SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Old Ironsides - Revisiting the classic Revell 1/96 kit

208613 views
510 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2012
Posted by rwiederrich on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:47 PM

So many differences..and dissimilarities .....from current to painting to model.

the headboard appears to be similar in all 3 examples(slight differences), but the timber knees are very different...so is the billet and the location of the hawes holes. Depicted in 2 locations..not to mention the scroll work on the cheeks which is totally different from the current and both model and painting.

I didn't identify the location of the for bumpkins in painting or the modern(It's probably to the left)..

a perfect example of how time and necessity/need/limitations....can alter a ships appearance.

I suspect there will be no experts available to point out any errors(Or lack of) you or the refitters did on the ship.

Awesome job!

Rob

  • Member since
    August 2011
  • From: France
Posted by phoscar on Sunday, June 23, 2013 1:21 AM

Bonjour,

Absorbing work.

Marc

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:25 AM

For what little it's worth - I'm inclined to think Corne and the restorers were right in making the brackets supporting the headrails concave (i.e., arching inward).  I'm sure there were exceptions (it wouldn't make any significant difference structurally), but every contemporary source I can recall bumping into shows them that way.

One thing to bear in mind:  every individual piece of that complex, subtle "basketry" looks straight from one angle and curved from almost all others.  I remember building the head for my little model of the frigate Hancock.  I made it out of sheet styrene, and eventually decided that all the pieces had to be cut to fit.  (No bending allowed.)  It took me two or three tries to be satisfied with it.

People who've studied the Constitution far more than I have don't agree about the history of her figureheads.  Corne certainly know what he was doing, but the sort-of-billethead he shows does look a little odd.  The Revell rendition (based on George Campbell's plans that he drew for the Smithsonian) certainly appears to be based on the "Hull model," with due allowances for the fact that the builder of that model was, to say the least, no miniature wood carver.  Throw in the fact that the figurehead got damaged in the fight with the Guerriere, and figuring out what it looked like before that episode starts to look hopeless.

As I remember, the whole bow structure got extensively redone when Captain Martin was in command - in the period leading up to the ship's bicentennial in 1997.  I think, though, that the figurehead and trailboards (including the red, white, and blue shields) were left as they were at that time.  Photos suggest that they installed fairly late in the nineteenth century - after the removal of the Andrew Jackson figurehead.  I don't know for sure by any means, but I have the feeling that those shields are of a post-War of 1812 design.

Somebody else probably knows a lot more about this than I do.  My inclination, if (gawd forbid) I was building the kit, would be to replace the headrail brackets with concave ones, and leave the figurehead and trailboards.  (In other words, just what force9 is doing.)  The people who carved the masters for the decorative work all over that model were real artisans; I couldn't come close to them.

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

  • Member since
    June 2012
Posted by arnie60 on Sunday, June 23, 2013 3:19 PM

I was wondering if you came up w/ any solutions for the hawse ports (holes?). I am finishing up some detailing on the trail boards and was looking at them, and they are pretty rough and undefined.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:38 PM

Thanks all for chiming in...

Rob - I'm still leaning towards NOT including the stern bumpkins.  I do agree that I have a certain amount of leeway regarding the bow - I'm sure nobody will gainsay me regardless of my approach.  

Marc - Bonjour and merci for your compliments.

Prof Tilley - I'm not sure Constitution even had a figurehead going into the War of 1812.  There are records/receipts for the rebuilt billet head and trailboards (done in NY under direction of John Rodgers).  The dragon and scrollwork seen on the Hull model are also discernible on one of the Corne paintings of the Guerriere fight - so it is reasonable certain that the modern trailboard does not reflect her 1812 appearance.  Adding a gentle outward curve to the head timbers has improved the effect (in my opinion!).  I may revisit them and tone down the detail trim - maybe use a .020 x .020 strip.

Arnie - I haven't thought much about the hawse holes yet... I didn't think they needed attention, but I'll have another look.

Thanks again for the interest!

Evan

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 AM

Clarification - I was using the word "figurehead" to include whatever carving was present on the bow (whether human, animal, billethead, fiddlehead, or whatever).  

As I understand it, there's a lot of room for argument about just what sort of...bow decoration...the Constitution had at various points in her career.  It's a topic that's never enticed me to dive into it with both feet, but anybody who sorts it all out has my respect.

Those round shields on the trailboards today - with white stars on blue fields over vertical red and white stripes - have a mid-nineteenth-century look about them.  I'd have to do some digging to find out for sure, but I think that motif didn't come into favor until well after the War of 1812.  It looks more appropriate for a mid-nineteenth-century clipper ship than a War of 1812 warship.

Unfortunately, the Constitution as she looks today is not a particularly good guide to what she looked like during the War of 1812.  In recent years the people in charge of her have been much more conscious of historical accuracy than those who worked on her in the early twentieth century, but they're constrained by limited funds and all sorts of other factors. 

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

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, July 7, 2013 10:44 PM

Folks...

I've been away for a bit and neglecting my project. I found my way to Gettysburg for the 150th anniversary of the battle. While tromping across the fields I did find a link there to Old Ironsides:

The statue in the background shows Brigadier General Andrew Humphreys - Grandson of Joshua Humphreys who is credited with the concept and design of the famous American heavy frigates. Andrew's father Samuel was also an important naval architect in the early American navy.

Humphreys' division was assigned to the incompetent Daniel Sickles and was decimated in the Wheat Field along with most of Sickles' corps. His personal courage was unmatched - he rode conspicuously on horseback in front of his troops through the hail of battle. He personally kept his troops aligned in a fighting retreat all the way back to the main Union position on cemetary ridge. What remained of his division was only fit for reserve duty on the last day of the great battle. He was promoted to Major General following Gettysburg and ended the war as commander of the II corps.

I hope to get back to the build soon.
Evan

  • Member since
    September 2011
Posted by USMMA83 on Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:01 PM

My first build of the Revell 1:96 was in the early 70's when I was 11 or 12.  If I remember correctly Revell offered the model without sails.  It may have been optional but I don't remember sails as being part of that first kit.  I do remember building it with all the standing and running rigging though.  My second build was with sails and a vast improvement over the first.  It was sure a big model in all dimensions especially with the studding sails mounted and rigged.  Unfortunately both models were systematically destroyed over the next few years.  The first by my well meaning Mother when she was dusting.  She lost control of it and it dropped about 7 feet to the floor.  It looked a lot like the Java after that fight.  Totally dismasted and rigging everywhere.  The second was destroyed after it bounced across the shelf, over the edge and to the floor.  At the time my parents were having the house re-sided and the constant hammering and vibration on the outside wall dislodged it and over the edge she went.  You would have thought that I would have found a more secure place to display it after the first disaster.  But as they say, live and learn.  It made me sick to think of all the hours of hard work that went down the toilet is just seconds.

After all these years I recently decided that I would like to build yet another (I guess I am a gluton for punishment) but this time display it properly in a case, and more at eye level where I can actually admire it.  Shortly after beginning though I stopped the build.  I had a hair brianed idea to spruce it up with more detail.  I thought actual brass guns with real wooden carriages would be awfully nice.  If wooden carriages then why not wooden blocks too.  Actual ratlines rigged like the real ship.  I thought about a stove, buckets, barrels, metal or wood belaying pins, cannon balls, the whole nine yards.  My only problem being finding the items to scale.  I have been looking for some time at different web sites in search of various parts in the propper scale but to no avail.  No one seems to give a scale but just the various dimesions of the parts in millimeters.  So just the other day I finally decided to post here at Fine Scale Modeler (I have been a subscriber for many years) to see if anyone could help me find different parts in 1:96 scale.  I didn't realize that there were specific boards for aircraft, space, ships, etc.  So one kind gentleman pointed out that there was a board dedicated to just ships and suggested that I post here.  When I came here low and behind what should I find, this discussion.  WOW!!!!  All my questions have been answered and then some.  I love all the reference material you have shared, the pics, the IDEAS, etc.  I LOVE EVERY BIT OF IT and can't wait to return to my model.  First though I plan to aquire much of the reference material and parts.

I will continue to check in here daily when I can and follow your build with much interest.  Your model is going to be awsome when finished.

I just have one question though.  I have always thought the ship would look beauitiful with furled sails.  Have you ever attempted to replicate furled sails?  Other sites I have looked at over the years indicate that it is not easy to replicate and in any case make them look good in scale.

Thanks for sharing.

Jerry

  • Member since
    December 2012
Posted by rwiederrich on Thursday, July 11, 2013 1:37 PM

Furled sails can be achieved..first..by not depicting the entire sail in the furl.  Only use a half sail...and then..use paper sails cut to scale..then crumpled up so the paper is nearly cloth like.  You can control the folds and reef lines much easier and to a more realistic degree.  You can even stain them after they are mounted and they look awesome.  My 2 cents anyway.

Rob

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Spartanburg, SC
Posted by subfixer on Thursday, July 11, 2013 3:01 PM

 

rwiederrich

.  You can even stain them after they are mounted and they look awesome.  My 2 cents anyway.

Rob

Just don't stain them with coffee or tea!  Big Smile

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

  • Member since
    December 2012
Posted by rwiederrich on Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:16 PM

Nah...That is old school...and it takes for ever to get the desired result and for it to dry.  I use thinned brown India Ink in alcohol.....    Spray it on or paint it on and it dries in seconds to minutes.......awesome.  Just keep adding more for the desired tint...it finds the cracks and highlights.

Rob

  • Member since
    September 2011
Posted by USMMA83 on Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:27 PM

Thanks

I don't mean to steer this conversation away from Force9's build but do you have any pics of the results that this technique produces?

Much appreciated.

Jerry

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Friday, July 12, 2013 9:59 AM

Here's a link to a thread from 2005, in which we discussed the topic of furled sails at some length.  My own personal approach to the subject is in the post under my name for Jan. 14, 2005, a few posts down from the beginning.  

cs.finescale.com/.../33775.aspx

Here's another link to an article on the Model Ship World site that covers this topic.  The implication seems to be that I wrote it, but several folks contributed to it.  Scroll down to "Making and Forming Sails for Your Model " and click.  Much of the text is lifted from the FSM Forum post referred to above.  There are also photos of a couple of my models.

http://modelshipworldforum.com/ship-model-rigging-and-sails.php

Two caveats.  One - don't bother clicking on the links that supposedly take you to more photos.  That site no longer exists.  Two - the latest issue of Model Railroader contains the deeply distressing news that Testor is taking both PolyScale and Floquil paint lines off the market.  I haven't used this sailmaking technique in several years, and I've never tried it with any brand other than PolyScale.  I suspect the acrylic "craft paints" sold in arts and crafts stores would work just as well for this purpose, but I don't know that for a fact.

Hope at least some of this helps a little.

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

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Monday, July 22, 2013 9:31 PM

Hello Jerry!

I'm very glad that you found your way to my build log... I do hope it is useful and helps to clarify your initial questions regarding the kit and serve as an example of how some elements can be enhanced.  Please fell free to post any questions along the way or otherwise ask for clarification.  I do plan to eventually include sails - but only the reduced version fit for battle.  It looks like some other folks (more experienced than I) have pointed you (and me) in some good directions for sailmaking.

Prof. Tilley - It is a darn shame that Testors is pulling the PolyScale and Floquil paint line of paints.  I frequent a model RR hobby shop to get my Styrene fix... The proprietor assured me several months ago that some other company will pick up the line from Testors and continue it... I hope he was not wearing is rose tinted glasses!  I've been experimenting with Vallejo acrylics based on a glowing recommendation from the folks at Brookhurst hobbies here in So. Cal.  Apparently many figure/miniature painters swear by it.  I'll need to work more on the airbrush mixture/ratio before I get it right.

My workshop is undergoing some alterations at the moment which has put my build on hold.  I'm partly thru the channels with more work still needed.  Hope to get back to it in a few weeks.

Thx all

Evan

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, July 28, 2013 10:46 PM

Ahoy!

My garage workshop suffered a setback a few weeks ago - I had piled so much junk into the garage attic space that a joist cracked and the whole ceiling threatened to crash down. Catastrophe was narrowly averted with some quick bracing... The company that originally added the attic in my garage years ago has come forward and has been making repairs on their dime - no cost to me. They really have stood by their work and put forth the effort to rebuild it properly. All that being the case, I'm offline for a bit longer in terms of model building.

Hasn't stopped me from delving further into research...

I'm currently mucking about with the channels on my kit - trying to clean them up and otherwise enhance them. The question of lower stun's'l booms fitted to the channels has got me thinking (uh oh).

The Revell kit includes lower stun's'l booms for both the fore and main channels (The mizzen, of course, would never have stun's'l sails deployed below the Crojack yard. Some argue, in fact, that no stun's'l sails were deployed on the mizzen. More later...) The Hull model, however, only shows booms fitted on the fore channels:

Of course, this could be one of several omissions made by the crew in their haste to complete the model. But why bother with any lower booms at all if they were trying to save time with shortcuts?

Marquardt in his AOTS agrees that there should only be one set of booms fitted, but he argues that they should only be on the main channels and not on the fore channels. He reasons that the storage of the anchors on the fore channel precludes the possibility of having swinging lower stun's'l booms attached. Hmmm.

Olof Eriksen notes these same discrepancies in his CONSTITUTION - All sails up and flying. He compared the Hull model to the Brady The Naval Apprentice's Kedge Anchor (1841) and the rigging journal kept by Midshipmen Anderson during the 1834-35 refit and found that all three agree with the stun's'l booms only fitted to the fore channels - none on the main.

Howard Chappelle in his History of the American Sailing Navy includes an interesting appendix with a copy of the builder notes for an 1826 sloop of war. Included is a reference for "swinging stun'sail boom irons" to be fitted only on the fore channels. More interesting is the inclusion of "channel cranes" for "supporting the spare spars and yards... one on the main and one on the mizzen..." This approach would seem to agree with the Charles Ware drawing of the frigate United States:

The legend for this drawing labels L as Stunsail BOOMS and M as Spare Main Topsail YARDS.  This would also seem to refute Marquardt's assertion regarding interference from the anchor storage.

Finally, we have this tidbit from Constitution's log following her engagement with Guerriere:

...our standing and running rigging much cut, and One Shot through the Fore Mast, one through the Main Mast,and one through the heel of the Fore Top Gallant Mast, and the Starboard Cross Jack yard arm cut away, as also the Spare Top Sail Yard in the Main chains, and the B[ ? ] for the slings of the Main Yard broken, our spanker Boom, and Gaff Broken by the Enemy, when foul of our Mizen Rigging...

Whew... When all the dust settles I will only have lower stun's'l booms rigged to the fore channels on my model, but will also include spare topsail yards resting in "channel cranes" extended from the main and mizzen channels both port and starboard.

All part of the fun!
Thanks for following along.
Evan

  • Member since
    February 2003
Posted by Jim Barton on Tuesday, July 30, 2013 3:35 PM

Glad you were able to avert a major disaster, Evan! That must've been spooky!

The salesperson at the hobby shop I was talking to did confirm that Floquil paints will no longer be produced, but we were speculating that Testors would probably bring them back under their own Railroad Colors line. They did the same with the Colors by Boyd for car models. The line is no longer called Colors by Boyd but the paints are still be sold by Testors.

Believe me, if those railroad colors are not brought back in some way, shape or form, model railroaders will be coming after the Testors corporation with pitchforks and torches!Smile

"Whaddya mean 'Who's flying the plane?!' Nobody's flying the plane!"

  • Member since
    May 2012
Posted by Stonemin on Monday, September 2, 2013 5:55 PM

After about six months of work, I've finally got my ship built through all of the standing rigging.  whew!.  Ok, here's the question. I am not using the sails.  is there any part of the running rigging that I need to  or could ignore?  At first read over, I see specific instructions for the sails, but didn't notice any alternative instructions for w/o sails.

Also, I believe someone posted here earlier suggesting that the easiest way to tie down to the belaying pins is to start with the pins and work backwards.  does that make sense?

GJ

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:57 PM

GJ

I think there may be some additional running rigging associated with movement/control of the various yards, etc. that you may want to incorporate into your build, but of course most of the other running rig can be omitted.  You will want to be careful about the positioning of the yards - they would be set up differently if not rigged with sails.

I'll leave it to other more experienced modelers to guide you to the best sources/references for guidance.

Please post a log with some pictures so that we can all enjoy your progress.

EG

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 11:12 PM

I had a PM from Arnie60 regarding the shot garlands on the spar deck:

"I am gearing up to work on the spar deck and looking at the Bluejacket plans (instructions) it calls for shot lockers between guns. I could be wrong, but it looks like they are to be placed on the spar deck as well as the gun deck. What's your uptake on this?"

This question is very similar to one posed to me a while back on another site... Since this came up I thought maybe there are others with the same question so I thought I'd copy over my original response for all to see:

The shot garlands/racks pose an interesting dilemma.  The Revell 1/96 Constitution makes no allowance for shot storage so we are left to our own inclinations...  The Hull model in the PEM does not show them at all and that probably led to the absence on the Revell kit.  As you point out, Larry Arnot and Cdr. Tyrone Martin apparently invested much research into the Bluejacket kit and they suggest shot racks between all the guns but not around the hatches.  


I would think, however, that shot storage around the hatches would be a standard approach in 1812.  Certainly many period models would show these included.  But is there more justification?


Here is my reasoning... Old Ironsides pounded HMS Guerriere to kindling in only 30 minutes.  Evidence very strongly suggests that part of the reason was that the American gun crews fired TWO round shot on EVERY discharge during the battle.  The data suggests that each gun shot @10 times in 30 minutes. That is a lot of cannon balls to have to haul up the companionways. Common sense would suggest that the crew pre-positioned most of that in shot racks before the shooting began - and they'd need plenty of storage.  I suspect that there was storage around the hatches AND in between each gun - at least on the main gun deck.  This would seem to be supported by the c1820 gun deck plan of USS United States made by Charles Ware which shows both storage options in place:


Untd_st_gundeck_detail.jpg


Using this deck plan as guidance, I intend to include shot racks in between the 24 pdr guns on my model in addition to what you already see around the hatches.


The spar deck is another matter... I will include shot storage around the hatches on that deck as well, but NOT include shot racks between the carronades.  Despite the guidance from the Bluejacket manual and other representations (Gilkerson’s painting in the Gillmer “Old Ironsides...” book), I just don’t think that was a practical solution.  Many of those guns have pin rails in between them and the necessary cordage dangling down would likely be in the way... The same deck plans of USS United States offer a solution.  Here is the spar deck:


Unitd_st_spardeck_detail.jpg

This clearly shows that the carronades would have a tray of round shot close at hand for battle as well as shot stored around the hatches.  There is also another clue that helps me justify my approach.  If you were a famous personage back in that era, the most flattering compliment would be to have your portrait painted by an accomplished artist.  This was a very expensive thing to do back in those days - often many thousands of dollars in an age when a good sailor made 10 bucks a month.  The important businessmen in the City of New York commonly took up a subscription to pay for a commissioned work of military heroes after a great victory.  They gradually built up a significant "Hall of Fame" collection in city hall.  Here is the one done for Commodore William Bainbridge following his victory over HMS Java (still in the collection of the city of New York http://www.nyc.gov/html/artcom/html/portrait/portrait.shtml):


Bainbridge_JWJarvis.jpg


We see the talented artist captured the Commodore’s famous arrogance and pomposity.  He has also captured something else - look at the shot tray under Bainbridge’s boot.  This is the approach I’ll take for the spar deck.  (We’ll come back to this painting when it comes time for the carronades).


I don’t mean to overly sway everyone in my direction. Unlike Cdr Tyrone Martin and others, I’m not an historian or professional researcher... Folks have to go with what works for them and this approach just feels right to me.


Thanks for enduring a brain dump.

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 11:27 AM

In response to Stonemin's rigging query -

The running rigging of a ship really falls into three categories:  the lines used to manipulate the movable spars (i.e., yards, gaffs, and booms), the lines used to handle the sails, and the lines used for other purposes (like handling the boats, hoisting cargo, flying flags, etc.).  The rigging instructions in the Revell kit do a pretty good job (within the limitations of the kit) of covering the most important, conspicuous lines in all three categories; if you follow those instructions completely, you'll have a pretty complete-looking model.

Sails get removed from a ship for lots of reasons, most of them resulting in the ship being in port for some time.  I'm not at all sure the Constitution's sails ever got removed during the War of 1812.  But there were plenty of circumstances in which a sailing vessel would be seen without sails, and one of the favorite styles of model building is to rig the ship "under bare poles."  Personally, I'd far rather look at such a model than one with vacuum-formed plastic sails, which to my eye just don't work.

When the sails are removed from a ship, a lot of the rigging that handles the sails frequently gets removed as well.  That includes such lines as sheets, tacks, buntlines, leechlines, clewlines, bowlines, etc. - the lines that are fastened to the sails.  And the studding sails and their yards (not necessarily the studdingsail booms) are stowed as well.  What's left is the standing rigging and the running rigging that handles the yards.  If you were to rig your model with the jeers, halyards, lifts, and braces, it would look pretty good to most people - including me.  But, of corse, it's all up to the individual modeler.

One other point.  The only yards on a typical sailing ship that are more-or-less permanently fixed in place are the lower yards - in the case of the Constitution the foreyard, mainyard, and crojack yard.  All the others slide up and down the masts - up when the sail is set, down when it's furled (or removed).  A model with its sails omitted or furled ought to have its yards lowered.  If I remember right, the Revell masts have little rings molded around them to mark where the yards go in both lowered and raised positions.  For a while, as I recall, the instructions provided separate diagrams for rigging the model with and without sails, but I may well be wrong on that.

Hope that helps a little.  Good luck.

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

  • Member since
    June 2012
Posted by arnie60 on Thursday, September 5, 2013 12:26 AM

Force9;

I had reasoned the same as you, that it would seem problematic for shot racks to be placed directly under the pin rails on the spar deck; ergo my question to you about them. You have answered that question Admirably (pun intended). I will leave them off as well.

I am not yet decided about the 'square' racks between guns yet, hesitating only in terms of aesthetics, since Bainbridge’s portrait clearly demonstrates their placement.

As always, your level of research and knowledge astounds me, and enriches us all.  Thank you.

And... I was just looking at Revell's rigging plans, and they clearly label the placements for the yards w/ or w/out sails. I am planning (perhaps overly optimistically) on scratch building the yards and masts w/ wood from the top mast up using the BlueJacket plans. If I were using the kit pieces, I would sand down the 'ring' for placing the 'raised' yards w/ sails.  I just can not conceive of doing this with sails, no matter how perfectly they could be done unless they were furled (which I have ruled out also per the lengthy discussions in this forum on how to accomplish this) since it would overshadow a great deal of the geometry of all that beautiful rigging.

Looking forward to your next post.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Friday, October 4, 2013 11:07 AM

Folks

I'll have a new post soon...

In the meantime - here is a plea from the folks at the USS Constitution museum:

Impact of the Partial Government Shutdown on the

USS Constitution Museum

We wanted to keep you - our visitors, members and supporters - apprised of the impact the government shutdown is having on the USS Constitution Museum. Though we are a private not-for-profit that receives no direct federal funding, we are situated within Boston National Historical Park, a federal property which is now closed to visitors. As a result, we unfortunately cannot welcome the many visitors we usually greet this time of year. Our exhibits are empty of school kids exploring, our program staff working at computers instead of in our galleries, our donation boxes empty and our Store shelves fully stocked.

October is one of Boston's busiest months for tourism, with increased cruise ship traffic, leaf peepers, conventions and more. Add into the mix school kids on field trips and the Museum is generally buzzing with activity this time of year. This same time last year, daily revenue generated through on-site donations, Store sales and group visits averaged nearly $7,000 a day.

For every day the shutdown continues, this is critical revenue we must generate elsewhere.

While we are hoping resolution comes quickly, there are a few ways you might be able to help:

Make a tax-deductible gift to our annual fund

Get an early start on the holiday season by shopping our online Store

Write to your legislators to express your concern over the impact of the closure.

Let us know if there are affinity organizations or companies that might be willing to share our story with their constituents or employees, directing them to our website.

Spread the word! Share with Facebook friends, on twitter and more.

Other ideas welcome!

We recognize that we are just one of many organizations feeling the impact, and hope in the end the burden is minimal for all. Unfortunately, it looks as though this might not be as short lived as originally hoped. We appreciate your support, and welcome any suggestions you might have as we ride out the storm. And in the interim, take a few minutes to make a virtual visit to the Museum, and explore our collections and more online at www.ussconstitutionmuseum.org

Thank you -

Laura O'Neill

Director of Development

617-426-1812, x. 112

loneill@ussconstitutionmuseum.org

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Sunday, October 13, 2013 5:35 PM

The workshop is back to shipshape and things have settled down enough for some build time...

The gun deck has come along:

The first need was to finally get the beam stanchions in place. These were some of the first items I attempted for this deck, but I couldn't get anything satisfying... I first thought to just use some stanchions from the extra Heller Victory kit in my stash, but those were too wimpy. I bulked up my own version and test fitted those... Still too wimpy. And worse, I couldn't seem to keep them consistently straight and true.

Finally I decided to use my thickest rod and position them into holes drilled through the decking. I did the base and caps using the square tubing in my styrene pile. I reamed it out with the appropriate drill bit matched to the rod and slid them into position along the rod with enough sticking down to pass through the deck. That did the trick.

To keep all the deck features secure I added some rod underneath to fit through similar holes drilled into the deck:

The appropriate holes were drilled through all along the deck to accept the various components

You'll notice that at some point I decided that the pumps should all sit on a raised platform amidships. Just seemed like the right thing to do.

Here are some views of all the gun deck features test fitted:

I've put one of the Admiral day cabin bulkheads from my Heller Victory in place to see what it might look like if I added the Captain's suite to the deck. It has potential, but I think I'll stick with my stated intention of not including this and keep the gun deck cleared for action.

Spare anchor stored amidships:

Manger

Pumps

I think I'm just about ready to paint the darn thing!

Thanks for following along
Evan

  • Member since
    June 2012
Posted by arnie60 on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:57 AM

Extremely well done. I am wondering if you plan to use the kits mount for the bow sprit?

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Monday, December 30, 2013 4:53 PM

Arnie - I'll make a hybrid bowsprit holder for the gun deck.  Essentially I'll beef up the kit version so that it'll be very unlikely to break free if the bowsprit gets bumped.

Sorry for the delayed update... More of the build:

I replaced the galley stack with something a bit more in scale:

I added a bit of "animation" by rotating the top half - the idea being that the lower portion is fixed and the upper can be turned with the handles to accommodate any prevailing breeze:

I've also added the drainage plugs to the chain pumps:

One bugaboo that I remember from my MK1 version, done all those decades ago, was that the spar deck came up a bit short to the transom. I elected to add a small strip to the end to make up the potential gap. I started with a strip underneath to form a ledge, then added a .60x.80 strip on top. After a bit of filler and sanding I extended the deck planks with my scribe tool to blend it all together.

It would be possible to hide this gap by covering it with a waterway extended in front of the transom, but my understanding is that waterways were never added across the stern section.

Those who are very familiar with this kit will note that I've added the boom traveller to the spar deck (I'll remove the one molded to the transom rail). The Hull model clearly shows the traveller where the Revell kit has it, but that positioning has always bugged me... It may also be why the kit has the spanker boom so high up on the trysail mast. Olof Eriksen has a similar beef with this and his research suggests that the builders of the Hull model took a shortcut with their approach and it should've been put down on the deck to match standard practice. I'm going with that version...

Finally, I've begun to slap together the berth deck section that will be exposed below the open hatch on the gun deck. I've elected to suspend the section from under the gun deck rather than glue ledges against the inner hull and span the entire width.

More details on this later...

Thanks again for tuning in!
Evan

  • Member since
    June 2013
Posted by jayman on Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:07 PM

Perhaps the following trivia is of some interest.

The following quotation is from Magoun's book The Frigate Constitution and Other Historic Ships:

"The following is a correct account of ammunition expended on board the Constitution in action with the Guerrier:*

24-pound round shot 300

32-pound round shot 236

18-pound round shot        10

32-pound stand of grape 140

24-pound stand of grape 120

24-pound canister shot  40

32-pound canister shot  60

24-pound double lead shot  47

Total number of shot 953

Amount of gunpowder, 2,376 pounds

* This memorandum was taken from the Log Book of the Constitution, by R. F. Dunn"

Arranged by gun type:

30 ea. 24 Pound long

Round shot 300

Stand of grape 120

Canister  40

Double lead shot  47

Total 507

Average per gun 16.9

24 ea. 32 Pound carronades

Round shot 236

Stand of grape 140

Canister  60

Total 436

Average per gun 18.2

18 Pounder round shot 10

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Thursday, January 2, 2014 8:48 PM

Hello Jay...

The listing of ammunition is very interesting.  This list also shows up in Commander Tyrone Martin's book "Undefeated - Old Ironsides in the War of 1812".   Martin essentially claims in his writings that Captain Hull lied/manipulated the facts of the battle in his post-battle reports and that the battle played out much differently than the official reports state.  In particular, Commander Martin argued that the amount of ammunition expended makes it obvious the battle went much longer than the 30 minutes Hull claimed in his after-battle report. 

Here is what Martin puts forth on this point: " As for Hull's statements that the close action lasted 30 minutes, one must consider them in relation not only to the sequence of events but to the reported ammunition expenditure by Constitution.  This appears in Moses Smith's recollection and is said to have been taken from the ship's log.  According to this source, she fired 953 rounds of all kinds.  If we delete the ten 18-pounder shot…by the bow chasers, and if we assume that the 260 stands of grape all were used in double-shotted loads, we are still left with 683 rounds to be fired by twenty-seven guns in a half hour.  This equates to each of those guns firing once every minute and eleven seconds, an incredible sustained rate of fire for gun crews in their first battle.  Even if we assume that the 100 rounds of canister likewise were expended in double shots, the rate of fire remains a surprising minute and twenty-three seconds between rounds."  This argument ultimately provides the foundation for all of Martin's other arguments… It lengthens the battle considerably and allows him to justify using the British start time of 5pm and inserting a whole section of maneuvering that no eyewitness account corroborates (Martin actually states in his book "the record goes blank" here and proceeds to fill it in with his speculation presented as fact - yikes!).

The prodigious amounts outlined would rightly raise eyebrows.  But the explanation given by Commander Martin would not be very likely.  He seems to have overlooked the simplest and most obvious answer to the explanation of this prodigious output of iron and lead - never seems to have considered it...  The truth is that USS Constitution fired every broadside - every discharge- with TWO round shot.  Every.  One.  Look at this interesting snippet gleaned from Commander Martin's own website - The Captains Clerk:

[From the Secretary of the Navy] To Captain Charles G. Ridgely, Baltimore, MD, 31 Aug 1813:

        "I have before me your letter of yesterday, and am not surprized that you burst one half Mr. Dorsey's Carronades.  The proof was too severe, and I am astonished that any of them stood it.  The particulars of the proof of the Carronades for the Constellation, having certainly escaped your recollection.  The Gunner of the Navy Yard, who has proved all the Guns, for several years, on this station, assures me, that he has never used any other proof than that which Capt. Tingey certified, and delivered to Mr. Dorsey; and that, in the instance of the Constellations Carronades, none of them were tried a second time ‑‑  The long heavy Guns were, and this may have given rise to the mistake.

        "The Constitution's Carronades were proved in the same manner, and they, in the action with the Guerriere, stood a full charge, with two round shot, every round during the action.

        "The pocket Gunner is very equivocal in respect to the proof of Carronades.  He says, 'They are proved with 2 rounds, with their chambers full of powder, and one Shot, and one wad;' but, in the table, assigns 8 lbs of powder to a 32 pr. Carronade, as a proof charge, but says nothing of a shot or wad.  The chamber will not hold 1/8 part of the weight of the Shot in powder.  The fact is, that the proof, used at this station, has been amply sufficient, and Mr. Foxall, or his clerk, always attends to see the powder weighed, agreeably to the proof charge contained in Com. Tingey's certificate.

        "You will, therefore, have all the Carronades proved in conformity with the certificate; and if, after the first proof, you have reason to suspect any particular piece, it will be well to repeat the proof."

Commander Martin seems to have never considered this very simple and obvious answer to the dilemma of the ammunition expenditure. If we isolate and examine the 32 pounder carronade round shot - which would only be used in the close engagement - the math works out quite nicely (even for those of us without advanced math degrees).  I agree with Martin that the grape and canister would've been thrown in on top of the round shot for good measure and can be omitted from our calculation:

236 32 pdr round shot expended in 35 minutes.  (Let's round up to 240 for us math-challenged types)

Double-shotted , so divide by two and get 120 discharges in 35 minutes.

12 carronades on a broadside... 120/12 gives 10 discharges for each gun.

35 minutes/10 discharges gives us one discharge every 3.5 minutes.  

The math works out exactly the same for the 24 pdrs.  It is very likely that the American gun crews loaded most of a full charge along with two round shot for each discharge.  They probably filled up the remaining space in the tube with grape/canister and let 'er rip.  Mark Adkin in his excellent  "Trafalgar Companion" notes that a well drilled British gun crew could fire one round every two minutes or so... The Guerriere crew claimed to have outshot the Americans by a 3/2 ratio in the after-battle court martial.  So it is also probable that the British outshot the Americans, but with reduced charges and single round shot.  Based on the damage to Constitution, most of the British shot flew high as the crews loaded and fired without regard to the uproll of the ship.  The Americans, for the most part, seem to have waited to fire on the downroll.

Does anyone think a crew drilled constantly for six weeks by professional American naval officers can fire one double-shotted round every 3.5 minutes?  Me too.  I've used 35 minutes because Martin mentions that length of time elsewhere in his justification.  Even at 30 minutes (which Capt Hull claimed) we have a discharge on average every 3.0 minutes - I'm good with that too. It certainly explains the gruesome damage inflicted on HMS Guerriere - all the accounts of washtubs of blood flowing down hatches and bits of brain and skull scattered across the smoldering decks when the prize crew got on board.  Not to mention the water filling her hold that eventually sealed her doom.

I have great respect for Tyrone Martin and his immense contribution to our knowledge and understanding of the USS Constitution, but his theory regarding the Guerriere battle is a bit whacky and most of the recent historians seem to have dismissed it.

  • Member since
    February 2003
  • From: Lacombe, LA.
Posted by Big Jake on Monday, January 6, 2014 9:38 PM

Not to jump too off topic of the 1812 version, but I've ben commissioned to make repairs on a model of the USS Mississippi circa 1841.  In researching the armament, I cam e across a reference to the USS Constitution where she was outfitted in the 1840-1843ish era with Paixhens guns (think Dahlgren style).  I did not know that- learn something new everyday.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Paixhans_gun

Jake

 

 

  • Member since
    June 2013
Posted by jayman on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 2:29 PM

Force9, that is very interesting. I have only had time to read your reply once, which is not enough to grasp all the details. But what do you make of the number of shots fired versus the amount of powder  used? I believe I read somewhere that the charge for a 24 pounder was 6 pounds. Also, I understand the Constitution used canisters made of lead foil instead of flannel bags for the gunpowder. That helped increase the rate of fire because it was not necessary to wet sponge the barrel after each shot.

I also believe all the numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt. The battle probably took longer with fewer shots expended by more powder consumed.

We may never know exactly how the battle went.

But we do know the result: At the end of the battle the Guerriere was a mastless hulk. Just how it got that way is open to question and speculation.

  • Member since
    June 2010
  • From: Irvine, CA
Posted by Force9 on Wednesday, January 8, 2014 11:03 PM

Hello Big Jake - Page  438 of Chapelle's "The History of the American Sailing Navy" has a nice overview of those guns.  They were big boomers - 64 pdrs!  Apparently all shell guns came to be called "Paixhen guns" even if they did not originate directly from the French design.

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.