• Ships of Scale has incorportated an extra level of security when you log In. Please follow on-screen prompts to acknowledge that you are not a robot via a "Check Box" or a "Pictorial Check Box Puzzle". This is needed due to higher level of AI Activity Security.
  • SUBSCRIBE TO SHIPS IN SCALE TODAY!

    The beloved Ships in Scale Magazine is back and charting a new course for 2026!
    Discover new skills, new techniques, and new inspirations in every issue.

    NOTE THAT OUR NEXT ISSUE WILL BE July/August 2026
  • Win a Free Custom Engraved Brass Coin!!!
    As a way to introduce our brass coins to the community, we will raffle off a free coin during the month of August. Follow link ABOVE for instructions for entering.

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

A bit of information for those that are interested. I contacted the USS constitution Museum on the advice of JSGerson to enquire about the appearance of the Constitution figure head after the damage she sustained damage during a collision with the President in 1804 and before she had the soon to be headless jackson figurehead installed...This was their response.

"After the Hercules figurehead was destroyed, a simple billethead was put in place. This is detailed on pages 116 and 117 of A Most Fortunate Ship by Tyrone G. Martin (Naval Institute Press) and also on his website The Captain's Clerk at this link: https://thecaptainsclerk.com/speaks/book06.html "

The above url leads to a great little website full of additional information.... https://thecaptainsclerk.com/
 
Stern filler blocks and counter.

I began with the stern counter. I did this by making a copy of the plans and sticking it to the provided timber of the appropriate size and then sanding back to the cutout, then making the location of the rudder hole and drilling it out. It is mentioned in the build log of @Der Alte Rentner that the plans dimensions for the stern counter create a counter that is slightly thicker than it should be. In my case this was something like 3.2mm(excuse my french) too thick. I considered slimming down the stern counter to account for this but decided against it as I felt it would have moved the relative orientation of the hole for the rudder in an awkward manner so I decided to keep the counter the original thickness. This actually worked out fairly well for reasons I will explain later. When fitting the counter I ensured that the rudder had decent clearance through the hole before final glueing.

image.png


image.png




image.png








Next up was to shape and install the stern filler blocks. This was again a process of copying the plans and then glueing the relevant portions onto the correctly sized blocks then slowly working back to the cutout line with my belt sander. I then used the provided template strips to bring back the shape until it matched the contour lines suggested. Once this had been installed with the help of some elastic bands and a couple of clamps there was more sanding required to get everything to flow correctly. Unfortunately, I did not take the amount of photos I should have but i think it’s all pretty straight forward.

image.png


image.png
 
NB This was heavily modified later in the build to acommodate the scratch built stern

Moving on to the transom.

Once the stern counter had been installed and the first of the transom pieces held in place it became obvious that there was an issue with a measurement or two. The transom pieces protruded above the edge of bulkhead "R" this would need to be addressed. As stated earlier I elected to not make the stern counter thinner but rather modify the transom pieces to correct the issue. The approach I took was designed to address both the misalignment of the transom and the incorrect angle of the transom. I took an image of the stern gallery and overlayed a protractor onto the image to determine the correct angle for the transom which turned out to be 70 degrees...see below....

image.png




This is a happy coincidence because removing the offending material from the top and bottom of each transom to get them flush with bulkhead "R" translated into a 70 degree transom. Its a bit hard to explain but hopefully the images of the pencil lines below will show what I did to correct the issue. I then cut away the relevant material above and below the pencil lines, re cut the notches for the cross planking and obviously forgot to take a new photo.
image.png




image.png






To glue these in place I again copied the plans and stuck the cutout onto the stern counter, then makes the transom positions with a pencil and glued them down while measuring their spacing at multiple locations to ensure they were square.
image.png




As you can see the extensions are grossly misaligned, I like to think this is mostly the fault of the kit, but I guess I may have played a role in that too. I remedied this by spraying the offending extensions with Propranolol based hand sanitizer and then clamping a slightly flexible sanding block made of wood to the transom to create a nice smooth curve. I was pretty happy with the result.
image.png


image.png






Installing the beams was pretty straight forward. I had, however, cut the slots slightly wider than needed so you can faintly see that there are in fact 2 beams in each slot to make up the extra space. Once this was all in. I sanded the faces flat so that everything was nice and flush. The last part of the stern for now was to add filler blocks to the port and starboard sides of the transom. Be careful to not oversize these and allow for the "wings" which are go behind the stern galleries. I like to do her stern in the 1812 style with 7 windows and a more curved taff rail. Hopefully this can still be achieved with this layout of transoms and some finagling.

image.png
 
Post addition...once the stem and stern were complete, I also added support blocks between the bulkheads cut from a random pine plank I had lying around the workshop. A simple matter of measuring the distance between bulkheads at the false keel and then cutting a matching set of blocks to fit the gap. The result wasn't terribly pretty but I know that this will all be hidden. It might not have been the worst idea in the world to cut these blocks with great accuracy and install them while installing the bulkheads an the glue was still wet. In this photo you will also see there are reinforcements on either side of the space for the 3 masts, again nothing fancy, just some off cut wood glued either side of the gap while ensuring they do not protrude above the false keel and interfere with the masts.

image.png
 
NB- Alot of this was later cut away as I realised that the 1797 version of this ship had an open forecastle.
Bow filler blocks

Just the usual copying of the plans, gluing them to the blocks with rubber cement and then sanding back to the lines with the belt sander. As with the stern fillers I used the contour strips provided to help with shaping(see useless photo below).



image.png




After the basic shape had been formed I then cut out the profile for the notches in the filler blocks to accommodate the knightsheads(apparently this is a misnomer of sorts but I's sure you all know what I mean. These notches were cut with a combination of cheap chisels from Temu and some sharp number 11 scalpel blades. It did require some fiddling to get everything correctly sized for a nice fit but I got there in the end. I did pass the block over a flame to burn away some of the messy standing grain that is common with this type of wood after the carving was done.

image.png


image.png






Nothing special with the knightshead timbers except that 4 strips that will ultimately edge the bow gun ports were lined with a thin strip of pear wood as I am still hoping to avoid painting this model if possible, this can just be seen in the last photo of this post on the starboard side. I made them up with the usual copying and gluing then sanding method. You will also notice that I left the profile of the upper supports square and did not cut them away. This will later provide support for the spar deck when It gets installed. It is worth noting that this was not entirely correct and I had to later cut some of these pieces away to allow the bowsprit to fit
image.png




These parts were then fitted and fared until all was reasonably well positioned for something which will later be hidden under planking.
image.png


image.png


image.png
 
I think this has become more or less irrelevant due to my decision to include a gun deck.

Bowsprit fitting

Just a quick post on the bowsprit. In order to get the waterways to fit correctly and be snug up against the bowsprit I needed to do a temporary fitting of the timber. This item will probably be discarded in the end as there is an old plum tree in my garden with a dead branch that is begging to be turned into masts for this project but we shall see. To do this one must cut a tenon at 25 degrees into the end of the bowsprit and in my case cut away the knightshead timber support that I made over size. I had noticed earlier in the build that there was some misalignment in the bulkheads which meant that I needed to cut away a not of bulkhead A to allow the bowsprit to lie straight. This also meant that I needed to make my tenon slightly narrower so that i could shift the base of the bowsprit slightly to starboard to get everything lined up nicely. The bowsprit in place will appear in my next post. the images below just show that I id this cutting process in essentially 2 steps.

image.png


image.png
 
Waterways and planksheer

The waterway process was pretty simple. I just cut stock the size suggested on the plans from a pear stump then cut away the portion of the waterway that was going to make contact with the bulkhead extension until it sat nice and flush along its length. I then marked the toe of the stock with a 1.5mm strip of wood and the top of the stock with a 2.2mm piece of wood. This created 2 pencil lines which i could just taper between to create the profile of the waterway. I hope this makes sense; I realize it’s a pretty shoddy explanation. The process of shaping the waterway was greatly helped by the application of the hand sanitizer mentioned in a previous post. It really helps with the hand carving component

image.png




image.png


In order to make the curved section I marked out the waterway with a pencil on the plans then cut out this profile and glued it onto a suitable plank after which I cut out the shape on a bandsaw and fine tuned it on the belt sander. The pieces were then marked using the same technique and installed with the rest of the waterway and steamed for bending to fit correctly. I also made a little modification to my lathe to create a sanding disc that could neaten up the faces of the waterway and make better butt joints.

image.png


image.png


image.png








The final step for now was installing the planksheer. It was incredibly difficult to cut 2.38mm square strips on my full sized table saw but with some sanding I got the stock pretty close. This stock was then cut to length, steamed and shaped to produce the final result which can be seen below.

image.png


image.png


image.png


image.png










I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to get your bulkheads and extensions properly leveled and aligned. do the extra work or you will end up with a wavy planksheer and waterway. I am going to have to fill in some gaps when it comes to the first row of planks and hopefully this hides the defects.

P.S.

After writing this post i decided to steam loose the planksheer and waterway where it dipped then force a wedge(a chisel) under the low point and allow the timber to dry. This means that in those places the waterway no longer makes contact with the bulkhead but is at least running straight. Due to the fact that I am using a plywood carrier for the deck I think I can live with this compromise. I have included a photo below of what this minor modification achieved. I fear only the most OCD amongst you will notice the difference. It is still not perfect but I can accept it knowing that alot of this will be hidden by future work and it is a reasonable price to pay to use this pear wood.

image.png
 
I am about to start planking the gunnel (I don’t even know if this is the correct term). Can anyone tell me if there should be visible caulking between these planks? I know it’s a strange question because the original vessel was obviously painted but suggestions would be appreciated.

[I call it upper hull. I think there is no need for caulking, I have never seen anyone doing it. I just add caulking to the deck planking.]

Below is the portion I am referring to. The portion above the planksheer. I hope that makes sense.

image.png




[I've never seen that spelling for gunwale before, but turns out it's a legit alternative spelling. You're referring to the planking at the top of the hull, working your way down toward the wale.

I haven't seen anyone at MSW put any visible caulking between these planks. Oddly enough however, for the deck planking people do attempt to simulate caulking. In reality I'm guessing there must be caulking between the planks on the hull to keep water out. No?

I would think that since most people sand, apply putty, then send some more, and then paint the hull black, no one is concerning themselves with this issue. In my experience, I glued the edges of all the hull planking. As carefully as I prepared the planks, there was still much trimming with a chisel and some finish sanding. In the end I couldn't see any glue seams. I don't think I'd worry about it if I were you
.

I cannot stress enough the value of a thickness drum sander for situations like this. You can get fairly close with a saw, then run the parts through the thickness drum sander for final dimensioning. It's a shame that the Byrnes company no longer makes theirs. I've had my Jet drum sander for about 15 years for my woodworking hobby and with proper setup, I can dimension with amazing precision.]


I think I will skip the caulking as per your suggestion. I had the exact same thought about caulking the hull planking as you did, its a strange quirk in a way that everyone caulks the deck but nothing else. For all we know I will have to paint the hull regardless but let us see.

As for the use of the term gunnel, I should probably have checked the terminology, I worked in the oil and gas industry before I became a farmer and we used the term gunnel, along with a lot of other vernacular that would not have impressed my mother.

I am continuing my search for a reasonably priced hobby drum sander but it is roving to be a challenge. I even made an attachment for my belt sander that should in theory function like a thicknesser but it grabs the piece of wood and shoots it past the belt before it can do much....very frustrating.

[Well, I think that has a reason: while the decks usually never were painted and the discrepancy between wooden planks and caulking dark brown, nearly black was easy to recognize, it would - on the other hand - be hard to see that different color on black painted ships hulls. And even where there was an ockre paint: that paint would most likely been painted over those caulking gaps. Although I admit, that one may doubt the paint would stick there a long time.

But again to the decks: there you would have this frequently "washing" with "holystones" - a process which frequently would make caulking more prominent to the eye - while the hull was only washed by seawater
.]


You make an excellent point. I guess in this case its all fantasy anyway because as you said everything would have been painted in reality. It probably makes the most sense to just do what looks best to the eye.
 
Thanks to some additional inspiration by @Der Alte Rentner and some research I finally came up with a design for a thicknesser of sorts. It’s mostly from a design stolen from this site with some slight modifications. Essentially just a board with a piece of aluminum channel on a pivot point bolted to my drill press. I added a set screw and a tension spring, and the results are surprisingly consistent and neat. It’s not quite a Byrnes but it’s a hang of a lot better than doing it by hand.

image.png
 
I have been having some very interesting conversations with the very kind and well informed Marcus.K.and he has inspired me to really go with a model that is as close to the 1797 launch design as possible. This of course brings up a whole array of challenges and questions, but I have found it adds an element to the model that I am really enjoying. I will try to justify my choices as much as possible as I post here. If anyone is interested in further detail, please let me know. Marcus is being as patient and helpful as any human could be and I look forward to building a model that both of us can be happy with. I welcome any and all input on choices made here both historical and practical.

To the build.

Having completed the plankshear I begun the bulwark component.

I settled quite early on a layout with 20 gun ports on the spar deck as per the Doughty drawing (Humphreys). I felt fairly happy with this choice as it matches both the earliest drawings from 1794 and the paintings of Corne from 1803. Looking at the repair record of the 1801 shipyard there is no mention of moving gunports so I am more than happy with this configuration. I got the gun port and waist spacing by scaling up the doughty drawing and converted the measurements. I can give the exact distances to anyone who happens to care. Initially I also opted for a raised stern bulwark (as reflected in the Corne paintings), an open waist and a slightly raised section forward of the waist followed by an open forecastle with just a 2-plank bulwark (+-40cm at full size).

I achieved this by first planking the inner bulwark with 4 strakes of 2.8mm pear planking. I ended up needing to have joints in the planks because of the limitations of the material I am using but I simply made sure that this joint fell on a gunport so would be cut away at a later stage. Once these had been installed, I trimmed back the bulwark extensions. Then I realized I had actually put in too many strakes. removed a strake and roughly sanded the planking back. I then put a thin film of wood filler over the whole area and redid final sanding. I find it is best to do this sanding before bringing the bulwarks to height or length to prevent rounding of the edges.

image.png


image.png


image.png


image.png






At this point I also rounded over the plankshear slightly to create a more natural finish.

Next was to add the gun ports as per the Doughty measurements. This was done by measuring and marking from the stern forward. This resulted in gun ports landing over bulkhead extensions. To remedy this, I first cut away a narrow slot in the extension so that I could install the horizontal gun port beam at the level of the plankshear while the extension still held the upper portion of the internal bulwark in place. I then added the 2 vertical parts of the gun port opening. Then I did this, I only worried about the visible faces of the framing which also meant in certain cases the bulkhead extensions needed to be trimmed back and faced with pear wood so that only the pear wood would be visible when the gun port was complete. The rest would be hidden by the outer bulwark planking and the thickness would be corrected during faring.

image.png


image.png


image.png






These framing pieces were then fared back so that once the two additional layers of planking were in place the top of the bulwark would be 5mm thick to match the correct dimensions of the ship (21inches at deck level and 15 inches at the top of the bulwark.)

image.png


image.png




I then began cutting out the gun ports. I did this by using a jewelers saw to cut a small relief slot down the center of each gun port and then clipping back the excess until it was almost flush with the gun port frame. I then used a scalpel, sanding stick and files to square everything off.

image.png


image.png






Next up was installing the 4 lime wood strakes on the outside of the bulkhead extensions. This had to be done as I am double planking this hull but I actually made a mistake here. This method resulted in a thin strip of lime wood being visible inside the gun ports, but I can live with that. The procedure was the same as above...glue on planks, rough sand, wood fill, final sanding then cutting out the gun ports.

image.png


image.png


image.png








I added one additional strake below the bulwark to help with the alignment of the waist capping rail. At this point in my discussions with Marcus I felt that I needed to make a change to my layout choices. It appears that the vessel probably had lowered bulwarks from the waist forward. I say this for a number of reasons:

1. The Gillmer [Thomas C, Gillmer, 1993, Old Ironsides: The Rise, Decline, and Resurrection of the USS Constitution] drawing (based on the Doughty drawing) shows a low bulwark and rail forward of the waist

image.png




2. The Doughty drawing shows a raised section forward of the waist but just a bit lower. That being said he also shows a far lower bulwark in the stern which seems to have been raised in the building in my opinion as the stern bulwark is raised in the Corne paintings but there is no record of the bulwark being raised during the 1801 refit although it is possible (as Marcus pointed out) that this was simply done at sea without any mention because it is essentially a simple task to clad the railings.

image.png




3. Tyrone Martin [1980, A Most Fortunate Ship] is adamant that the bulwark was open forward of the waist.

image.png




4. The "Michele Felice Corné – 1803 painting appears to show an open bulwark forward with hammock netting.

image.png




This resulted in me cutting back the bulwark once the second planking had been done and ending up with this final layout. I wish I had realized that I preferred this configuration earlier but there is nothing a little steam can’t fix:

image.png




The final layer of planking was added, sanded filled and cut back with this as the result.

image.png


image.png






Final spar deck bulwark layout sanded and complete.

image.png


image.png


image.png


image.png
 
This is the approach I went with for the capping rail for the waist. I made it wide enough that it sits flush with the outer planking and thick enough that it is the same height as the plankshear which I cut out and replaced. I don’t know that I love the appearance of it but I had to choose between having the cap not aligned with the plankshear or having a thick cap. I suspect that the dimensions given for the plankshear on the Model Shipways plans are a bit too big (I would make it narrower if I started again). I am very much open to suggestions on how to improve this. I can easily remove and redo it.

image.png
 
Originally, I planned to show the model with split and closed gunports. Research (and Marcus) has told me that the gun deck probably didn’t have gunport lids when she was first launched. or rather had fully removable lids instead of the split lids provided in the kit. This means that if I wish to show her guns (open lids) then I need to do a gun deck of sorts inside. I will probably do a fairly basic deck that only shows the details that will be visible when the model is complete, but we shall see. Regardless, this means that I need to now install a gun deck at this very awkward stage. My solution for this was to glue 5x5mm alignment blocks on the bulkhead deck beams with a small spot of glue so that if I cut the deck beams, they could be used as reference points for reinstalling the beams later.

image.png


image.png



Once these were glued in, I cut the beams with a Stanley knife blade and cut the vertical support with a Dremel.

This opened the space for gun deck installation. Unfortunately, when I put my bracing blocks between the bulkheads, I hadn’t planned to do a gun deck and the work was a bit sloppy so I butchered out the blocks where they protruded above deck level. not a pretty result but they will be hidden under the deck

image.png
 
As said before I decided to put in the gun deck so that I could show the vessel with guns visible and no port lids to try and remain true to her launch configuration. I began by measuring the distances between bulkheads and then again between bulkhead extensions and plotting them in Excel and on paper. The Excel was somewhat impractical because printing at the exact correct scale was almost impossible. I then reverted to the paper plan which I did in 2 pieces and taped together once they had been checked in place on the gun deck.

I did do a small amount of faring of the internal bulkhead extensions, but this was pretty basic work as they will not be visible once the spar deck is in place.

image.png


image.png


I then fitted this on the bulkheads to ensure that the plan was close enough to be acceptable under the circumstances.
image.png




This plan was then taped to a sheet of 0.5mm plywood which was cut to size and checked for fit.

image.png




Once this had been checked I started the layout by marking the center line and then checking the location of the kit positions for the masts against the Waldo deck plans from 1819 as shown below. I found them to be close enough that moving them seemed to be unnecessary. It appears that the model shipways plan was perhaps based directly on this Waldo deck plans or rather the deck plan is close enough to the current state that it fits well.

image.png


image.png




I used this layout as the plan for the hatch locations and initially marked only the hatches which I thought would be visible from above, but I think I will ultimately put all the hatches and fittings on the deck in case they can be seen from some strange angle. IN addition, I marked out the beam locations more or less as per the Waldo plans which some minor adjustments. The final marks made were the slightly curved line marking the inner edge of the inner set of joggled thick strakes. As per Joshua Humphrey's document on dimensions and sizes of materials for building a frigate of 44 guns drafted in 1794. This essentially meant that the lines were marked immediately next to the widest of the hatchways and then gradually curved toward the centerline at the bow and stern. It is hard to see the pencil line, but I assure you it is there. The run of the next strakes will be laid out once these are done’

image.png


image.png






The matter of the dimensions of these thicker joggled strakes is one that has lead to a huge amount of head scratching. As in the text above the instruction is to use a plank not thinner than 10 inches and that is about all we have for instructions. This in itself causes issues, but I am assuming he means not thinner than 10 inches at the narrowest point.

A second issue is how long were these strakes. Tyron G. Martin (mentioned in previous posts) says that the "C" of the strakes was 40ft long in one of his versions of "Close up". Neither MarcusK (who has been a bottomless pit of knowledge) nor myself can figure out where he got this information from. A 40ft "C" would result in a plank 80 foot long. Research into the white oak trees that were used for this piece of timber tells me that it is theoretically possible as the tallest white oak recorded reached some 200ft. That being said, I do have some concerns about finding 16 runs of flawless timber of this size and then the additional consideration of both transport and installation as well as future repairs with a spar deck above.

The final consideration on these strakes is how many "C"s per plank. Martin's comments make it obvious that only a single "C" per plank is possible and by making use of a single "C" construction would be far easier. I cannot really find much more on the subject, but I can point to a photo of a modern repair in progress which shows multiple notches on this strake (it obviously has limited value but seems worth sharing.)

image.png




Taking all this into consideration I opted to go with planks with a single "C" that would scale up to a total length of +-40ft. This was mostly because I really struggled to find straight runs of pear trees longer than 32cm as the trees I'm using were grown for fruit, so they are heavily branched from very low on the trunk. I also decided to make the narrowest part of the plank scale to 10 inches. This left me with a plank of 158mm in length with a +-79mm "C" notch and +-39mm shoulder. The planks are 4.25mm at their widest point and 3.4mm at their narrowest part. I made a set of 16 standard dimensions shown below. These will be tidied up and straightened as they are fitted. Please excuse the burn marks, the table saw blade clearly needs a clean. The remaining 16 will be cut to fit into these once they are in place.

image.png




This post comes with a disclaimer... please don't judge too hard. What you see is very much a work in progress. These thicker strakes still need to be sanded back to show only a nice, neat caulking line and no saw marks as well as some shaping on the sides of the curve to correct the end and get everything to fit well. This will be done just before and after the remainder of the planking goes in. This should produce a perfectly flat deck with neat even caulking.

I have also noticed a lot of color variation because of the trees I am using for planks, so I am open to suggestions on a staining method which will make a nice even deck without hiding the wood.

A final point is that these thicker 2 plank strakes do look very wide. They are, however, exactly to the original spec mentioned. with a minimum width of 10 inches at full size.

I began by cutting a suitable sized board of chipboard countertop from an old project which would produce a flat and sturdy surface to pin the carrier deck and guide pins to without damaging my desk. I then placed and tacked the "inboard" thick stake to the carrier deck while making sure it followed the curve of the line previously marked.

image.png




This initial plank was secured using normal Elmers Tite Bond original. Wherever 2 planks would meet at the edge or ends I would use the same glue but mixed with an ebony wood stain. This produced a thick black paste which offers a pretty nice scale caulking line that is quite subtle. I did this until all the inboard planks were run down the length of the deck with a subtle curve.

image.png




The next step was to interlock the next set of planks with the first. I achieved this by marking the center of each of the first planks so that the butt joint of the interlocking plank would land in the middle of the plank it locks with. I then just transferred the location of the joggling points and cut to size with a ruler and scalpel. I did make an attempt to soften the wood with surgical spirits, but this definitely made things worse. This resulted in planks which were set out in this configuration (a big thank you to Marcus.K. for the drawing below). This would make for a strong structure that offered support in both compression and tension.

image.png




Once this had been done, I measured halfway between the outside of the first strake of thick planks and the edge of the deck and marked a line at this point as per the Humphrey's instructions. Initially I Used this method to mark the line right up to the very forward edge of the carrier deck, but this produced an unreasonably sharp curve so I ended up making a more gradual curve from the 4th deck beam onward. Below is the rough planking result. Next up will be the remainder of the deck planks.

image.png


image.png
 
[I can't help but think that you are going to a lot of trouble to get accurate planking for the gun deck. The situation as I see it is that the gun deck planking will be unviewable through the open gun ports because the guns themself will be blocking them up, reducing the gun deck viewing angle to almost nothing. If the spar deck is to be fully planked, you will have no light to illuminate the gun deck to see any of its detailed planking. In order to get viewing light, that means something must be opened on the spar deck. If that happens, now you will have to at least partially furnish the gun deck that is to be viewed. My build doesn't have any spar deck planks installed yet, and already the gun deck is getting difficult to see the details I've added. So, what are your plans?

I love what you are attempting to do, but as you are already aware, what you do in the very early stages of the build, will have repercussions as you move forward
.]


This very thought is occupying a vast amount of mental real estate for me, and you are totally right!(It's basically an act of madness). I am torn between the balance between accuracy and effort. I am coming to accept that I will certainly have to put a lot of the deck furniture in for this gun deck, a lot of which will also never really be seen. I can't really argue with you as you make a very good point but I sort of justify it in the following ways.

1. Firstly (and most importantly) I am really enjoying the process of historical research to get an accurate idea of what she really looked like. In a small way the process of actually building these features has lessons about construction woven into it. I am not sure how far I would go with this but for now I'm quite liking aiming for as close to perfection as I can manage.

2. This deck has been a learning curve for me. This is only my second build and my last deck is but a distant memory. It has been a good opportunity to figure out what works and what doesn't without anyone seeing the results too plainly (the stained glue for example was an experiment which needed testing). It has also provided some much-needed practice in planking.

3. I try to view each step in the model as something worth doing in and of itself. I am not in a rush to build this model and when it's done, I will just build another. A big part of this hobby is an opportunity to do things simply for the joy of it and not for the result. I have a job which is very much goal driven and this is a form of meditation. There is something about making a great effort for something which will never be seen which adds to this.

4. I do intend to leave at least some of the hatches open (possibly like the Antczak model) this means that the most curious of observers MIGHT notice the ludicrous decisions I made on the deck below.

5. I think it might provide a bit of information or help for someone who is building a more open-decked model, and it is nice to share this process with the good people of this forum. Even your question has made me think a little more about why I am doing this, and it has added something of value.

I can't guarantee I will be able to continue this way, but I hope that I can. Please keep the comments coming. They are always welcome
 
[As far as the discoloration in the materials you're using, I personally would opt for character, leaving the natural color alone, and covering it with a matte finish.]

I am leaning in a similar direction now that I have cleaned the planking a little more. I will post the completed deck before I make a final decision.
 
[I very much like your approach. And the way you prepare that gun deck with these interlocking strikes will be very close to what Tyrone Martin found as her earlier layout. Your deck planking matches his sketch pretty close and the more I look at it, the more I like it.
Do you manage to generate the 6 feet white oak from hull inwards (as Humphrey specified)? Or is that outer strake too close?
]


I just took my vernier to the gun deck and this tells me that the distance between the outer strake and the outer edge of the deck is an acceptable 6ft and 3 inches. I am pretty happy with this as I didn't even consider the white Oak decking when I laid out the thick strakes but rather followed the other parts of Humphrey criteria. There are 3 possible explanations for the extra 3 inches.

1. My measurements were slightly out (the most likely, three inches are only 1mm at scale).

2. I made thick strakes 30 inches too narrow (only 12 inches at the widest point instead of 15inches. Maybe there is a clue there if we look at the exact measurements).

3. When Humphrey said 6ft it wasn't an exact measurement (the least likely option).

Regardless, another interesting little piece of information.
 
[Humphreys specification was done in 1794 or 1795 as far as I remember. And the 6 shipyards did not follow them 1:1 - as they had to deal with what was available and how they interpreted his specifications. And I guess nobody expected them to follow them 100%. Ship building in those days is not comparable with today’s way of work. The specifications weren’t that precise and the shipbuilders had a huge amount of freedom in interpretation - especially compared to today, where we have 3D CAD data of the vehicles to be build. And even today: deviations in the scale of several inches or centimeters is not a rare thing in today’s bigger ships. They had to deal with wood! And they made it fit to where it had to fit! Individually for each plank and each component. No ship was the same as another - even if it had the same "concept" or "architecture".

Even if we consider the fact that the young United States had huge amount of high-quality wood (especially compared to the British Royal Navy which by then had exhausted British forests and had to purchase wood from everywhere); and even if we consider that the shipwrights did their very best to provide the highest quality (the most important specification by Humphreys: as his idea was to have rather a smaller fleet of best possible and durable ships than a bigger fleet with poor build vehicles):

We need to respect the fact that pragmatical solutions to the actual situation in the shipyard had to be done.

We know the "deviations" vs. the "specifications" and / or "typical habits" the scientists found in the VASA compared to any shipbuilding tradition involved in her build. The sometimes "improvised" pattern of planking, differences and asymmetries between left and right bulwarks, etc. Sometimes it was built as it worked out best. So, a deviation of several inches compared to Humphreys design would not at all thrill and bother me.

In addition, of course to the fact that the model is built in a scale which does rarely allow that accuracy - and any observer would not be able to differentiate "correct" from "wrong."
]
 
Note, This decking was an act of madness, it took forever, will mostly be hidden and the carefully cut and measured hatches are totally hidden by the hatch covers.

I have gradually chipped away at the planking a strake or two at a time. This deck will largely be hidden by the bulwark and the deck above so I can live with the issues. I am, however, glad that I went through this laborious process as I learned a lot from it. Knowledge which I hope to transfer to the building of the far more visible spar deck.

On plank width I settled on a maximum width of about 10 inches at full scale (3.1mm) I decided to taper the deck planking as this appears to be the most historically accurate method of planking for 1797 (I think, but please correct me if I am wrong). I tried to avoid tapering any plank to less than half its original thickness and staggered the planking as per the following drawing which came off another post on the site, I will find it and reference it shortly. This was actually slightly confusing due to the varying distance between deck beams and having to work around the thick strakes. but I got an acceptable result.

image.png




Lessons Learned

1. It is almost certainly better to work from the center outward instead of laying the thick strakes first and then laying the standard planking between them. It became very difficult to get a perfect fit of planks between the thick strakes.

2. The planking must be totally dry before laying. This wood was cut from pear trees which were lying on my firewood pile, and they appear to not have been totally dry, this means that once the deck was assembled it began to curve severely. I could address this by heating the whole deck with steam, but that resulted in the opening of seams when the deck was pressed flat.

3. The caulking between decks created using glue and wood stain produced unimpressive results, I believe I can live with this as the planking is quite varied already, but it is worth consideration.

The process.

Once I had rough ripped the planks and then thicknessed them back to 3.1mm x1.5mm(roughly) I began the process of getting the planks fitted and tapered.

1. I numbered every beam on the carrier deck so as to have a reference number to return to when logging the spacing in deck sections

2. I then measured the width of the section that needed planking at every beam using a vernier

3. I then transferred these values into Excel

4. Next, I calculated how many planks would fit into that section at the widest part of that section

5. Divided each measurement at each beam by that number (this gave me a value of around 3.1mm to 1.6mm depending on which beam)

6. Wrote the value onto the carrier at its beam. (here is a terrible photo of how the values were transcribed onto the carrier deck) If you look very closely you can see the values written on the planking, these are the widths that the planks need to be at that point.

image.png




7. Placed the plank I was working with at its position and cut to length to establish which thickness corrections were relevant

8. Used a vernier to score the width of the first and last beam that the plank would land on onto the plank(for example the forward aft end of the plank would have a line scored onto it at 2.7mm and the forward end would have a line scored into it at 1.6mm.)

image.png


9. I then did 1 of three things.

a. 1 for very slight tapering I have a offcut piece of square aluminum tube with 180 grit sandpaper glued to it, I would use this to just sand away until I get to where I need to be.

image.png




b. I would just hold a flat metal ruler onto the 2 marks and then take a very shark surgical scalpel and gradually cut through the plank in several passes by gently dragging the blade along the straight edge over and over until it cut through the plank(low pressure is the key) I purchased a pack of 200 number 11 surgical scalpels and a blade holder for something like 5 euro

image.png




c. A method that I sometimes use is to take 2 strong clamps and clamp the ruler onto the plank that I am cutting before cutting. This would be stronger and more consistent than my hands but takes some effort to align and clamp. This can be further improved(but again it is more fiddly to align) by first placing a ruler flat on your cutting mat, then you put your plank against that ruler so that you know it is not warped or bent in any way and then camping a second metal ruler on top of the plank you want to cut in position on top of the marks you made before cutting.

10. When this is done, I pass the plank over the sanding block or scrape it with a blade a few times to square off any edges that are not as straight as they should be.

The final tip is to spray the plank with alcohol-based hand sanitizer. This softens the wood and may help. I have had mixed results depending on the application, but it is worth a shot.

11. I then took this tapered plank, applied the stained glue and held it in place until it set. I found the Tite Bond and wood stain combo had very good holding properties and 30 seconds was generally enough to keep the planks in place. I did initially use little spacers to jam the plank into position, but it was not needed.

When planking, I did the outside planking first and then worked toward the middle finally leaving a single strake out down the center of the deck to allow me to cut and fit the carrier in its position on the gun deck. I did roughly mark the positions of the masts and hatches so that the planks did not have joints between deck penetrations.

image.png


image.png


image.png


image.png






The deck was then sanded back to remove all glue and unevenness.

image.png




and split down the center to allow fitment.

image.png




Once the deck was cut it was shaped and adjusted to fit and then before final fitment, I marked out the final locations for all the hatches and masts as per the Waldo deck plans available on the USS constitution museum website and cut them into the deck. Based on all the evidence available, I believe these plans to be accurate.

Note the center strake is not yet installed and the deck curving as mentioned before.

image.png




This was finally then steamed to flatten, installed and clamped into place. The final center strake was then added and the worst of the imperfections patched. The deck was then sanded a final time producing the following result.

image.png


image.png




image.png


image.png




Wolf cub for scale...

image.png




It can clearly be seen how the seams opened when the deck was flattened producing uneven caulking...a lesson learned

The deck does however look a lot better when it is wet (i sprayed it down with surgical spirits to pick up the fibers before final sanding.) So, I hope then when I get to the varnishing stage the appearance will be similarly improved and not look like a dull grey situation with poor caulking...anyway, live and learn.

Next up I need to figure out how to make cannon so that I can align the gun ports. This is my chosen next step so that I have a clearer idea of which details to include and exclude from the gun deck based on what is visible through the gun ports.

Any tips on how to improve the next deck…or anything else for that matter would be swell?!

Also, any views on how to improve the appearance of this deck would be great, I don’t know if a slight stain would add or detract from the appearance but I do kind of like how this very varied pear wood hi lights the individual planks.

One final word of warning, if one is very interested in historical accuracy, I think that the level of the gun deck beams on the model shipways kid is too flat. The gun deck should not quite run parallel to the curve of the spar deck but there should be a slight curve to the bow and stern. Hogging, sagging, errors and time make it very difficult to truly say how it should look but I feel comfortable with a slight curve on the gun deck which is not entirely parallel to the spar deck.




image.png
 
NOTE - Later in this build I will end up 3d printing these canon and eventually will add wheels to the carriages. There is also a good chance I will change the colour to match the gun ports.

I have decided to attempt to make the cannon for this build myself (emphasis on attempt, this is very much theoretical at this point.

I wanted to go with the configuration mentioned in "close up" by Tyrone G. Martin which was kindly pointed out to me by @Marcus.K.. The cannon found on the gun deck of the Constitution in 1797 appear to have been 30 x 24 pounders with a barrel length of 8ft. Apparently these were 1ft shorter than the standard length for this caliber. The cannons were made by Hope Forge and an original pair can be seen outside the buildings of Savannah college of art and design.

image.png




Below is the basic drawing I used as reference along with excellent measurements provided by Marcus, I will not publish his drawing here until I get his permission but it was a real help in making this first version.

image.png




I began by cutting square stock of 10mm x 10mm from a leftover stump and turned it down to 8mm on the lathe. I then marked out the relevant lines dividing the sections and cut the tapers first and then refined by hand. This process was by no means perfect. I am using a Unimat that a friend recently gave me, i have no experience on a lathe and my lathe belt broke. In the process I broke off the cascabel and had to remake it separately. I also had a fair amount of trouble creating a finish that was acceptable, but I can live with this as it will be cast in resin anyway.

image.png


image.png






This cannon still needs its cross braces, eagle emblem and fuse protrusion but if anyone has any views on how it can be improved before I take those steps, please let me know. This is my first attempt so I can imagine I will get away without a remake. I do feel the reinforcement protrusions may be a little to pronounced but I cant decide if this will be a pro or a con once painted black.

This post is a strange combination of attention to detail and complete abandonment thereof.

I realized that the next step I needed to take would be to establish the heights of the gun ports for the gun deck so that I could begin framing them. This required the creation of cannon (see previous post) and carriages. The cannon are currently on hold as I am waiting for resin/putty to try and duplicate my sample cannon. So, I began on the carriages with a specific focus on those dimensions which would influence the way in which the cannon projected from the gun ports. I decided to use this as yet another exercise in practice for the gun carriages which will ultimately be visible on the spar deck. This process has taught me a lot and I think the results of the visible carriages will be far better.

This process was surprisingly simple once I had made a decision on design. There seems to be fairly little information out there on exactly how these 24 bounder carriages looked in 1797 so I settled for a design from the 1768 book “A treatise of Artillery” by John Muller (pages 95,96 and 164). I was pointed to this by a masters thesis on the subject of gun carriages by Katrina Bunyard which I have attached to this post. Please note her summary of the document by muller (page 37) has some minor mistakes which is why I ended up referring to the original . It is worth noting that the Muller guideline has some flaws and there was some variation as can be expected.

image.png


image.png






have attached a spreadsheet which can be used to calculate cannon carriage sizes according to the Muller measurements if anyone is interested. I also added an Imperial to metric converter to assist with the calculations. (Only edit the red cells if you ever make use of this or the formulae will disappear.)

Using the dimensions for the short barrel 24 pounder gun I calculated the dimensions for this gun and assembled accordingly. I chose to leave off the truck and simply calculate the height of the carriage as if the trucks were there. I also gave it a solid base as this would certainly not be visible and I omitted the curve at the lower part of the side plates. I also made a mistake with the forward transom and put it too far forward (it is meant to be directly above the forward axletree. I only realized this once I had assembled all 30 carriages and decided to draw a line on the madness and left it as is. I would like to add that basswood is appalling to work with at this scale as it is continuously creating fluff which has to be addressed. I did this with a combination of sandpaper and passing the carriages over a candle flame to burn off these fibers.

I have yet again failed to create a proper database of photos on this, but I began by cutting a series of stock from the basswood supplied in the kit. This consisted of the following

30 bases – 12.7mm x 2.5mm flat stock – cut 20mm long

30 front trucks – 4.15mm x 4.15mm square stock – cut 11mm long

30 rear trucks – 3.5mm x 3.5mm square stock – cut 11mm long

60 Side piece plank 1 – 1.5mm x 3mm flat stock – cut 20mm long

60 Side piece plank 2 – 1 mm x 2.4mm flat stock – cut 18mm long

60 Side piece plank 3 – 1 mm x 2.4mm flat stock – cut 16mm long

60 Side piece plank 4 – 1 mm x 2.4mm flat stock – cut 14mm long

60 Side piece plank 5 – 1 mm x 2.4mm flat stock – cut 12mm long

30 Transom pieces – 2mm x 5.9mm – cut 5 mm long

image.png




Beginning with the base I cut a template with the correct width for the front and rear of the carriage and transferred this to the base piece.

I then placed the first 2 side pieces which cover the whole length of the base by aligning them with the marks I had made using the template and installed the transom.

Once this glue has set, I marked the correct height of the transom and sanded each one back to match this measurement.

Next was to sand back the rear of the carriage and square it off neatly until it was just slightly over the final length (19.5mm)

I then stacked the side pieces from largest to smallest stepping the side pieces correctly at intervals of at the rear of the carriage and allowed the front edges to hang over for future squaring off

I then installed the front and rear trucks

image.png




I then sanded the front face to bring the carriage back to final length and neaten off the front face(19mm) and sanded the sides to bring the side plates down to 1.82mm (in theory) and take away the excess material from the base.

Next was to make the recesses for the trunnions and shape them out with a round file.

image.png


image.png






I then burnt all the fibers off with a candle and spraypainted them with a black basecoat. At this point I realized that my trunnion recesses were very poorly aligned and redid the upper plank of the carriage to create a slightly better result.

image.png


image.png


image.png




image.png






The last step will be to paint the carriages.

I am torn between the options of Spanish brown (a far more brownish red) and Lead red. I realize this will barely be visible, but I would like to start my search for the correct tone in the right direction.

All the research I have done indicates to me that the most likely color was indeed a red color of sorts but the shade is the issue. Tyron Martin refers simply to “Red” in his discussions on the matter (at least that which I can find) and there is some reference to Spanish brown in the ships manifests and my understanding is that budget was key in these things and Spanish brown was cheap. There does, however, seem to be contemporary evidence in models and paintings that a brighter red was used and I assume the constitution restoration was done with historical accuracy in mind.

In my mind have narrowed it down to the Spanish brown shown of this George Washington era building.

image.png




and the red of the carriages as shown on the constitution today.

image.png




If anyone has any suggestions on what color or shade might be most appropriate, please let me know. I am sort of thinking I will go for a Red with a brown undertone, but any suggestions would be swell!
 
NOTE: As Mentioned above these will get brought closer to the red of the rest of the vessel later in the build. This is mostly for aestethics and not because I necessarily think that the brown is not historically accurate.

I decided that I would go for a "Spanish brown"...which was apparently red....but almost a brown...confusing stuff...

I did some experimenting, and I am not totally happy with the outcome but I am getting to a color scheme which I will be able to live with when it eventually comes to the spar deck cannon. I think I will go with the same colors and techniques but I will add slightly more red and add a touch of darker brown. Hopefully this produces the results I need.

Below is the painted result of the carriages. Perhaps too brown and not enough red but the light can play all kinds of tricks, they are significantly more "reddish" in person.... clearly more work to do on coloring

image.png
 
Back
Top