Nautical Research Journal 313


7.


the model in a matter of weeks. If allowed to harden too much it would be impossible to press the model’s hull back into it. T e formulas must have changed. Now, the more time the putty has to cure the better, since bottling a model in putty still too soſt can be disastrous as well. T e putty went into the bottle eleven months before the ship did, and here I may have been pushing my luck.


Turning to the rigging, two broader issues came up. One had to do with straying from the sources. T ough all the Chapelle plans were the primary authority for this model, three deviations were made from the sail plan. First, the gentleman from Portsmouth who commissioned this model enjoyed the loſt iness of the Davis sail plan and asked whether this Raleigh could be rigged with fore and main royals. Chapelle clearly states Raleigh did not carry these sails, but the Holman painting shows fi ve frigates with fore and main royals, including the two Raleigh “sisters” Hancock and Boston. I agreed it was plausible. It would not be the fi rst time a ship carried a spar not included on a list of spar dimensions. He also wondered about spritsail topsail and, again,


the Holman paintings were of help. None of the fi ve ships depicted carried this yard, so it was reasonable to not include it. Finally, the paintings resolved confusion over the spanker rig. Chapelle notes the spanker boom among Raleigh’s spars, unusual with the old-fashioned lateen yard, and includes it in his sail plan. T is would make wearing or tacking ship very diffi cult because of the ensign staff lateen abaſt . Undecided over this issue, I even made a spanker boom, but the paintings convinced me not to use it. Both American ships, which have the ensign staff lateens set, have loose-footed spankers. In one painting, one frigate has this sail brailed up to the yard, presumably to be brought down again on the opposite tack. All these issues were brought up for discussion with the members at regular meetings of the USS Constitution Museum Ship Model Guild, though I do not pretend all were in agreement with my ideas.


T e other issue had to do with choices for scale. T ere is always a temptation to push the practical limits of a scale and create a small model in much the same way as a larger one is made. Miniaturists


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100