CharlieZardoz

Yep that makes perfect sense now thanks! Still trying to think out the internal structure of the quarter galleries though if it had two levels how do the half windows factor into that. I'm going to have to place that order to Maryland silver when I get the extra funds. He has those inboard and outboard plans from Gosport dated 1846 which is likely from her last refit and hopefully they will show the double level quarter galleries and should rest a few questions I have about the look of the vessel.

Ok great and yes I thought that's what you meant, though I am having a hard time picturing would it would look like if I was standing right next to it. I am assuming what's inside is a room that is connected to the quarter galleries or are they possibly not connected and placed higher. Hard to tell when looking over it vertically in 2D I wonder if there are other examples of this elsewhere but either way fascinating stuff.

Ok Frolick here is the image from Chatham's pictoral history of 1812 stern detail for United States. While it's a tad -er cartoony I see what you mean that yes this appears as if someone is copied the details in an attempt to make them look accurate. The Macedonian looks pretty much as it should. The United States has 7 windows and 2 weird looking half windows, with a lot of plant like wreath-y material as decorations and two stern guns with square cutouts, which I have seen in other depictions of her stern. I am not sure what you mean by quarterdeck roundhouses though so I included the spar deck plan as well. I am very curious if this stern would have remained all the way up to the civil war. I am going to assume that she was likely altered same time Constitution was with a more regular stern and fewer windows however many of the Potomac class ships appear in period paintings with stern images to also have that kinda "M" shape in the mouldings just like the Constitution class ships so maybe she stayed like this up to the end minus a few details?

The Harvey isn't bad but some of the deck work looks weird, different doors with different sizes, anachronistic parts, gratings in weird places etc. but with a bit of research could be made to look nice

Basically the model makers from what I can tell don't like marketing their kits as "generic Baltimore clipper" so they give it a name and some of the European companies even give a fake history, like "it sailed from 1815-1825 and noted for it's speed." Pure garbage, the reality is no one in this time in history was ever really cataloging the Baltimore clipper's since they were locally built by contract, not by the federal government so no official plans were ever drawn and documented. One of the only few actual plans of a clipper vessel is the Mosquidobit which is the Lynx and Mantua has a model of it which is reasonably accurate. She was captured by the royal navy who took down it's lines in great detail. The Chapelle book gives a very good idea as to what these ships looked like and includes the draught of the Lynx after capture. The rest of the kits out there are all based to some degree off of plans from this book. Of them I would say Model Shipways Dapper Tom and the aforementioned Lynx would be the most accurate. Also I would suggest Geoffrey Footner's Tidewater Triumph: The Development and Worldwide Success of the Chesapeake Bay Pilot Schooner, which is the true name of this type of vessel. Baltimore clipper is a term used by historians. Hope this helps and good luck.

Just caught this one. Very nice! I'm really curious what conditions some of these ships were in. To my knowledge Germantown was essentially ready to go just needed a crew and was burned unnecessarily. Either that or McAuley panicked as I know the experience traumatized him the rest of his days. I can imagine the Raritan and Merrimack were in decent shape as well.

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.

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.

Was Bounty your first model? Harvey is a decent representation of a Baltimore clipper with a lot of nice detailing however the date of the kit 1847 is not accurate since Baltimore clippers stopped being manufactured by around the 1820's. Most of the Baltimore clippers on the market are all pretty much based on the same plan, if you want a simpler kit I'd recommend Model Shipways Dapper Tom, however Harvey is a larger scale and might be easier with the hands

Decided just for fun to add/compare some aforementioned draughts to show where and how they line up. These were done by eye and are not to scale with each other, however they are more to show the similarity in lines and details. First we have the schooner figure 20 from Chapelle that is used as a concept to what Enterprize may have looked like. Next is the draught of the Vixen which to me looks comparable to the schooner above it with it's narrow front and inclined stern where the rudder is. The third is the Venice plan which I modified the offensive beak and weird protrusions on the hull but it does look comparable to the first 2 the rudder looks almost exactly like the schooner above and it looks much like the first she only with it's front extended as would have been likely in her rebuild. The last is the Syren which I placed here to show an example of a similar ship which was quite obviously not a direct design to Enterprize and has some noticeable differences. The rudder is almost at a 90 degree angle and the front is much fuller than the 3 above it (added arrows to where I mean). Below that I added the cross sectional views and again not quite to scale but gives an idea to the idea where these plans differ and are similar (Schooner, Vixen, Enterprise Venice, and Syren which to my eyes looks fairly different to the first 3). Enjoy!

And just for fun here is a pretty nice model of Vixen from the P.C. Cocker book. While I don't think Enterprize had a quarterbadge (is there any documentation claiming she did?) I would imagine the two, three, four, etc. brigs would be hard to distinguish from a distance. But I am convinced that the golden kits/constructo model is basically the Vixen with a poop deck added.

True though if she was 92' by that point she would have been somewhat larger than the Vixen though I agree she most likely had 8 gunports with and additional 2 forward empty ports.

Also and this is me not really fully understanding rigging details but isn't the Baugean illustration from 1805 a brig rig?

Is there any record of the Enterprize carrying 20 guns though? The illustrations show 10 with the extra bridle port but most articles claim she only carried 14-16. I think I need to try and visit that Capt Ashley model as well at some point. While the port placements are a bit off, it does show a more accurate looking quarter deck and wonder if he included the pivot gun somewhere. I wish there were some more pics online I only see those 3.

Wasn't there a second rebuild closer to the war of 1812?

I imagine Enterprizzzze in its initial incarnation was sort of a quick build type of vessel, her durability wholly unintentional until she gained fame and surpassed expectations. Once upgraded to a brig she must have faired at least comparably well to Argus, Syren, Vixen and the rest. Young brash officers looking to push these tiny ships to fame and glory.

Was that a pivot gun that faced the stern? I will be that brave soul darn it! (or at least try to be). :S Enterprise is passion of mine, mainly due to being a shameless trekkie but in the grand list of ships I wish to build she is an important part of that journey. It's the same with John Adams, these ships have enough bits and pieces of information available that a reasonably accurate model could be built as long as one is conscious to avoid historical anachronisms or doing lazy history. So yeah that's essentially what I intend to do merge the Chappelle draught, half-hull lines and the Baugean illustration and a bit of -er "artistic license" to get somewhere close to an accurate representation of the ship in her heyday. Now how on earth do I get close enough to the half hull to take measurements is a question I've yet to answer. ;D A couple of things I am curious about is A. when lengthened is it typical for the extra length to be added to the bow only, stern or both? And would the width have been increased as well. And B. would the ship name be displayed Enterpri"z"e on the stern unlike the Constructo model which uses an S.

Thought I would add this one to the discussion. Below is the draught of an unidentified schooner which Chapelle sources in "The American Sailing Navy" as a plausible idea to what the Enterprise/Experiment may have looked like. My understanding is that there were a few unidentified drawings of schooners at this time period with what he called a "square-tuck" stern, but I can imagine the Enterprise may have looked similar to this before her lengthening in Venice. That said comparing this sketch to the Venice plan below there are some similarities especially in the high deadrise and keel drag and I can believe that the Venice plan is at least a conceptual indicator of how the above draught could look if lengthened. The draught image also looks quite a bit like the half-hull model from Canney's book.

That's a great resource Don thanks! I think you did a fine job with the Constructo kit, adding some nice customizations and a more accurate color scheme.

Jimmy Durante?? I'd like to think the Venice plan (if it is legit the Enterprise at all) is possibly just a conjectural plan that possibly wasn't even fully implemented. Still even as it is the plans may serve useful if just to study the layout of ships similar to the Enterprise at that time period. The ideal in my opinion would be to take the lines off the half-hull and compare it to the model and the various "plans" to see how closely they match up... if at all.

I agree frolick it's a bit strange. I think he attempted to copy the period sketch image above (also look below) which also has 11 gun ports, almost exactly. I'm finding it's hard to determine how accurate the period illustrations truly are as they were likely drawn by eye, hence why I thought the Donn Thorson illustration, while a bit flawed with its sail position, seems to have a more balanced placement of gun ports. I don't think the Enterprise would have had half gun ports though like Constitution does today though I could be wrong about that, thoughts? And to twintrow, It seems that most of the depictions above show the Enterprise with 9 ports on each side, the half hull has 10 but those are merely tape and the ones at the end might not have been there. Also I'm not sure if she had a bluff bow or billet head (the half hull might not have shown it) though I'd like to believe that by the time of her rebuild at least she had a typical clipper bow like in the Don Thorson image since IDK it just looks nicer to me The Enterprise of 1799 is an interesting ship in my opinion. Unlike the later brigs from a few years after Argus, Syren, Vixen etc. which all share a similar look/style Enterprise being older strikes me as a missing link between the sort of privateers of the revolution (Lexington, Providence, etc.) and the Barbary brigs that came to represent the early navy. The fact that she was altered so radically leads me to think she was something of a prototype. BTW below for those interested are the plans of her successor from the 1830's which looks to my eyes similar to the later era Baltimore clippers like Roger B Taney. I also added a second illustration of the ship after 1806 which looks like it was done by Jean-Jerome Baugean who I believe also did the illustration on page 1 (thought it was the same one at first). Also below is an illustration of all the Enterprises which I feel a nice general depiction of each Enterprise lined up next to one another.

Well twin these illustrations and models are all for the 1799 vessel, which was altered several times in its service history. Appreciate the sandcastle articles that's really nice info there! And good observation about the USS there Jerry I would almost take those drawings down having caused so much controversy on here however they do serve for some amusement at least if nothing else.

I have to assume he intended to show the yard arms as lowered, if you look at his version of the Niagara they look about where they should be.

I emailed the guy to see what sort of plans/diagrams he used for the illustration. With any luck he'll be open to sending me more on how he put the illustration together. He's done others including the Niagara, Constitution and Constellation though those did not seem to have the same -er weirdness's. Feel free to extrapolate druxey since pointing out obvious errors will only help in the search for accuracy.

No I understand what you mean er I think, the yard arms appear lowered with the sails in the wrong positions. I was looking more at the hull construction and merely glanced over the rigging when I saw the pic but seeing it so flat out wrong is cringingly embarrassing, thanks for pointing that out lol.