Old Ironsides - Revisiting the classic Revell 1/96 kit

Ahoy...

I've completed the iron bolt heads ("rivets") on the spar deck bulwarks, filled out the gun deck bulwarks, and started in on the gun deck knees.

The knees are a bit of a guess.  Here is how they currently look on the restored ship:

I suspect these are more reflective of the 1927 effort to stiffen her structure than how they would've appeared in 1812.

Howard Chappelle in his History of the American Sailing Navy includes a plan view of USS President (taken from the Admiralty draught done after her capture) which shows interconnected diagonal knees (plan 16 between pgs 265-266).  I've elected to follow this approach in my build.  I chopped up a few small chunks of styrene and glued them in the appropriate locations to represent the beams for affixing the knees.  None of this probably will be visible once the spar deck is in place - even with the holes I intend to cut into the deck to expose the underlying beams and open small views to the gun deck.

I first marked the beam locations as defined by the spar deck pieces:

(Incidentally, the spar deck butt pattern aligns well with the general positioning of the beams - unlike the Heller Victory kit)

I'll only represent the "legs" of the knees and not the "arms" at this point.  I'll likely need to include both at the waist where they may be visible.

The result seems to align well with Chappelle's representation and I'm very satisfied:

I've left the knees along the starboard waist undone for now.  Those will need to be closely aligned with the beams under the spar deck when I have those in place.

Still a few things to be done, but I'll set aside the half hulls for now and move on to the decking - if only to introduce some variety.  Wish me luck in eliminating the seams.

Thomas Gillmer's Old Ironside goes into considerable detail about the question of the diagonal knees and hold riders.  Mr. Gillmer, a professor of naval architecture at Annapolis, was a consultant on the restoration project that took place in the late '80s/early '90s, and undid many of the mistakes that were made back in the '20s.

In all honesty, though, I gotta tell you that much of the time you're spending on the details of the gundeck is going to be wasted for all practical purposes.  When the model is done, all that stuff will only be visible through the gunports. which will be almost impossible to see through with the guns sticking through them.  The sight angles are such that you won't even be able to see the insides of the bulwarks through the main hatch.  My suggestion would be to devote some time to the two deck beams that would be visible at the fore and after ends of that hatch (paying particular attention to the deck camber, the absence of which will be quite noticeable), the carlings alongside the hatch, and the details and rigging of the guns that will be visible through it.  And it's worth paying some attention to those nifty details in the captain's cabin. (The poor man could use a chair or two to sit on.  A well-stocked hobby shop thar caters to model railroaders can help.)  It's worth thinking about illuminating that area.  With modern LEDs that should be easy.  (The last time I built that kit, about 40 years ago, I built in a grain of wheat bulb, painted to look like a lamp, having been assured by the hobby shop proprietor that "grain of wheat bulbs don't burn out."  That one did.)

One general aspect of all this that modelers ought to think about more often.  A finished model like this almost has to be put in a case.  Otherwise the dust alone will be enough to ruin it in a year or two.  When it's in the case, it'll be physically impossible for admirers to get their eyeballs next to the gunports.  (They also won't be able to work any operating features, like the steering wheel.)  So it makes sense to concentrate one's efforts on stuff that will be visible.

When I was working at the Mariners' Museum I had the chance to work on an enormous (and beautifully cased) model of the R.M.S. Britannic, a steam/sail liner from the 1880s.  The model had been built for the 1912 Panamerican Exposition.  (This Britannic model sat next to a model - on the same scale of 1/48 - of the White Star Line's brand new Britannic - the sister of the Titanic.  We found a couple of photos of the two models side by side, but our efforts to track down the big one got nowhere.)  

The 1880s version was at least six feet feet long.  After getting it out of its beautiful Edwardian case (with the help of about four other people), I went over it carefully with a flashlight to look for things that needed conservation.  As the light went past one of the genuine glass portholes in the superstructure I caught a glimpse of something inside.  Another curator brought another flashlight, and we discovered that somebody had detailed the interior of the first-class dining room.  It had tables, chairs, a sideboard with wineglass racks, and a piano.  I suspect we were the first people to see all that stuff in at least 50 years - and I suspect nobody's seen it since I looked at it in 1982.  I wrote a new label for it, including a description of the interior detail, but as long as it's in the case nobody can get his eyeball closer than 8 or 9 inches from those portholes. 

I remember that episode whenever I think about detailing the inside of a model.  My little Continental frigate Hancock (scale:  3/32"=1') has clear plastic transom windows, but nothing inside except a little sign reading "Sorry, no interior detail."  Nobody but me has ever seen it.

Prof Tilley...

I’m not sure that very much of Mr. Gillmer’s recommendations have been carried out... Certainly his advice to include the diagonal riders was followed and contributes greatly to her structural integrity today.  But Gillmer also recommended METAL knees and argued that there was historical precedent for their use in the period - but did not cite them as original to Joshua Humphries’ design/specification.  He also urged that the bow and stern both be brought back to original configuration... Still waiting for that (!).  The fact that the knees have their current configuration highlights the lack of historic exactitude.  I think Russ over at MSW is correct in saying that a system of hanging knees and lodging knees was very likely (aligns with the plan recorded by sailing master Charles F Waldo after the war).  The draught of the President also argues against the modern version.

Why would I spend the time to add some interior detail that has little chance of being seen?  Why does any modeler add those details?  We can find countless examples of such detail (often very finely done) included in grander models than mine that will never see the light of day... The psychology surrounding this is beyond the scope of my meager blog, but suffice it to say that it adds to my enjoyment and satisfaction.  The gun deck will include bitts, pumps, and tackle (and the camboose) - some of which will be viewable, most of which will not.  And those details are not entirely buried - they’ll exist in my photographs and blogs.  If one day long from now my great grandson is cleaning this model, or repairing some damaged rigging, and has an "aha" moment when he discovers some hidden detail, then it was time well spent by me last weekend.

 And in truth I did not expend much effort on these knees... They are shortcut versions that only consumed one evening of my modeling time - a low expenditure of my total Units of Effort invested so far.  I will not be adding furniture to the Captain's quarters - the ship will be modeled as cleared for action going into the Guerriere fight.  There won't even be partitions up - if someone can get close enough to squint and peer through the stern galleries they'll see all along the gun deck - with rigged cannon and diagonal knees complete. But, actually, you may not be entirely correct in assuming the gun deck detail will be buried forever.  In fact, I fully intend to expose some of this by peeling away some of the spar deck planking - particularly along the starboard waist gangway and down the quarterdeck that should allow glimpses to what lies below. 

Here is a taste of what is yet to come based on my other build - the Heller Victory:

The Constitution spar deck will not need quite as much complexity - but you get the idea.

Your earlier overview of the options for a case is very much appreciated - I will be protecting this model (even if it pushes eyeballs farther away!).

Lastly, your example of the Britannic strikes a chord... I am a fan of the approach taken by the folks at Fine Art Models. They don’t build models on commission - only what they want to build based on interest and available research material.  One of the newsletters on their site described how they were approached one day to build a model by a phone call out of the blue.  After explaining that they don’t take commissions, the owner was startled when told the caller had no intention of paying.  Turns out it was the publicity department of Harland & Wolff in Belfast offering unfettered access to the original design files of the RMS Titanic - from hull structure to light fixtures.  Would they be interested?   The condition was that they would have to build a 1/48 builders model because one never existed for the Titanic.  There was only one built for the class - the Olympic. (Perhaps it was this model in the old photograph?)  Fine Art Models not only built the model - they also replicated the original case. Took two guys two years to complete the case.

The model (and case) is currently on display at the National Geographic Society in Washington DC for the Centennial year (Fine Art Models refused to allow it to be displayed alongside Titanic artifacts robbed from her gravesite).

Have a look:

http://www.fineartmodels.com/fineartmodels.com/RMS_Titanic/RMS_Titanic.html

http://www.fineartmodels.com/fineartmodels.com/FAM_Update_10_11_11.html

Thanks for your observations - please keep them coming.

Well, since you asked...I'll offer one more suggestion that's applicable to any sailing ship model.  I hope it's redundant in this case because, I hope, you already thought of it and took the necessary steps.  The way a sailing ship model is mounted is crucial. Those phony wood props in the Revell kit, to my eye at least,  look utterly ghastly.  There are all sorts of nice ways to mount a ship model, but they all require early planning - especially in the case of a hollow plastic hull.  If you want to use the traditional brass pedestals, there needs to be something inside the hull to accept mounting screws.  (Maybe a block of wood, maybe some firmly-mounted nuts.)  If you don't work this out at the beginning, you're asking for disaster.

In the case of my little Hancock model, which I started while I was in grad school, I got some help from my father, an old-school professor of architecture who had training in sculpture and general aesthetics.  We sat down with a set of plans of the ship (which I'd had reduced to 3/32"=1'), and played around with lots of ideas.  We concluded that the right number of pedestals was two, and figured out where on the keel they ought to be located.  (Three is another possibility, especially for a long ship like the Constitution.  And the spacing is critical.  Put the pedestals too close together or too far apart, and the model will look awful.)  In the Hancock's case, since her keel has a lot of drag to it, the forward pedestal had to be considerably taller than the after one or the waterline wouldn't be level - another disaster.  (The exact  height could be determined by drawing a line parallel to the waterline on the plans.)  Then Dad carefully sketched out a fairly simple classical Greek pedestal shape, and I went down the basement with a piece of brass rod and turned the shapes on my trusty old Unimat, and set it up as a drill press to drill the holes for the screws.  It took a while, and several attempts, but I think we eventually got it right.

In that case I used brass, but no rule says pedestals can't be made of nicely finished wood.  In the past few years Dragon has includ ed some really nice slide-molded plastic pedestals in some of its warship kits.  I sure wish that company would make those things available separately - and in a variety of sizes, shapes, and proportions.  The way a model is displayed has a big influence on its effectiveness.

End of sermon.  Sorry.

Prof. Tilley

Aye... I'd do well to heed your good advice and plan ahead for the mounting of my ship.

I can say that I've done a bit of thinking ahead, but perhaps not to the extent required.

Here is the approach I took on my MK 1 version decades ago:

Not bad, not great.

I'll need to reach into my Bluejacket box and reveal another goodie - a set of  brass pedestals:

It is interesting to note that the Revell kit seems to have been moulded with allowances for pedestal mounts.  It would appear that someone had it in mind to offer the option for drilling through to install pedestals in the original kit.  It also appears to include provision for a small nut to be encased in the recess so it won't turn when the bolt is tightened down... I see no reference to these positions in the Revell instruction set for this kit.

The distance between the mounting positions does not seem to violate your "too near" or "too far apart" aesthetic:

I have it in mind to utilize these pedestal positions with perhaps an extra internal piece of wood spanning between them to allow for a nut and washer for reinforcement.

I have three pedestals, but will only use two.  I suppose if I were inclined to illuminate the interior I could use the third to thread thru the wiring after spreading the others out a bit.  Don't plan to go that route...

The base is also an important consideration.  I used oak for the MK1, but I'll move to cherry for this iteration.  The length of the base is open for suggestions... The Bluejacket kit recommends a 3 foot base! Clearly that would encompass the length of the entire model including jibboom and spanker.  On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've always felt that a base that is too short/small detracts from the model - gives it an unbalanced (or at least mis-proportioned) feel.  I'm thinking that a base that spans the distance from figurehead to taffrail is a good compromise.  Gives a sense of heft without overwhelming or underwhelming the model.

Thoughts from more experienced pros?

The sockets inside the hull presumably date from an issue of the kit in the late '70s, under the "Museum Classics" logo. That version featured a pair of brass(?)-plated plastic pedestals.  I think those sockets have been there in every kit produced since.

The Bluejacket pedestals aren't bad, in a generic sort of way.  (The company intends them to work with everything from 18th-century ships to modern warships, so that's understandable.) 

To my eye three slightly shorter pedestals would look better, but then the spacing of the molded-in sockets would be wrong.  The forward one would have to go farther forward and the after one farther aft.  But things like this are highly subjective.  The two Bluejacket pedestals don't look bad by any means.

If you're going to put the model in a case (as I strongly recommend), the simplest and best-looking solution is to run screws or bolts up throught the base of the case, through the pedestals and into the model.  It looks like the "sockets" are shaped to accommodate nuts.  There's no need for a separate baseboard.  My Hancock model lives in a walnut case, the bottom of which is covered with blue velvet.  I made a sort of "travelling base"  for the rare occasions when the model gets exhibited outside the case.  That one's quite simple:  a piece of nice birch plywood with walnut veneer around the edges, big enough to extend beyond the bowsprit, driver boom, and yards.

Cherry is a beautiful wood for such purposes.  A lot of woodworkers talk about its tendency to "blotch" when it's finished.  They say that can be remedied by a coat of shellac-based sanding sealer in advance of the finish coats.  I've never had that problem; I've always gotten good results from several coats of either Minwax polyurethane varnish or Watco Danish Oil.  Nice stuff; just figure on applying several coats, and set up an environment that's as dust-free as possible.

I think it's a good idea to make a pair of "working bases" to hold the model while you're working on it.  The first base can be a cheap pine, plywood, or mdf board that projects a little beyond the figurehead and transom.   Later, when you've installed the bowsprit, you'll want to switch to a board that's long enough to protect it.  Then, when you decide to abandon the model (authors don't finish books; they abandon them - and the same goes for serious ship modelers), move it to the case - and thereafter open the case as seldom as possible. 

I can't resist a stupid anecdote here.  I started my little model of the Hancock when I was in grad school at Ohio State.  I concluded that I needed a nice sturdy box to carry it around in, but I didn't bump into one that was the right size.  Then a nice lady rear-ended my Chevy Monza at a traffic light and punched out a little piece of taillight.  She insisted on getting the damage repaired.  The new taillight assembly came in a nice, solid cardboard carton that was a perfect fit for the Hancock (minus all spars, mounted on its work base).  I carried that box around for several years, taking the model out only to work on it.  The model even made a trip to England inside the box (and a suitcase).  That model probably has more miles on it than the real ship ever did - in U.S. service. 

A few years later, when I was living in Tidewater Virginia (and still driving the same car), I had a passing thought that the box was looking a bit ragged.  The next day somebody rear-ended me at a traffic light and punched out the other taillight.  New box, coutesy of the local Chevrolet dealer.

Fate truly does work in mysterious, if not downright ridiculous, ways.

I have one of these kits in my stash under the "one of these days" heading and have been following this thread with quite some interest. I noticed a couple of pages back that the Constitutions decks were of heart pine. This was most likely heart wood from longleaf pine. I grew up in and restored a house built of this wood. It is very dark and ranges from yellow to orange. I thought I would provide a link to a site selling recovered heart pine wood for consideration. Yes the wood is actually as dark as that shown in the pictures, if anything has been done to it it has merely been coated with clear urethane/varnish.

http://www.longleaflumber.com/antiqueheartpine_flooring.cfm#clear1flat

Big Dog -

Thank you for your insight regarding the heart pine...  Your link is very useful - I'll be experimenting with different tones and I'll be sure to solicit some more feedback from the group before I proceed to apply any paint on the actual decking of my build.

Glad this build log is helping whet your appetite for a Connie of your own..

EG

Let's proceed with the gun deck.

I've got to eliminate those darn seams.

I need to carefully align each deck piece to each adjacent neighbor. Unfortunately, the middle section of the decking is moulded a bit thicker than the others, so I need to build up the thickness on the end pieces to match before I can glue and clamp.  The stern section needed a little more help than the bow section:

After also adding a larger set of styrene strips to the underside to help align the surfaces (keeping away from the edges to not interfere with the mounting tabs moulded into the hull halves) I can go ahead and liberally smear everything with glue and clamp it all down:

Once everything had dried for 24 hours I came back and absolutely assaulted the surface with 80 grit sandpaper:

I think those seams are gone.  I'll next begin to prep the deck with some 150 grit sanding and start in on scribing the planks.

Thanks for following along

Looks like you've succeeded in fastening the three sections together about as well as it can be done.  I didn't know it could be done that neatly.

Am I to gather that you've decided to sand off the molded "wood grain" (which, as I recall, consists of raised lines - not countersunk grooves) and scribe the edges of the planks to scale?  I feel obliged to point out that that will probably take longer than installing genuine wood planks.  But to each his own.  One advantage I can see in your method - and it's a significant advantage - is that it will let you take advantage of the joggled margin planks, which, as I recall (beware my Halfzheimer's-afflicted memory), Revell indicated quite nicely.  (Much better than Heller did with its Victory.) 

These photos do, however, remiind me of a flaw in the Revell kit that I'd forgotten about.. It looks like the deck, when the warp is taken out of it, is perfectly flat.  As anybody who's ever made a drawing of a ship with old-fashioned rapidograph and ink can tell you, there are virtually no flat surfaces, straight lines, or right angles in the basic shape of an eighteenth-century ship's hull. (The keel is straight.  That's about it.)  Ships' decks (with rare exceptions - e.g. aircraft carriers) aren't flat.  They're cambered - that is, arched up in the middle.  The reason was simply to encourage water to flow into the scuppers - and maybe, in a warship, to make it easier to run out the guns.  The curvature was usually about 1/4" for every foot of the ship's beam.  (It's actually a bit more complicated; if anybody's really interested, there's a table in Peter Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man of War.)  If you think about it a minute, you'll see that the ratio doesn't change when the lines are reduced to model size.  If I remember right, the Constitution's beam on 1/96 scale is about 6".  So the deck should be about 1/8" higher at the centerline than at the waterway.

The camber was cut into every deck beam - on the top and bottom of it.  I greatly admire those old shipwrights who did the job - with nothing but a compass (probably consisting of a pencil, a long piece of string, and a peg in the ground) , an adz, and a two-man hand saw.  A little trigonometry establishes that the radius of the curve needs to be about 6 times the length of the beam.  What a job - and they had to repeat it dozens of times in each ship. 

The camber in a sailing ship's decks is so subtle that its almost undetectable on a model - unless it's not there.  There are two places where the absence of camber is obvious: the ends of decks (or big hatches, like the one between the Constitution's forecastle and quarterdeck) and the tops of hatch coamings (which should have, if anything, slightly more "crown" than the rest of the deck.  Thwartships deck furniture, like fiferails, also has camber.

This is one area where Heller beat Revell.  The Heller Victory has separate plastic deck beams with camber molded into them.  Clamp the deck components to the beams while the glue dries, and the camber will be right.  Another plus for Heller:  the decks are split on the centerline, where the joint can be camouflaged as a seam between planks.  (Earlier Heller sailing ship kits had flat decks.  It would be nice to think that a couple of model magazine reviews had something to do with the revelation.  I do know that one of my reviews of the Victory got quoted by Heller in an ad for the kit.  So somebody must have read it.)

Whether any of this is important is, of course, up to the individual modeler.  When I look at a model one of the first things I notice is the deck camber, but, as should be obvious by now, I'm weird.  It's not for me to tell Force 9 how to build his models.  But it would seem a little jarring if a beautifully super-detailed model like this were to have flat decks. 

And please don't ask me how to fix the problem.  I have no idea what it would take to force the plastic deck components into the necessary curvature.  One of my pet peeves about those infernal HECEPOB (that's Hideously Expensive Continental European Plank-On-Bulkhead) kits is that their designers insist on making decks out of plywood.  The surface of a deck (unless you're building an aircraft carrier, or a modern ship with "knuckle camber") is a compound curve, and plywood doesn't like being forced into a compound curve any more than you or I would.  That's why our ancestors figured out, at least 500 years ago, that the easiest way to build a ship'sdeck is to make it out of narrow planks.  The same goes for ship models.

End of sermon.  Sorry.

Hi all, I am looking for some direction. I am not a modeler but came across this site whaile trying to reasarch something. I noted that the exchage of information was from intelligent well inform folks so figured I would take a chace and see if anyone can point me in the correct direction.

I was researching the (how to) restoration of a Liberty Ship hatch cover. While reseaching I came acroos some of your fellow modelers that where lloking for colors of paint to do the hatch covers on their models so figured I was in the ball park or at least close.

I have always liked these covers and I was at a Tag sale yesterday and they had one for sale. Obviously it is old and in rough shape but it is solid with all the metal strips on teh ends and handels in place. Tons of scratches and gouges but to me that is teh caharter of the piece. It os too ugly (ha) to leave alone, it does need to be restored. Actually restored is not a good term because they were never finished in the first place. It is gray (weather worn) rough wood. I basically want to leave the imperfections but possibly sand it lightly to smooth the surface but not take out the scratches and put a finish on it and then I guess polyurathaine (sp) it to protect the finish. I can buy this cheap, $20.00 so I think it is a steal but needs help...a lot...but that is the enjoyment.

I do not want to screw this up and make an undoable error so if anyone has any thoughts I would appreacite any and all input.

I thank you

jim

Prof Tilley

I'm confident that I can scribe the deck planking with minimal fuss with the help of a simple jig and a good straight edge.  Adding the butt pattern will be relatively easy as well if proper care is taken to align them with the underlying beam positions.  The joggling is reasonably represented on this deck - at least an attempt was made, unlike the Heller Victory kit.  None of it will be visible on the gun deck, so I will likely focus more attention on the spar deck version.

The deck camber is a tricky business... The Heller Victory has, as you've indicated, a much more robust approach to representing the camber.   In addition to the curved plastic beams provided to help introduce the curvature, the weather deck on the Heller kit is moulded very thin - unusually so.  Many modelers complain that this deck doesn't fit and they puzzle as to why they need to trim it so much to get it installed...This, I think, was done purposely to introduce a flex as you cram the deck into the tight confines of the upper half hulls to aid in representing the camber.  

I won't be trying to correct the camber (or lack of...) on the gun deck of the Constitution.  Too many other factors come into play to make that worthwhile.  Fortunately the folks at Revell did introduce some curvature on the more noticeable spar deck and I think that'll have to do for period authenticity.

Keep the sermons coming - I think we're all learning much and I'm forced to think ahead in this build.

EG

I agree completely that fixing the camber on the gundeck wouls be a waste of time.I didn't know Revell had put camber in the spardeck.  On the last one I built (40 years ago), the deck parts were so badly warped that it was impossible to tell which curves were deliberate and which were warped.  That's one reason I decided to cover them up with wood planks.  (No, I didn't add the camber.  I was a lot younger and, believe it or not,  more ignorant then.)

One semi-solution would be to rework all the hatch coamings.  (You're probably planning to do that anyway; they aren't tall enough.)  If you sand the tops of the coamings to introduce the camber, the lack of camber on the deck itself will be almost invisible.  Watch the corners of the coamings, though.  Miter joints are a no-no in traditional wood shibuilding.  As I remember, Revell got that one right - the surface detail on the hatch coamings shows the correct scarphed joints.

I was going to say the same thing. I built two of those Connie's but it was a long time ago. A very very long time ago. One was for show-and-tell in the Fourth Grade, which would have been about 1965.

Built it with my mom.

Talk about Gizmology- I made the gun deck stripe from short sections of white cloth bandage tape that I found in the medicine cabinet.

Anyways, on that one and the next one, plus a few I've helped on, the spar deck situation is such a mess that fighting them into alignment and getting the joints to be decent overcame any obvious camber portrayed, at least to me.

Also, John, and not to hijack the thread here, the little plastic beams on Victory, if they have any arch, are such a poor fit that I would recommend what I did- replace them with square brass tubing. I have not introduced any camber on the gun decks, but it would make sense to up above. Also as is well known, Heller has the sequence of their beams wrong in the illustrations.

At 1/96, I would love to see the joggling done. That seems WAY beyond me.

Great work Force9. I look to your future posts.

I can't refute anything Bondoman said.  My acquaintance with the Heller Victory is limited to a review sample that was sent to me by Model Shipwright (the late, great British quarterly) back when the kit was brand new, in about 1978 or 1979.  The molds were new, the styrene was of high quality, and the English "translation" of the instructions was wretched.  I think my review had the dubious distinction of being the first commentary on the kit published in English.  I remember catching the misnumbered deck beams, the absence of the forecastle bulwarks, the absence of the entry ports (which absence, I ventured, might well be correct - and I still think so), the beautiful clear parts (except the poop deck skylight, whose top has no camber), and the silly "rigging jigs" (for which I had no more patience then than I do now).

I suspect the warping and the poor-fitting parts came later.  I think Bondoman was smart to replace the deck beams - and I wouln't have worried about the camber on the lower decks either.  I do think it would be a good idea to fix the camber of the quarterdeck and forecastle deck.  Square brass rod, of course, can't be bent without getting crushed, but making such beams out of basswood or, for those inexplicably fixated on plastic, strip styrene from Evergreen. 

Hmm... maybe I can bond a basswood strip to the top and sand it to shape. Start with 1/8", mark the center and gently lap the ends down to brass. That'll provide a good bond for my wood decking sheets.

Now about that joggling. I thought Longridge sailed (pun intended) through his whole explanation of how to do it pretty unmarked. I have no such confidence.

You shouldn't need brass to reinforce the basswood - and,for that matter, you don't need the plastic deck (unless you really want to keep it).  If I were you I'd start by making a dimple drawing - full-scale - of the deck, including the beam locations.  You may have to glue the drawing to a concave-curved block, to set the sheer.)Glue the beams down to the drawng with  titebond or similar.  Sand in the camber, using a sanding block.  Glue the planks down to the beams.  Turn the whole thing over and sand the paper off the beams.  Using a curved sanding block, sand the camber into the undersides of the beams that will be visible.  There's your deck, ready to install in the hull.  I'll bet you can do it in three to four hours.

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, you'll probably find it easier to use individual planks, rather than those scribed sheets.  A tip:  run a fairly hard pencil around each plank before you install it.  That'll represent the caulking between planks. 

Joggling a margin plank is tricky; I've only done it a couple of times.  Different books give slightly different rules about it.  A good one is Peter Goodwin's The Construction and Fitting of the Sailing Man-of-War.  On the forecastle and quarterdeck, it will only affect three or four planks on each side.  It'll be somewhat more noticeable on the poop - but if you leave the joggling off, few if any people will be upset.

Let's give credit where due... Here are some quick views verifying that the folks at Revell did a very reasonable job of representing the spar deck camber:

Even the main hatch coamings have a bit of curvature...

The Fore Fife rail also exhibits a bit of curvature to echo the camber of the deck.

I'd say the kit does a credible job of trying to represent the deck of USS Constitution.

Work begins on the spar deck...

Firstly, I need to open up some views to the gun deck by blasting some holes in strategic spots.

I've used a hot solder iron with a knife attachment to do this in the past, but that sure smells awful... I thought I'd utilize the drill press this time around:

After drilling thru to outline the opening, I come back along and smooth out the shape by running the piece along the spinning bit (use a bit that is not your favorite!) to clean out the edges.  Don't get too close to your final line - that'll be done using a wide file.

Here is the process done for the fore deck:

Long, smooth strokes with the wider file does the trick in just a few minutes.  The smaller file helps clean up some of the corners.

Here are the deck pieces laid out for perspective (nothing is glued together yet - just taped from underneath):

The opening in front of the helm position will allow views down to the gun deck capstan and the chain pumps:

The fore deck opening will expose the riding bitts and the camboose (ship's stove):

There is another long opening along the starboard gangway to reveal the 24 pdrs rigged up below.  The final opening aft on the quarterdeck will have views into the captain's cabin - the stern galleries and side panelling will be seen.

The appropriate beams and carlings will be added after I've glued the three pieces together (actually I'll use some of the beams to help align the edges when gluing),

Thanks for following along...

Folks...

My wife originally hails from Boston so we make a few trips back periodically to visit with family and friends. This year they were really making a big deal out of the July 4 celebration with Old Ironsides as the centerpiece of the commemoration of the Bicentennial of the War of 1812 - so we decided to make our trip coincide with the festivities.

On Tuesday mornings during peak season the USS Constitution offers a special behind the scenes "Constitution Experience" tour of the great ship for a limited sized group (you need to pre-register thru the website). You get to see the morning flag raising and morning gun before heading aboard. The tour includes the captains quarters, the orlop deck, and a chance to crawl down into the after powder room - all spaces normally off limits to us civilians.

USS Constitution is, of course, still a commissioned warship in the US Navy so the guides are all active duty sailors and marines. The facts as presented in the tour are a bit sketchy in terms of accuracy, but the intent is well-meaning. Here are a few of the most egregious:
- "The frames are spaced two - four inches apart unlike the British ships, which were three or four FEET apart."
- "The crew fired a round every 90 seconds. The British crew fired every two to three minutes." (The opposite was probably true)
- "The ship could only fire every other gun in a broadside - otherwise a full broadside fired from every gun would tip the ship over."

Overall it was a terrific morning clambering around inside the great ship.

You are doing a beautiful job on her. Following with interest.....Cheers Mark

Thanks Mark for your continued interest... I'm currently working on the seams for the spar deck.  Stay tuned - pictures to follow this week

July 21, 1812

Gentleman, 

My name is Captain Isaac Hull. 

My crew has been hard at work for several months, re-fittitng my fine ship the USS Constitution. Obviously, in preparation for the coming war with Great Britain. Our work has been well executed, carefully done, studious to our limits and rewarding in all manner.

Our work has been accurate... but not always to the impressive detail found here. Not nearly! My compliments to the builder! Most capital! 

Our work is fine enough for a landlubber, such as my contemporary counterpart, who has been assisting me with construction and posting my correspondence on this "internet".

Evidence of our progress, as a photographic journal, written in my voice, and from my perspective on such progress, albeit novice in historic accuracy, can be found on Facebook (see below)

In addition, further content relevant to the period can also be found here. Including photographs, videos and written content. Please feel free to experience my devotion to my fine ship ... and to suggest changes to content if you see fit. I could use the help!

Fare thee well and God bless America.

Sincerely,

Captain Isaac Hull

USS Constitution.

U.S. Naval shipyards

Norfolk, Virginia.

1812

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003586910290

Commodore Hull, I have recvd your kind notice of the 21st instant and deem it worthy of reply.

Dear sir

Your landlubber friend has indeed compiled a most impressive collection of interesting images worthy of  attention.  I did notice, however, that included are references from Commander Tyrone Martin regarding the relative positions of the combatants in your late and glorious victory over HM Frigate La Guerriere.  I feel it my duty sir to inform you that comdr Martin is no friend to you.  Indeed, he has blatantly and knowingly accused you of LYING in your post-battle reports to the secretary and willingly cast many aspersions upon your good name and character.  In fact, he accuses you of employing simple tactics and further suggests that you were inexperienced in combat and became flustered, disoriented, and indecisive in the heat of battle.  He accuses you, dear sir, of winning the battle in spite of yourself.  His theory of how the battle actually played out is, in fact, highly dependent on this characterization of your behavior in the battle to lend credibility to his very questionable use of historical fact.

You will no doubt be heartened to know that many recent historians have challenged this characterization of your good name - and, indeed, have challenged the facts as cmdr Martin has presented them.

(By the way - beware of Commodore Bainbridge as well - that is another story)

Your very humble servant,

Evan Gale, esq.

Sir,

Thank you for the defense of my character. It is much appreciated.

However, I find it difficult to surmise exactly where in my collection of images, that Commander Martin's statements are located. Can you be more specific?

Please feel free to comment as you see fit on my Facebook page,  and my landlubber associate can make the appropriate corrections to the content.

As for Commander Martin. I am aware of his misguided opinion. It is a sad state of affairs, that within our own ranks, there is always so much discord. Much time has passed since the battle, and the fog has drifted in ... to obscure many of the facts about our battles. But time and the opinions of the learned have a way of settling disputes. (Like they have with  stories  of my step father William Hull.) And I hold no grudge against Commander Martin.

And Bainbridge? Well... he was alright. Possibly jealous, too.

I guess he never forgot the comments I made to him about his side burns one evening at a Naval dinner.. while he was attempting to be friendly with a beautiful, young woman from Boston. She thought it was quite amusing. He did not. 

I stand proud of my service record. And will defend it as fervently as I defend our flag. 

Fare thee well, God bless America and thank you.

Sincerely,

Captain Isaac Hull

USS Constitution.

U.S. Naval shipyards

Norfolk, Virginia.

1812

www.facebook.com/profile.php

Back to the build...

Spent my last few sessions scratching away at the gun deck to put some semblance of planking in place.

I set up the workbench with a bit of old cardboard for the pins underneath the deck to grab onto (and not break off) while I abused the topside. I clamped the deck down by the bow to hold her steady and proceeded to scribe the decking.

The process was relatively simple and I hope I illustrate it well enough. I used some spare lengths of styrene strips to represent each row of planking to establish the alignment of my straight edge. I used the existing hatch coamings as the baseline, laid a styrene strip up snug against them, then aligned the straight edge to the strip. After clamping the edge down, I would remove the temporary styrene and scribe the line. I would then stack another temporary strip to the mix and align my edge to the new row of planking... and so on... working from the coamings out to the edges.

For the center planks I clamped down the straight edge and used the styrene strips for guidance (custom fit for the space)

Next I scribed in a four step butt pattern following the guidance of Longridge (pages 120-21).

Came back along with a 180 grit sanding block and smoothed down the edges.

Took about six hours altogether.

Here are some lousy shots trying to show the completed planking pattern. You'll notice an attempt at joggling up at the bow. Purely experimental as this will all be covered by my thickened bulwarks, but I've learned enough to make a go of it on the spar deck. You'll also see an attempt at representing the interlocking planks that were part of the integral longitudinal strength of the ship's structure. On the real ship, a few bands of planking on each side of the gun deck are slightly wider and thicker. They are scarfed together and mortised into the underlying beams. The current ship has these spaced closer together in shorter lengths, but I followed Cmdr Martin's guidance which shows them a bit longer...

Still some touch ups needed... These planks should really pop when I eventually apply varied paint tones and pencil in along the seams.

I have never seen that stack method, but it makes sense.

Joggle my oh my.

You are rolling fella, keep it up.