Continental Frigate Hancock

Well, the time has come for me to make my first effort to post pictures in the Forum. I’ve bought a new computer (a Mac) and a new copy of Photoshop Elements 11, and I’ve set up a Photobucket account. Here goes nothing:

So far so good. I built this model of the American Continental Frigate Hancock between 1977 and 1983. The scale is 3/32"=1’, or 1/128, giving it an overall length of about 20". It’s scratchbuilt, with some manufactured parts (mainly the blocks, deadeyes, and crew figures). The construction method is “plank-on-hollowed-out-solid,” with the hull carved from basswood lifts glued either side of a plywood “keel plate.” The hull planking is strip styrene. I’m not sure I’d use that method again, but it worked. The glue that holds the planks to the hull has now been holding just fine for more than thirty years.

http://i1360.photobucket.com/albums/r650/jtilley1/38900020_zps3417a94e.jpg

It’s based on the drawings that the British made after they captured the ship - the “Admiralty draught.” Howard I. Chapelle traced those drawings for publication in his great book, The History of the American Sailing Navy. I bought prints of the Chapelle drawings from the Smithsonian (where almost all of his drawings are held), took them to an architectural printing firm, and had them reduced from the original 1/48 to 1/128. In those days that reduction process was was rather complicated, requiring big, expensive equipment. Nowadays an architectural printer with a good xerox copier can do it in a few minutes - and if the original isn’t bigger than 8 1/2"x11" I can do it at home on my Epson printer.

Nobody’s found the *Hancock’*s spar dimensions. After a good deal of thought I decided to use those of the Raleigh, another 32-gun frigate that was under construction at the same time. The Raleigh was built at Portsmouth, New Hampshire; the Hancock at Newburyport, Massachusetts. James Lees’s fine book, The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, was an enormous help in this model. It seems pretty safe to assume that American shipwrights and riggers in 1775-6 generally followed British practice.

My late father (a retired architecture professor, who had extensive training in sculpture and aesthetics) helped me out in designing the mounting pedestals. Getting the height, diameter, and placement of those things is pretty important to the overall appearance of the model. I think we got it about right this time.

The model normally lives in a plexiglass case with a walnut base. (That’s the big reason why it’s lasted thirty years.) For the pictures I ran a Savage paper photo backdrop behind and under it.

The figurehead of the real ship was slightly larger than life-size. By pure coincidence it turned out that an HO figure from the extensive Preiser line who had his arms folded across his chest was just the right size. He had to get a new hat, coat, and legs. A letter from Commodore Sir George Collier describes the color scheme of the figurehead in remarkable detail.

Making the stern was quite a little project. It’s built up from styrene sheet, styrene strip, Milliput epoxy putty (wonderful stuff), and clear plastic (though there’s nothing inside except a little sign reading “Sorry, no interior detail.”) The letters for the ship’s name are from a set of styrene alphabets that used to be available from Slater’s, of England. The serifs are doctored with Milliput. The muntons in the windows are white decal stripes; the “Don’t Tread On Me” lettering is from an N-scale decal sheet from Microscale.

In real life the transom is about 3" wide. Blowing up this image on a nice new Mac screen is a humbling experience. I can see now that the top of the left hand window is a little crooked. My bad.

The crew figures came from several plastic kits that happened to be just about on the right scale: the Revell Bounty, Santa Maria, and harbor tug Long Beach (!) and the Airfix Endeavour. They got pretty extensively modified with plastic sheet and Milliput. (The green-coated Continental Marine on the forecastle deck a couple of shots back started life as a helmeted Spanish soldier on board the Santa Maria.) The only sign of the model’s age is the green patina on that guy’s telescope. The scope is brass; I varnished it, scraped it, and cussed at it, but it kept turning green. Sometime after I took these photos I finally gave up on it, decided it’s a leather-wrapped telescope, and painted it black.

The wheel rims and hub were turned from brass, and drilled with the Unimat’s indexing head. The spokes are plastic rod, built up to profile with a mix of PollyS paint and white glue.

The two binnacles in front of the wheel have compasses inside them, made from a set of 1/72 aircraft instruments. Actually only one binnacle has a compass. I succumbed to irresistable temptation and put an altimeter in the other one.

The boats were made with a technique I learned from an old book by Ewart Freeston called Modeling Open Boats. I started by cutting a piece to form the keel, stem, and sternpost from a piece of holly. Then I cut two blocks (also holly) to form the two sides of the hull - with the growth rings of the wood radiating out from the centerline of the hull at the top. (That’s important.) Then it was a matter of carving the exterior to shape, and hollowing it out. The trick there is to hold the workpiece over a light bulb as you carve. When light starts to show through the wood - STOP.

Here’s a trick for making oars on this scale (and smaller). Heat up a straight piece of brass wire over a candle, let it cool, and mash one end of it in a vise. The mashed part becomes the blade. Cut and file to shape.

The hammocks are tissue paper, treated with my favorite mixture of acrylic paint and white glue. I don’t remember how long it took to make all of them. The netting is nylon material from a fabric store. The trick is to find netting with square mesh. Most of it is hexagonal or octagonal. With 20/20 hindsight I realize that the mesh I used is actually too fine for the scale. Noted for next time.

The deck gratings are britannia castings from Bluejacket. Unfortunately the company doesn’t make them any more. The berth deck only runs under the hatches, where it can be seen.

The gun barrels were turned from brass on my dear old Unimat lathe. The trucks (wheels) for the carriages, and the handles on the quoins, were turned from boxwood. (Great stuff if you can find it.) The other parts of the carriages are made from styrene sheet.

The spars are turned from degama, an extremely dense hardwood that can be turned down to a really fine diameter and almost refuses to bend. (It does, however, break. I found that out the hard way - more than once.)

Most of the rigging is silk thread, spun up into several dozen diameters on my primitive “rope-making machine.” (I made it from a Lego set, and it worked just fine.) The big exceptions are the ratlines, which were made from nickel-chromium wire. (A friend picked up a spool with several miles on it at a military surplus store.) That turned out to be great stuff for the purpose: it can be tied in a clove hitch, and teased so it sags between the shrouds. The footropes are brass wire. The blocks and deadeyes are britannia metal castings from Bluejacket. I lost count of how many I had to buy, but the expense was spread over several years. I got six years (with several long gaps) of modeling out of less money than a 1/350 Trumpeter battleship costs today. (That doesn’t count the plexiglass for the case, which, as I remember, was the biggest single expense.)

According to the tables in David Steel’s Elements of Rigging and Seamanship, a 32-gun frigate like this was issued with about fourteen miles of rope. I believe it.

Looking at this thing now I have to wonder whether my 62-year-old fingers and eyeballs would be up to doing it again. I doubt it.

The sails are made from lens tissue, treated with a mixture of PollyS paint (as it was called in those days) and white glue. I’ve described the technique elsewhere in the Forum. Why I thought all those sailors should look so anemic I have no idea.

The skinny little bundle of spar and canvas lashed inside the topmast shroud is the fore topgallant royal yard and sail. During this period the topgallant royal was a temporary, fine-weather sail set above the topgallant, with minimal rigging; when it was furled the yard and sail were sent down and stowed like this. By a decade or so later the topgallant royal had morphed into the true royal, whose yard that was more-or-less permanently secured to the mast.

The photos, if anybody’s interested, were taken with my dear old Pentax 35mm film camera, before I went digital. (It still works perfectly - though most of the time I use my digital Pentax K-10.) The background, as mentioned earlier, is a Savage paper one (about $25 from Adorama or B and H Photo), and the light came from three daylight-balanced blue photo bulbs mounted in “clip light” reflector fixtures from Lowe’s, with cheesecloth diffusers. (I’ve got a better lighting setup now, with umbrellas.) The film is Fuji Reala. I had the negatives made into a digital disc, so I could Photoshop them.

Thanks for looking. Someday soon I’ll try posting some pictures of other models. Getting the pix from Photoshop Elements on a Mac to Photobucket to the Forum is a little complicated, but I think I’m getting the hang of it.

Great to see your photo post, Professor! (I know it’s been vexing you for a while.)

Look forward to seeing more. Always…more

It’s good to see your Hancock again, it has been quite a while.

That is beautiful work Dr. Tilley. Did you know that Mac users are discerning people? Congratulations!

Many thanks, gentlemen. I don’t know that Mac users are any more discerning than anybody else, but they’re happy. There seems to be general agreement in the photography world that the Mac is preferable to Windows for photo editing. I don’t have enough experience with the Mac yet to form an opinion, but I can say that it works mighty well. It obviously has considerably more photo editing capacity than I do.

That’s wonderful to see, and congratulations for tackling the posting issue. I think it’s a wonderful model; the builder obviously understood rigging!

If I were to ever build something like that, I’d consider it a lifetime achievement. Well done.

Are those studding sail booms, and if so when did that come into usage on fully rigged ships?

I’ll host you a bottle of Malmsy in officers mess!

Many thanks, GMorrison. Yes, studding sails came into use in the late seventeenth century. In a few minutes’ digging on the web I couldn’t find any pictures of the Hancock that showed her with studding sails set, but inventories of two other Continental frigates, the Raleigh and Alliance, do make it clear that they had studding sails. I think it’s a fair assumption that the Hancock set them too; she would have been an unusual frigate if she hadn’t.

Wow, what can I say?

That is very, very impressive. Dang.

John,

Your Continental Navy Ship Hancock is a beautiful model, as is your HMAV Bounty. It’s terrific to see your work here.

Bill Morrison

Looks great!

John,

It’s so nice to see the Hancock once more! I’m delighted that you’re posting pictures again and look forward to many more images of your models.

Mike

This looks great, Prof. It feels especially good when a model looks so good after so many years, anemic sailors notwithstanding.

Great work!

Rick Heinbaugh

BTW just noticed. Why are the muzzles of the cannons red?

Obvious answer- “because they were in reality”.

New to me.

That color scheme shows up (albeit not consistently) in quite a few eighteenth-century frigate models. It seems to have been a matter of aesthetics.

Sometimes just the flat face of the muzzle was red; sometimes the red extended back to the first reinforce. I suspect it depended on somebody’s taste.

With 20/20 hindsight, I wish I hadn’t used such a bright red. My excuse is that I based that choice on contemporary models. It’s been pretty firmly established now, though, that the inboard works (of British warships, at least) were painted with a dull “red ochre” - and that it was intended to serve as a general-purpose primer, not, as we thought for many years, to camouflage blood stains. (My guess is that it eventually came to be a tradition with not a lot of thought behind it, and that hiding blood was considered a useful benefit.)

Thank you Professor for posting this. It is truly awe inspiring and what I try and strive for with my ships although I know a have a ways to go. I really love the rigging on this and your other ships, but then again I really like the hulls too.

Steve

WOW!

That certainly is a beautiful ship, your talent and patience in building such a thing is astonishing, I hope at some point in the future to even build a ship half as nice as that.

You must be a proud owner! Didn’t think it was even possible to fully rig a ship model as such at any tabletop scale!

Pete

What amazes me John is that the Hancock was represented as Plank on Bulkhead. But I have never seen a ship model of very many of the ships from the War of 1812 namely any of the ships of the Lake Erie fleet like the USS Niagra. And I see the Niagra almost regularly once a year when she sails through the Soo Locks where I work.

BTW John styrene actually does make a better option than actual wood since it would usually be cheaper than wood with one sheet making lots of planks. And if you have an idea how many planks you need per side dictates how many sheets of styrene you need. And if I remember Evergreen styrene sheets still cost under $10 a pack. I think it might be interesting if someone can make plastic bulkheads and keels to make a cheaper but sturdier plank on bulkhead ship kit.

Mikey, I’m afraid I don’t understand your first comment. My model of the Hancock certainly isn’t plank-on bulkhead. It is, as I said in the first post of this thread, plank-on-solid. I’m unaware of any Hancock kit, in any format. Where was it “represented as plank on bulkhead”?

Model Shipways offers a very nice plank-on-bulkhead Niagara: http://www.modelexpo-online.com/product.asp?ITEMNO=MS2240 .

Whether styrene is a better material than wood for planking is questionable. Basswood strips are a good deal cheaper than styrene ones - generally speaking. In my opinion the best planking material of all is holly. If you have a miniature table saw (which I didn’t when I built the Hancock) you can rip your own planks from a sheet of holly veneer, which costs about $1.50 a square foot.

This *ost takes me down a slight alley in my memory. Apologies in advance for the detour.

Way back in middle school in the 60’s there was still a course called “Industrial Arts”, or “shop” for short. Imagine, we still had a society where learning how to make things with machine tools was a good living.

So in “architectural drafting”, we designed houses. But here’s the nasty part. This particular teacher’s idea of an architectural elevation was to draw the framing at 1/4" = 1’-0" scale. All of the elevations, floor plans and roof framing. And not a framing plan like is made for a steel building,with single lines indicating each member. No, double lines spaced a scale 1 1/2" apart. Drawn on a paper that was just like the stuff “manila folders” are made out of, only light green. With a 4H pencil, which meant mistakes could not really be erased without leaving a groove, or tearing the facing off the paper. Which of course meant starting over. And hand cleanliness was enforced by inspection, and if necessary, remedy with a “Navy brush”. Needless to say we were all terrified of the teacher, and got pretty good at drafting.

Once the drawings were “done”, we stretched waxed paper over them and cut and glued strip wood together with white glue. Mr. Costarella spent all afternoon at a table saw making the stuff for us. I got as far as placing my pyramidal pier blocks on my base. I think one boy got his floor framed and a wall up.

But I sure learned some wood modeling skills.

Eventually, in spite of this, I did become an architect. But as soon as those plans solidified, I was banned forever by my father from using table saws.

I have been stalled for a while on my big Victory with how to plank the upper gun deck. The middle and lower are just painted, which is fine, but the upper is of course more visible through the boats etc. My earlier idea was to replace the plastic decks with scribed sheets of wood. But it’s not going to be satisfactory in terms of the end joints, or the caulking of the long seams.Having looked at some recent posts, and reading some of yours from earlier, John; I’ve come to the conclusion that if I do it “one board at at time” it will be easier in the long run, better looking and allow for some details such as the king plank, joggled planks and so forth. Thanks for the fine example set.

Kit manufacturers have been trying for years to figure out ways to make decks out of single pieces. The worst offenders, to my eye, are the HECEPOB companies that try to make decks out of plywood.

A ship’s deck, with rare exceptions (e.g. aircraft carriers), is curved in two dimensions: sheer from fore to aft, and camber from port to starboard. That means that the surface of a deck is a compound curve. Plywood, or any sheet of any other rigid material, doesn’t like to be forced into a compound curve. Our ancestors figured out hundreds of years ago that the solution is to make the deck out of narrow planks. On a model, that takes some time (though not as much as lots of people apparently think), but is actually easier than trying to force a sheet of some material into the requisite compound curve.

I’m a big booster of holly for the purpose, but if you don’t want to go that route basswood is a good second choice. If you’re planking over genuine beams, the deck probably should be at least 1/32" thick. If you’re laying the planks over a styrene deck piece, you might want to look into the .020" strips that Bluejacket sells specifically for planking: http://www.bluejacketinc.com/fittings/wood3.htm .

I also saw recently, on the Freetime Hobbies site, a line of thin maple planks with pressure-sensitive adhesive on the back. As I remember, the narrower widths sold out almost immediately.