Talos

His forward-looking school certainly explains why it looked late 19th century. The first edition of that book dates back to 1829, back when he was Superindentent of the School of Naval Architecture and three years before it closed in 1832.
 
That whole era is interesting to me too. D.K. Brown's Before the Ironclad, which covers the post-Napoelonic War part of that era got me into it, and also had me looking at the earlier part during the wars, with people like Bentham. Brown talks a lot about Seppings and Symonds though, though he isn't (and I agree) a big fan of Symonds.

Charlie and Talos, you both are providing great stuff for my Sabine build. I'm done with deck furniture- scratch built the 10 dahlgren guns- now I'm getting to the houses, and the closed bow. Charlie posted some great shots of the Sabine bow. Thanks. By the way, the Sabine's billethead is on display here in Rockland at the Farnsworth museum.

His forward-looking school certainly explains why it looked late 19th century. The first edition of that book dates back to 1829, back when he was Superindentent of the School of Naval Architecture and three years before it closed in 1832.
 
That whole era is interesting to me too. D.K. Brown's Before the Ironclad, which covers the post-Napoelonic War part of that era got me into it, and also had me looking at the earlier part during the wars, with people like Bentham. Brown talks a lot about Seppings and Symonds though, though he isn't (and I agree) a big fan of Symonds.

Looked it up, it was Fincham's Treatise on Masting Ships. My specific source I used was the 2nd edition of 1843 as found on Google Books.
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=z4QhGFh-7ZwC&dq=Fincham's%20Treatise%20on%20Masting%20Ships&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=falsePage 88, the first and second examples, which match the length and beam of Cruizer and Cherokee brigs.

His forward-looking school certainly explains why it looked late 19th century. The first edition of that book dates back to 1829, back when he was Superindentent of the School of Naval Architecture and three years before it closed in 1832.
 
That whole era is interesting to me too. D.K. Brown's Before the Ironclad, which covers the post-Napoelonic War part of that era got me into it, and also had me looking at the earlier part during the wars, with people like Bentham. Brown talks a lot about Seppings and Symonds though, though he isn't (and I agree) a big fan of Symonds.

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:
 
The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

That makes sense - Fincham was a major part of the School f Naval Architecture with Inman.  His success may, perhaps, be best described by the death notice in The Times (1859):
 
The death of this gentleman [John Fincham] took place at his residence at Highland Lodge, near Portsmouth, yesterday morning, in his 75th year. The deceased gentleman will be best remembered by the general public as for many years master shipwright of Portsmouth Dockyard, and more especially as the builder of the celebrated Arrogant, the first screw frigate possessed by this country, and still looked on as one of the finest of her class. Much of his time and study was devoted to the introduction of the screw propeller into the British navy. For a long period he was superintendent of the School of Naval Architecture at Portsmouth. His History of Naval Architecture, Outlines of Shipbuilding, a Treatise on Laying-off Ships, and on Masting Ships, are unequalled in the English language for the amount of research and professional knowledge they contain.
 
His 1843 work was at the tail end of Symonds tenure as Surveyor of the Navy, and reflects one of the 3 major views in that prolonged period of discord (Symonds' "empirical" school of shipbuilding came into conflict both with the "scientific" school led by the new class of professional naval architects and the first School of Naval Architecture (such as Fincham, Morgan, Creuze, Pearse &c.), and the "traditional" school led by Master Shipwrights from the Royal Dockyards.  Quite an interesting period of time for the British Navy that period from about 1790 through 1850.

Moin from Germany.
 
Sorry, but the plans of the Epervier say something different Square Tuck!   Source: NMM

Be careful of secondary sources! We come down squarely (sorry about the pun) on the side of square sterns.

Concerning point 2 - the Crown OWNED the Oak growing in Britain.  HOWEVER - quality Oak, in the quantities needed, was becoming more scarce.  See, among other research, the following:
 
Albion, R.G. 1926. Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Problem of the Royal Navy, 1652-1862. Harvard University Press. http://archive.org/details/ForestsAndSeaPower.
Knight, R. 1986. New England Forest and British Seapower: Albion Revisited. The American Neptune XLVI, no. 4: 221–229.
Layman, W. 1813. Precursor to an Exposé on Forest Trees and Timber ... as Connected with the Maritime Strength ... of the United Kingdom. https://books.google.com/books?id=KNxbAAAAQAAJ.
Loewen, B. 2000. Forestry Practices and Hull Design, Ca. 1400-1700. In Fernando Oliveira E O Seu Tempo. Humanismo E Arte de Navegar No Renascimento Europeu (1450-1650), ed. F.C. Domingues, 143–151. Patrimonia. https://www.academia.edu/5766940/Forestry_practices_and_hull_design_ca._1400-1700.
 
An additional consideration, particularly at this time, is that the theory and science of Naval Architecture was undergoing a sometime vicious shift in the paradigm of design.  This was the period of the Reverend Inman and George Atwood.  We also saw the influence of the Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture and Fredrik Henrik Chapman on the field.  The changes, while sometimes slow, were incremental and evident.  They were not accomplished via simple edicts from the Surveyor of the Navy and Admiralty (history showed how poorly that approach had worked over many decades - too many of the ship yards were passive-aggressive on implementing those orders). 
 
Steel, as a case study, perhaps, is in a unique category.  There has been, since long before our life time, speculation concerning the source for his Naval Architecture.  The timing of the publication implies that there was some connection to the attempt to incorporate scientific theory into ship design - and, indeed, some of the narrative in Steel's Vade Mecum seem to advocate for such a path.  Steel was a publisher and former barrister with the Admiralty, but not a ship builder nor rigger.  What he was, however, was well connected - as evidence by his ship lists &.c. published over many years.

Would be quite interested in your source for this table - based solely on the terminology used, this appears to be a late 19th century analysis rather than a contemporary description.  Also, given the long history of the class, as well as the number constructed, there was quite probably a difference between the early rig dimensions and the latter members of the class.

Looked it up, it was Fincham's Treatise on Masting Ships. My specific source I used was the 2nd edition of 1843 as found on Google Books.
 
https://books.google.com/books?id=z4QhGFh-7ZwC&dq=Fincham's%20Treatise%20on%20Masting%20Ships&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=falsePage 88, the first and second examples, which match the length and beam of Cruizer and Cherokee brigs.

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:
 
The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

Almost four feet shorter (96'7" versus 100 feet) /and/ 26'9" versus 30'6" wide Cruizers. Judging by the plans for Swan in the RMG, she looks shallower too despite having nearly the same rated draft. So it really doesn't surprise me that they would be nearly a hundred tons apart using Builder's Old Measurement, where a shift in beam can cause a large shift in size.

Almost four feet shorter (96'7" versus 100 feet) /and/ 26'9" versus 30'6" wide Cruizers. Judging by the plans for Swan in the RMG, she looks shallower too despite having nearly the same rated draft. So it really doesn't surprise me that they would be nearly a hundred tons apart using Builder's Old Measurement, where a shift in beam can cause a large shift in size.

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:
 
The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

Almost four feet shorter (96'7" versus 100 feet) /and/ 26'9" versus 30'6" wide Cruizers. Judging by the plans for Swan in the RMG, she looks shallower too despite having nearly the same rated draft. So it really doesn't surprise me that they would be nearly a hundred tons apart using Builder's Old Measurement, where a shift in beam can cause a large shift in size.

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:
 
The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:
 
The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

I agree with this. Some comments on the points:
 
The initial Cruizer and Snake prototypes were ordered in 1796 and completed in 1798 under Earl Spencer’s board. One of the other projects Spencer did was give eight different 74-gun 3rd Rate contracts to various private yards. No more Cruizers were ordered until 1801 when they needed them. A concern, but the UK running out of oak is an exaggerated myth. The real problem was supplies were getting harder to procure at a price the admiralty wanted to pay, and they let the reserves dwindle and for a few years their supplies were tight. By the end of the war they had plenty again though prices were still above pre-war levels. The more acute shortages were in difficult pieces, like knees. The Cruizer and Snake were designed before there was any wartime production crunch, so they were hardly austere designs. Fully worked-out designs to all naval standards, designed for global operations anywhere the Royal Navy was and they took their time with it. They really were in a sweet spot between capability and economy, as were the Cherokees after them. Incidentally, the part that screams cutter to me the most is that little sheer by the bow, which doesn’t match the deck line. Nothing wrong with being inspired by cutter designs. Those were the UK’s most notoriously seaworthy small craft, coastal vessels designed for channel work and the like. This, not a timber shortage, was the real problem. So few ships were sailing at their proper, rated complements all the time, most had larger proportions of pressed landsmen and long overseas deployments and brutal blockade periods both wore down what crews they did scrounge together. Cruizer’s crew size was typical of both ship and brig sloops of her size. Even HMS Peacock (ex-USS Wasp) had an identically rated crew of 121 in British service and Swan only had four extra men under older crew regulations, and 121 after 1794. Between the 32-pounder carronades (which were also added to small post ships like Cyane) giving a heavier armament for their size, while still being large enough for proper ocean sailing and deployment, they were very versatile craft. They weren’t particularly designed for economy so much as being a standard and modern design in an economical size class (compared to all the older quarterdeck sloops based on designs dating back decades).

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.

Totally meant to post this earlier with the discussion about sparing. I found this table in a 19th century book on rigging (I have to go back and look it up again to see which one. I realized that the measurements listed for hull length were that of the Cruizer and Cherokee.