SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

USS Constitution - where is the waterline?

3539 views
7 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
USS Constitution - where is the waterline?
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, October 25, 2004 12:43 AM
Hello all!

I am planning to age/weather the copper plating on my model of Old Ironsides - Revell's 1:96 variety. I have seen some pictures of the Constitution in dry dock - specifically the Nationa Geographic magazine's 1997 article regarding her restoration leading up to the 200th anniversary sail.

A comment and a question. Comment first. It appears to my untrained eye that the coppering on her current configuraion and the coppering on the model are different. Indeed the hull shape seems a bit different. I know the (incorrect) extra high bulwarks probably add to the effect, but I'm fairly certain the hull lines are different. Anyone else concur with this opinion?

Now the question. I'm going to weather my copper differently - different shade of copper above vs below the waterline, plus some corrosion - the green and white washes below. Now, where should I set this water line? I was going to base it initially on the pictures in the National Geographic, but looking at those pictures, the line seems awfully low on the hull. Is the Constitution in her current configuration ballasted as she was as an active warship, does she ride higher then before, or is the broad band of copper apparently abovethe waterline that she has now just normal, even for a ca 1812 configuration?

Thanks in advance,

Jose Gonzales
  • Member since
    November 2003
Posted by richter111 on Monday, October 25, 2004 8:43 AM
Which issue of National Geographic has the pictures?? I have every Issue back to 1963 and I would love tohave it avaiable as a reference

Thanks

Ric
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, October 25, 2004 11:35 AM
The apparent difference in hull shape (which I've noticed too) is an optical illusion, largely caused, as you suspected, by the high bulwarks. If you look at photos of the ship with her external planking removed, it's clear that she and the Revell kit do indeed have the same lines.

I think your suspicion about her current waterline is on target. In her present configuration she doesn't weigh as much as she would if ready for sea. If I were you I'd trust the location of the waterline on the kit. One or maybe two rows of copper might be visible above the water, but not much more.

Ship modelers have had some interesting arguments about the "proper" color for copper sheathing. One theory is that the areas below the waterline would be clean and shiny most of the time when the ship was in the water, because the surface of the copper was constantly eroding. I'm not convinced. The approach you've outlined seems good to me.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Greenville,Michigan
Posted by millard on Monday, October 25, 2004 6:58 PM
I may be wrong but it seems to me when I saw the Constitution in 2000. They had painted the portion of the clading thats out of the water anyway anti fouling red.That maybe why you are seeing a difference.Like I said perhaps I'm wrong.
Rod
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Monday, October 25, 2004 9:28 PM
I think Millard is right. In fact, the Navy may well have painted all the copper sheathing with some sort of anti-fouling paint. Maintaining a ship like that is a constant, staggeringly expensive job. Even people who are conscientious about it - as I think the Navy is these days - find they have to make compromises in the name of sheer practicality.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 12:42 AM
Hi all!

The issue is the June 1997 National Geographic. The cover shows a Polynesian woman wearing a crown of flowers and a black pearl necklace, head turned to her right - if that helps.

Yes, the lines do look the same as on the model, except for the raised bulwarks. I visited her in 1999, unfortunately I did not take as many pictures as I should have. The bulwarks were ridiculously high. A person of normal height would never have been able to see over them at that height, and I cannot believe how clostrophobic I felt standing on her spar deck because of it.

Thanks for the input, all, I'm going to stick to my plan, and will hopefully have some links to pics soon.

Jose Gonzales
  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:53 AM
In regards to the anti-fouling.
If you want your ship to be dated circa 2000 go with a light red. As a career navy man I can tell you there was a lot of talk when the engineers decided to do this. As Tilley said, you have to make a few changes to preserve history. I would go with what is on the 1:96 model. In the Navy Yard I saw a rare photo of some crew hanging over the side painting. I belive the photo was taken in the early 1900's and you can clearly see atleast three rows of the copper above the waterline. hope this helps.
Chris
  • Member since
    April 2004
Posted by Chuck Fan on Friday, October 29, 2004 2:35 AM
Sailing ships routinely heel sharply when sailing with wind on the beam, so the portion of copper that could be alternately exposed and immersed would actually extend quite far blow even light load water line on the windward side. I would say close half of the ship's entire depth below water would be subjected to wet-dry weathering. Below that the copper would remain almost permenantly submerged.


JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.