Talos

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.

In the 1937 edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships, the Deutschlands are listed as “armored ship”, with the German “panzerschiffe” in parentheses. That term was used by the Germans to get around the Washington Naval Treaty that said they couldn’t have any battleships. It was an older term they used in WWI as the rough equivalent of the armored cruiser, while linienschiffe (ships of the line) were the battleships. So technically they were counted as “heavy cruisers” under the WNT. The armament of 11” guns was about the maximum they could get away with without being openly building battleships and was their standard battlecruiser armament in WWI. All the other navies were moving to 14-15” guns on battleships (minus Nelson and Rodney with their 16” guns and a smattering of other calibers). The other propsed armaments were 4 x 15” guns and 6 x 12” guns before they settled on 6 x 11”.  
 
Heavy and Light Cruisers replaced all the old terms under the WNT, with the former armed with roughly 8” guns and the latter 6”. With the older types, the major difference (besides size) between armored cruisers and protected cruisers was armored cruisers had a battleship-style armored belt at the waterline (though thinner, of course), while protected cruisers were armored with an angled, armored deck and subdivision, coal bunkers, gunshields, etc. Armored cruisers in the Royal Navy were armed with 9.2” guns in the manner of pre-dreadnaughts. The first battlecruisers were intended by Fisher to be an evolution of armored cruisers,  armed with multiple 9.2” turrets, but they were given 12” battleship guns instead, which was the cause of their difficulties later on because they were misused in the battle line instead of their intended job. Basically they were big and expensive and the RN couldn’t afford not to put every ship armed with battleship-grade guns in the main fleet, no matter their lack of armor.
 
They were actually more survivable than most people give them credit for. The extreme length of the ships tended to absorb damage. The biggest vulnerability in the British ships was poor ammo handling safety, including crews leaving flash doors to the magazines open or even removing them entirely to speed up loading. They weren’t /that/ much lighter armored than the German ships.
 
EDIT: One way to look at the difference between armored cruiser and battlecruiser is the latter is the all-big-gun dreadnaught equivalent to the pre-dreadnaught armored cruisers.
 
Pre-dreadnaughts were built on a "hail of fire" concept. They would engage with the two heavy turrets further out, then close in and use the multiple light (6-8") casemates to decimate the unprotected/lightly protected parts of the topsides of a ship. Bridge, guns, masts, directors, uptakes, etc. After a ship was disabled like that, they would pull away and use the battleship's submerged torpedo tubes to dispatch the helpless wreck.
 
Due to overreaction to torpedoes in the late Victorian Period, there was a push to hugely increase the battle range for battleships so they could engage outside of the expected range for torpedoes. At that range, the only way to really ensure a reasonable number of hits was salvo fire, which requires multiple guns to do. Dreadnaught's layout and armament was designed to be able to do this against a target in nearly any direction. Her lack of superfiring turrets was due to the use of open sighting hoods on the roofs of turrets, which were vulnerable to blast damage. Having the two side turrets able to fire forward actually gave her more foreward firepower than the later all-centerline ships, which was more suited for the frequent chases battleships engaged in during the war.

Horatio did have an interesting career lasting over half a century. She was one of Macedonian’s sister-ships as built. Rerated as a 44-gun frigate later (by counting the carronades and forecastle chase guns), she was one of the frigates (only Lively-class) fitted with a steam engine and screw propeller and used as a steam battery. As the ship wasn’t lengthened, she was very cramped inside, with the engine and coal cutting into storage space. She was rearmed with 20 x 42-pounders on the gun deck, two 10” and two 56-pounders on the upper deck (the latter on pivots). The 42-pounders got replaced by 18 x 8” guns later. She had her gunports recut and reduced in number to 11 per side when she was refitted into a steamship. Finally, during the Crimean War she was stripped of her armament and given a pair of 13” mortars with a few smaller cannons as secondary armament. She wasn’t scrapped until 1865.
 
Plans for Horatio’s (and Eurotas’) propeller installation survive and are published in DK Brown’s “Before the Ironclad”. He also refers to a sketch of Horatio as a steamship surviving, but doesn’t include it.

Horatio did have an interesting career lasting over half a century. She was one of Macedonian’s sister-ships as built. Rerated as a 44-gun frigate later (by counting the carronades and forecastle chase guns), she was one of the frigates (only Lively-class) fitted with a steam engine and screw propeller and used as a steam battery. As the ship wasn’t lengthened, she was very cramped inside, with the engine and coal cutting into storage space. She was rearmed with 20 x 42-pounders on the gun deck, two 10” and two 56-pounders on the upper deck (the latter on pivots). The 42-pounders got replaced by 18 x 8” guns later. She had her gunports recut and reduced in number to 11 per side when she was refitted into a steamship. Finally, during the Crimean War she was stripped of her armament and given a pair of 13” mortars with a few smaller cannons as secondary armament. She wasn’t scrapped until 1865.
 
Plans for Horatio’s (and Eurotas’) propeller installation survive and are published in DK Brown’s “Before the Ironclad”. He also refers to a sketch of Horatio as a steamship surviving, but doesn’t include it.

Horatio did have an interesting career lasting over half a century. She was one of Macedonian’s sister-ships as built. Rerated as a 44-gun frigate later (by counting the carronades and forecastle chase guns), she was one of the frigates (only Lively-class) fitted with a steam engine and screw propeller and used as a steam battery. As the ship wasn’t lengthened, she was very cramped inside, with the engine and coal cutting into storage space. She was rearmed with 20 x 42-pounders on the gun deck, two 10” and two 56-pounders on the upper deck (the latter on pivots). The 42-pounders got replaced by 18 x 8” guns later. She had her gunports recut and reduced in number to 11 per side when she was refitted into a steamship. Finally, during the Crimean War she was stripped of her armament and given a pair of 13” mortars with a few smaller cannons as secondary armament. She wasn’t scrapped until 1865.
 
Plans for Horatio’s (and Eurotas’) propeller installation survive and are published in DK Brown’s “Before the Ironclad”. He also refers to a sketch of Horatio as a steamship surviving, but doesn’t include it.

Horatio did have an interesting career lasting over half a century. She was one of Macedonian’s sister-ships as built. Rerated as a 44-gun frigate later (by counting the carronades and forecastle chase guns), she was one of the frigates (only Lively-class) fitted with a steam engine and screw propeller and used as a steam battery. As the ship wasn’t lengthened, she was very cramped inside, with the engine and coal cutting into storage space. She was rearmed with 20 x 42-pounders on the gun deck, two 10” and two 56-pounders on the upper deck (the latter on pivots). The 42-pounders got replaced by 18 x 8” guns later. She had her gunports recut and reduced in number to 11 per side when she was refitted into a steamship. Finally, during the Crimean War she was stripped of her armament and given a pair of 13” mortars with a few smaller cannons as secondary armament. She wasn’t scrapped until 1865.
 
Plans for Horatio’s (and Eurotas’) propeller installation survive and are published in DK Brown’s “Before the Ironclad”. He also refers to a sketch of Horatio as a steamship surviving, but doesn’t include it.

Man, I totally missed this earlier. Great build! I always liked the lines of Boston and it's really  nice seeing her and another piece of early USN history built up in wood. She's so clean too. Keep up the great work!

Man, I totally missed this earlier. Great build! I always liked the lines of Boston and it's really  nice seeing her and another piece of early USN history built up in wood. She's so clean too. Keep up the great work!

Man, I totally missed this earlier. Great build! I always liked the lines of Boston and it's really  nice seeing her and another piece of early USN history built up in wood. She's so clean too. Keep up the great work!

Ah, Sabine and Santee, a very cool subject. I’ve always been interested in those two frigates as they represent the last of the line of heavy frigates dating back to the original six (though Congress was the last design). They were both lengthened 15 feet from the basic Brandywine design, though interestingly they weren’t lengthened at the waist like a lot of conversions. Instead they chopped the bow off and built a new lengthened, finer one to clean up the ship’s entry. On Santee they also rebuilt the stern; her stern and stemposts were nearly vertical as opposed to the raked lines of every other ship in that design evolution. Sabine retained the rake of the bow and stern most similar to St Lawrence. Santee’s mast positions were also changed, including moving the main and foremasts forward.
 
The ships had the standard round sterns of the Brandywine class, I doubt they had raised sections on the bow and stern or raised gun platforms either. Here is a bigger version of Charlie's picture of Sabine, where you can clearly see her opened foreward pivot ports, albeit much later in her career.
http://i.imgur.com/Ml1rm9A.jpg
 
They most likely had the standard pivot arrangement shared with Constellation, Macedonian, Cumberland, the steamers, etc. Here are diagrams from the Naval Ordnance Manual of the time.
http://i.imgur.com/zzGZy0d.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFQF1Wv.jpg
 
This is the pivot setup for a bow 8” (150-pdr) Parrott on a gunboat to give an idea of the way they were done.
http://i.imgur.com/7J9d7wm.jpg
 
That deckhouse sounds really cool. Looking forward to seeing more information there.  You can see Santee’s pretty clearly in this pic dating from her time at the Naval Academy. It extends from the mainmast forward to encompass the galley smokestack. Here’s also a picture of Constellation’s deckhouse from after 1900 when she was working the same job.
http://i.imgur.com/xW5h8zP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/n3RaPXN.jpg
 
Speaking of the flying bridge, this is the picture that was discussed earlier.
http://i.imgur.com/n3RaPXN.jpg
 
Finally, here’s a nice, random image of Sabine from 1864 deployed against the CSN.
http://i.imgur.com/tHqCNVU.jpg
 
 
I've been wanting to draw Sabine and Santee, since the plans Chapelle had just cover the Santee. I want to replicate Sabine's raked bow and stern, plus the ships lack quarter galleries in the plans. That will have to wait though, I'm fiddling with the John Adams, plus working on a profile drawing for a future post on USS Macedonian (II) in her frigate guise, a "what if" with the sloop Constellation finished as a frigate, and postulating a 36-gun frigate counterpart to the Java-class (with Macedonian the equivalent to Brandywine and Constellation to Santee).
 

Hmm. Any idea what the name of the frigate was?

Man, I totally missed this earlier. Great build! I always liked the lines of Boston and it's really  nice seeing her and another piece of early USN history built up in wood. She's so clean too. Keep up the great work!

Masts finished.  About to start the ratlines.

Man, I totally missed this earlier. Great build! I always liked the lines of Boston and it's really  nice seeing her and another piece of early USN history built up in wood. She's so clean too. Keep up the great work!

Very interesting research, frolick. I've been a big fan of that class of sloops, they're neat vessels. This really makes one wonder what caused her to go down. It's not like some of the other missing ships, where there were big storms reported in the area.
 
Of course, this could also be a good basis for a historical fiction story, leading up to that fight in Africa.
 
Got a whole list of other ships to do later too, you know. Albany, Insurgent, Lynx, Epervier...

Very interesting research, frolick. I've been a big fan of that class of sloops, they're neat vessels. This really makes one wonder what caused her to go down. It's not like some of the other missing ships, where there were big storms reported in the area.
 
Of course, this could also be a good basis for a historical fiction story, leading up to that fight in Africa.
 
Got a whole list of other ships to do later too, you know. Albany, Insurgent, Lynx, Epervier...

Ah, Sabine and Santee, a very cool subject. I’ve always been interested in those two frigates as they represent the last of the line of heavy frigates dating back to the original six (though Congress was the last design). They were both lengthened 15 feet from the basic Brandywine design, though interestingly they weren’t lengthened at the waist like a lot of conversions. Instead they chopped the bow off and built a new lengthened, finer one to clean up the ship’s entry. On Santee they also rebuilt the stern; her stern and stemposts were nearly vertical as opposed to the raked lines of every other ship in that design evolution. Sabine retained the rake of the bow and stern most similar to St Lawrence. Santee’s mast positions were also changed, including moving the main and foremasts forward.
 
The ships had the standard round sterns of the Brandywine class, I doubt they had raised sections on the bow and stern or raised gun platforms either. Here is a bigger version of Charlie's picture of Sabine, where you can clearly see her opened foreward pivot ports, albeit much later in her career.
http://i.imgur.com/Ml1rm9A.jpg
 
They most likely had the standard pivot arrangement shared with Constellation, Macedonian, Cumberland, the steamers, etc. Here are diagrams from the Naval Ordnance Manual of the time.
http://i.imgur.com/zzGZy0d.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFQF1Wv.jpg
 
This is the pivot setup for a bow 8” (150-pdr) Parrott on a gunboat to give an idea of the way they were done.
http://i.imgur.com/7J9d7wm.jpg
 
That deckhouse sounds really cool. Looking forward to seeing more information there.  You can see Santee’s pretty clearly in this pic dating from her time at the Naval Academy. It extends from the mainmast forward to encompass the galley smokestack. Here’s also a picture of Constellation’s deckhouse from after 1900 when she was working the same job.
http://i.imgur.com/xW5h8zP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/n3RaPXN.jpg
 
Speaking of the flying bridge, this is the picture that was discussed earlier.
http://i.imgur.com/n3RaPXN.jpg
 
Finally, here’s a nice, random image of Sabine from 1864 deployed against the CSN.
http://i.imgur.com/tHqCNVU.jpg
 
 
I've been wanting to draw Sabine and Santee, since the plans Chapelle had just cover the Santee. I want to replicate Sabine's raked bow and stern, plus the ships lack quarter galleries in the plans. That will have to wait though, I'm fiddling with the John Adams, plus working on a profile drawing for a future post on USS Macedonian (II) in her frigate guise, a "what if" with the sloop Constellation finished as a frigate, and postulating a 36-gun frigate counterpart to the Java-class (with Macedonian the equivalent to Brandywine and Constellation to Santee).
 

Ah, Sabine and Santee, a very cool subject. I’ve always been interested in those two frigates as they represent the last of the line of heavy frigates dating back to the original six (though Congress was the last design). They were both lengthened 15 feet from the basic Brandywine design, though interestingly they weren’t lengthened at the waist like a lot of conversions. Instead they chopped the bow off and built a new lengthened, finer one to clean up the ship’s entry. On Santee they also rebuilt the stern; her stern and stemposts were nearly vertical as opposed to the raked lines of every other ship in that design evolution. Sabine retained the rake of the bow and stern most similar to St Lawrence. Santee’s mast positions were also changed, including moving the main and foremasts forward.
 
The ships had the standard round sterns of the Brandywine class, I doubt they had raised sections on the bow and stern or raised gun platforms either. Here is a bigger version of Charlie's picture of Sabine, where you can clearly see her opened foreward pivot ports, albeit much later in her career.
http://i.imgur.com/Ml1rm9A.jpg
 
They most likely had the standard pivot arrangement shared with Constellation, Macedonian, Cumberland, the steamers, etc. Here are diagrams from the Naval Ordnance Manual of the time.
http://i.imgur.com/zzGZy0d.jpg http://i.imgur.com/pFQF1Wv.jpg
 
This is the pivot setup for a bow 8” (150-pdr) Parrott on a gunboat to give an idea of the way they were done.
http://i.imgur.com/7J9d7wm.jpg
 
That deckhouse sounds really cool. Looking forward to seeing more information there.  You can see Santee’s pretty clearly in this pic dating from her time at the Naval Academy. It extends from the mainmast forward to encompass the galley smokestack. Here’s also a picture of Constellation’s deckhouse from after 1900 when she was working the same job.
http://i.imgur.com/xW5h8zP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/n3RaPXN.jpg
 
Speaking of the flying bridge, this is the picture that was discussed earlier.
http://i.imgur.com/n3RaPXN.jpg
 
Finally, here’s a nice, random image of Sabine from 1864 deployed against the CSN.
http://i.imgur.com/tHqCNVU.jpg
 
 
I've been wanting to draw Sabine and Santee, since the plans Chapelle had just cover the Santee. I want to replicate Sabine's raked bow and stern, plus the ships lack quarter galleries in the plans. That will have to wait though, I'm fiddling with the John Adams, plus working on a profile drawing for a future post on USS Macedonian (II) in her frigate guise, a "what if" with the sloop Constellation finished as a frigate, and postulating a 36-gun frigate counterpart to the Java-class (with Macedonian the equivalent to Brandywine and Constellation to Santee).
 

Should one have an abiding interest in the papers of Samuel Humphreys, one would be well served to inquire of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania concerning the availability for public research in the following collection - Joshua Humphreys papers (Collection 0306), The Historical Society of Pennsylvania.  Listed amongst the collection, should one be so inclined to investigate, are found the following entries -
 
Volumes 1739-1845   2.0 Linear feet ; 19 volumes
Volume 18: Samuel Humphreys Philadelphia Naval Yard journal (1818 - 1820)
Volume 19: Samuel Humphreys surveys of ships (1834 - 1845)
 
Also -
Box 3, Folder 8: Samuel Humphreys documents (1806 - 1838)
Box 3, Folder 11: Loose documents from Volumes 18 and 19 (1818 - 1845)

Unlikely. Chapelle said that it was missing when he looked for it. It's probably misplaced somewhere in the archives. Then again, he also said something similar about the plans that were, according to the story, burned. Though that might have been written before that incident happened.

Unlikely. Chapelle said that it was missing when he looked for it. It's probably misplaced somewhere in the archives. Then again, he also said something similar about the plans that were, according to the story, burned. Though that might have been written before that incident happened.

Sorry for the belated reply. Fun start on this thread, the subscription frigates are a fun topic.
 
First attachment is a better version of the side profile from Chapelle. I'll post the rest of it later, I need to stitch it back together.
 
The second is a set of New York plans from Barbary Wars: Register of Officer, Personnel, and Ship's Data. This is the original source of Chapelle's drawing and the only draught he could find. It was drawn by Henry Allen at a later date from offsets. It displays incorrect solid bulwarks and a head and cutwater of a later period frigate. Chapelle backdated the appearance to the "standard" look of American frigates of the era, including partial measurements given by Samuel Humphreys in a memorandum to his offset book, which was missing when Chapelle looked. He also points out that the hawseholes in the plan would be technically impossible where they are. Her only plan that survived, which he used to detail his take on the ship, is an inboard profile. You can see that he opened up the bulwarks, but kept the same lines.
 
The Philadelphia plan is the same (with a sail plan that survived too) and was made at a later date too. I'm attaching that to the post as well.

I know, I mentioned it in my post.
 
That being said, I wonder if Humphreys' offset book was ever found. Chapelle listed the record number for it at the time (C&R 81-6).

Sorry for the belated reply. Fun start on this thread, the subscription frigates are a fun topic.
 
First attachment is a better version of the side profile from Chapelle. I'll post the rest of it later, I need to stitch it back together.
 
The second is a set of New York plans from Barbary Wars: Register of Officer, Personnel, and Ship's Data. This is the original source of Chapelle's drawing and the only draught he could find. It was drawn by Henry Allen at a later date from offsets. It displays incorrect solid bulwarks and a head and cutwater of a later period frigate. Chapelle backdated the appearance to the "standard" look of American frigates of the era, including partial measurements given by Samuel Humphreys in a memorandum to his offset book, which was missing when Chapelle looked. He also points out that the hawseholes in the plan would be technically impossible where they are. Her only plan that survived, which he used to detail his take on the ship, is an inboard profile. You can see that he opened up the bulwarks, but kept the same lines.
 
The Philadelphia plan is the same (with a sail plan that survived too) and was made at a later date too. I'm attaching that to the post as well.