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

[Marcus.K.]

Thanks, Evans, for showing.

 

I once tried to do ring- and eyebolts. But my results were far from being acceptable.

Maybe because of wrong material and/or tools .. and maybe also because of lack of patience - which is a critical issue with this hobby ;-)

 

I struggle to find the "right" thickness and strength of wire (?) to create the rings and bolts. What would you prefer? I love the precise optical impression of photo etched parts - but I fear their "thin" and "2d" appearance ...

 

So I still like to see and learn how others achieve their results and I do not judge for right or wrong .. nor for "true modelism". The result in the eye of the builder is the most important "key performance indicator". I was just suprised by the fact that you managed to have rings in eyebolts. Very often you just find eyebolts standing on deck in this scale.

 

How do you cover the connection / cut in the rings? Or is this just too small to realize?

Edited March 20, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[Force9]

Marcus -

 

At this scale, the PE eyelets aren't going to look 2D, but I agree that some PE components often do look too flat.  I didn't worry too much about the gap in the split rings... I'll just spin them until they aren't visible if that is necessary.  Most of them don't show any meaningful gap at this scale.

 

Evan

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2014 by Force9

[Force9]

Folks -

 

I thought I'd turn some attention to the half hulls... Up next was the tedious task of filling in the holes for the port covers.  I won't be fitting gun port covers on my build.  I filled them in with .040 x .040 Evergreen strips cut oversized for ease.  I then came along next day and snipped them cleanly along the edge.  I'll cover with filler and sand flat before painting:

 

 

I also decided to improve the air ports along the berth deck.  The Revell kit comes moulded with some small oval ports, but the credible sources suggest small scuttles instead.  Note the air ports in the Corne painting:

 

 

Chappelle notes in his American Sailing Navy book that " the frigates were all fitted with air scuttles on the berth deck... The scuttles had solid covers hinged at the fore side..."

 

We know from Constitution's log dated September 1810 that the air ports were added:

"Caulking gun deck -- cutting air ports for the berth deck."

 

I simply glued some .010 x .080 strip over the existing ovals and added some of the small Jotika eyelets as hinges.  Tough to properly represent the hinges at this scale, hopefully these will look fine after primer and paint:

 

 

All fun stuff.

 

Evan

[patrickmil]

Evan, that sure is a nice job with the air port covers. I like your decision to omit the gunport lids too. Unless I can find something that tells me otherwise I'm leaving them off too. It doesn't make any sense for a blue ocean going vessel not to have them, but nothing I've seen suggests they're there.

[Marcus.K.]

Hy Patrick,

 

I know it is mentioned in Tyrone Martin´s book "a most fortunate ship" - and it may be written in other sources.

He probalby has his assumptions from log books and midshipmen-logs .. :

 

The ship had in his earlier days lids which were completly removeable. Not hinged.

 

I think the Hull Model does show only the first gun port with hingted lid (reasonalble to be quicker in opening and closing during maneures in a battle - to avoid taking over water from the bow´s waves. But as the Corné Paintings (and others) the model does not show lids.  

Careful - we do not talk about the lid for the bridle ports !!! - which are not yet represented in the hull model since this model is assumened to represent the early 1812 configuration in which the ship seems to have had no bridle ports (nor their lids ;-) )..

 

So in those days the lids were removed and stored below the deck during battle and during crusing in nice wether - and they were installed and locked from inside (if I remember well) while sailing in heavy seas.

 

So not showing them is an option which is realistic - as of course any representation which is similar to the Corné-paintings has a certain "reliability".

 

I too very much like Evan´s approach. Will become a very fine Constitution.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[patrickmil]

Marcus, I am eagerly awaiting this book in the mail. I have heard from folks around here that it's very full of useful information. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[texxn5]

Looking good, thanks for the updates. Intriguing to say the least and I look forwaard to your progress.

[Force9]

Folks -

 

The omission of the port covers is often a hot topic across the various forums.  Suffice to say that I am basing my build on the Corne paintings and the Hull model - both of which omit the covers.  As Marcus points out, the Hull model does show covers on the forward most openings:

 

 

I'll do something similar.  Presumably this was done to keep the bow area dry in plunging seas.  Note also that these are full covers - not the half covers that we know Preble had added during his tenure.

 

It is hard to determine if the ports were EVER rigged as standard practice during the war years.  We see a log entry in January 1814 that suggests the ports weren't rigged even in rough seas:

 

 

"The ship rolling deep but easy and taking in a good deal of water at her gun deck ports..." -- Lat. 10-39N, Long. 40-50W

 

Other contemporary sources including the excellent Thomas Birch paintings of the Guerriere battle and United States vs Macedonian show no ports on any of the combatants:

 

 

 

At the very least, it'll save me some work and I won't have all those vulnerable lids that easily break off during rigging!

 

Evan

[popeye the sailor]

thanks Evan....that will save me some work as well.   you've confirmed the yellow stripe too     I really like those pictures!

[Force9]

Cheers Popeye!

 

 

A bit of mindless fun:

 

A few months back I was having another look at the historical deck plan of the US Frigate United States and I noticed an interesting detail on the gun deck:

 

 

The items labeled "B" are listed in the legend as "Round Houses".  Hmmm... I generally think of those as something external on larger ships a la Victory... I did a quick google search which found an article by Cmdr Tyrone Martin on the USS Constitution museum website that mentioned these in more detail. http://www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org/constitution-resources/the-captain-speaks/the-guns-of-constitution/ 

 

Apparently the crew referred to these as "Spice Boxes" (presumably because they resembled a common household item) and they were commonly included on the larger frigates for the convenience and privacy of the ships officers. It is tough to determine how permanent these were... You'd think they were flimsy screens that were easily removed when clearing for action.  It seems that they might've been more solid fixtures... Captain Stewart ordered them removed prior to the battle with Cyane and Levant to give better clearance for the forward gun crews.  They were not reassembled after the battle - probably because they were removed with an axe. On the cruise home the British officers began to grumble and get very vocal about the lack of private facilities for the gentleman.  They felt that it was very undignified to have to relieve themselves using the leeward channels like common sailors.  One of the American Lieutenants finally got fed up and remarked loudly to one of them something to the effect that the prisoners were well positioned to attest that American officers cared more about their gunnery than about their round houses... Presumably that ended the trouble.

 

I decided that including them would be a waste of my limited Units of Effort since they would not be visible once the spar deck was positioned.  But just a few weeks later the Log Lines blog on the Constitution Museum website had a great article on these same round houses. http://usscm.blogspot.com/2014/01/head-lines.html  I took this as a sign from the Goddess of Ship Models that I should include these in my build for thoroughness.  There would be one on both port and starboard, but since I do not know if these were removed before the battle with Guerriere, I decided to only include one and split the difference.

 

 

More details soon.

 

Thanks again for following along.

Evan

[patrickmil]

That's an interesting detail Evan. Your attention to detail with it is immaculate.

[Marcus.K.]

Beautiful detail, Evans !

 

Here a link to a German modelist who was inspired by your building report (if I remember well) .. We discussed there how the messanger would be led to pass the pumps.

 

http://www.wettringer-modellbauforum.de/forum/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=46887&pageNo=8

 

He added two additional strong pillars to propect the pumps from the forces of the messanger under load.

 

I remember that in the beautiful book "Anatomy of the Ship USS Essex" there is a sketch in which the messanger is lead through a block to pass something on deck. ... I believe this would be a so natural thing for a sailer - to make use of a block - that it would not even be written somewhere ..

[Force9]

Patrick - thank for your generous remarks!

 

Marcus - I'm flattered to think my influence has extended into Germany!  I think your modeler friend has made a great build of his own with his own interpretation of the great ship.  His approach to handling the messenger is very interesting.  I do think that part of the solution was to suspend some of the line from rollers hanging from the beams (refer to Dafi's excellent tutorial).  Using blocks could be a problem since the messenger is usually joined with large bends to form the continuous loop.

 

 

I've made some more progress on the half hulls.

 

I could not find any contemporary reference that verifies the presence of the chesstrees that are included in the kit.  The Corne paintings don't show them and neither does the Hull model:

 

 

I've elected to fill in the attachment points and smooth everything over:

 

 

I have also enhanced the hawse pieces around the hawse holes and filled in the sides of the knighthead.  The kit uses a flimsy piece that has molded rings fore and aft.  I think these could be a weak point and otherwise look like molded plastic.  I'll insert my own rings or perhaps replace the entire knighthead assembly with something scratch built:

 

 

I've filled and sanded the gun port hinge openings and the forward bridle ports.  I'll hit these with some light primer to expose areas that need extra attention and then lightly scribe some planking lines.

 

Up next I'll need to start evaluating some of the rigging plans to determine appropriate openings, etc. that need to be added (or deleted) on these hull pieces.  I'll also give consideration to adding the pin rails and cleats on the inner bulwarks with appropriate reinforcement for strength - I'll drill thru the bulwarks and insert some reinforcement pins.

 

Lots to think thru going forward...

 

Thanks for looking in...

 

Evan

[Marcus.K.]

Marcus - I'm flattered to think my influence has extended into Germany!  I think your modeler friend has made a great build of his own with his own interpretation of the great ship.  His approach to handling the messenger is very interesting.  I do think that part of the solution was to suspend some of the line from rollers hanging from the beams (refer to Dafi's excellent tutorial).  Using blocks could be a problem since the messenger is usually joined with large bends to form the continuous loop.

Hy Evans, 

 

 of course he did his interpretation. I said "inspired" by your building log. ;-)  He does not rebuild your solution - but as many others, he very much likes your apporach and how you combine theoretical research with active modeling. 

 

Of couse some of your solutions do cause criticism - not everything you do is liked  by anyone. But that is - as usual - very much depending on the eye of the observers ...  As Tyrone Martin once was writing (more or less): my findings are public property, but I will not defend your interpretation - that is up to the modelist or artist creating a model or painting.

 

And of course your very interesting interpretation does have influence "into Germany".. I know several discussions about your solutions and your building log is "under strictly observation" in more than one german forum and many others in the world I would guess. 

 

 

I do not really get what a "roller" is. What is the difference to a block?  But I see your point with the problems of the joint. In Mrs. Takakjians beautiful AotS book "Essex" she shows on page 93 a "viol block" to change the direction of the messanger... and since I had the impression that her work was carefully done and she gained a lot of knowledge I did not question her layout of this detail. But you are right - the joint passing the sheave could cause problems. ... hm.. 

 

Very good progress on the hull. I am so curious to see it painted!

Edited April 1, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[lambsbk]

Evan, very nice work as is usual for this build. I am also very impressed that you were able to muscle that 1 piece gun deck into the formed hull. Superb.

[Force9]

Some not very glamorous progress...

 

The pin rails have been added to the spar deck bulwarks.

 

I do not have a drill press with enough precision for micro pin holes, so I needed to do these by hand.  First, a simple jig was cobbled together to encourage consistent results... I made starter holes with a simple push pin, then came back with the micro-drill.  I had to remember to place the holes on the outboard edge of the strip and attempt to drill straight with a steady hand (not always successful, but darn close).

 

I laid in some small support ledges underneath to increase the surface area in hopes of a solid connection to the bulwarks.  I also drilled small holes so that I could insert thin steel pins for additional strength:

 

It was not easy to determine the proper layout for all of the pin rails - no two sources agree.  It does seem obvious, however, that there does need to be more rails than provided by Revell.  My solution is a combination of the Bluejacket guidance and Olof Eriksen's version with some allowances made for the reality of the kit bulwarks.  I elected to not include rails over the knighthead above the bowsprit... I probably have a few more pins than needed, but better too many than too few.

 

Some additional progress on the channels:

 

I should be ready to mount these after a bit more cleanup and filler in some of the small seams. 

 

Evan

[popeye the sailor]

very nice bit of progress    looks super.    I fully rigged my first United States.......per the instructions,  there were more than enough pins to go around.

[patrickmil]

Your not very glamorous progress looks great!!!

[dafi]

Love it :-)

 

XXXDAn

[AnobiumPunctatum]

Really wonderful Evan. If I ever will build my kit, I will use your build as guidline.

[Force9]

Thank you PopEye, Patrick, and Daniel for the kind attention...

 

Christian - Thanks for popping by... Feel free to incorporate anything of my build in your future efforts - I'm sure you'd create a fabulous Constitution should you ever make the attempt.

 

I'm trying to close out the details of the half-hulls so that I can get to painting...

 

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...

 

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.

 

I've begun to mount the channels.... Here is a test of the fit of the spare topsail yard stored on the main and mizzen channels:

 

 

I rather like the effect.

 

I needed to break up the tedium of the pin rails, so I started in on some of the boats.  Here is the smallest boat (punt) outfitted with the keelson (.040 x .040 Evergreen) and ribs (.030 x .030).  I had some small half-round .040" Evergreen that I stretched around the outer gunwale for the rub rail:

 

 

The transom was built up with .040 x .100 Evergreen and shaped with a few strokes of the file.

 

Thanks again for keeping track of my build

Evan

Edited May 14, 2014 by Force9

[patrickmil]

I'm very anxious to see some paint on her now. I also like the feature you have added for the spare topsail yard. I haven't seen that included in a build before. Was this typical?

[james_carder]

Looking good. Nice progress.

[Marcus.K.]

Hy Evans, very much like your progress - and especially this beautiful boat. 

 

But what impresses me this time even more : the photos !

 

Very nice effect with the sunlight and the wood - by which the small size of the boat is shown ! Impressive !!

 

I love to study your work - so motivating, so inspiring !

Edited May 12, 2014 by Marcus.K.

[popeye the sailor]

this looks great Evan......but is this wise to do?  the gun deck still needs to go in there......or did you leave the hull dry fit?

[Force9]

Thanks to all who've clicked the LIKE button on my build!

 

Patrick - Glad you like the storage of the spare topsail yard.  I've revised the update to include my earlier research regarding this approach... I do not know if this was typical of the period, but it does seem likely that something similar to this was in place on August 19, 1812.

 

James - thank you for your continued interest!'

 

Markus!  I appreciate the compliment on my amateur photography... I noticed a pool of sunlight hitting my table and thought it might help to highlight the details of the little boat.

 

Popeye/Sailor - Have no fear - everything is dry-fitted at this point.  I'm a long way from glueing the hull together... Many modifications yet and I'll likely paint much of the half hulls inside and out before joining them forever.

 

Evan

[JerryTodd]

I once read a book on Civil War cavalry that cited some items about how the men wore and carried their arms and equipment that were ridiculously impractical and sometimes impossible.  What was painfully obvious to someone that has reenacted Civil War cavalry on horseback for a couple of decades was - the folks that write books seldom have any practical experience in what they are writing about.

I firmly believe this is the case with Constitution's gunport lids, or lack of them.  It makes no sense to any one that's sailed anything from a dinghy to a full-rigged ship that a line of 15 or so 3 foot square holes would be left open in the sides of a ship supposed to operate in the Atlantic Ocean - and subs had screen doors too.

 

I suggest the Hull model at some point lost it's lids, or, as isn't uncommon in folk art, which is what the Hull model is, the maker simply didn't bother to make and install them, probably to cut a corner due to time constraints.

 

Paintings, well, there's a plethora of paintings of ships that claim to have been done under the direction of some authority that you'd think would know but are still known to be incorrect or misrepresent specific details; color of a stripe, deck arrangement, flags flown, order of battle, comparative size of vessels, etc etc etc.

 

Why would Constitution not have port lids?  If she didn't, why aren't there log entries lamenting the water being shipped in storms for the lack of them, or the snow blowing in during her winter stays in Boston during the "mini-ice age" of the early 1800's?  It's not like they were some newfangled invention untrusted by crusty old salts, they've been around for a long time.

Edited May 14, 2014 by JerryTodd

[Force9]

Jerry -

 

Actually there are log entries that suggest the absence of the port lids - We see an entry in January 1814,, for example, that suggests the ports weren't rigged even in rough seas:

 

 

"The ship rolling deep but easy and taking in a good deal of water at her gun deck ports..." -- Lat. 10-39N, Long. 40-50W

 

There are others.  Moses Smith noted in his memoir that the ship ran into a gale after leaving the Chesapeake at the start of the war and took in a great deal of water through the gun ports.  There are references by various captains that Constitution was a "wet ship".

 

It does seem to defy our common understanding to think that ports weren't in place.  We know from log entries that Commodore Preble had carpenters adding split port lids in 1803 - this implies that the ship was not fitted with lids as standard practice.  All of the credible contemporary representations do not show them.

 

Here is another loose contribution to my thinking that the lids weren't there on August 19, 1812... Many years ago I read something somewhere to the effect that the British admiralty issued a directive to eliminate lids on frigates - and ONLY on frigates - as a wood conservation measure during the Napoleonic period.  I can't remember where I read this - I've got no corroboration.  I've searched and searched since then and came up empty - I've got nothing.  But... Once this is stuck in your head, it is interesting to take notice as you browse thru contemporary artifacts on museum websites, etc. at how this generally plays out.  There are exceptions to be sure (a very nice prisoner model of the Chesapeake showed up on a recent post) , but the vast majority of frigates represented by prisoner-of-war bone models, admiralty models, paintings... generally align with such a directive.  The other classes of ships usually have the lids - Ships of the line, sloops, brigs - just not the frigates.  After the Napoleonic period we see the lids return.  It ain't anything conclusive, but it adds to my perception that the Hull model and Corne Paintings, etc. are accurate representations regarding the lack of lids.  Presumably other navies would emulate British practices...

 

I don't think it is likely that I'll convince you otherwise, but I'm comfortable in proceeding with my intention to rely on the Hull model and the Corne paintings.  I'll only show lids on the forward-most ports and leave off the rest.

 

All part of the fun of ship models!

 

Thx

Evan

[JerryTodd]

Every ship, I'm sure, has been lamented as a "wet ship."  Even Constellation on her first trip to the Med in 1855 was said to be wet and took water through her ports despite split lids being caulked - on a brand new ship yet.  Taking water through the ports doesn't confirm the absence of port lids unless it says there were no port lids.  The US wasn't suffering from material shortages that would require such measures as foregoing port lids.  True, her original copper was imported because Revere wasn't set up to produce what was needed, but this ship met the Guerriere 15 years into her life.  In 15 years she was never fitted with port lids?  And what about the other frigates?  Just Constitution, a New England built ship, had no lids.  It's an illogical argument supported by sketchy evidence at best.  This sort of reasoning is like saying Napoleon ALWAYS had his hand in his coat, because a couple of portraits showed him posed that way.

[silverfoxes]

RE:  USF Constitution (circa August of 1812) and gun port lids -  I quite concur with Marcus.K.  Could it have been that there were indeed removable gun port lids? Removed during action and fair sailing weather?  Stored until needed and then put in place when required?   It's quite possible. 

 

This subject is reminiscent of the ever on going debate as to whether or not the Constitution wore a white or pale yellow gun stripe on August 19, 1812.   I vote for the existence of a white stripe on that particular day in history.         

Edited May 14, 2014 by silverfoxes