• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

USS Constitution 1:70 Scratch

but also served as support for hinges and ropes to pull the port up and open
Hi Kurt, Can you post a photo or contemporary drawing showing this? It makes sense, but I cannot find this on any contemporary models. Looking at some contemporary models it seems the hinges are always under the rigols and the ropes are above them, neither in contact where the rigols could lend support. Thanks
Allan
1750069075352.jpeg
1750069141297.jpeg
1750069319076.jpeg
 
Based on the US Navy plans, I calculated the widths of the fore, main, and mizzen channels scaled to my model, because the widths of these channels are not specified in the MS kit plans.

These plans showed that all three channels have different widths. Accordingly, the fore channel is 16 mm wide, which is significantly wider than the main and mizzen channels. I don’t know the reason for this, but that’s how it is. I calculated the main channel to be 12 mm and the mizzen channel to be 11.2 mm. These measurements do not include the strip that will cover the chain plate slots. I cut the channels from 2.1 mm thick basswood sheet and temporarily attached them in place with pins. After marking the positions of the slots where the chain plates will be attached on the channels, I will remove the channels because I will be cutting those slots.

22.jpg

23.jpg

25.jpg

26.jpg

24.jpg

27.jpg
 
These plans showed that all three channels have different widths. Accordingly, the fore channel is 16 mm wide, which is significantly wider than the main and mizzen channels. I don’t know the reason for this, but that’s how it is.

Just guessing, but do you think the extra width in the forward channel is to allow clearance for the flare in the forward bulwarks?
 
Just guessing, but do you think the extra width in the forward channel is to allow clearance for the flare in the forward bulwarks?
I am building the ship as it looks after its 2015 restoration.

Over time, restorations were made on this ship. In particular, the topgallant rails on the bulwarks were removed. I do not know if the fore channel is still wider than the others in the ship's current state. The plans I looked at for the channels are the ones used in the 1927-1931 restoration. As you said, the fact that the fore channel is wider than the others may be related to the height of the bulwark.
 
Last edited:
Mustafa your Constitution is really starting to look the part and much to be admired. Are you intending to fully rig her? A task I know that you are fully capable of and one I will look forward to see.

All the best JJ..
Thank you Jack. I am continuing as if I will do the full rigging but I haven't made my final decision yet. I have been building this model for two years and I don't know if I can have the patience to continue for another two years :)
 
Based on the US Navy plans, I calculated the widths of the fore, main, and mizzen channels scaled to my model, because the widths of these channels are not specified in the MS kit plans.

These plans showed that all three channels have different widths. Accordingly, the fore channel is 16 mm wide, which is significantly wider than the main and mizzen channels. I don’t know the reason for this, but that’s how it is. I calculated the main channel to be 12 mm and the mizzen channel to be 11.2 mm. These measurements do not include the strip that will cover the chain plate slots. I cut the channels from 2.1 mm thick basswood sheet and temporarily attached them in place with pins. After marking the positions of the slots where the chain plates will be attached on the channels, I will remove the channels because I will be cutting those slots.

View attachment 527830

View attachment 527831

View attachment 527832

View attachment 527833

View attachment 527835

View attachment 527836
Good morning Mustafa. Beautiful work and very inspiring. Cheers Grant
 
Thank you Jack. I am continuing as if I will do the full rigging but I haven't made my final decision yet. I have been building this model for two years and I don't know if I can have the patience to continue for another two years :)
I too can relate!
She's looking terrific and will be an exceptionally arresting beauty wherever you decide to drop anchor!
 
Back
Top