USS Constitution by The Bitter End - Model Shipways - 1:76

[The Bitter End]

Not a terribly exciting or informative post today...

 

I I took a break from marking up the false keel as I needed to produce the hull planking to see what thickness I could consistently produce. I then churned out about 600 planks of 4.5mm x 1.5mm and will sand them back to their correct thickness as I need them. Because they are cut from raw trunks there is alot of wastage so there will be a fair amount of culling happening.

 

While I was in the "big" workshop I also cut some pear wood planks of 6.7mm on the table saw and simply traced the outline of the provided keel components onto those planks being sure to avoid any knots and major inconsistencies in the wood. I then cut close to the line with my 1970s delta rockwell 14inch bandsaw with a blunt bent blade and then sanded back to the line on the belt sander and with a dremel. This has produced reasonable results and with a bit of tweaking one can get a nice neat fit on the false keel. I hope all this extra work pays off. It is not that obvious in the photos but the pear really is a beautiful wood once it has been given a little bit of attention 

 

It is probably worth repeating the warning that the parts provided in my kit were very fragile and broke exceptionally easily. The kit i have is apparently at least 15 years old which may have played a role in this fragility.

 

These parts still obviously need cleaning up and fitting but here are the rough cuts

 

 

[JSGerson]

Planks are typically no more than 12" (30 cm) wide at midships and with an average length of 40’ (12 m). That means at scale of 1:76.8:

·       Max width: 5/32” (4 mm) (This what is provided in the kit)

·       Average length: 6” (15 cm)

When approaching the bow or stern, the planks will narrow. Do not narrow more than ½ of the original plank width.

 

Jon

[The Bitter End]

10 minutes ago, JSGerson said:

Planks are typically no more than 12" (30 cm) wide at midships and with an average length of 40’ (12 m). That means at scale of 1:76.8:

·       Max width: 5/32” (4 mm) (This what is provided in the kit)

·       Average length: 6” (15 cm)

When approaching the bow or stern, the planks will narrow. Do not narrow more than ½ of the original plank width.

 

Jon

Thank you Jon

 

I think I made a bit of an error and forgot to mention that I meant the planking for the deck. It sounds like you are referring to the hull planking. 

 

Haiko 

 

[JSGerson]

Deck planks were about:

·       20’ (6.4m) long

·       8” and 10” (20 cm and 25 cm) wide

At 1:76.8 scale:

·       3¼” (8.25 cm) long

·       7/64” and 1/8” (2.5 mm and 3 mm) wide

 

Jon

[The Bitter End]

10 minutes ago, JSGerson said:

Deck planks were about:

·       20’ (6.4m) long

·       8” and 10” (20 cm and 25 cm) wide

At 1:76.8 scale:

·       3¼” (8.25 cm) long

·       7/64” and 1/8” (2.5 mm and 3 mm) wide

 

Jon

Outstanding! I owe you a beer

[The Bitter End]

Hello Ladies and Gentlemen

 

I apologise for the rather scattered approach to this build log, I hope things will become a bit more linear in the near future.

 

Here are the next few glacial steps I have taken.

 

Once I had photocopied the relevant keel section drawings I placed the matching wood section over the image and marked where the reference line started and ended then simply joined the 2 marks using a pencil.

Next I took a strip of my home made keel planking and used it to raise the bearding line by its thickness. I hope that this strategy will result in the double planking of the hull fitting correctly but we will have to see.

I then cut out the paper template using a ruler and scalpel and held each cutout onto its matching keel section and traced the bearding line along the edge of the paper with a pencil.

It made the most sense to me to rough cut the bearding while the sections were separate, giving me more control and reducing the risk of breaking something. Technically speaking the rabbet is too narrow for the double planking due to the width of the false keel material provided but I am hoping to address this by sanding the last few strakes a little thinner on both layers of planking to allow them to fit flush. I achieved the rabbit cut with a combination of a small hand plane, some knives and a bunch of sanding.

I then glued the three sections together, clamped them to the cutting mat and waited for them to dry. Its worth pointing out that I did not install the reinforcements recommended by various please at this point. I felt it would make my life difficult as the protruding wood would prevent me from laying the false keel completely flat onto my work surface. Careful observers will also see that I inserted a small spacer on the lower forward tab where sections 1 and 2 are joined. This was to correct for sanding that had to be done to get everything aligned and had the added benefit of tightening up the fit while holding everything together.  This was followed by neatening up the bearding line so it ran from bow to stern without any stepping between sections.

On the keel section side of things I finished the shaping of the components, tapering the stem and stern sections and cutting the joints to fit. The instructions are slightly unclear on how much to taper and from where to where. If anyone thinks I have done this incorrectly based on the photos below please let me know. Things are still a bit rough but I will do final sanding once the hull planking is in. I then added keel sections using a series of rubber bands and clamps. I have begun using titebond original for the first time(it is not a common glue in south africa) I love how the product behaves, creating a pretty firm grip on the material in very short time, freeing up clamps for use elsewhere.

 

Unfortunately I am not yet very adept at cutting parts from scratch and I ended up with a gap in of of my keel joints that I was not happy with. I attempted to fix this with a filler strip but didn't bother to match the wood colour, producing an unsatisfactory result  once everything was assembled. I then realised the only way to fix this issue would be to cut out that area and try to patch it. I must say I dont love how the repair came out but its better than it was before.

The final step up to this point was to glue the reinforcements onto the joints. Something which I feel is best left to last but I may be wrong. THe pear wood I am using for the keel sections is also significantly stronger than the wood provided which may have played a role in keeping everything sturdy enough to leave the reinforcements for last.

 

Thats it for now.

 

Does anyone have any advice on making my keel joints neater?

Should there be tree nails in the keel?

What can I do to improve what has been done so far?

Are there any mistakes which I should be addressing at this point?

 

TBE

[The Bitter End]

I am having a little trouble with the stem of this vessel. Due to the fact that I am not painting this model the wood of the keel will be visible. Iwould therefore like to scribe the lines of the stem section into the wood. Despite the great information offered on here by various members I am really struggling to decide on how to lay out these divisions. the images available differ dramatically and none of the stems shown are exactly the same as the stem provided with the kit. I have also crossed the rubicon in terms of changing the design of the stem entirely to match one of the drawings available.

 

Any help on this would be hugely appreciated. I tried to sketch up a possible layout on a copy of the plans but it still doesn't sit quite right with me. Please take a look!

 

[JSGerson]

I would take the drawing you made in your last post, copy it and copy again in mirror image (port and starboard). Make a template by cutting the whole image as a whole out of the paper and with rubber cement, glue it to the stem on the model. With a sharp blade or using pin points, imprint the "puzzle pieces" into the wood. Then you can peel off the templates and finish embossing the lines into the wood.

 

Jon

[The Bitter End]

1 minute ago, JSGerson said:

I would take the drawing you made in your last post, copy it and copy again in mirror image (port and starboard). Make a template by cutting the whole image as a whole out of the paper and with rubber cement, glue it to the stem on the model. With a sharp blade or using pin points, imprint the "puzzle pieces" into the wood. Then you can peel off the templates and finish embossing the lines into the wood.

 

Jon

Hi Jon

 

This is a great method, thank you. I will give it a try this evening. Do you have any views on the template I made, I wont take any offense i promise! I partially made it up as I went along and I don't know if I made all the right choices.

 

Haiko

 

[JSGerson]

The stem that came with the kit was never meant to be seen without a covering of copper plate and paint so Model Shipways wasn't concerned about the individual pieces that it was comprised of.  As such, the silhouette of the stem reflects closely what the ship looks like today so I am not surprised it doesn't match the old plans.  You are trying to envision the ship as she was commissioned which nobody really knows what that looked like, other than some historically based educated guesses. Your stem plan looks plausible, but probably not historically accurate. I don't have any drawings of the stem earlier than 1927. Plan 14705 shows what the stem looked like prior to the 1927-31 restoration.   So, if you were to try to me be more historically accurate, I would try to make the stem look more like what the 1927 plans show. Here are the plan numbers I have. If you can't find all of them at the museum, let me know. Here is the earliest know photograph of the ship showing her stem during her restoration in Portsmouth, Maine 1858.

1927 - No.: 14705

1927 - No.: 25006

1927 - No.: 25026

1929 - No.: 24779

1972 - No.: 25007

 

Hope this helps, Jon

 

 

 

[The Bitter End]

Thanks to the help of @JSGerson  who sent me copies of some additional stem plans this is the second version I have come u with on layout. It involved some compromises as the blank stem shape provided is not identical to the outline on the plans but I think its as close as I can get.

 

If anyone has any suggestions they are as always most welcome. I have also attached my 2 reference drawings incase I have misinterpreted something on them.

 

 

Edited November 23 by The Bitter End

[The Bitter End]

OK Final stem design...I think.

 

I looked at what was apparently the layout of the stem prior to restoration. This original layout appears to have had far more individual pieces than the restored stem, It was incredibly difficult to see where the divisions lay due to the wood grain patter drawn on the plans. Hopefully I can transfer this design to my Stem in an acceptable manner. I have also realized that the only way to get this layout to work is to cut out 2 small sections of the stem which I have marked with hatched pencil on my drawing. 

[The Bitter End]

Here is my attempt at etching sections into the stem. I'm not that happy with the result. does anyone have any suggestions on how to make this look a bit better?

[Marcus.K.]

What don't you like? The way the wood allows to see that it is in fact one piece? 

 

But another question: what is the source for that very segmented design? Why would that be needed in a country full with very big trees? I guess need of bigger pieces of wood can't be an argument. So why that much division lines?

Edited November 24 by Marcus.K.

[The Bitter End]

29 minutes ago, Marcus.K. said:

What don't you like? The way the wood allows to see that it is in fact one piece? 

 

But another question: what is the source for that very segmented design? Why would that be needed in a country full with very big trees? I guess need of bigger pieces of wood can't be an argument. So why that much division lines?

Hi Marcus

 

I am not entirely sure what I dont like about it. Something just doesnt look quite right, the joints dont look that realistic to me but you may well be correct in saying that the grain of the wood is part of the issue.

 

The plans that I am referring to come from the us naval database of plans. The plan I used has the following footnote and if you look closely then you can see the divisions of the plans in the drawing.

I am sure the carpenters of the time had an incredible set of skills but perhaps it was just easier to work with a series of small sections instead of a few large ones.

 

regards

 

Haiko

[Marcus.K.]

Ah, now I got it: the plan in your second photo is kind of a result from the 1929 plan?

 

I agree: at least me, I never saw a so much fragmented cutwater - even on bigger ships. For sure the cutwatercwas build, but ...

 

Any division is weakening a structure. If possible, they would have tried to have as big pieces as possible. The three parallel long "bars" in the center: why not having only one here?  That small triangle in the center. All that does not seem logical to me - except for availability of wood in the needed size or for missing possibilities with Maschinen or other manufakturing limitations. But back in 1800 maschines were not an issue since the wood was worked manually and individually anyhow!  And size of available wooden pieces wasn't really an issue.. 

 

But looking into the available photos, it seems: the big frigate had - at least in the 1870s - the same structure... 

Here a photo of Lords 1929 restauration.. 

And here a picture of 1872:

You can see the relative small pieces, the cutwater is build from.

 

On the other hand: the two workers in the first photo indicate how BIG  those "small" pieces are!

 

All from here:

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/08/05/cutwater/

 

So maybe our expectation, "trained" by the review of other ships, is mistaking us.. 

Edited November 24 by Marcus.K.

[The Bitter End]

4 minutes ago, Marcus.K. said:

Ah, now I got it: the plan in your second photo is kind of a result from the 1929 plan?

 

I agree: at least me, I never saw a so much fragmented cutwater - even on bigger ships. For sure the cutwatercwas build, but ...

 

Any division is weakening a structure. If possible, they would have tried to have as big pieces as possible. The three parallel long "bars" in the center: why not having only one here?  That small trangle in the center. All that does not seem logical to me - exept for availability of wood in the needed size or for missing possibilities with Maschinen or other manufakturing limitations. But back in 1800 maschines were not an issue since the wood was worked manually and individually anyhow!  And size of available wooden pieces wasn't really an issue.. 

 

But looking into the available photos, it seems: the big frigate had - at least in the 1870s - the same structure... 

Here a photo of Lords 1929 restauration.. 

And here a picture of 1872:

You can see the relative small pieces, the cutwater is build from. On the other hand: the two workers in the first photo Show how BIG  those "small" pieces are!

All from here:

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/08/05/cutwater/

 

So maybe our expectation, "trained" by the review of other ships, is mistaken us.. 

I love these discussions, Thank you for the photos, It really is interesting. This has also made me feel slightly better about the layout I am using

I think you make an excellent point on the size of the timber relative to the workers. the sheer size of this cutwater would create a need for an awkwardly large number of pieces which look to our eye almost incorrect.  I quickly checked the length of the cutwater as per the model shipways kit and it would be almost 18 meters long, an exceptionally large chunk of timber.

I dont know if it was a consideration at the time but maybe repairs were a consideration, to have to replace this single giant piece of timber every time it gets damaged is maybe not very practical?

 

I asked AI what the explanation may be and here are some interesting suggestions.

 

18th-century frigate cutwaters were made from many pieces of wood for several reasons:

 

1. **Strength and Durability**: Using multiple pieces of wood allowed shipbuilders to create a stronger and more durable structure. The different pieces could be arranged in a way that distributed stress and impact forces more effectively, which was crucial for withstanding the harsh conditions at sea.

2. **Flexibility**: Multiple pieces of wood provided some flexibility to the cutwater, which helped absorb the shock from waves and collisions with floating debris or other ships. This flexibility reduced the risk of structural damage.

3. **Repairability**: If part of the cutwater was damaged, it was easier to replace or repair individual pieces rather than having to rebuild the entire structure. This was especially important during long voyages when repairs might need to be made quickly and with limited resources.

4. **Construction Techniques**: The shipbuilding techniques of the time often involved using smaller, more manageable pieces of wood that could be shaped and fitted together precisely. This method allowed for more intricate and robust designs.

5. **Material Availability**: The availability of different types of wood and the need to use locally sourced materials also influenced the construction. Shipbuilders would use the best-suited wood for each part of the cutwater based on its properties, such as strength, resistance to rot, and workability.

 

Thank you for your interest and input. It is a great help

 

 

[Marcus.K.]

What I believe to see in those pictures too:

is the original cutwater size visible in all those pictures? Are those two segments below the billet head in your design the ones which "filled" the gap, the original Hercules figurehead would have needed? I believe to see a change of color in that area in that 1870s photo. That might indicate "older" wood there, while above and behind we see more "fresh" wooden elements?

 

Don't you want to show Hercules?

Edited November 24 by Marcus.K.

[Marcus.K.]

Do you ask chatGPT? I got a very similar answer. 😁

 

But this answer is kind of generic for most of designs done in "segmented" way. All that may have been in the builders mind .. or may be not. Who knows?

 

Be careful with AI answers: they seem to be reasonable, they sound sophisticated - that generates trust ... but that "AI" does not understand one word you ask or tell. Its generating "most likely answers". Its not "intellegent". Its a very fast statistically calculating maschine!

For example: ask for Tyrone H. Martin in connection with USS Constitution and see what its guessing. 

 

But its fun to hear their answers: very likely the answer may be true. 😉

Edited November 24 by Marcus.K.

[The Bitter End]

42 minutes ago, Marcus.K. said:

What I believe to see in those pictures too:

is the original cutwater size visible in all those pictures? Are those two segments below the billet head in your design the ones which "filled" the gap, the original Hercules figurehead would have needed? I believe to see a change of color in that area in that 1870s photo. That might indicate "older" wood there, while above and behind we see more "fresh" wooden elements?

 

Don't you want to show Hercules?

This is a good point. I hadnt even thought about the figurehead. I really hope that I don't have to undo what I have done to accommodate the figurehead. I also dont know here I will even get a figurehead at this scale. I dont think carving one is in my skill set.

 

I asked Copilot AI and you are absolutely right. I am alarmed by how often AI is completely wrong about even basic things. But it can sometimes be a fun tool not to be taken very seriously at all.

[The Bitter End]

Last Keel post for now.

 

After making copies of the plan and transferring the closest possible layout onto the plans I made copies, scanned and mirrored the image and reprinted the set at the right size. I then cut out the layout and glued the template onto the stem using rubber glue as suggested by JSGerson. I then Cut along the relevant lines with a scalpel, removed the paper and deepened the grooves with a micro chisel. After this I filled in the lines with a lead pencil, cleaned the wood up with an eraser then sanded and cleaned the grooves. the final step was to cut away the portions of the stem indicated in my previous post and replace this area with a new cutout of wood to match the plans I have access to. I am not totally happy with the outcome but a fair section of the stem will end up being painted black with the design I am going for so hopefully it will hide the defects I dont like. I also etched and applied pencil to the other joints in the keel which somewhat improved their appearance too.

 

[Marcus.K.]

1 hour ago, The Bitter End said:

This is a good point. I hadnt even thought about the figurehead. I really hope that I don't have to undo what I have done to accommodate the figurehead. I also dont know here I will even get a figurehead at this scale. I dont think carving one is in my skill set.

Then maybe modify your plan:

the big frigate lost old-Hercules in a collision with USS President in 1804. She was repaired in - where was it? In a Port in mediterian sea.. (ChatGPT tells me, that it was Valetta on Malta, true?) with a first billethead - while the rest of decoration seemed to have survived until 1807-08, for when there is a Bill for reworked decoration.

You may represent the ship in late 1804 or in 1805 ... 

 

By the way: l like your result so far!

Edited November 24 by Marcus.K.

[JSGerson]

I like Marcus' idea.  You may end up with a very unique model. I have not seen any 1804 based models. This is most important. NOW is the time to make these decisions. Trying to make or change your choices after you start building up the ship's frame will become increasingly difficult.

 

Take a look at the history of the figurehead/billethead here: https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2017/03/03/bow-decor/

 

BTW, the missing Hercules figurehead was finally replaced in 1833 with the President Andrew Jackson figurehead, an unpopular President in the Constitution's home port of Boston, Massachusetts. One stormy night in1834, a protesting local captain sawed off the wooden Jackson's head. Since then, there hasn't been a figurehead on the ship, just the billethead decoration.

 

Jon

Edited November 24 by JSGerson

[Marcus.K.]

Quote

“…discharged this Afternoon the 12 Malta Carpenters They have been employ’d (Sundays Excepted) since the 24th of September last in repairing the Cut water fitting the Billet head & making other necessary alterations, The Constitution had before a Hercules head, which with the Cut Water was destroyed on the 12th of September last…”3

Well, there are hints, that the late 1804 got a billet head already. 

 

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2017/03/03/bow-decor/

 

And here is a beautiful building log for a 1809 appearance:

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t7612f264-USS-CONSTITUTION-Bauzustand-Wasserlinienmodell-58.html#msg206074

 

There may be some bugs in it - but its a true beauty.

 

1809 of course there have been some changes especially in decor design (as there was an "update" done in 1807-08). Its a bit hard to tell what was done with which results as there are only verbal descriptions ... and I vote for a lot of similarities to the Isaac Hull model in PEM, Salem, which was done by sailors for Captain Hull after the glorious battle against HMS Guerriere 1812.

 

For the pre-1808 decor we also have not much reliable sources. Some descriptions in letters about intended or observed designs and those beautiful paintings by Corne.. which are not very clear and leave a lot of room for speculation as the have their spezialisiert issues....

 

I am working on collecting the available info and trying to find a reasonable and likely interpretation. But all that is still in a "flowting" process were I change my mind frequently 🤪 It is really hard to tell. All that shall one day be represented in my model build showing her 1803-04 ...

 

I love all those models out there showing the ships 1797 appearance - but in each of them I find at least one "mistake" (in my humble opinion).

 

But anyhow:

in her youth she was a real beauty! 

Edited November 24 by Marcus.K.

[The Bitter End]

25 minutes ago, JSGerson said:

I like Marcus' idea but I don't know how the figurehead area looked after the collision, a blank pedestal? You might want to email the Museum to find out. You may end up with a very unique model. I have not seen any 1804 based models. This is most important. NOW is the time to make these decisions. Trying to make or change your choices after you start building up the ship's frame will become increasingly difficult.

 

BTW, the missing Hercules figurehead was finally replaced in 1833 with the President Andrew Jackson figurehead, an unpopular President in the Constitution's home port of Boston, Massachusetts. One stormy night in1834, a protesting local captain sawed off the wooden Jackson's head. Since then, there hasn't been a figurehead on the ship, just the fiddlehead decoration.

 

Jon

This is a great idea!

 

I just sent them an email. I will report back on what they say. Apparently it takes up to 8 weeks for an answer but hopefully that Is not the case. I am very much realising that you are right about now being the time for modifications. I think this model will be decidedly unforgiving in the future.

 

thanks

 

Haiko

[The Bitter End]

Little side project. I needed a carving knife that I could comfortably drag toward me for rough shaping parts. I forged this from the outer race of a ball bearing and a chunk of pear stump offcut coated in linseed oil

 

Edited November 25 by The Bitter End

[Wawona59]

4 minutes ago, The Bitter End said:

Little side project. I needed a carving knife that I could comfortably drag toward me for rough shaping parts. I forged this from the outer race of a ball bearing and a chunk of pear stump offcut coated in linseed oil

 

Beautiful!!  That's sure to keep a keen edge since you used a hardened steel outer ball bearing race for a blade.  That pear wood handle looks comfortable to use.  Looks like you've got a favorite tool on your hands (or should I say "In your hand"

 

[Thukydides]

On 11/24/2024 at 8:10 AM, The Bitter End said:

Hi Marcus

 

I am not entirely sure what I dont like about it. Something just doesnt look quite right, the joints dont look that realistic to me but you may well be correct in saying that the grain of the wood is part of the issue.

 

The plans that I am referring to come from the us naval database of plans. The plan I used has the following footnote and if you look closely then you can see the divisions of the plans in the drawing.

I am sure the carpenters of the time had an incredible set of skills but perhaps it was just easier to work with a series of small sections instead of a few large ones.

 

regards

 

Haiko

I have been doing some research on the construction of the knee of the head and I was wondering where exactly you got this particular plan from. The only stuff I could find on Constitution is in the modeler resources (https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/discover-learn/modeler-resources/) and it didn't show the various pieces.

 

You are correct in assuming that many of these ships likely used more pieces than is typically depicted on models. In my build log I go through the history of English construction of the knee of the head and list all the contemporary examples I could find. I would like to add Constitution to the list if you can point me in the direction of the original source for the above picture.

[The Bitter End]

22 hours ago, Marcus.K. said:

Well, there are hints, that the late 1804 got a billet head already. 

 

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2017/03/03/bow-decor/

 

And here is a beautiful building log for a 1809 appearance:

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t7612f264-USS-CONSTITUTION-Bauzustand-Wasserlinienmodell-58.html#msg206074

 

There may be some bugs in it - but its a true beauty.

 

1809 of course there have been some changes especially in decor design (as there was an "update" done in 1807-08). Its a bit hard to tell what was done with which results as there are only verbal descriptions ... and I vote for a lot of similarities to the Isaac Hull model in PEM, Salem, which was done by sailors for Captain Hull after the glorious battle against HMS Guerriere 1812.

 

For the pre-1808 decor we also have not much reliable sources. Some descriptions in letters about intended or observed designs and those beautiful paintings by Corne.. which are not very clear and leave a lot of room for speculation as the have their spezialisiert issues....

 

I am working on collecting the available info and trying to find a reasonable and likely interpretation. But all that is still in a "flowting" process were I change my mind frequently 🤪 It is really hard to tell. All that shall one day be represented in my model build showing her 1803-04 ...

 

I love all those models out there showing the ships 1797 appearance - but in each of them I find at least one "mistake" (in my humble opinion).

 

But anyhow:

in her youth she was a real beauty! 

Hi Marcus

 

Thanks again for your information. I totally agree with you on the early years of the constitution, I would like to get as close to that as possible. I have emailed the constitution museum to ask them for a description of how the cutwater looked in 1804, hopefully they have an answer for me.

 

I tried to follow the link to your German website but it says that I don't have permission to view these images. Must i sign up for the website to access them?

 

Please share as much as you can, I really hope to be as true as possible to the original design as possible. maybe you will approve

 

Haiko

 

[The Bitter End]

48 minutes ago, Wawona59 said:

Beautiful!!  That's sure to keep a keen edge since you used a hardened steel outer ball bearing race for a blade.  That pear wood handle looks comfortable to use.  Looks like you've got a favorite tool on your hands (or should I say "In your hand"

 

Thank you Wawona

 

I must say i do quite like it. The steel is rock hard and shaving sharp. I am looking forward to learning how to use it.