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

[Force9]

The workshop is back to shipshape and things have settled down enough for some build time...

 

The gun deck has come along:

 

The first need was to finally get the beam stanchions in place.  These were some of the first items I attempted for this deck, but I couldn't get anything satisfying...  I first thought to just use some stanchions from the extra Heller Victory kit in my stash, but those were too wimpy.  I bulked up my own version and test fitted those... Still too wimpy.  And worse, I couldn't seem to keep them consistently straight and true.  

 

 

Finally I decided to use my thickest rod and position them into holes drilled through the decking.  I did the base and caps using the square tubing in my styrene pile.  I reamed it out with the appropriate drill bit matched to the rod and slid them into position along the rod with enough sticking down to pass through the deck.  That did the trick.

 

To keep all the deck features secure I added some rod underneath to fit through similar holes drilled into the deck:

 

 

The appropriate holes were drilled through all along the deck to accept the various components

 

 

You'll notice that at some point I decided that the pumps should all sit on a raised platform amidships.  Just seemed like the right thing to do.

 

 

Here are some views of all the gun deck features test fitted:

 

 

I've put one of the Admiral day cabin bulkheads from my Heller Victory in place to see what it might look like if I added the Captain's suite to the deck.  It has potential, but I think I'll stick with my stated intention of not including this and keep the gun deck cleared for action.

 

Spare anchor stored amidships:

 

Manger

 

Pumps

 

I think I'm just about ready to paint the darn thing!

 

Thanks for following along

Evan

[popeye the sailor]

that's some very nice work Evan.....Revell left out a lot of detail 

[texxn5]

That looks great Evan. If I didn't know better I'd think I was back on board the real thing.....yes, Revell left out a lot of details.

[vacotton]

Good to see you back, Evan!  That is really clean work and all in styrene too.  I will be rebuilding my pumps.  The ones now are out of scale and will not clear the spar deck.  No matter, as I progress, I learn new skills and then I am dissatisfied with my former efforts.  

You really set the standard for excellence in craftsmanship, sir.

[Professor]

G'Day, Evan;

 

This is certainly some of the finest styrene modelling in any genre I have had the pleasure to behold. Please do push on and continue posting through completion. The historical information you have shared has been nearly as  interesting as your craftsmanship while the source data for some of your aftermarket bits is quite useful for anyone attempting a similar project. Sierra Hotel!

 

Regards,

"Professor"

Edited December 10, 2016 by Professor

[lambsbk]

Evan:

 

I see you have moved the capstan aft slightly and built up the deck to compensate for the coaming. Great idea. I have been mulling this over in my mind about the close fit concerning this hatch just and how to handle it.  I believe I will stop 'thinking' and adapt your solution. Thanks.

[KimatHm]

Very Innovative, Evan...!!!  Very Surely the work of a 'Master Modeler Shipwright', if I do say...!!!

Keep it Up, Mate...!!!  Kim

[james_carder]

no verne....I'm just saying     plastic kits can be rather vague with some of the more intricate detail.....this is the reason why I not a big replica fan.  it's very hard to build something that is even close to the real ship.......manufacturers can only do so much as well.  you are correct......the original molds for this kit,  were made in the later part of the fifties.  kits to follow were:

Cutty Sark

thermopylae

U.S.S. United States

C.S.S. Alabama

U.S.S.Kersarge

spanish Galleon

....not exactly in this order.....but this was a series that Revell put out.   sadly,  the Constitution was the only kit to live on.  back in the day,  I built plastic as my main medium...........for the last few years though,  I made the jump to wood.  I still revere this series of kits, to be the finest of all I've had the pleasure to do.  since making the jump,  I have refined my thoughts on kits in general.......generic would be a better description.   they have enough of a challenge for the average modeler,  but enough of an 'open end'  for the modeler that desires to add to their builds,  the detail and functionality that will make their build stand out.  for example......the rigging for the cannons,  which has been left out.....all they show is the breech ropes.  in the connie kit,  they have the stern quarters......but in the United states,  these parts are omitted......the locator holes are still there for them.....wonder why

 

I built the Connie a long time ago........love to get another,  but the admuiral doesn't want me to do any more plastic LOL!   I have the United States in the closet....she knows it getting built.....I didn't get it for nothing.  this will be my second time doing this ship.  I also have the Cutty,  which is my second time as well.  I built the Alabama too....sadly,  the rest of these kits are becoming rare.  when I got this kit,  I paid $89.00 for it........I last saw it online for over $250.00!  please don't think I'm upset or anything.......I just find it sad that Revell gets a bad rap on these kits.......I've built some that were far worse!

I think there was a English Man O War also.

[popeye the sailor]

I don't recall seeing one of those,   but I think you saw the Morgan whailer.........I had never seen the kit around these parts,  but I believe I saw it in a catalog.   in Manchester,  back in the day,  we had a hobby store called the 606.......if I had extra money,  this is where I would be.       this list,  Connie included,   were all on the shelf at one time or another.   the only two I kick myself for not getting,  was the Thermoplyae and the Kersarge.   the last time I saw the Kersarge on E-Bay......it was listed at almost $300.00!   most of these kits are becoming quite rare.......the Cutty seems to be holding it's own though.......more seem to bleed out of the woodwork when money gets tight.   the Cutty kit does have it's variants.....the museum kit......with it's pre-painted hull,  and no sails,  is becoming rarer that the actual kit itself.

 

Heller took the reigns on the large sailing kits...featuring the Victory and a large scale Spanish Galleon,  perhaps your thinking of these kits?   nice to see another fellow from New Hampshire.....welcome to MSW,  good sir!   I'm sure you'll have a great time here    do you have a build log started?

[james_carder]

No it was Revell. http://www.ipmsusa3.org/gallery/v/box_art_album/Manufacturers/QRST/Revell+Box+Art/Ships+and+Vessels/Sail/English_Man_o_War_Revell_H397_96th.jpg.html

I was working on it when I was stationed in Brunswick Maine in early 70's. Presentily I'm trying to finish the Imai Napoleon that I bought in Newport, R.I. in the early 80's when I was stationed there. Now that radiation treatment is over maybe I can get it finished. First model in about 40 years. I have the Revell Constitution 05602, Heller Victory and Le Soleil Royal in the stash. Constitution will be the third time. Tried to find the K&S mesh but no luck. I go to Hobby Lobby and Hobbytown in Manchester and to Hobby Emporium in Tyngsborough. Glad to know someone else is from New Hampshire. GraniteCon model show is Sunday at the Elks club in Nashua if your interested.

[popeye the sailor]

CRAP!!!!!    I have to work!    I never seem to be able to do stuff like that .......always on a week end    HobbyTown here in Manchester has contests and meets every once in a while,  and they do the same thing.   oh....well.

 

I have never seen that one before.......I bookmarked the site.   looks like a very interesting site    I had stopped for a while as well...the Revell United States 1:96 was my last build then.   when I started back up,  I built a few small kits,  and then the Cutty Sark 1:96 {for the second time}.   from there I got into the wood kits and have been doing them ever since.   I still see plastic kits I'd like to do...I have another United States to do in my cue as well.....a bash of plastic and wood  { I have a log started on it}.   I guess it may be my memory or something.   could it have been this ship kit?........I don't know.......been a long time.   I belong to another site.....the burning question seems to be how rare is a kit.   most of them.......no,  but I do see some that may be.   it would be nice to have some sort of book listing all this.......like an apraiser,  but I haven't come across one as of yet.   must be the holy grail :D      well,  it's nice to meet you....I'll keep an eye out for your build log........love to see your work 

[Marcus.K.]

Wow Evan,  great show!

 

It looks just great. Your art is extraordinary and I was waiting for such an update so long.

 

Concering what Revell misses (or others).. I believe it depends on how much you want to show details. Even Evan´s improvments do not show a fitted out ship. So many material which counts to the equipment of a ship. Do water barrels - a really needed thing - count to equipment or are these elementary things for the ship. Of course the pumps should be something which is really connected to a ship .. but on the other side: these ships have been made of wood and could and were changed a lot during their lifetime. So .. if Revell intended to give you a basis on a ship which every modeller can fit out as he pleases - it´s one of the best basis you ever could get, is´nt it?

 

Evan, a remark : I am not sure and I could have got it wrong - but I think I learned somewhere that the stanchions were removeable and were removed for clearing the deck for action. I am not sure how this was done - or how it was possible. I do not know how they would have been fixed. Since a wooden ship is "moving" (twisting and warping) while riding the waves I can not imagine that those stanchions were mounted and fixed only by a compression of /clamping in between the beams above and below ... the movement of the wood would cause the loss of the fitting of some .. But if they were removeable. .. ? ..  

Anyway: if you want to represent the "clear for action" status ... it might be necessary to remove them.. 

 

Does anyone have more information about stanchions and "clear for action"?

 

If its true it would be a sad thing since they really look good ...

 

... but I was thinking while reading your describtion and remembering this thesis: Why not doing a compromise and showing the action necessary for the comand "clear for action"?? That way you could show sailors demounting the furniture and the captains cabins wall and some of the stanchions in place while others are removed already??

 

Concering the museums plea: I forwarded your text to one of my superiours - she is sited in the US - much closer to our headquarter than I - and also her position allows her another approach than if I forwarded this idea to our managment ... I hope to recieve an answer this evening whether she thinks she can do / could do something. I was thinking on our intranet homepage. I am working for a real big american global automotive supplier .. which is interested in social projects a lot. So maybe .... I will keep you informered.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Marcus.K.

[dafi]

Evan, as usual: Wonderful great performance :-)

 

Love it, Daniel

 

 

PS:
Markus look here for removing the stanchions on an english ship:

#6832

Edited October 16, 2013 by dafi

[Marcus.K.]

Ah Daniel, thanks ..

 

.. But THIS is not done for clearing the deck for action, correct? So am I wrong? Have the stanchions NOT been removed (since they give the ship more stability and where needed?) .. But I think I remember this removal for the action because in some cases the stanchions are in the way of the guns .. if the gun has to be fired and reloaded.

 

So .. it may be that this was a special thing for a special ship? ..or period? .. or country (maybe a french habit?)... ?

[dafi]

For english ship I just know the removal for using the capstans. 

 

Just to be tried out on the model, does the recoil of the guns interfere with stanchions, ladders or other items?

 

As the Vic had a large width, there was no problem with the stanchions, on top those were in line with the coamings. Just the ladders in the waist and up to the poop had to be removed.

 

XXXDAn

Edited October 16, 2013 by dafi

[lambsbk]

The ship currently has retractable stanchions. I am not sure of their history (i.e. whether they are a modern refit or not). They are hinged on top and swung up and well secured (you would not want to get knocked on the head with one of these) when clearing the deck for action.

Edited October 16, 2013 by lambsbk

[Force9]

Popeye/Sailor,Tex, Daniel, Marcus, Kim and Verne - Thank you all for the kind accolades.  I'm trying to get everything ready to paint the decks before the holidays.  Hopefully I can smear enough color in the right places to make this all believable.

 

Professor - Thank you as well.  I dunno that I deserve the Sierra Hotel level of praise, but I'll keep putting my efforts out there and hope that it continues to inspire others to revisit this classic kit and explore her history and design in more depth.

 

Thanks again to all!

Evan

[Force9]

Marcus/Daniel

 

Regarding the stanchions.   

 

Joshua Humphries' original builder notes include an entry for the stanchions/pillars:  "...Three tiers under the gun deck, and one under the upper deck, made to shift."  This is the layout reflected in Tyrone Martin's "Creating a legend."  He says that in addition to a row of stanchions on the centerline, each 24 pdr had a stanchion beneath it on the berth deck for support with a single row of removable pillars down the middle on the gun deck to support the spar deck.  This would correspond to Marcus' understanding.

 

I think, however, that it is likely that stronger support was put in place once the carronades became standard on the spar deck.  Even though they are a lighter gun, there were more of them put on the deck than the smaller caliber guns originally specified at launch.  We forget that a warship of that era was essentially a wooden parking garage.  The spar deck in theory has 24 Volkswagons parked in two neat lines (not accounting for the 1812 chase gun).  The gun deck has 30 medium SUV Chevy Yukons... These things are heavy and periodically they are thrown into reverse gear with a foot full down on the gas pedal.  A lot of weight and a lot of stress to distribute across a complex wooden frame.

 

I never finished Naval Architecture school... Okay, I never started... Heck, I forgot to even apply!... But, my understanding is that the amidship beam stanchions were a permanent fixture and a key component of the ship's structural integrity along with the knees, decking strakes, diagonal riders, etc.  There were also temporary stanchions distributed across the deck for additional support that were removed for battle or to use the capstans, etc.  All of these components served to reinforce the entire structure and helped to transfer the considerable weight of the ship and the powerful forces/stresses of the guns down to the keel. 

 

I couldn't find many sources on the exact positioning of these beam stanchions. The restored ship is generally a great source for how NOT to configure a model for the 1812 period,  so I basically fell back on the Marquardt AOTS.  He shows permanent stanchions around the main hatch on the gun deck.  The common rule is for the breeching lines to be three or four lengths of the gun barrel.  With that in mind, I don't think the recoil of the guns would reach these stanchions - even at the most narrow point of my current setup.

 

It may be that other modelers have more intelligent insight, but I hope my approach will suffice for now.

 

Thanks again for the interest and for stimulating great discussions!

 

Evan

Edited October 30, 2013 by Force9

[lambsbk]

Evan I entirely agree. The center stanchions would be away from the gun action. They certainly would work, in theory.

[ajromano]

Wow!

[james_carder]

Your detail is the best I've seen. I should have asked earlier or read the Blue Jacket manual. Radiation treatments got in the way. Is this the right camboose to use? On page 28 paragraph 3 that the photoetch camboose is of the 1815-1827 period.

[Force9]

Hello Folks -

 

Dave - I do hope that there is enough clearance for the guns. 

 

Tony - I'm glad I can generate a "Wow"!  Much appreciated.

 

James - Thank you for the compliment.  I'm sorry to see that you're having health adventures.  I would think the camboose will do well enough - I can't imagine that there is much discernible difference to an earlier version.  And woe to the rivet counter who would actually know the difference!

 

Thank you all for continuing to follow along.

 

Evan

[ScottRC]

Been catching up with your project and you by far have risen the bar in making this model a masterpiece.  Great work, keep it up!

 

Scott

[Force9]

Scott - thank you for the encouragement.  I'm still trying to finalize the deck details in preparation for painting.  Hope to get there soon!

[USS RICK]

Looked until I found your thread, glad to see the project still underway.

Rick

[Force9]

Cheers Rick - thanks for your continued interest... Do I see the Philadelphia from the American History Museum in your avatar?

 

A bit more of the build:

 

I took to heart Blue Ensign's advice and replaced the galley stack with something a bit more in scale:

I added a bit of "animation" by rotating the top half - the idea being that the lower portion is fixed and the upper can be turned with the handles to accommodate any prevailing breeze:

 

I've also added the drainage plugs to the chain pumps:

 

One bugaboo that I remember from my MK1 version, done all those decades ago, was that the spar deck came up a bit short to the transom.  I elected to add a small strip to the end to make up the potential gap.  I started with a strip underneath to form a ledge, then added a .60x.80 strip on top.  After a bit of filler and sanding I extended the deck planks with my scribe tool to blend it all together.

 

It would be possible to hide this gap by covering it with a waterway extended in front of the transom, but my understanding is that waterways were never added across the stern section.

 

Those who are very familiar with this kit will note that I've added the boom traveller to the spar deck (I'll remove the one molded to the transom rail).  The Hull model clearly shows the traveller where the Revell kit has it, but that positioning has always bugged me... It may also be why the kit has the spanker boom so high up on the trysail mast.  Olof Eriksen has a similar beef with this and his research suggests that the builders of the Hull model took a shortcut with their approach and it should've been put down on the deck to match standard practice.  I'm going with that version...

 

Finally, I've begun to slap together the berth deck section that will be exposed below the open hatch on the gun deck.  I've elected to suspend the section from under the gun deck rather than glue ledges against the inner hull and span the entire width.  

More details on this later...

 

Thanks again for tuning in!

Evan

Edited December 30, 2013 by Force9

[lambsbk]

It's gonna be dark down there on that Berth deck. Have you thought about lighting her up?

[Marcus.K.]

Happy New Year to everyone!

 

Looks again beautiful .. and is again so inspiring and motivating!

 

The anchor stowed there looks great - but would a heavy thing like this not be stowed deeper down to increase stability?

 

I am right now working in my "home office" to "clear for action" - which means to clear the taple and working area to be able to start one day with my "exercise kit", the whaler C.W. Morgan by Revell. So maybe ... I will manage to restart the build I began months (or are there years now?) ago... and then one day my Consti-Kit will be opened ...

Edited January 2, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[Force9]

Hello Lambsbk!

 

I very much admire the effort you and others have done to add lighting to your Constitution, but I've decided against taking that approach for now... I'm going to focus my Units of Effort on getting the other details in place so that I can start to paint (finally)!  Hope you've enjoyed the Holidays and are making progress with rigging all those guns...

 

Hallo Marcus

 

I hope you and your family had a great Christmastime and have a great new year!

 

Thank you for the compliments... I followed the guidance of Olof Eriksen for the placement of the spare bower anchor.  On page 136 of his terrific book he suggests that the spare bower can be placed in any of three locations - the fore channels with the stock in place, tied to the spar deck between the main hatch and the galley stove funnel with the stock removed and tied to the shank, or on the gun deck below the skids with the stock removed and tied to the shank.  I went with the latter. His research is based in large part on the Brady Kedge Anchor book and Midshipmen Anderson's journal.

 

There are references in Constitution's log of the sheet anchor being unstocked and stored in the hold.

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/manuals/ConstitutionAnchors&Stowage.pdf

 

I look forward to following your CWM in the near future

 

Thanks for looking in on my build

 

Cheers

Evan

Edited January 3, 2014 by Force9

[Marcus.K.]

I followed the guidance of Olof Eriksen for the placement of the spare bower anchor.  On page 136 of his terrific book he suggests ....  I went with the latter. His research is based in large part on the Brady Kedge Anchor book and Midshipmen Anderson's journal.

 

There are references in Constitution's log of the sheet anchor being unstocked and stored in the hold.

 

http://www.history.navy.mil/USSCTour/manuals/ConstitutionAnchors&Stowage.pdf

 

Cool ! You see: thats one of the things I so much like on your work: You know your sources! 

 

Probably they stowed it concerning the expectation of the next use of the anchor... In case of high sea course the stowing would be as far down as possible. Well done! To chose a dismounted condition is too very intersting since one can not very often see an anchor like this on models. 

 

Concerning light: will it not be a pity not being able to see your wonderful details? Would it be so much more work to hide an LED somewhere deep in the berth deck? This might even help to at least illuminate a bit of the gun deck ...  I know some lights which even do not need cables, since they are rechargable by induction. One has to test wether the distance with the plastic hull is still sufficiant for this technique ..

 

http://www.amazon.de/Philips-Imageo-AquaLight-Kerzen-6911831PH/dp/B001EHF02Q

 

Could that be an option? 

Edited January 3, 2014 by Marcus.K.