USS Constitution 1797 by The Bitter End - 1/76.8 - 44 Gun Frigate - heavily modified kit

[The BItter End]

Hello Everyone!

This is my very first post on SOS and I am excited to be here.

After the catastrophic loss of the content on Model Ship World. I had more or less abandoned the idea of rebuilding my log and decided to just continue my build in private with the invaluable help of one @Marcus.K. .This was until I has approached by @Der Alte Rentner with the very happy news that @Jsgerson has infact saved my build log and it could therefore be rebuilt. A huge thank you to all these individuals. It is thanks to them that I can resume the online component of this project.

a few notes before I begin…

Firstly this was originally meant to be a kit build until I was inspired to do an “as launched” 1797 version. Little did I know just how much variation there would be from the modern version of this beautiful ship and the amount of work it would take to get there. I ultimately ONLY used the internal bulkheads(heavily modified to accommodate a gun deck) and the provided limewood strips for the first planking. From there out everything has been made with pear wood from old pear trees from my farm. After some discussion nit was agreed that this project fell under the scratch built category. If this is incorrect please let me know so that I can move this project over.

Secondly, this project is above all else a process of learning for me, both historically and practically. You will therefore see that there are several things on this model which are done and redone and re-re done. This is due to the fact that I am not working off any sort of real plans so sometimes one decision will have to be changed out of the need to accommodate another or as new evidence emerges from research.

Finaly on the research side, every decision that is made is informed by the available resources, these are however often vague, contradictory and imperfect in all sorts of ways. We ( @Marcus.K. ) and myself are endeavoring to interpret these sources as accurately as possible through hundreds of hours of discussions(almost 4000 WhatsApp images have been exchanged between the 2 of us regarding this vessel) we are however acutely aware that we may be completely incorrect in our interpretations and welcome discussions and corrections wherever possible.

I will repost this log one piece at a time and try to edit it so as to make it as user-friendly as possible and so as to reflect any revisions to the design which came at a later stage. Please have patience with me as I do this. The agricultural season has caught us early and time is in short supply.

I look forward to having you all along. Your help, knowledge and support have been sorely missed over the last few months of this build.

Cheers - TBE

P.S. I will post any relevant questions or comments in bold Italics at the top of any post where my response to that question my help shed light on my build process and choices. If this question was asked by you please feel free to tag yoursel fso that I may add your name. I do not have the names of original posters logged.

 

[The BItter End]

After having begun a Build log for my HMS Pegasus in 2019 with great enthusiasm life got in the way (everything from the daily challenges of being a farmer right the way through to falling through a warehouse roof and spending a long time recovering). This left a gaping hole in my progress log. My intention is to begin this Constitution build and record every annoying step from beginning to end. I like to think that it might help some of the modelers on here who are also beginners with a limited collection of tools and experience (Pegasus was my first build and is still not quite finished as I am waiting for parts).

I do enter into this build with a fair amount of apprehension. Literally the first word of this log brings up a question, the first of many. Should I be referring to this vessel as the Constitution or the USS constitution. My intention is to build her as she was in 1797 at which point she would have been the (frigate) Constitution...I think. Everything I have read about this kit tells me it will be a huge challenge, but I am hoping that with the help of the kind people on this forum and the bottomless well of knowledge contained within its build logs I will be able to create something worthy of a glass box. I have already had incredible help from @Der Alte Rentner so I am feeling cautiously optimistic.

My first big challenge is a decision on how to approach the hull, I think I will go with double planking. Due to my location and budget, it is almost impossible to get hold of planking strips for the second planking that are worthy of creating an unpainted and coppered hull so I have decided that I will cut pear wood planking from the pile of pear trees destined for the fireplace. This in itself is a pretty big challenge, but I have managed to extract some decent stock from the trunks and my early trials with ripping planks has lead me to believe I can cut stock with success. This does however lead me to wonder what the correct size stock to rip is? What I have read in terms of plank length is anything between 22ft and 60ft (values which seem too low and too high to me) and 12 inches wide. I have sort of decided to go with plank lengths of 35ftx12inches (+- 150mmx4mm at scale). If anyone has any suggestions on correct dimensions, please let me know!!

This also leads me to another minor point. I created a little excel spreadsheet to convert imperial measurements both from the plans and information from the original ship to metric scale measurements. It is pretty simple but if anyone happens to need something like that, I will happily send it through.

I think I will try and create a model that is structurally as true as possible to the 1797 Constitution but with a paint scheme that is more like the Belle Poule (which I believe was based on the constitution). Largely natural wood, perhaps a little staining and black paint with some Ocher highlights. I like a somewhat more muted final outcome, and I can’t bring myself to paint or copper over the hundreds of hours it takes to produce a decent double planked hull. Taking a look at what is still an incomplete Pegasus model (as of 20 October 2024) on my other log will give you an idea of the style I like

I guess I should attach a photo of some sort to this post so for now I will simply be a closed constitution box containing many, many, many hours of work. Hopefully it is complete, I bought it for around 250 dollars off Facebook marketplace.

I look forward to sharing this journey with you all.

NB - the image below is posted purely for consistency, as mentioned in my opening post, the only thing that was used from this kit was the internal bulkheads and the limewood planking for the first layer of planks.

 

[The BItter End]

[I am also curious about the quality of "the most accurate kit" - since what I see at the bow on the box´s pictures is for example not a Hercules figure head which should be there for the 1797 appearance ... So how much do you plan to modify the kit?]

I was thinking about this very thing just before you sent this message. I think "the most accurate kit" is a bit of marketing gymnastics. Its more or less a big box of planks with some vague suggestions about what to do with them. From everything I have seen this is going to translate to something quite close to a scratch build with a huge amount of modification.

If you take a glance at my Pegasus you will see that there was fairly little that wasn't somewhat modified and if i could rebuilt that kit i would have done far more.

I am going to do my best to do the kit some sort of justice but I can’t make any promises just yet. If you happen to have any suggestions or see me going the wrong way please let me know!

I think you may be right about the kit being an accurate representation for the 1927 layout, I do foresee this being a problem and an adventure to try and get as close as possible to how she originally looked.

My "research" so far has only been reading scraps of information here and there, browsing through the constitution museum database and drawings, scrolling through logs and even asking AI for some information. I have been working on Pegasus so I have not yet had a chance to really get into proper research.

I would be enormously grateful if you would point me in the right direction on any of this information as one can easily get led astray with bad sources.

I guess this I have finally begun work on my Constitution....in a way

 

[The BItter End]

I have decided that I will be double planking the Hull. I prefer the unpainted look to best showcase the unique element of this hobby which is hull construction from individual planks. I also have access to several thousand Pear trees which present a bit of a challenge, but I am excited to approach it.

It was suggested to me by @Der Alte Rentner that I simply fill in between the frames and do a single planking over this(a great suggestion which will definitely save many hours of work) but I think I need the planking practice and I have the supplied timber from the kit so I will plank the hull as per the kit instructions and then plank over it with my pear wood planks...hopefully. If anyone has any advice on what to be careful for in this process I would be most grateful. I realize that I am making the hull thicker than was planned for in the kit so I'm anticipating some issues.

My research allowed me to settle on planks of 40ft by 12 inches (160mmx4.2mm at scale). this requires a staggering 95 running meters of planking by my calculations(assuming no wastage). The process requires me to cut out the straightest section of the tree with a chainsaw while avoiding sections with nails (nails are used on these trees to tie open branches to aid fruit bearing). I then rough cut the trunks to square on the bandsaw, square off 2 sides on the planer, rip 5mm planks on the table saw and then tun these planks into 2.5mm strips on the table saw with a thin strip jig built for the purpose. I then need to thickness down to 4.2mmx1.5mm (a process which I haven't quite figured out yet.

 

[The BItter End]

I have finally begun this Build process in earnest. I began With opening up the box and going through all the parts, removing the small items from their packaging and transferring them to my small parts organizers. I make use of these units which have small sub boxes with individual lids which I absolutely love. https://share.temu.com/vMlcL3WUfmA (Please let me know if this link breaks forum rules and I will remove it). Next was a quick stock take and parts inspection. It has been mentioned in other builds but Utmost care must be taken when removing parts from their frames, I managed to break a keel section before it was even properly out of the box.

I will spare you all another set of photo of the box contents which consist of vast quantities of bass wood and a multitude of bits and pieces.

For now I have packed everything back in the box and just removed the 8 sheets which contain hull frame sections. I will begin by removing the central keel sections with a Exacto knife and number 11 surgical blade(I bought about a million of them for next to nothing so I might as well use them). It is surprisingly hard to remove these sections without doing any damage.

intend to leave the hull unpainted and planked in a second layer of pear wood so I will make the visible keel sections from scratch using the same. The keel sections below have been removed for use as templates for scratch making these parts (Hopefully)

Moving on to doing the glue-up on the portions which won’t be visible once the hull is planked. I am doing the glue-up with Titebond original. The alignment was done by gently hammering a standard toothpick into the alignment holes of the sections and then sanding them flush(hot tip - you can save money by breaking the toothpick in half and using 1 toothpick for both holes.)

I then placed the sections between 2 sheets of wax paper and pressing them between various boards that were floating around the kitchen.

I lifted the weights after an hour or so to clear any squeeze out with a scalpel before it completely dries... and noticed that the warping of the bass wood caused the seams to open on 2 of the pieces. I therefore forced some glue into these gaps and re clamped with office clips. The lesson here is so either be more aggressive with the weight on a flat press or go with clips from the beginning.

I have removed all clamps and sanded and scraped off all the excess glue and char. Nothing too notable about this process but it is worth mentioning that the wood provided in the kit is very delicate so it breaks easily and can easily be over sanded, especially at the edges, as a result I have had 2 glue back 2 broken sections indicated below as well as put in a bit of a filler strip where I had removed too much material during sanding.

I have also simply photocopied the plans to transfer the bearding lines to the false keel, My intention is to do this using carbon paper but I will still have to see if this actually works.

If anyone has any tips or pointers at this point on how to go about double planking the hull any help would be very welcome. When I transfer the bearding line I am working from the assumption that I will have to raise the bearding line by the thickness of the additional layer of planking that I will be adding....so far that is all that I have on the subject.

The rest of the day was spent cutting more pear wood in preparation for milling. Hopefully I am not being over ambitious.

On an unrelated note, I have been looking for plans for the keel stem so that I might make my replacement stem in pieces as it would have been made in reality. I found plans from 1929 but they are significantly different from the provided stem pieces that I cannot really make use of them. I am not sure if that is because the kit plans are incorrect or if the 1929 plans are just a modern version of the stem but I am at a loss. If anyone has any suggestions or access to plans for a stem or era appropriate stem I would jump at the opportunity.

 

[The BItter End]

[In my humble opinion, if you have the kit, use the stem that came with it. I don't see an appreciable difference between the drawing you showed and the part in the box.]

In principle I do agree entirely. My motivation for making the stem from scratch is that I am leaving the model unpainted and a pear wood stem should be easier on the eyes than the basswood one provided. I also want to do it in sections to increase the chances that I can get cut the stem out of as uniform a piece of wood as possible, a challenging task with all the tiny knots in these trees. I am still talking a big game about doing this but It may not happen. The pear wood I have is presenting some significant challenges due to the incredibly cold winters and very hot summers where these trees grew, creating a very uneven wood density across the grain and this is exaggerated by the fact that they were farmed to bear fruit and not produce timber so there are plenty of knots to contend with....that being said please keep the opinions coming, I give them all serious consideration

 

[The BItter End]

Perhaps you can answer a question for me with your greater access to information. I have the original deck planking at 40ft by 7inches in length and width (thickness is not so relevant for me in this case. this scales to 2.3mm or 1/11" does that sound correct to you?

[Planks are typically no more than 12" (30 cm) wide at midships and with an average length of 40’ (12 m). That means at scale of 1:76.8:

· Max width: 5/32” (4 mm) (This what is provided in the kit)

· Average length: 6” (15 cm)

When approaching the bow or stern, the planks will narrow. Do not narrow more than ½ of the original plank width.]

I think I made a bit of an error and forgot to mention that I meant the planking for the deck. It sounds like you are referring to hull planking.

[Deck planks were about:

· 20’ (6.4m) long

· 8” and 10” (20 cm and 25 cm) wide

At 1:76.8 scale:

· 3¼” (8.25 cm) long

· 7/64” and 1/8” (2.5 mm and 3 mm) wide]

 

[The BItter End]

I I took a break from marking up the false keel as I needed to produce the hull planking to see what thickness I could consistently produce. I then churned out about 600 planks of 4.5mm x 1.5mm and will sand them back to their correct thickness as I need them. Because they are cut from raw trunks there is a lot of wastage so there will be a fair amount of culling happening.

While I was in the "big" workshop I also cut some pear wood planks of 6.7mm on the table saw and simply traced the outline of the provided keel components onto those planks being sure to avoid any knots and major inconsistencies in the wood. I then cut close to the line with my 1970s Delta Rockwell 14inch bandsaw with a blunt bent blade and then sanded back to the line on the belt sander and with a Dremel. This has produced reasonable results and with a bit of tweaking one can get a nice, neat fit on the false keel. I hope all this extra work pays off. It is not that obvious in the photos, but the pear really is a beautiful wood once it has been given a little bit of attention

It is probably worth repeating the warning that the parts provided in my kit were very fragile and broke exceptionally easily. The kit I have is apparently at least 15 years old which may have played a role in this fragility.

These parts still obviously need cleaning up and fitting but here are the rough cuts

NB!! This stem design was ultimately significantly changed. I cut away the tip of the stem to accommodate the Hercules figurehead, slotted a single slot for gammoning and added an additional brace. These features appear later in the build.

Here are the next few glacial steps I have taken.

Once I had photocopied the relevant keel section drawings, I placed the matching wood section over the image and marked where the reference line started and ended then simply joined the 2 marks using a pencil.

Next, I took a strip of my home made keel planking and used it to raise the bearding line by its thickness. I hope that this strategy will result in the double planking of the hull fitting correctly but we will have to see.

I then cut out the paper template using a ruler and scalpel and held each cutout onto its matching keel section and traced the bearding line along the edge of the paper with a pencil.

It made the most sense to me to rough cut the bearding while the sections were separate, giving me more control and reducing the risk of breaking something. Technically speaking the rabbet is too narrow for the double planking due to the width of the false keel material provided but I am hoping to address this by sanding the last few strakes a little thinner on both layers of planking to allow them to fit flush. I achieved the rabbit cut with a combination of a small hand plane, some knives and a bunch of sanding.

I then glued the three sections together, clamped them to the cutting mat and waited for them to dry. It’s worth pointing out that I did not install the reinforcements recommended by various please at this point. I felt it would make my life difficult as the protruding wood would prevent me from laying the false keel completely flat onto my work surface. Careful observers will also see that I inserted a small spacer on the lower forward tab where sections 1 and 2 are joined. This was to correct for the sanding that had to be done to get everything aligned and had the added benefit of tightening up the fit while holding everything together. This was followed by neatening up the bearding line, so it ran from bow to stern without any stepping between sections.

On the keel section side of things, I finished the shaping of the components, tapering the stem and stern sections and cutting the joints to fit. The instructions are slightly unclear on how much to taper and from where to where. If anyone thinks I have done this incorrectly based on the photos below please let me know. Things are still a bit rough, but I will do final sanding once the hull planking is in. I then added keel sections using a series of rubber bands and clamps. I have begun using Titebond original for the first time (it is not a common glue in South Africa) I love how the product behaves, creating a pretty firm grip on the material in very short time, freeing up clamps for use elsewhere.

Unfortunately, I am not yet very adept at cutting parts from scratch and I ended up with a gap in of my keel joints that I was not happy with. I attempted to fix this with a filler strip but didn't bother to match the wood color, producing an unsatisfactory result once everything was assembled. I then realized the only way to fix this issue would be to cut out that area and try to patch it. I must say I don’t love how the repair came out but it’s better than it was before.

The final step up to this point was to glue the reinforcements onto the joints. Something which I feel is best left to last, but I may be wrong. The pearwood I am using for the keel sections is also significantly stronger than the wood provided which may have played a role in keeping everything sturdy enough to leave the reinforcements for last.

 

[The BItter End]

I am having a little trouble with the stem of this vessel. Due to the fact that I am not painting this model the wood of the keel will be visible. Iwould therefore like to scribe the lines of the stem section into the wood. Despite the great information offered on here by various members I am really struggling to decide on how to lay out these divisions. the images available differ dramatically and none of the stems shown are exactly the same as the stem provided with the kit. I have also crossed the rubicon in terms of changing the design of the stem entirely to match one of the drawings available.

Thanks to the help of @JSGerson who sent me copies of some additional stem plans this is the second version I have come up with on layout. It involved some compromises as the blank stem shape provided is not identical to the outline on the plans, but I think it’s as close as I can get.

If anyone has any suggestions they are as always most welcome. I have also attached my 2 reference drawings in case I have misinterpreted something on them.

 

[The BItter End]

OK Final stem design...I think.

I looked at what was apparently the layout of the stem prior to restoration. This original layout appears to have had far more individual pieces than the restored stem. It was incredibly difficult to see where the divisions lay due to the wood grain pattern drawn on the plans. Hopefully I can transfer this design to my Stem in an acceptable manner. I have also realized that the only way to get this layout to work is to cut out 2 small sections of the stem which I have marked with hatched pencil on my drawing.

Here is my attempt at etching sections into the stem. I'm not that happy with the result. does anyone have any suggestions on how to make this look a bit better?

 

[The BItter End]

[What don't you like? The way the wood allows to see that it is in fact one piece? But another question: what is the source for that very segmented design? Why would that be needed in a country full with very big trees? I guess need of bigger pieces of wood can't be an argument. So why that much division lines?]

I am not entirely sure what I don’t like about it. Something just doesn’t look quite right, the joints don’t look that realistic to me but you may well be correct in saying that the grain of the wood is part of the issue.

The plans that I am referring to come from the US naval database of plans. The plan I used has the following footnote and if you look closely then you can see the divisions of the plans in the drawing.

I am sure the carpenters of the time had an incredible set of skills but perhaps it was just easier to work with a series of small sections instead of a few large ones.

 

[The BItter End]

Post By @Marcus.K.
[I never saw a so much fragmented cutwater - even on bigger ships. For sure the cutwatercwas build, but ...

Any division is weakening a structure. If possible, they would have tried to have as big pieces as possible. The three parallel long "bars" in the center: why not have only one here? That small triangle in the center. All that does not seem logical to me - except for the availability of wood in the size needed or for missing possibilities with machine or other manufacturing limitations. But back in 1800 machines were not an issue since the wood was worked manually and individually anyhow! And size of available wooden pieces wasn't really an issue.

But looking into the available photos, it seems: the big frigate had - at least in the 1870s - the same structure.

Here is a photo of 1929 restauration.(Photo missing)"

And here is a picture from 1875

You can see the relatively small pieces, the cutwater is built from. On the other hand: the two workers in the first photo indicate how BIG those "small" pieces are!]. It really is interesting. This has also made me feel slightly better about the layout I am using

I think you make an excellent point on the size of the timber relative to the workers. The sheer size of this cutwater would create a need for an awkwardly large number of pieces which look to our eye almost incorrect. I quickly checked the length of the cutwater as per the model shipways kit and it would be almost 18 meters long, an exceptionally large chunk of timber.

I dont know if it was a consideration at the time but maybe repairs were a consideration, to have to replace this single giant piece of timber every time it gets damaged is maybe not very practical? I asked AI what the explanation may be and here are some interesting suggestions:

18th-century frigate cutwaters were made from many pieces of wood for several reasons:

1. Strength and Durability: Using multiple pieces of wood allowed shipbuilders to create a stronger and more durable structure. The different pieces could be arranged in a way that distributed stress and impact forces more effectively, which was crucial for withstanding the harsh conditions at sea.

2. Flexibility: Multiple pieces of wood provided some flexibility to the cutwater, which helped absorb the shock from waves and collisions with floating debris or other ships. This flexibility reduced the risk of structural damage.

3. Repairability: If part of the cutwater was damaged, it was easier to replace or repair individual pieces rather than having to rebuild the entire structure. This was especially important during long voyages when repairs might need to be made quickly and with limited resources.

4. Construction Techniques: The shipbuilding techniques of the time often involved using smaller, more manageable pieces of wood that could be shaped and fitted together precisely. This method allowed for more intricate and robust designs.

5. Material Availability: The availability of different types of wood and the need to use locally sourced materials also influenced the construction. Shipbuilders would use the best-suited wood for each part of the cutwater based on its properties, such as strength, resistance to rot, and workability.

[What I believe to see in those pictures too:

Is the original cutwater size visible in all those pictures? Are those two segments below the billet head in your design the ones which "filled" the gap, the original Hercules figurehead would have needed? I believe to see a change of color in that area in that 1870s photo. That might indicate "older" wood there, while above and behind we see more "fresh" wooden elements?

 

[The BItter End]

Don't you want to show Hercules?

This is a good point. I hadn’t even thought about the figurehead. I really hope that I don't have to undo what I have done to accommodate the figurehead. I also don’t know here I will even get a figurehead at this scale. I don’t think carving one is in my skill set.

NOTE: This question will come to haunt me and is still a big part of figuring out this project. I should have paid way more attention to this earlier

 

[The BItter End]

Last Keel post for now.

After making copies of the plan and transferring the closest possible layout onto the plans I made copies, scanned and mirrored the image and reprinted the set at the right size. I then cut out the layout and glued the template onto the stem using rubber glue as suggested by JSGerson. I then Cut along the relevant lines with a scalpel, removed the paper and deepened the grooves with a micro chisel. After this I filled in the lines with a lead pencil, cleaned the wood up with an eraser then sanded and cleaned the grooves. the final step was to cut away the portions of the stem indicated in my previous post and replace this area with a new cutout of wood to match the plans I have access to. I am not totally happy with the outcome, but a fair section of the stem will end up being painted black with the design I am going for so hopefully it will hide the defects I don’t like. I also etched and applied pencil to the other joints in the keel which somewhat improved their appearance too.

 

[The BItter End]

Message from @Marcus.K.

[Then maybe modify your plan:

The big frigate lost old-Hercules in a collision with USS President in 1804. She was repaired in - where was it? In a Port in the Mediterranean Sea.. (ChatGPT tells me, that it was Valetta on Malta, true?) with a first billethead - while the rest of decoration seemed to have survived until 1807-08, for when there is a Bill for reworked decoration. You may represent the ship in late 1804 or in 1805 ...]

[Well, there are hints, that the late 1804 got a billet head already.

USS Constitution Museum​

Bow Decor - USS Constitution Museum​

Across USS Constitution‘s nearly 220-year history, the ship’s bow has been graced with several different carved decorations. An examination of those figureheads, billetheads and trailboards. . .
And here is a beautiful building log for a 1809 appearance:

https://www.segelschiffsmodellbau.com/t7612f264-USS-CONSTITUTION-Bauzustand-Wasserlinienmodell-58.html#msg206074

There may be some bugs in it - but it’s a true beauty.

1809 of course there have been some changes, especially in decor design (as there was an "update" done in 1807-08). It’s a bit hard to tell what was done with which results as there are only verbal descriptions ... and I vote for a lot of similarities to the Isaac Hull model in PEM, Salem, which was done by sailors for Captain Hull after the glorious battle against HMS Guerriere 1812.

For the pre-1808 decor we also have not many reliable sources. Some descriptions in letters about intended or observed designs and those beautiful paintings by Corne. which are not very clear and leave a lot of room for speculation as the have their specializer issues.

I am working on collecting the available info and trying to find a reasonable and likely interpretation. But all that is still in a "flowing" process where I change my mind frequently. It is really hard to tell. All that shall one day be represented in my model build showing her 1803-04 ...

I love all those models out there showing the ships 1797 appearance - but in each of them I find at least one "mistake" (in my humble opinion].

This is a great idea! I just sent them an email. I will report back on what they say. Apparently, it takes up to 8 weeks for an answer but hopefully that Is not the case. I am very much realizing that you are right about now being the time for modifications. I think this model will be decidedly unforgiving in the future.

Note: I have obviously decided to stay with 1797 and our goal is to make one without the "little mistakes"

 

[The BItter End]

Little side project. I needed a carving knife that I could comfortably drag toward me for rough shaping parts. I forged this from the outer race of a ball bearing and a chunk of pear stump offcut coated in linseed oil.

Note: this proved to be very useful!

 

[The BItter End]

[I have been doing some research on the construction of the knee of the head and I was wondering where exactly you got this particular plan from. The only stuff I could find on Constitution is in the modeler resources (https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/discover-learn/modeler-resources/) and it didn't show the various pieces.

You are correct in assuming that many of these ships likely used more pieces than is typically depicted on models. In my build log I go through the history of English construction of the knee of the head and list all the contemporary examples I could find. I would like to add Constitution to the list if you can point me in the direction of the original source for the above picture.]

I Got the drawings from @JSGerson who tells me that the plans come from the US Naval archives. I believe he purchased a CD which was originally available from the same website which you reference above. Apparently, it contains significantly more drawings than what one sees listed now. If one looks in the bottom right hand corner of the uncropped image(can be seen in post #42 of this log) the number "14705" is listed if you go to the link you shared you can see a drawing of the fore mast step with the reference number 14704 written in the same format as on the drawing I worked from, this makes me feel that the plan is probably as reliable as one can hope for such things.

 

[The BItter End]

I transferred the reference line from the drawings provided to the bulkheads. I did this by extending the reference line with pencil, placing the bulkhead over the drawing and parking the edges of the line onto the part and then joining those 2 marks. The plans and the parts match up pretty poorly so I elected to use the cavities above the gun deck as my alignment reference.

I then sanded out the slot in each bulkhead with a small sanding tool made by gluing sand paper to a piece of aluminum that as floating around my workshop

Next, I inserted the bulkheads into the false keel, I found a certain amount of additional sanding was required to get the parts to fit and to get the reference marks to align between the bulkheads and the false keel. The photo below shows what the bulkheads looked like with only the reference lines matched up and no additional work done on the bulkheads. It is not hugely obvious, but the alignment is pretty poor. Casting a careful eye over the "deck beams" shows that they are not all level at all.

I corrected this with the following 5 different approaches depending on the specific bulkhead in question. By looking down the length of the vessel and eyeballing the heights of the beams I adjusted as follows until they were reasonably ell aligned (I did not go for complete perfection as I am using a plywood carrier for the deck but i did get it fairly close)

1. rotated the bulkhead changing which side faced forward or aft, this actually helped a lot

2. removed material from the bulkhead with a combination of a sharp knife and sandpaper

3. added some material to the top of the bulkhead in the form of a strip cut form a sheet of 0.5mm plywood.

4. tapped some of the bulkheads so that they came up slightly from their original alignment with the reference lines to align better at the deck level.

5. Some bulkheads were fine as is and required no adjustment.

The slight but pretty essential correction can be seen below.

 

[The BItter End]

As I am about to move onto the faring can anyone perhaps tell me if I need to remove additional material to account for the fact that I am adding an extra layer of 1.5mm planking. I can’t quite decide if it makes sense to add another 1,5mm of faring on the bulkheads or if the additional width on the bearding like and rabbet will be sufficient?

[That is an excellent question. My thought is that it might be very difficult to shave a precise 1.5mm off of the bulkheads. There will be more "fairing" after your first planking. So, some of the material you wish to pare will come off at that time. I can’t think of any real downside to having a smidge more material on the planking, as long as you allow for this in the rabbets. I would leave the bulkheads as they are.]

[I don't know why you need an extra layer but If the issue is aesthetic requirement maybe instead of the 1.5 mm second layer, you might consider adding a 0.5 mm veneer, as many modelers do.]

[I don't know why you need an extra layer but If the issue is aesthetic requirement maybe instead of the 1.5 mm second layer, you might consider adding a 0.5 mm veneer, as many modelers do.]

Note: the method I used with a wider rabbet worked perfectly for a second layer of planking.

 

[The BItter End]

I am still doing some bits and pieces but the season has begun and finding time to get work on Conny done has been a challenge. I have mostly just been doing research when I have the time. This has led me to the following question:

Is there any good reason to do the waterway before the decking?

The way I see it it’s going to be a challenge to get all those plank ends and edges to line up flawlessly(even with the carrier I am planning on using.) Why not just deck first and then do the waterway and the gunnel planking after that? Am I missing something or is there some other bit of structure that will conceal this potentially shoddy edge? Looking at the build log of @Der Alte Rentner and his excellent summary of the decking approaches on the various build logs I saw that only unegawaya seems to have done his waterways after decking but I cannot find his log.

Note: I did the waterways first and I have not yet done the spar deck planking but I suspect I will live to regret this decision.