Jump to content

Welcome to Model Ship World
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Brig USS Enterprise 1799 info gathering

Enterprise

  • Please log in to reply
123 replies to this topic

#41
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 992 posts

It's amazing how the body plans all look so similar!

 

So I guess anyone who wants to reconstruct the Enterprize has only to take his pick.


  • CharlieZardoz likes this

#42
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Similar concepts and overall function at least yeah. From what I see having all of these lined up so neatly, the top figure and 3rd figure (the Venice plan) look similar in that they both have (I don't know the technical term for it) the most "banana" shaped hulls.  Both sterns stick upwards a bit and the rudder is at a sharp incline the ship almost looks like a revenue cutter or clipper.  The Vixen looks like a ship that was based on the above plans though not copied directly rather the builder probably took the Enterprize dimensions and built something of similar function, while Syren looks like it's own independent design.  Below are the plans again from the Canney book with Syren on top, then Vixen then the schooner and you can see the similarities in the lower 2 for sure. Sorry for the clarity the scanner has a hard time with some of the images.

Attached Thumbnails

  • syren vixen e 001.jpg

  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#43
mtaylor

mtaylor

    Bilge Rat

  • SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
  • 14,229 posts
  • LocationMedford, OR

I think you've entered the "when in doubt, flip a coin" zone, Charlie.   Ok.. exclude the Syren.


  • uss frolick, Canute and CharlieZardoz like this

Mark

"The shipwright is slow, but the wood is patient." - me


Current Build:

Licorne - 1755 from Hahn Plans (Scratch) Version 2.0

Past Builds:
Triton Cross-Section
USS Constellaton (kit bashed to 1854 Sloop of War (Gallery) Build Log
Wasa (Gallery)


Member of the Nautical Research Guild


#44
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Merge more aptly. It would be taking the 1798 schooner drawing plans along with a plan of the half hull (which I am in the process of locating), then lengthen them appropriately using a mix of the Venice plan and Vixen plan. The Syren kit by Model Shipways is superbly detailed so would be a good tool regarding accuracy of the overall look.  Also want to visit that model at the Addison Gallery (again if possible), grill a few learned folk on ships of that era and sprinkle the whole thing with a dash of good intentions for good measure.  :D


Edited by CharlieZardoz, 26 August 2015 - 01:42 AM.

  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#45
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Ok team! Just a bit of an update regarding the Enterprize.  First off I've spoken with 3 naval curators on the matter and sadly the Enterprize half hull was lost some time after that photo was taken back in the 1920's.  Where she is, no one knows it's a mystery which apparently has got quite a few people out there trying to solve, many whom I imagine have greater resources at their disposal than myself.  So that one is a dead end though I am curious if there are computer programs that can take a photo image and digitize them using lighting to extrapolate a form, thoughts? 

 

Secondly I received the book Tidewater Triumph by Geoffrey Footner which indeed does show the Venice plans and an alternate version as well.  They both seem to have stem and stern details which don't appear accurate and can be disregarded. Added pics from the book below. I had a very nice correspondence with Michael Bosworth who explained to me a bit more regarding his thoughts on the schooner and his collaboration with the book writer. I circled a spot which according the book was where Enterprize was lengthened amidship. 

 

Last is a set of conjectural plans at Mystic Conneticut which were apparently made by a member of the Burrows family in 1973 which fellow member Alexmd was interested in. While I can look at the plans, they are historical documents and cannot be touched or photographed, so was thinking of taking a piece of clear vinyl or plexiglass and sticking it in a wood frame that I can house over the plans and then trace with a permanent marker.  I'm not sure if there is a better way to copy them and if anyone here has advice I'm happy to listen. :)

Attached Thumbnails

  • e5 001a.jpg
  • e6 001.jpg

Edited by CharlieZardoz, 04 September 2015 - 06:49 PM.

  • mtaylor, alexmd and Canute like this

#46
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 992 posts

Sorry to hear about the lost half hull model. :(

 

That's interesting what you pointed out about the lengthened section of the Salvini Plan. I didn't see that. 

 

Remember that the American Commander Robinson noted (rather strangely for a letter up the chain of command) that he wished that he could have lengthened her a bit. Perhaps Robinson and Salvini spoke of the idea, and were in full agreement. So maybe Salvini went ahead and copied the Enterprize, lengthened her (on paper, at least) and added all those European fiddly bits that make any Mediterranean naval officer's heart swoon, like a full projecting head, false stern windows, thick carvings and swivel gun posts for and aft.

 

Were I to model the Enterprize, I would take that first plan, remove the lengthened center section and the swivel posts, redraw a simpler head, and space the gun ports to fit the paintings.


Edited by uss frolick, 07 September 2015 - 12:13 AM.

  • Canute likes this

#47
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Yep I totally agree!  Though I am curious perhaps a bit confused.  When was the Enterprize lengthened to 92'  Michael Bosworth said it happened during the Venice rebuilt though I also heard it happened closer to 1812.  What are your thoughts on this?  I recently came across this painting which looks like a contemporary rendition of the battle with the Boxer using the period drawings as reference.  It has massive problems though for one the depiction is of the older Enterprize (drawn by Roux) prior to the refit yet has her rigged as a brig which (I think) is wrong, however it does show the front of the ship and making me wonder what kind of stem Enterprize had.  It seems to protrude sort of but without a billet head not a flat front like a schooner.  Anyone know any other ships of that time period that had similar a front design that I may use as a reference?  Having trouble figuring out what I'm looking at. :/

Attached Thumbnails

  • 16882670027_e0a712fa8a_b1.jpg

Edited by CharlieZardoz, 07 September 2015 - 02:02 AM.

  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#48
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Also regarding the lengthening, the Salvini plan does equal 84.5' so unless the scale below it is wrong maybe it isn't showing an extension, though I admit to being a bit confused lol. I also don't agree with the above painting's color scheme.  By the time of the battle I am assuming Enterprize has a stripe similar to most schooner/brigs.  Whether that stripe was white, yellow, etc. I am not sure but open to thoughts on this as well.  Last I am curious if any thought or mentioning was made to Enterprize's stern detailing.  I am thinking something similar to the Syren or Vixen but curious if any info exists on what the carvings/metalwork may have looked like.


Edited by CharlieZardoz, 07 September 2015 - 12:54 AM.


#49
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 992 posts

Robinson said that he wanted to lengthen her, implying that he didn't. The lengthening must have happened in 1811. An additional 7.5 feet is substantial.

 

Dumb question: Did Salvini use the English-measure foot or the slightly longer French foot?

 

Carvings unknown. Probably a simple billet-head forward, and minimal astern: Stars -  maybe a small eagle. All that we know about her stern, is that just an hour before they fought the Boxer in 1813, Burrows decided to chop away a section of it so that one of his nine-pounders could be run out aft, just in case he had to flee a stronger force. (A move which disheartened the men, according to a court martial held for cowardice against Masters Mate William Harper.) So no stern chase ports as re-built.

 

Use similar USS Vixen for general appearance.


  • Canute and CharlieZardoz like this

#50
mtaylor

mtaylor

    Bilge Rat

  • SPECIAL CONTRIBUTOR
  • 14,229 posts
  • LocationMedford, OR

Charlie,

 

Frolick has a good point... if it's the French foot, it's about 10% (9.7% ? I don't remember exactly) longer which would get the length.  But it should be checked against another measurement (a known one preferably) to be sure.


  • Canute and CharlieZardoz like this

Mark

"The shipwright is slow, but the wood is patient." - me


Current Build:

Licorne - 1755 from Hahn Plans (Scratch) Version 2.0

Past Builds:
Triton Cross-Section
USS Constellaton (kit bashed to 1854 Sloop of War (Gallery) Build Log
Wasa (Gallery)


Member of the Nautical Research Guild


#51
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Interesting, I asked Michael and will see what he says.  Regarding the lengthening I checked the books and Canney says it happened in Venice (which Michael agrees with), and Chappelle mentions that Fox measured her as 92' in 1806 however says her dimensions were again altered in 1811.  No stern chase ports on a brig?? How weird must have happened during the 1811 rebuild... :/


  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#52
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 992 posts

Remember, there's a big tiller with all its relieving tackle covering the deck aft the wheel.


  • mtaylor, Canute and CharlieZardoz like this

#53
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

True plus the small boat which might have gotten in the way as well.


  • mtaylor and Canute like this

#54
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Here's a nice example from Syren though.  Beautiful work :)

Attached Thumbnails

  • 81.jpg
  • 111.jpg

  • mtaylor, uss frolick and Canute like this

#55
Talos

Talos
  • Members
  • 216 posts

Taken from "A Full and Correct Account of the Chief Naval Occurrences of the Late War Between Great Britain and the United States of America" by William James.

 


 

The Enterprise was originally a schooner; and her full dimensions, in hull, spars, and sails, as a schooner, appear in the M.S. memorandum-book, before referred to. (See p. 111.) Soon after the late war commenced, the Enterprise was cut in two, lengthened, (so as to have one more port of a-side,) and altered to a brig, at Washington. The Nautilus, captured by the Shannon, was also originally a schooner; and was altered to a brig without being lengthened. By adding, therefore, to the Enterprise’s original length, the distance between the fore-side of one of the Nautilus’s ports, to the aft side of the next port, which is 8 feet 6 inches, we have the present length of the Enterprise. This makes her 245 tons; but several British officers who have seen the Enterprise, state that she is about 260 tons. The Nautilus’s top-sides are nearly as stout as those of our first-class brigs; while the Boxer had only one timber between each port; which made her top-sides pervious to every grape-shot that was fired. The spars of the Enterprise will be considered as no larger, than those which the Nautilus had, when captured.

 

Uw1MwTX.jpg

 

This is the proper place to give an extract from the American “Particulars;” – “At 3 PM tacked, and bore up for the enemy, taking him to be one of his majesty’s brigs of the largest size”!

 

                None of the praises lavished upon the “fine brig of war Boxer”, could gain her a place among the national vessels of the United States. She was put up to auction, and sold as a merchant-brig; for which service only, (and that in peaceable times,) she was ever calculated.

 

cHQD1uo.jpg

 

The superiority in weight of metal is trifling; that in number of men, two-fold. Gun-brigs are allowed but one lieutenant, one master’s mate, and two midshipmen. The absence of the two midshipmen, the shameful defection of the acting master’s-mate, and the three seamen, and the fall of her brave commander by the first broadside, rendered the Boxer’s situation, at the very onset of the engagement, peculiarly unfortunate. On the other hand, the Enterprise, after her commander was wounded, had still two lieutenants, and four or five midshipmen, left, to carry on the action. These circumstances considered, the disparity between the two crews, was even greater than the numerical difference, already so great.

 

                None, but a novice in American history, will be surprised at the following paragraph in Mr. Low’s book: “The President of the United States, have considered the Boxer as equal in force to the Enterprise, has ordered her to be delivered up for the benefit of the captors.”

 

The MS Memorandum book is described earlier in the book. It was captured by the RN when they took the Chesapeake and had dimensions for multiple ships. It might still exist in the British archives.


  • mtaylor, uss frolick, Canute and 1 other like this

#56
trippwj

trippwj

    Scullery Maid

  • Members
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationEastport, Maine, USA
It would certainly appear that those stern chasers, while certainly important when needed, had great potential to serve the pursuer well - recoiling into the tiller rigging could really ruin the day! Not to mention the challenge for the gun captain to avoid gun and ropes!
  • mtaylor, Canute and CharlieZardoz like this

Wayne

Neither should a ship rely on one small anchor, nor should life rest on a single hope.
Epictetus


#57
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Is this source insinuating that Enterprize was lengthened after the war?  Could she have been lengthened twice? At 97' that would make her larger than the Syren?? Am I correct in assuming that this was written by a British historian in 1817?  If that is so it is likely he didn't have the correct information and made an inference on size and date of alteration.  Very interesting stuff though I downloaded the book via an online source :) And I agree trippwj, these little warships were so very compact and cramp when you really think about it it's simply amazing and for me why I think I like them so much.  Sure a big ship like Vanguard or Victory are feats on engineering, but these small ships fascinate me in how the engineers managed to work with limited space in order to make such beautiful vessels which were essentially very practical works of art. :)


Edited by CharlieZardoz, 07 September 2015 - 12:30 PM.

  • trippwj, mtaylor, Talos and 1 other like this

#58
uss frolick

uss frolick
  • Members
  • 992 posts

Remember also, that not all heavier vessels pursuing you are behind you, like the classic motorboat chase in From Russia With Love ("Heave too, Mr.Bond! Spectre Three: You're firing too close!").

 

They only have to be to windward of you, most likely on your weather quarter where the stern ports are of no use. It seems that a recoiling gun could cut your tiller rope. In the heavier American sloops, like the Wasp and Hornet, the iron goose-necked tiller and its tackle were below in the great cabin, so perhaps the Enterprize was retrofitted with this device by 1813.


  • trippwj, mtaylor, Canute and 1 other like this

#59
trippwj

trippwj

    Scullery Maid

  • Members
  • 3,491 posts
  • LocationEastport, Maine, USA

Is this source insinuating that Enterprize was lengthened after the war?  Could she have been lengthened twice? At 97' that would make her larger than the Syren?? Am I correct in assuming that this was written by a British historian in 1817?  If that is so it is likely he didn't have the correct information and made an inference on size and date of alteration.  Very interesting stuff though I downloaded the book via an online source :)

 

You are correct - James was a British writer providing "their side" of the story.  HOWEVER - factually, in terms of vessel dimensions, rigs, and (usually) weight of iron (that is, number and sizes of guns) he was fairly accurate considering the references he used (plus or minus a foot here a tun there, but very accurate on the British vessels).

 

His logic seems reasonable - though perhaps skewed.  He has used the Nautilus as his model (perhaps also for the length), and then added her 8' 6" for adding an additional port.  If the the length for the Nautilus is extended 8' 6", you get about 96 feet.  HOWEVER - we must always be cognizant of inconsistencies in the manner in which ships were measured in different nations at different times.  There is a very good chance that what appears to be a major difference is much less when those vagaries are considered.

 

Here are the dimensions given by Dudley Knox (editor) 1945. Register of Officer Personnel United States Navy and Marine Corps and Ships’ Data 1801–1807. Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.ibiblio.o...er_shipdata.pdf.

 

Note there is no reference to any rebuild in Venice in his narrative.  For reference, I have also provided the information on the Nautilus.

 

Barbary Wars.jpg


  • mtaylor, uss frolick, Canute and 1 other like this

Wayne

Neither should a ship rely on one small anchor, nor should life rest on a single hope.
Epictetus


#60
CharlieZardoz

CharlieZardoz
  • Members
  • 792 posts
  • LocationQueens New York

Interesting, and from what I know there are no surviving plans/diagrams of Nautilus either, only descriptions which describe her as being "too lightly built" and "wedge shaped" which led to problems with cramped space below.  And I imagine that often during a battle these small ships would wind up doing at least some damage to themselves while attempting to deal with the space issues or like you mentioned above having to "cut" away part of the stern in order to add a rear chaser.  Still boggles my mind that Fair American was a mere 70 feet and had 14 guns.  Spacing between guns must have been an issue especially if attempting to fire a broadside.


Edited by CharlieZardoz, 07 September 2015 - 01:36 PM.

  • mtaylor and Canute like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Welcome GUEST to the Model Ship World Community.
Please LOGIN or REGISTER to use all of our feautures.