Talk:USS Constellation (1797)

message: Is it just me or do some of the sections seem somewhat jingoistic?--94.192.227.195 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jingoism 

message: I've downgraded the assessment on this article. It is not meeting criteria 1 and 2 presently. I plan on working this article up the ratings but this will not happen for some months. --Brad (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not meeting B-class criteria

message: Hi Brad, I did some work on this article some years back, nice to see the expansion! Cheers! 
:Thanks but don't get too excited. There's a long road ahead to FA. --Brad (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me know what you need I have some sources.--Tirronan (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice expansion 

message: I question the statement:
"Joshua Humphreys' design was long on keel and narrow of beam (width) to allow for the mounting of very heavy guns."
Being narrow of beam is not a characteristic that would seem to support "the mounting of very heavy guns." If narrow beams support very heavy guns, then what kind of guns could the ship have carried if it had a wide beam?
207.30.62.198 (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Later designs such as the HMS Leander 60 gun frigate would be straight wall designs, this type of design for heavy frigates was about fifteen years after these ships were built.  However that line is a Historian's opinion of the design and not an off comment.  The tumble home type of construction was the staple of most heavier Man O' War designs right up until 1812.  There have been a few major naval disasters the Mary Rose is one that comes quickly to mind, of too much weigh out to the far beams and as naval architectural science was relatively unknown the chances taken on hull designs tended to be rather timid.  As sailing ships heel over in turns the tumble home design was an attempt to answer that to the degree that the problem was understood at the time.  The design kept much of the heavy ordinance closer to the centerline.  Obviously, the problem had not be all that well understood or there would have been more straight wall hull designs.  The citation is at the end of the short paragraph. Nice catch on the lighter broadside by the way, I screwed that up.  Anyway the Historian was talking about what the builder was intending.  Ian Toll's Six Frigates is where the information and citation come from if you want to come up to speed on the background of this.Tirronan (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more about the ship and her beam problems that I haven't added to the article yet. Truxtun demanded very large masts installed on the ship and during the Quasi-War she had a problem with laying over in a turn to where her guns were swamped. Also, after the QW she went towards ordinary and sunk in the channel because she laid over during the night and water got in through the gunports. Humphreys was assigned to resurrect and fix her up. Truxtun was a drama queen who made a lot of bad decisions during her construction. Brad (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: This ship had 24lb main guns and as Brad pointed out it created problems as the weight was too much and she had heeling issues.  In one cae overshooting the target when she heeled over and couldn't make a turn as expected.  Because of this the ship was refitted with 18lb guns.  As for the narrow beam there is also the rule that the narrower the hull the "Finer" in ship lingo the faster it would be.  However again the historian is talking about the design decisions that the builder was making at the time of her construction.  That is not a comparative anylasis of ship hulls and design decisions.  HMS Leander a newer design wide hulled straight sided 60 rated and mounted 24 lb guns with no issues, it was more a answer to the US Large 44 gun frigates and not this design.Tirronan (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

text: This ship was a very successful 38 rated 18lb frigate.  The failure of the six frigates was the USS Chesapeake which started out with a design for a 44 Constitution Class heavy frigate and ended up as a 38 gun over built and heavy 18lb gun frigate.  All the 44's worked ok but the United States was a mule of a sailor.  As you mentioned the 44's were exactly that design marginally the same width but the spar deck was fuller, this allowed the spar deck to carry much heavier broadsides and they did it pretty well.  The Leander Class was probably a better ship but as said before it was much later.  As to hogging, the cross hatched scantlings did much to stop that in the 44's and were the forerunners of longer man o' war designs.  The 80 gun class ships of the line became much more popular after this period because of this hull construction method.Tirronan (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: 207, the proper way to handle the disagreement here is to produce an alternative wording of the passage with a source to back it up. We can sit here for weeks debating the topic but the purpose of an article talk page is for improvement of the article. I have the Beach and Toll books and the Allen source is available online free. Brad (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure there is a disagreement.  I believe someone was trying to make a statement about the design as the designer thought about it.  However the statement would only pertain to the 44's as the 38's were dimensional twins to British designs and except for the diagonal scantlings and heavy planking, exactly the same as every other 38 rate out there.  Perhaps the way to approach this would be to say "The 44's were designed to be as fine (in the naval sense) as their heavy guns would allow.Tirronan (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for citation 

message: I was wanting to read the document that states that USS Constellation was broken up in 1854. I was unable to access the link by clicking on them and via directly typing the link into the address bar of my browser. Could you, fix this? I have been searching for other proofs of the break up in 1854 and have been unable to find any other documents on the net. Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the links and archived the documents on WebCite.  I have not linked directly to the pdf's because they are both lengthy documents and take a long time to load.  You can get to them from this page on the Naval Surface Warfare Command's website.  There is also a useful timeline of the controversy on this page. SpinningSpark 12:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Links 

message: Constellation sank in the Delaware River in 1801. Anyone have any further details? Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See Toll, page 160. She dragged her anchor and ran aground at high tide. I think that a little different than sinking,. but...--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk  14:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 1801 sinking