CaptArmstrong

From what I've read (I'll readily admit I know less about Spanish shipbuilding than French, British, or American) the Spanish 74s carried lighter armaments than was common in other navies-sort of like enlarged old 70 gunners. So instead of 32pdrs and 18s or even 24s, they'd carry 24pdrs on the lower and 18s on the upper gundeck https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=2708 i think the reasoning (other than blind conservatism) might've been a greater emphasis on longevity and speed rather than line of battle parity.

I really like that transom! Reminds me a lot of the USS President's after capture, and it has clean lines despite all the carvings. Were you inspired by this engraving? https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h65000/h65865a.jpg

And the lines look very much like a fuller version of the 6th rate....would not be at all surprised if they had the same designer. With 18 ports she could plausibly be the Trumbull? If any of the vessels built for the navy at all-being a purchase certainly seems possible!

It's definitely not the Adams! But I am using it as a starting point for a conjectural draught of how the Adams could've looked as a corvette. do you know if the as-built length on gundeck of the Adams was 113' as Chapelle suggests, or the undated 128'4" noted in the fox papers? I agree that the Merrimack or an improved Maryland/Patapsco are likely subjects of the plan of the 6th rate.

Thanks Frolick, that was mighty quick! 1. Ahhh, this makes much more sense! I wrote down 113' on gundeck for the Adams from Chapelle the other day, but he must've subtracted 15' from the ~128' assuming that was the lengthened dimension, when he actually should've added 15 for the corvette version to get 143' 4". 2. Perfect! I reckon I should use the gunport dimensions from the Philadelphia, Chesapeake, or New York to get the sizing right for 18-pounders. 3. That makes it simple enough! 4. I think I see, would moulded be the vertical dimension and sided the horizontal? I can't say I know whether she was closer to Fox or Humphreys' designs-she may have been an independent one like Essex. I'm certainly hoping so, given the design I'm using as a basis. Given that he definitely designed the John Adams at the same time, and her dimensions differ from the Adams just about as much as the Boston, I would doubt she was designed by fox. It was also said that she was too fine-lined for her original rate, and more than any other US navy designer of the time fox seems to have preferred marked knuckles amidships like British and French designs, resulting in a full & somewhat hexagonal midship section (as opposed to the high-deadrise V shape of the Essex, or almost-v of the Humphreys Frigates) Hopefully Talos can shed more light!

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me: 1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear: clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward" etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"? Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

Just when I was re-reading this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/quadrireme-quinquereme-decemereme-and-other-multumeremes-part-i-the-colossal-warships-of-the-hellenistic-era/amp/ what an amazing find! I'm sure that as these wrecks are studied further they can yield answers to some long-running debates about rowing arrangements etc of ancient vessels. Though it's unclear if any warships are among the wrecks, they should also be quite useful for better understanding ancient construction techniques. Marvelous stuff!

Truly amazing find of the Hornet's transom! It certainly looks a lot like the Chesapeake, which I'm beginning to think was a fairly common style of American transom. Bumps her well up the list of my potential 3D builds. Any idea where the figurehead and trailboards drawing might be found? I'd agree that the model doesn't look a lot like the New York, the bow isn't raked enough, among other things. I think it matches up quite well to the Essex though, especially after her refit that made her more wall-sided with fully built up bulwarks. Interesting how low the copper stops on the hull, everything seems in proportion otherwise. Judging by the early images of the united states, she had something like a French dunette: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/82972.html without upper quarter galleries, but with a two-tier transom and balcony on the upper level. Glad you made it through, Frolick!

Be safe Frolick! Note that Chapelle inexplicably squished the quarter galleries on his plan of the class. The windows should reach as far down as the bottom edge of the rearmost gunport, as it does in both the doughty and fox plans (though doughty's was almost certainly the one used, fox's hull lines differed subtly). Though I reckon his outline of the United States' upper tier of galleries is pretty sensible. I've managed to make adjustments to other plans similar to making the quarter galleries deeper, so that might be something to consider before tackling additions. I assume you'll be reconstructing the transom as well, based on the shape of the 74's?

Oh wow! That is fine performance indeed. Are their dimensions on three decks really accurate? They seem not much bigger than a 38 really, and they aren't super full lined either. https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=16574 I don't have my Gardiner books on me, but Wikipedia says 14.4 large and 11 knots close-hauled, citing him. With 18pdrs, I'm sure, but still. 13.5 or 13.7 sounds right for 24pdrs. I believe the fir ones were considered a bit leewardly, being lighter and thus higher in the water. Though false keel additions helped. Also with 28x 24pdrs they may have pitched a bit more than the original, but nothing too severe. They certainly topped the 13 knot mark for speed, but I don't think they quite matched the original. Leander and Newcastle were fast, but not as fast as Endymion. IIRC They were capable of making 13kts large and 10kts close hauled.

Wasn't the initital draft design smaller? Perhaps he heard of their dimensions and enlarged to the as built dimensions. Otherwise I'd say the constitution has much more in common in terms of hull form with Chapman's Bellona/Venus than with either the Forte or the South Carolina. But in dimensions and armament, the forte class was certainly closest!

Well said! I agree entirely with your assessment of frigate designs. I think a mix of large (constitution class) frigates with more numerous Endymion/Pomone class vessels would be a smart balance. Though at a minimum of strength, stowage, and stability to carry 24pdrs, the Endy still had enough to be effective, and her speed was of course outstanding. What is the record on the bellona's performance? I can't say I know much about that class beyond its existence. And I bow to your knowledge of 17th & early-mid 18th century shipbuilding I'm sure many here already (JohnE & Bava especially) know the late 18th century design differences between British and french frigates as well or better than I, but I'll add my take on why french 18pdr frigate design in particular was still viewed as superior in the late 18th/early 19th century by many British officers: Though the British built the first 18pdr frigates-and the french took several years to catch on-when they did they built them at much more effective dimensions for 28x 18pdrs (~150' x 39', compared to 141' x 38'10" for hms Minerva) allowing them an edge in speed and even secondary armament due to the advantage of a higher lwl and L/B ratio, as JohnE mentioned. Of course This was standard design priorities at play for french warships at this point. But it was only compounded by the developments of the 1790s, which saw unwavering British conservatism in the face of some radical french experimentation. British captains realized that their early 18pdr ships were cramped and a touch slow, but the admiralty was only willing to increase the dimensions of this still new type (notably length) very slowly and incrementally. In the 1790s, a foot was added every year or so to each of the surveyor's (rule and henslow) designs, gradually improving speed in each new design by small amounts. (Roughly, and by speed I'm going by the highest quoted speed in sailing reports, from what I've read of Gardiner. ) Still, the dimensions (and iirc speed) of Sane's initial 18pdr design of 1782 was not entirely matched by British designed 38s until 1799 with the active and amazon. About the same time, the amphion and apollo were launched (the lead ships of the most successful 32 and 36 gun 18pdr classes) along with the copied Leda. However, at this moment of embracing reasonable dimensions at last, st Vincent became first lord of the admiralty(1801). He ordered a revival of a 36 gun frigate design from the 1780s, along with the 12pdr Richmond class of 1757 in fir! Just After his administration finished in 1804, the 154' lively (laid down in 1799) was launched, and along with the ledas, apollos, and amphions became the standard designs of the napoleonic wars- reliably matching french speed and size 20 years after the 18pdr type was introduced In the same timespan, the french had experimented with some radical designs, and had been building the more traditional but very effective sane design in numbers. Other 18pdr designs reached 160' long, and employed radically fine lines for such large hulls. The Seine class by Forfait and the even bigger Resistance are prime examples http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66536.html http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66549.html The latter clearly has a highly experimental hull form, and even had screws to adjust the rake of the masts for different points of sailing! A number of these ships turned out to be fine sailers, but I don't think it could be said with certainty that they were better outright than the Sane design or the livelys, especially considering all the design criteria listed by beef wellington. Some of the more experimental ideas weren't repeated or were immediately reconfigured (Forfait's fregate-bombards come to mind) I doubt they had as lasting of an effect on design nor offered as much real design superiority as the earlier innovations of the two Blaise's. But, considering the comparative size of British 18pdr ships at the time, and the radical forms of some french ships, they left a lasting impression of french design and a willingness to think (and build) Innovatively. When you have one of those (or a Sane 18pdr frigate) coming into harbor as a prize, and you can see an enlarged fir built royal Caroline (essentially a 100 year old hull form) on the stocks as part of your nation's response to that threat, it's easy to see how one could wonder if your shipwrights were less able. The British did match the french for speed in 18pdr frigates in time for the napoleonic wars, while likely retaining their traditional advantage in seakeaping, stowage, cost, and strength. But they took their time doing so due to institutional conservatism. During the French Revolution there was a marked disparity between the two nation's frigate designs in innovation along with size and related performance-which left a lasting impression on the British officer corps, contributing greatly to the impression of french design superiority at that time.

If I remember what boudriot wrote correctly, the decorations for frigates were officially standardized during the ancien regime about 1785. The decoration plan for this order is reprinted in history if the french frigate. It is structurally very chunky, without much thought to how the stern was actually framed. It seems that quite rightly no constructors followed it in this regard, but the influence of its motifs and some of the layout can be seen on a number of frigates of the 1780s and 1790s, and I think this accounts for the standardized, slightly more austere look you describe. But there are enough examples of frigates from this era with proper figureheads (rather than the arms of France, or later a Phrygian cap) that it seems quite plausible that the cornilie was built with the carvings described, and that the plan will show them

Looking just wonderful! Having a plan that is so clearly and accurately the standard lines of the class as they were meant to be is really a treasure! I do like what you've done with the decorations on your plan, but I'm really looking forward to seeing what the design of the stern was as ordered! Though if you've seen any other such carving plans for french vessels, I'm sure you're aware that it may turn out to be more of a guideline to be interpreted by the builders at the yard rather than an exact match to the dimensions of the ship.

Excellent reading! Here is a wonderful painting by pocock of the fight betweent the Herbrus and l'Etoile. And some of the Clorinde vs Eurotas can be seen here: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/100913.html http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/109997.html http://artsalesindex.artinfo.com/auctions/Robert-Dodd-43103/Close-action-between-HMS-Eurotas-and-the-French-Frigate-Clorinde-1814-2000 these battles are also described well in the Caxton pictorial histories series volume "the victory of Seapower" from what I recall, napoleon had started a naval gunnery training program around the time of trafalgar that didn't start to pay dividends much until this time-with the unusual ferociousness of the french gunnery in these battles being a direct result of it. A similarly hard fought duel from 1813 pitted the HMS Amelia vs L'Arethuse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_7_February_1813 interestingly, it saw one of the first JN Sáne designed 18pdr frigates(HMS Amelia was the ex-French Proserpine of 1785)fighting against what was essentially the ultimate evolution of that class, the brand new arethuse. Did William James write a description of that battle?