Navigator wrote:
Doug here's some maths: 1988 is not 'less than ten years' after 1976

True, but you said 1983 to 1988.

I assume this is a backpedal?

.... I
also did not say that the straps were in place in 1988!

So this is *definitely* a major backpedal.

You did in fact say so, I asked you specifically "when" and you said 83
to 88... want to check the Google archive? You can lie freely about many
things, but you cannot lie about what you have posted. At least, not and
get away with it.


... The fact is that
the defects in her structure manifest by hogging and opening amidships
were started in her earlier repairs and were not addressed in the refit
you talked about. I spotted the problems quite early on -I could see
seams starting to open that were just painted over.

http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn8.htm#H2

"In 1994 the Navy surveyed Constellation and found her to be in very
poor condition.

Actually, this is true but not the whole story by far

The plans for the 1992-1997 refit began as early as 1990, when a series
of inspections and surveys were carried out.


... Among other problems, she was leaking 1200 gallons a day and had
suffered 35 inches of hog.

Dude, that doesn't even begin to require "fire pumps" to keep her
afloat. A good fire pump will throw over 1200 gallons per minute. You
said she had several going 24/7

In other words, you were just making up impressive sounding BS... or
"lying," as some people call it.



.... She was promptly closed to the public, and
all rigging and guns were removed.

And this was in 1994? She had already begun her refit according to your
own source. You said her masts were removed between 1983 and 1988

Oh and what about the lack of naval personnel?

What about being closed to the public between 1983 and 1988?

BTW the 35" of hogging is also inaccurate, I have other sources
(unfortunately not on line, but I can give ISDN numbers) that not only
discuss the issue in detail but have photographs of the hull in drydock
with measurement templates in place. They show the hogging to be between
14" and 15"

But who's counting? The fact that hull was hogged is not in dispute. I
am only presenting accurate info to show up your blatant lies.


An apology from you would be in order.

Negative. You've been busted hard and you're scraping the bottom of the
barrel, pretending that you meant over six years later and were talking
about the preparations for her refit.

BTW Thomas Gilmer, whom you called incompetent, was working on the
Constitution project from back in the late 1980s. Among other things he
worked over the plans to determine the distortion of her hull shape. He
also wrote a book about the Constitution, covering her history and her
recent rebuild & refit. You might benefit from checking it out, try
inter library loan. There is an excellent discussion of structural
issues & hulls as girders.

One thing that Gilmer discusses extensively that this reference glosses
over is the structural rebuild. Know what a rider knee is? They were on
the original plans (which BTW do exist and were referenced) but
apparently never installed. They were fitted during the 1992-1996
rebuild. I guess defense contractors haven't changed.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King