USS Constitution by mtbediz - 1:76

[mtbediz]

I have a question for friends who are building or completing this model. Should the support named number 4 in the kit plan be parallel to supports 1, 2, and 3, or should it be angled forward? It looks parallel in the plan, but in photos of the actual ship on the internet—although not very clear—it seems like it might be angled forward.

[Dziadeczek]

I am not sure if this helps, but...

[mtbediz]

4 hours ago, Dziadeczek said:

I am not sure if this helps, but...

Thanks for the photo. Yes, I'm talking about the second support from the left in this photo. It looks slightly angled forward in this photo also, but I am not sure either.

[Der Alte Rentner]

I made mine parallel to supports two and three. I've looked at a million photos, and while there is an argument to be made for a slight angle forward, I thought parallel was the better bet. In part, my thinking was that it should be parallel to joint of the two grates it supports.  For that reason, support five would be angled forward.

Edited Wednesday at 03:52 PM by Der Alte Rentner

[JSGerson]

The problem is that nothing is straight, parallel, or square. You've got angles, curves, and foreshortening from the cameras. The best I can advice I can give you, is let you eye be your guide. Here are a bunch of images from different angles which might provide some insight.

 

Jon

[mtbediz]

Then I'll make it parallel like most people do. Of the Conny builders I follow, only ERS Rich made it angled, all the others are parallel. Thanks friends.

Edited Thursday at 02:58 AM by mtbediz

[Der Alte Rentner]

Mustafa, 

 

Looking at the photos submitted by Jon above,  I noticed, yet again, that the bumpkin is absent in all but one.    

And in the one where it does exist, there's nothing is rigged to it.   I remember that you said you would add this anyway, but I guess my question is, 

why bother?

 

[Unegawahya]

5 hours ago, Der Alte Rentner said:

Mustafa, 

 

Looking at the photos submitted by Jon above,  I noticed, yet again, that the bumpkin is absent in all but one.    

And in the one where it does exist, there's nothing is rigged to it.   I remember that you said you would add this anyway, but I guess my question is, 

why bother?

 

I’ve seen a picture that had the Bumpkins rigged, but I’m not seeing it at the moment. I’m also wondering if they were removed because they weren’t historically accurate to 1812 or not?
I can see where they would be helpful when backing with the wind to keep control and move the for mast main sale.

[Dziadeczek]

When I took this pic, there were no sails hoisted, hence the absence of a foresail tack on the boomkin.

Edited 7 hours ago by Dziadeczek

[Unegawahya]

19 hours ago, Der Alte Rentner said:

Mustafa, 

 

Looking at the photos submitted by Jon above,  I noticed, yet again, that the bumpkin is absent in all but one.    

And in the one where it does exist, there's nothing is rigged to it.   I remember that you said you would add this anyway, but I guess my question is, 

why bother?

 

I found a picture in “Anatomy of the Ship The 44-Gun Frigate USS Constitution”.It looks like if you’re not going to include sails the bow boomkin is not required. Interestingly, the stern boomkins look to still be in place.

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Unegawahya
🤦‍♂️they’re boomkins! I feel dumb.

[JSGerson]

I had a simple choice for the bow bumpkin, the actual ship has it, therefore I have on my model. Whether the model is being rigged for sails or not is immaterial for me, it's there now on the real ship, so it's on my model. And, it was not difficult to install. I still haven't added the stern ones yet.

 

Jon