. I'm blown away with amount of research you are sharing with in these pages. Worth saving every post for future reference and that actually what I'm planing to do. I normally hang out at ARC with is aviation modeling site for the most part and someone posted a link to your WIP and first look I knew I had to save it and join in on the fun. I purchased the same kit last year at a local model show for $25 and know moving into a large home I can build it and display it. So, I'm hopping to start it soon I have a work bench set up. Again, as mostly familiar with aviation stuff the ships are a new bread for me and a whole new lingo I need to get familiar with. For example, I finally figured out what rat rails stand for and why. Also, the tall poll things are call mast. Anyway, you are doing amazing work and I'm glad I found it. Keep up the good work because you have another follower that's learning from the teacher

 

Mike

[dafi]

As usual well resaerched and wonderfully explained :-)

 

Thanks Evan!

 

The storage of the stun´ sail boom is interesting, as far as I know, it is believed the Vic had the one on the main channels permanently fixed and the fore was stowed with the spare spars and just hooked in into an eyebolt in between fore channel and cathead if needed. The reasons are the same as Marquardt sttes: the handling of the anchors.

 

I am not sure, but werent the fore stun´ sails the ones that were put out first? Could this be the reason to have this one fitted on the Constitution?

 

All the best, Daniel

[vacotton]

Part of this adventure is in the learning.  This morning, after a lot of thought, I decided to tear out my first attempt to model the knees between the starboard gun deck and the spar deck and start over.  

The first iteration was sickening. I tried to approximate the scale of the knees and used .080x 1.00 styrene strips which by my calculation would come out to 7.7" x 9.6" full size.  Well, they came out looking very clunky and like they needed a good orthodontist's help.

So now I am stripped back down to the base .080 styrene built up wall and ready to start over.  Again, I plan to create the bolt pattern on .010 strip and then glue them onto the bulkhead. But this time I want an aesthetically pleasing result instead of the monster that I created last time so again I am reaching out.  

Thanks for all of your help and remarks.

Verne

Edited August 4, 2013 by vacotton

[james_carder]

Hello Evan,

 

You are doing amazing job on an old kit. I'm blown away with amount of research you are sharing with in these pages. Worth saving every post for future reference and that actually what I'm planing to do. I normally hang out at ARC with is aviation modeling site for the most part and someone posted a link to your WIP and first look I knew I had to save it and join in on the fun. I purchased the same kit last year at a local model show for $25 and know moving into a large home I can build it and display it. So, I'm hopping to start it soon I have a work bench set up. Again, as mostly familiar with aviation stuff the ships are a new bread for me and a whole new lingo I need to get familiar with. For example, I finally figured out what rat rails stand for and why. Also, the tall poll things are call mast. Anyway, you are doing amazing work and I'm glad I found it. Keep up the good work because you have another follower that's learning from the teacher

 

Mike

Glad to see you made it here. Were you able to get the bees wax?

[mtaylor]

Hi Verne,

 

I think we'd all love to see your build progress.  Please consider doing a build log for your build.

[Force9]

Hello Mike - I'm glad you find my build log and I hope it proves inspiring and useful!  

 

Verne - Nothing wrong with redoing a few things until you feel comfortable with the result... I've done my share of that as well!  Just set an easy pace at the beginning and you'll find yourself hitting the right stride as you get deeper into the build.  I'd echo the other sentiments that we hope to see you set up another Connie log so that we can follow your progress.

 

Daniel... I'll admit to being a bit perplexed about the deployment of the lower stunsail booms.  Mr. Eriksen is convinced after his detailed research that there never was a lower stuns'l for the main on the Constitution.  He thinks that the wider sail area of that stuns'l sail would blanket the foremast one and was therefore eliminated.  Have a look at the interesting photos of the USS Monongahela under sail in light air:

 

 

 

(http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/monong.htm)

 

Granted, these photos date from the 1890's when she was a midshipmen training ship, but it does seem to corroborate the idea that only the foremast had lower stunsails deployed.  I'm sure there are more experienced modelers/researchers that can shed more light...

 

Thanks all for the continued interest!

Edited August 5, 2013 by Force9

[youngtiger1]

Evan, you better believe it sir. Beside, with the work you are doing its not hard to be inspired by it. 

 

James, not yet. I got bit side tracked while trying to shop for my first family home. Now that I'm getting back into modeling I'll try and find the wax. Will it available at local Walmart?

[james_carder]

Evan, you better believe it sir. Beside, with the work you are doing its not hard to be inspired by it. 

 

James, not yet. I got bit side tracked while trying to shop for my first family home. Now that I'm getting back into modeling I'll try and find the wax. Will it available at local Walmart?

Not sure about walmart. If they do maybe it would be in the sewing area.

[vacotton]

Evan,

Great move on the capstan platform.  After looking at the USS Constitution Tour, it looks like either Revell got things wrong with the placement of the aft hatches or there were massive changes in subsequent rebuilds.  Either way, yours is a pleasing solution and I have implemented it as well.

Verne

Edited August 19, 2013 by vacotton

[popeye the sailor]

if the model,  whether it be plastic or wood,  was to depict a certain time period in it's service,  and the builder intends to build it in a later {or earlier} time period,  then it is enevitable that there will be discrepancies.