Constitution Gun Port Lids

From an engineering perspective, multi-piece port lids allowing the guns to be stowed in the outboard position would have been a clever technical innovation. French illustrations by Antoine Roux and Jean-Jerome Baugean (who were both extremely knowledgable of seamanship) make up a major percentage of the primary references that we have of the American frigates in the early 19th century.  Some of these illustrations clearly show guns run out through closed gun ports in gales. 

One of the major tradeoffs in sailing ship design was stability vs. roll motion.  Stability (or 'stiffness', the resistance to rolling which allowed more sail to be carried and kept the vessel from capsizing) was increased by maximizing the 'metacentric height' (the distance between the center of gravity of the ship and the center of buoyancy - the center of the volume of water displaced by the hull - a vessel with low metacentric height was 'crank' or 'tender' - the center of gravity had to be below the center of buoyancy for the ship to remain upright). 

There was a practical limit to the metacentric height however, because as the roll became stiffer, the roll period (time between the opposite ends of the roll) would decrease (become 'jerky') and increase the dynamic loads on the masts and rigging. There was a danger of the masts being 'rolled out'.  

Running out the guns increased the 'polar moment of intertia' and lengthened the roll period (the best example of the effect of polar moment of inertia is a spinning ice skater accelerating as she pulls her arms into her body - the period of  each rotation decreases as the rate of spin increases). With guns run out, a vessel would have a slower roll, be 'safer' and more comfortable for the crew.  Also, the rigid ports would provide additional security in restraining the guns (preventing loose cannons) and as been mentioned in other posts, would provide more floor space on deck.

As to the function of gunports in providing armor protection to the gun crews in combat, this concept was largely abandoned in the late 18th century. Gunports were only provided on the lower tiers of guns, where swamping in a seaway was a hazard or crew living spaces were located. Cummulatively, the gunports represented a significant mass, above the center of gravity, which raised the CG and reduced stability. Even on the lower gun tier of frigates, port lids were usually only provided below the quarterdeck (officers' quarters) and below the foc'sl (galley), guns in the waist were left uncovered.  

As far as removal time is concerned, ample time was available for preparing for combat when sailing speeds averaged ~4-8 knots. The tasks of clearing furniture, partitions, lowering boats, manning and preparing magazines, etc. were far more time consuming than clearing the guns. Ships were cleared for action and then hours could pass as vessels closed, maneuvered for position or chased/ran (except in the movies where 2 minutes is a dreadfully long time). 

General quarters drill is a 20th century innovation where gun and sight ranges began to converge (and something 20th century viewers of Hollywood movies could relate to). Gun crew efficiency in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (at least from American and British viewpoints) was measured by rate of fire.  Rate of fire was limited by both loading time and (often overlooked) powder/ball resupply time. There was a limit on 'on deck' powder allowance as a precaution against fire/explosion, therefore rate of fire could be limited by the efficiency of the magazine 'handover' rates and traffic between decks.

It is a shame that many of the American naval records for this period were destroyed during the War of 1812. It would be interesting to see the details of these technical innovations... and how they were successfully 'sold' within an extremely conservative technical culture. 

    

We're talking about a 1964 Buick Skylark.  My father bought it used in 1966, for $1,700.  (He traded in his beloved 1948 Chevy on it - much to my mother's delight.)  I inherited it in about 1974, by which time it had a little over 100,000 miles on it.  My previous transportation had been a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle, which was possessed by the devil.  It took great delight in marooning me by the side of deserted roads in the middle of snowstorms.  The Buick was an immeasurable improvement.

The Skylark was a relatively small car (I think it met the 1964 definition of "compact"), but it had a small V-8 engine and got what was then considered a remarkably efficient 18 mpg.  And it was supremely comfortable, with nice bucket seats.  When I finally traded it in (in about 1977, I think) it had about 150,000 miles on it, and the most serious work I'd had to have done on the engine was a thermostat replacement.  Speak not ill of that car, please.  It and I had lots of fun adventures together.

  I agree about these discussions, but my main question would now have to be " Why someone would think that a Buick Skylark was a great car ?  History now takes another strange twist .....

This discussion has been very interesting.  One issue I am trying to figure out is this; if the gunports were not hinged and opened by a cord attached to the gun carrage as the gun was ran out, then how would having to remove, and store, a separate one piece, or two piece, port cover affect the time for running out and clearing for battle?

It seems that these warships were the some of the first to practice time/motion/ efficiency studies in order to get maximum output in the least amount of time and effort.  I'm wondering how the performance for clearing for action affected the design of the gunports when the ship left the yards and how they may have changed by the officers and crew when she went to sea.  Every captain modified his ship to give him the most advantage in both sailing and fighting qualities, which makes our research even more daunting.   What I am wondering would be the exact procedure for removing and securing these port lids.  After reading Captian Martin's essays, I also have concluded that the ports were not hinged, yet I'm trying to fathom how they were removed and re-installed.

The changing of colors on the stripe throughout the war has also been discussed for the ship to have been able to operate in British controlled waters. Again, it may have been a personal practice by the captain in order to keep a strategic advantage.  Yellow when the ship needed to keep a low profile and evade and white when the ship went on the offensive and needed to be shown as a symbol of Yankee force.  This was the impression I got when reading about the Constitutions exploits during the war.

Scott

Thanks for your help. I  have decided to continue on my scratch build with guns forward and no lids showing. If anybody asks I'll say the lids were stowed.  That makes for much less work, but now I have to decide if I should fill in the offsets for the lids I built in to the hull as shown in Ben Lankford's book-"How to Build First-rate Ship Models from Kits". What do you think about  this?

 

On the yellow streak issue, I found this in the book."Early in April, Hull had the gun streak along the length of the hull painted white. This is the first recorded occassion when Constitution did not have the dull yellow steak she bore when commissioned. The use of white paint for this purpose did not become standard practice until after the War of 1812; in fact, Constitution reverted to the yellow steak twice more before that war was over." That means if you are building an 1812 model you can go either way and be historically accurate.

 

 

There's no doubt whatever that hinged, 2-part port lids with semi-circular cutouts did exist.  That arrangement makes a great deal of sense.  A gun in its run-in position takes up a great deal of additional deck space. 

As a matter of fact, I remember a conversation I had with Captain Martin on board the ship, many years ago.  This must have been in 1976.  I was in grad school and scraped up the money for a trip to New England (in my wonderful old hand-me-down 1964 Buick Skylark - great car) as my own little bicentennial celebration.  I'd read about the fine things Captain Martin was doing to the Constitution, and when I saw him in his 1812 uniform standing on the quarterdeck I screwed up the nerve to ask him some questions.  He was extremely courteous, and I think he enjoyed talking to a model builder.  We talked for fifteen minutes or so about the various changes the ship had gone through during her career, and the practical difficulties of bringing her back to her War of 1812 configuration.  At that time (largely because I'd built the big Revell kit and spent some time looking at the Smithsonian model) I was under the impression that she'd had 1-piece port lids in 1812.  Captain Martin was in the middle of his research project; I don't think he'd yet reached his eventual conclusion that the port lids weren't hinged.  Anyway, I asked him if it would be possible to replace the 2-piece ones (with the cutouts) with 1-piece port lids.  I remember his answer fairly clearly.  He said something like, "I don't intend to try.  If we did, we'd have to keep the lids shut and the guns run in all winter, and the tourist traffic on the maindeck would be a nightmare." 

I think there was some sort of caulking arrangement to seal up the gap around the barrel - and of course the muzzle would be plugged with the tompion.  As a matter of fact, I think I've seen (somewhere; I don't remember where) a drawing of a canvas gadget made for the purpose - a tarred canvas tube with the outer end sealed that slipped over the gun muzzle and was secured to the inside of the port lids.

I used to think the 2-piece, hinged, cutaway lids had come into use sometime in the 1820s or 1830s.  Now I'm inclined to think they appeared a little earlier than that.  They may in fact have been in use (by somebody, in some ships, in some country) prior to the War of 1812.  But Captain Martin has just about convinced me that the Constitution  didn't get them till later - and that as of 1812 she didn't have hinged port lids at all.

Fascinating stuff - and it does make quite a difference to the appearance of a model.

The rest of the quote is "Operating a 24-pounder weighing about 6,500 pounds was backbreaking labor. First, the tackle securing it tight against the ship's side was cast loose and the gun hauled inboard by means of a tackle affixed to the inner end of it's carraige: then the gun port lid halves were removed and stowed."

I also read somewhere that the lids were sealed with caulking in heavy weather so I'm thinking the holes in the lids came later for display. Why would you want to run with guns sticking thru holes exposed to water?

In either case, I guess hinges are out unless this invention came along before 1812 which makes both the Revell model and the "Anatomy of the Ship" book wrong. as they both show hinged lids.

   O.K.......  I`ll just have to cave and remove the gunport lids altogether ! You guys have convinced me and the arguments have been great. This will be interesting to see when done. The ship model is not that big.......smaller than the Revell Constitution ............ now for fat fingers to do this task, that`s another story.

Hmmm.  I don't have my copy of Captain Martin's book within reach, but that quote seems to me to be consistent with the idea of the semi-circular cutouts.  The guns apparently had to be run in before the port covers could be removed and stowed.  That would probably be the case if the muzzles were sticking out through the holes in the port lids.

The safest solution, it seems, is to show the guns run out and omit the port lids.  I have to admit that arrangement struck me as really strange at first, but after looking at quite a few contemporary and modern pictures that show the ship in that configuration I have to say it's growing on me.  I think a model set up that way would be quite nice-looking - and the builder would have some pretty impressive evidence in his support.

Hi gentlemen,

I  got my "A Most Fortunate Ship" by Tyrone G. Martin but I have not finish it yet. However, in the "The Ship and Life Aboard Her"-Chapter 4 which talks about  the times in the early 1800's it states "the guns were hauled inboard; then the guns lid halves were removed and stowed. If this was the case in 1812 then we have to be talking about split lids without cut-outs or hinges and if the guns are displayed in the gun ports you would not see any lids.

 

 

    I guess I have to agree that the things that are the grey areas on these ships will just have to remain grey. I was looking at the Howard Chapelle book " The History of the American Sailing Navy" and they have the line drawings of the U.S.S. President from the Admiralty drawings of her and I so wished that they had included the gunport lids. But, alas, there were none..... so I think i will go with the single lid open and use the Donald McNarry photos of the Constitution for references to continue on. Modifications will have to be made on the masts too. I think the Anatomy of the Ship of the 44 gun frigate would be an excellent resource for other areas that we have not gone over. This has been a facinating discussion and I have thouroughly enjoyed it. I`ll try to follow up with progress as I start working on the United States..........

Well, my copy of Anatomy of the Ship:  The 44-Gun Frigate Constitution arrived yesterday. 

Having read some negative reviews of it, I was prepared to be underwhelmed.  I have to say that the book is considerably better than I was led to expect.  The drawings are numerous and detailed (if not quite to the standard of draftsmanship that some of the other volumes in the series have achieved).  Most of them represent the author's interpretation of what the ship looked like in 1812.  He understands that her configuration has changed many, many times, and he includes some additional drawings to clarify some (but by no means all) of the changes.  There are outboard profiles based on the original Humphreys drawings of 1797, and one showing the ship's current configuration.  The author acknowledges that there's a good deal of uncertainty about such things as the transom (how many windows, and what sort of carvings), figurehead, and quarter galleries.  He provides several drawings of each, with notations to establish what sources they're based on.

I have to agree with the critics on one major point.  The author did a fair amount of research, but not enough.  The omission of Captain Martin's and Professor Gillmer's books from the bibliography is pretty hard to swallow.  On the other hand, the author seems to have given more credence than he should have to an extremely old, outdated book:  The Frigate Constitution and Other Historic Ships, by Alexander Magoun.  (He accepts, for instance, the old story that the Constitution once had a sculpture of Neptune for a figurehead.  That's been thoroughly discredited.)  And there's no mention whatever of the "Isaac Hull model" in the Peabody-Essex Museum.  That model is generally regarded as one of the most reliable 1812-vintage sources on the ship - especially her rigging, which the model reproduces in extreme detail. 

The book gives her two-piece gunport lids, with semi-circular cutouts in them for the barrels.  The author offers no comments on those fittings, or how they may have changed over the years.  I think we've established that the subject deserves more discussion than that.

The first edition of the Anatomy of the Ship volume about H.M.S. Victory got some similar criticism.  The author and publisher took the criticisms to heart and issued a revised edition, which corrected the mistakes.  That's the sort of author and publisher I really respect.  Let's hope they do something similar with this book.

I don't have the definitive answer to the question of the color of the stripe on the Constitution, but I'm inclined to think the caption in the Time-Life book may be in error.  (The Time-Life folks were generally pretty good about such things, but they did make mistakes.  And lots of incorrect information about those old prints and paintings has been perpetuated over the years.)  My impression is that the people who've researched the ship's history in primary source documents have established pretty firmly that the stripe was white at the start of the War of 1812.  (The stripe on the Hull model is white.  I mentioned earlier that I do have some reservations about that model's color scheme - but it's certainly at least as reliable as the painting in question.) 

Not having looked at the primary source documents myself, I'm inclined to trust the people who have done so.  William Gilkerson's paintings in Thomas Gillmer's book give her a white stripe in her battles with the Guerriere and Java, a yellow stripe in the spring of 1814 (when she escaped from two British frigates off Cape Ann), and a white stripe again in 1815, when she fought the Cyane and Levant.  My inclination is to believe Mr. Gilkerson till I see some pursuasive reason not to.  In practical terms, if Mr. Gilkerson is to be believed, the modeler can take his or her choice:  white or yellow.  I certainly wouldn't declare that either was wrong.

That reminds me of my first build of the Revell Cutty Sark in the 60's. I carried it with me thru 3 moves in 3 states but it fell to a beach ball fight between the kids. I built the Cutty Sark again about ten years ago from a Scientific Models kit and it is still standing although I heard that Scienfific Models has gone down or been bought out.

     Hi, again , gentlemen. Going back to the Time/Life "seafarers" book, on pages 90 thru 93, the paintings of the victory of the Constitution over the Guierriere were reproduced by the publishers and it definately shows a yellow stripe down the gunports. These paintings were commissioned by Capt. Hull so I have to assume that they were yellow at this time. But, I`ve seen the paintings of the Constitution over the Java and I remember them being white. You may be correct but just the wrong battle. No gunport lids that I can see though.

      Has anyone out there built the Monogram version of the Constitution or United States ?  I`d be interested in what was done. I know that the Revell version is easier to work with because I`ve built 3 of the smaller ones in my lifetime. I haven`t built the 1/96 version though over the years I`ve acquirred 3 Constitutions, and 2 United states in various conditions being already built and destroyed. ( one from a cat of mine who ,I think, is a British agent for the King ! ) 

 

Regarding the yellow vs. white gun stripe.

The story I've read was that Issac Hull had the stripe painted white to make the Constitution look different from the other US frigates with yellow stripes.

After the victory over the HMS Guerriere and William Bambridge assumed command, the stripe was repainted yellow. In part, if my memory serves, because the Royal Navy was on the hunt for a white striped USN frigate.

I second my friend John's recommendation of Captain Martin's book. We discovered it about the same time years ago. In addition to all the information about the ship, there are lots of funny stories from the ship's long life. A very enjoyable read.

Mike

Popman - Many thanks!  The Hancock model is based directly on the drawings of Howard I. Chapelle, which were published in his book, The History of the American Sailing Navy, back in 1949. 

Chapelle was Curator of Transportation at the Smithsonian Institution, to which he left all (I think) of his original drawings.  The Smithsonian sells blueline copies.  When I was getting ready to build that model I ordered copies of those particular drawings, which include the hull lines, outboard and inboard profiles, a scrap view of the transom, and deck plans (no masts or rigging).  The prints were on 1/48 scale; I took them to an architectural drafting firm (this was in about 1977 - before big, reducing photocopy machines were common) and had them reduced photographically.  I bought lots of copies, and cut them up to make templates.

Chapelle apparently traced (and to some extent cleaned up) the Admiralty drawings made by the British after the ship's capture.  The originals (on drafting cloth) are part of the collection at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, London.  They've been reproduced in several books and articles.  I kept one of those reproductions on hand as a check on Chapelle, who had a nasty habit of changing small features he found on old plans because he thought they didn't make sense.  (More recent research has established that he was often mistaken.)  The most prominent example in this case was the shape of the ship's bow at the level of the forecastle deck.  As can be seen in the model photos, it has a rather odd, curved configuration that Chapelle, for some reason, didn't copy quite right in his plans.  He also added some questionable details (gratings in the platforms at the end of the gangways, for instance) and omitted others.  (The Admiralty deck plans show the thickness of the bulwarks.  Chapelle doesn't.) 

Chapelle's drawings are far easier to work from than the original Admiralty ones.  (Eighteenth-century drafting cloth has stretched and shrunk by now, and those old draftsmen were notorious for their use of ivory rulers and scales.  Ivory is slightly hygroscopic; measurements taken with instruments like that aren't to be relied upon.)  My suggestion to any modern modeler dealing with a subject that's covered in a Chapelle drawing:  use Chapelle as your working drawings, but check on his sources if possible.

Contemporary eighteenth-century sail plans are rare.  For my little Hancock model I used the spar dimensions of the frigate Raleigh, which was built at the same time in Portsmouth, New Hampshire (not far from Newburyport, Massachusetts, where the Hancock was built).  The Raleigh's spar dimensions are included in a fascinating "Inventory" of her equipment that was published years ago in The American Neptune.

There's one other contemporary pictorial source regarding the Hancock:  a series of four oil paintings, believed to be the work of Francis Holman, now in the Peabody-Essex Museum of Salem, Massachusetts.  The paintings depict the battle in which the Hancock was captured; they may have been commissioned by the captain of H.M.S. Flora, one of the British ships involved in the action.  Those paintings don't show the Hancock in much detail (and they represent her inconsistently), but looking at them at least brings the modeler a little closer to the subject.

I suspect that's more than anybody wanted to know about this topic - especially in a thread that started out concentrating on the Constitution's gunport lids.  Sorry about that.

I did not mean a formal review on the forum. I meant a review of the drawings in relation to my questions about the gun port lids.

 

I really admire your models, particularly the Hancock which you built from scratch. Did you have plans to work from? As I mentioned before, I am scratch building the Constitution but I did AutoCad drawings from the plans in the Anatomy of the Ship book to work from so I could change scales and get dimensions for building. This is where the many diferences appear between the book plans and the Revell 96/1 model including the gun port lids.

That's a FINE Hancock, sir.

I'm not sure I'd presume to review that book here in the Forum, but I did order a copy of it today.  I'm hoping to be pleasantly surprised.  I've read some less-than-enthusiastic comments on it elsewhere.

I haven't posted any pictures in this Forum, but here are links to shots of three of my models (actually the only three sailing ships I've got at present). 

This thread of the FSM Forum contains an overall shot (courtesy of our friend Michel vrtg) of H.M.S. Bounty.  The model is based on the ancient Revell kit (or, more accurately, seven pieces of it).  The scale is 1/110 (slightly larger than 3/32" = 1'). 

http://www.finescale.com/FSM/CS/forums/564972/ShowPost.aspx

Here are some shots of my last one, the New York pilot schooner Phantom.  It's based on the now-defunct Model Shipways resin-hull kit.  (MS now sells a version of the same kit with a solid wood hull.)  The scale is 1/8" = 1' (1/96).

http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/album195

And here are several shots of my one scratchbuilt model, the Continental frigate Hancock, on the scale of 3/32"=1' (1/128).

http://gallery.drydockmodels.com/album194

Hope these are of some interest.  Comments are, of course, more than welcome.

Hello JTilley,  Thanks for the help and I will await your review of the "Anatomy of the ship". Could you tell me how to find your ship builds in the gallery.

Thanks,

Don

       Thank you for your offer but I don`t think I will need them.  I have the Howard Chappelle books and have the drawings in that particular book. I am curious about the book " A Most Fortunate Ship " though.

        The Monogram model has the 2 piece gunports moulded into the sides of the hull and when I pulled the model out last night , I noticed that I had finished removing the lids off one side of the hull but hadn`t started the other side. Sanding may be a little difficult because of details that may be removed but I inspired to go at it again and finish it.

        My desire is to make it a waterline model in a small diorama. I have to say that my inspiration originally was Donald McNarry`s book with his U.S.S.Constitution ( the one without sails ) I think this is one of the most beautiful models made of this ship ( and it doesn`t have a white gunport stripe ) That is what got me to digging in to it more because of his way of interpreting the info he got ahold of and the model he made. So I think it`s time to make a ship................

Another book I strongly recommend is Old Ironsides:  The Rise, Decline, and Resurrection of the U.S.S. Constitution, by Thomas C. Gillmer.  Mr. Gillmer is a retired professor of naval architecture at the Naval Academy and, at the Navy's behest, did a thorough study of the ship's structure in conjunction with the latest major restoration project in the 1990s.  The text of the book, in addition to narrating the events of the ship's career (again), contains a lengthy and interesting section on Mr. Gillmer's findings - including some material on how she's been modified over the years.  Due to the nature of his assignment (to figure out a way to keep the hull from falling apart) he was more interested in major structural items than details like gunport lids, but the information is fascinating and Mr. Gillmer's credentials are unquestionable.  The book also contains a number of beautiful sketches and watercolors by the outstanding modern marine artist William Gilkerson, who has spent a good deal of time studying such things as the Constitution's changing color schemes.  (He shows her with a white gunport stripe during most of the War of 1812, but a yellow one toward the end of it.  And no gunport lids.) 

I'm going to order a copy of the Anatomy of the Ship volume.  On the basis of what I've read about it, it sounds like the author did a fine job on the drawings but didn't do enough research.  That was the also the case with the first edition of the volume on H.M.S. Victory in the same series.  In that case Conway, the publisher, responded to the rather loud criticisms by publishing a revised edtion that corrected the errors.  Let's hope the same thing will happen this time around.

Popman:
Boy that Revell model really takes me back. I built two of those kits over the years, the first back in high school.

As for your gun port cover question, I have read quite a bit about the history of the vessel in her early career. I agree with john that the best source is Martin's book. You will enjoy it as a good read as well.The man knows how to tell the story.

I think for the 1812 version, no port lids when the guns are run out is probably right. I know that early in her career, say during the Quasi War 1798-1801, she probably had removable port covers. These were simply set in place and had sliding bolts that went into mortices or iron rings in the ship's side on the inside. These bolts held the covers against the ship's side from the inside. To remove, slide the bolts out of their holes or rings and pull the cover out. Later in her career, perhaps after the War of 1812, she was fitted with those double port covers. I think they were divided into upper and lower halves and when in place there was a hole in the middle where the muzzle could poke out. I am not sure of the time line when these were employed, though. It is odd to say that, for a ship so famous, there are so many holes in her history.

Russ

Go for it armchair sailor. I can send you my drawings and plans for the Constitution, United States and the President if it will help. By the way, what kind of gun port lids came with your Monogram model?

 

Jtilley - I just ordered the " A Most Fortunate Ship" and I have put my decision about gun port lids on hold for now. Thanks again for your help.

 

 

       No, my thanks is to all of you. I`ve finally decided as Mr. Tilley has stated that I could gather every snippet of info needed and then would n`t have any eyesite left because I`ve waited too long to do anything. I absolutely love model ships , of any media , but I haven`t built a ship model in at least 20 years due to kids , life in general, and those dreaded details. As mentioned before, enough is enough and it`s time to bring out the U.S.S.United States and bring it to the battle readiness that is needed. I hear that a British frigate is cruising for a bruising and it is needed to defend our nation.................

Hello to Jtilley and Armchair Sailor – This is a really great response to my first post on this forum and I want to thank you both. Maybe a little of my modeling history would be in order . I have already finished the Revell 96/1 Constitution (except for most of the rigging) and became so captivated with building a ship with so much history I decided to

build it again from scratch. So, I drew a set of plans for the 1812 version using AutoCad based on the plans in the “Anatomy of the Ship – USS Constitution” and plans for the Constitution, United States and President by Chapelle.  The latter of these plans are all pre-1812 and do not show any gunport lids but the plans for the 1812 version in the book all show two piece lids with cut-outs (even detailed lid plans) where the Revell model has one piece lids with no cut-outs.

 

I have finished the hull to the water line and will be ready soon to build the gun port lids  ( unless I leave them off) so this discussion is right to the point and very helpful.

 

“What a quandary?” is appropriate. I think I am going to order ” A most fortunate Ship” before doing anything on the lids.

 

Thanks again for the responses.

Armchair Sailor - Many thanks for your kind remarks.  I suppose the idea of unhinging the gunport lids is plausible - though I can see some practical objections.  (I wouldn't want to be the guy who had to dangle over the side of the hull knocking the hinge pins out.)  If we're correct on the "no lid" theory, maybe the removable, unhinged covers were in two parts - with semi-circular cutouts so the barrels could stick through them.  That actually makes a lot of sense.  I think I've seen references to two-piece gunport lids with cutouts as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century (though at the moment I couldn't tell you where I saw them).  A 24-pounder long gun, in its run-in position, takes up an enormous amount of valuable space on a deck, and in rough weather it's considerably less stable than it would be if the front end of its carriage were lashed against the bulwark.  We've all seen illustrations of how a gun could be secured with various tackles for foul weather, but if I were in charge of such a beast the idea of running it out, with some device to seal the port around it, would be mighty attractive to me.

I certainly sympathize with the "I'm-not-sure-how-to-do-this-accurately-so-I-think-I'll-go-work-on-something-else" phenomenon.  An author acquaintance of mine once made the observation that he never finished writing books; he abandoned them.  The same goes for research projects.  Sometime or other one has to say, "enough."  A few months, or a few years, later either you or somebody else may figure out how to do something better or more accurately.  But if we all wait till we know every single snippet of information about the subject, no models will ever get built.  Besides, part of the fun (to me, at least) of working with less-than-completely-documented subjects lies in the knowledge that there's more than one way to interpret the evidence.  I know of several other models of the Hancock by modelers who did just as much research about that ship as I did.  All our models are a little different.  I say that's great.  That's one of the big reasons why I like to build ship models.

  Hello............  thank you for your response. I was looking in the Time/Life book of Seafarers (Frigates ) and on page 25, there is a French painting of the U.S. frigate Constellation coming into port and it looks as if your statement of no gunport lids is correct by this painting. I can`t really tell if it has lids or not.There is another French painting on page 80 showing the President riding out a storm and also supports the 2 piece gunport lids because if you look at the side of the ship, there are the cannon barrels sticking out through closed lids !  What a quandry?  Is it possible that when the ship were in a position of a pending battle  that the captains had the gunport lids removed for less battle damage carnage and /or obtructions in the way of the guns due to damage ?

             I also noticed going through this book that most of the gunport stripes were yellow and not white as it is often depicted. This is why MY models sit in various stages of completion because I get stuck on these small details. I love this forum.............. it has opened a whole source of info for me and I do love Plastic ship models. And also thank you, mr. Tilley for your knowledge. By the way, your Hancock model is beautiful. That`s what I aspire to..................