Well Jose, I tend to agree wit you; in that my current Connie build depicts the for gun ports closed and no guns behind them (post Hull era). I have 15 guns on deck, not the Revell 16!
The problem I have with that configuration is that the Hull model, with it’s 15 guns and 15 ports, has guns deployed in the most forward ports. ON THE HULL MODEL THERE ARE GUN PORTS AT THE LOCATION WHERE WE THINK THE BRIDEL PORT WAS CUT A COUPLE MONYHS LATER BY BAINBRIDGE! Think about that; either we are wrong, or the Hull model is wrong.
I have three hulls, one I’m working on, one for spares and the third that I will modify to correct Revell errors to the extent possible, such as the oversized hatch.
I am studying the spare hull to see if I can take the spar deck bulwarks down to deck level and rebuild them so the guns are in alignment. If that turns out possible to do I will adapt hull three accordingly.
Mr Eriksen opens his book with an assessment of the Hull Model, and how he believes it was built. In short, he believes it was started by one crewmember as an individual project, but when the crew learned that their commander was departing due to family matters shortly after their victory over Guerriere, several members of the crew hastily tag-teamed to finish the model. Lots of shotcuts were taken, So while the model itself is a weath of information, Eriksen concludes that there are also flaws due to its hasty construction. If true, then i would have to suggest that among these flaws may explain the status of the gun deck ports.
Even our late Professor Tilley, while admiring the Hull model, noted the missing detail in the model’s hull (no ship’s wheel, crude guns, no pin rails) while also lauding the rigging job.
i hope you have a chance to view the extract from the Eriksen book.
I photographed my model in profile, then aligned it with a drawing based on the original drafts by William Doughty, a draftsman working under Josiah Fox, the “Inventor” of the original 6 superfrigates:
As you can see, the gun deck gunports on the Revell line up very well with the original drafts of the Constitution as launched. Even the steps running up the side of the ship are very similar. My contention is that Revell got the gun deck gunports right, except that they added the bridle ports at the forward end of the gun deck, and then added guns at those locations, this last of which is incorrect.
The chains and the spar deck gun ports are another matter. The chesstree through which the main course tack lines run is placed differently - see the orange line. The chainplate patterns and deadeye locations are slightly different. The gun ports are different because as planned, the constitution did not have solid bulwarks on the spar deck.
These differences don’t bother me much - spar deck bulwarks changed throughout her career and are easily modified. But the gun deck gunports did not move - these were built in as part of the frames, and could not be readily moved.
My beef with the model’s configuration has to do with the foremost gunport on the quarterdeck and the rearmost gunport at the forecastle (foc’sle for short). There is only a sliver of a bulwark forward of that foremost gun port, barely enough to anchor the breach ropes for the carronades mounted, and certainly not enough to rig any tackles. To extend the bulwark, I would have had to move the entry port further forward, and also move the steps forward. I improvised, but I don’t particularly care for my solution. I will post pics shortly.
Your drawing depicts exactly what I am saying. Placement of the deadeyes on the foremast channel, if done as shown in the drawing, would seriously restrict the 3rd and 4th caronnades on the spar deck. In addition, it would also be difficult to properly affix the links and chain plates without interfering with the gun deck doors (especially the full height doors provided on the Revell model). While I was able to get what looks like relatively even spacing of the deadeyes, it is somewhat different than that shown in the drawing.
Great read on the Hull model and the masting & rigging of her. I may have to find a copy of that book.
The “model vs draft” is real interesting. I would suppose that Revell did do a good job of laying out the gun ports according to the draft! But what about according to the Hull model? The layout is different. Anyone care to comment on what he real ship might have looked like?
Looking at the draft drawing vs. model; the quarter deck and forecastle deck carronade locations seem way off on the model.
Assuming that the carronades and bulwark construction would be based on stanchion locations which in turn are extensions of the frames; and that the closely paired stanchions in the drawings are locations for carronades: the drawing’s locations more or less centered between the guns below makes the most sense to me.
Note on the drawing that the entry steps lead uo through a port on the drawing. And again, that centers them between two 32 lb guns.
No problem moving the chesstree.
I suppose the easier thing a modeler could do to revise stuff would be to rebuild the bulwarks.
While that may be something someone just starting on the model could accomplish, mine is way to far into the build to go that route. I have multiple sources for my build (7 by my count), and the only thing consistent is the inconsistency of the plans. At some point, you just have to make your best guess based on the evidence at hand and just be happy with your decision down the road. Based on all the comments I have received over the last 1 1/2 years, I am and will continue to be proud of my build. And to be brutally honest, only those of us who have taken the time to do this research will actually know the difference. Most folks will just look at her and marvel at the finished product, without any mind to the numerous agonies we have endured along the way. Kind of like raising kids: you do your best and hope that you can be proud of the final product. Either way, I know I have learned a LOT about ships from others on this forum and from my two clubs.
Here is a picture of the front third of the Constitution as she appears today. The carronade ports are not directly between the gun deck ports, but are logically spaced to allow the deadeyes and shrouds to run between both gun deck and spar deck ports.
Unfortunately the Revell spar deck ports are very poorly spaced, as are the deadeyes.
Four deadeyes/lanyards between the second and third gun deck ports, and the placement of the spar deck ports for the carronades are nowhere near where they should be to optimally fit between the deadeyes/lanyards. I’m too far along to fix either the deadeyes or the carronade ports.
With regard to the Hull model at the Peabody Essex Museum, here are my 2 cents worth.
The model was built by a sailor/group of sailors on the ship, who, while intimately familiar with the details of the ship, did not have a draftsman’s or nautical engineer’s eye for scale or proportion, hence the oversized guns on the spar deck, the distorted proportions in the shape of the hull and perhaps, the spacing of the gun ports, in particular the forward ports.
In his review, Mr Eriksen points out how early portions of the build were more carefully executed than later portions; for example, the gun deck was fully planked, but the spar deck was completed using larger pieces of wood.
All of this points to the larger truth, that while the model is a historical treasure with a wealth of useful information, including the rigging detail and color scheme, it should not be considered an accurate scale representation.
I am working on my gun deck and think I can cut my spar deck bulwarks level with the gun deck and rebuild them, using the spar bulwarks I would have off my parts kit. Maybe.
Any suggestions on where to place them regarding carronade ports?
Not going to do any fixing as it seems not practible. Would it be easier for you to adjust chains a little to improve carronade interference? The chains molded into the hull aren’t very prominent.
Yes I agree with your decision. If any bulwark cutting were to be done, it probably would have been best done before even assembling the hull.
Im going to take a good look at how the deadeyes actually line up with the carronade ports. I may end up completely rebuilding the channels, modifying the deadeye locations.
I finished the head. I added a couple of seats of comfort to each side. Revell’s placement of the single seat on each side is illogical, as several rigging lines pass directly over the seat, and there would be no room to sit on it without having to duck them. I had to take into account where the bumpkins or boomkins would pass through the head rails.
Thanks Jose. The plans I have show the cables dropping through the gun deck through spurling holes just forward of the main hatch. But they also show chain cable instead of hemp for the anchor cables. I think these plans are for the refit done sometime in the late 1830s.
I’ve started painting the hull on my third Constitution and will be using a lot of what I have seen here on that build.
Your build and Bob’s are excellent and very good tutorials, as is Bill"s with his HMS Victory. I hope my third will be just as well.
This is one of the drawings on which I based my gun deck design and my rigging of the capstan, anchor cables and messenger cables. It describes the HMS Victory’s system, but I believe the Constitution’s system cannot have been much different. Note the heavy vertical beams just next to the rearmost pumps, designed to keep the messenger cable away from the pumps. I placed similar structures next to my pumps:
Guns are fastened in to the gun deck. Thanks for that picture, putting in the messenger cables now and that picture has been a great help. BM posted a picture of HMS Victory. Those pictures are a great help. After the messenger cable is finished, it will be time to tie in the guns.
Have you guys had a propensity to talk to yourselves during these builds?
