CharlieZardoz

The USS Frolick was cruising off the Cuban coast in early 1814, disguised as a helpless American merchantman hoping to lure an English sloop of war thought to be in the area, into her trap. She instead attracted the attention of a large, fool-hearty pirate schooner which stood out from a west coast bay to attack her. A forty minute running fight ensued, ending with about thirty dead pirates and a sinking schooner. The survivors, including their version of "Captain Jack Sparrow", escaped ashore in the remaining boats. The Frolick's sails were too cut up, and Captain Joe Bainbridge was too disinterested to pursue them. The Frolick suffered no casualties. In this case, the only known instance where a US Navy vessel ever sank a pirate ship in battle, has been left out of the history books. The Frolick was captured by the Frigate HMS Orpheus and the Schooner HMS Shelbourne a few days later in the Florida Straights.

Those are interesting choices. I also find the rebuilt Peacock interesting to look at (though far inferior to the original ship, much more extreme hull lines, too sharp to carry as much weight). She was intended to look much like the original ship, but features an updated look, including large carronade ports and a round stern.

The Wasp plan represents, in lines, but not in details, the Wasp and Frolick as they had been meant to be built. They are the official surviving records of two sloops that were both lost in war. Anyone wishing to accurately model the Wasp of 1813, however, must use the 1816 Admiralty draughts of the USS Frolick (HMS Florida), as they were identical in all but name.

Interesting, so does that mean the 1813 Wasp plan isn't accurate? Or was it based on the ship as built?

Just a note about the Wasp II of 1813.
 
The two Massachusetts sloops were to be built to same the design plan, one in Charlestown and the other up the coast in Newburyport, but the plans that Commodore Bainbridge received from Washington in 1813 were of the lines only, with no deck details. The positions of the gun ports were even omitted due to haste. So Bainbridge has Edmond Hartt, the builder of the USS Frolick, redraw the plans, fleshed out with 'improvements', insisted upon by Bainbridge. He had a final copy drawn up for Mr. Merrill of Newburyport for the Wasp (cost to the department, $20) and both sloops were built to the same plan. Along the way, Bainbridge ordered many changes to the plans from Boston , such as moving companionways, re-stepping the mizen mast from the keel to the planform, enlarging the ports to accept  42-pounder carronades (but the up-gunning was refused by the Secretary of the Navy), etc., amounting to about $800, which angered Mr. Merrill to such an extent, that he demanded payment for all the commodore's extra meddling before he completed the Wasp.
 
Commodore Bainbridge had a special interest in the Frolick, as it was to be commanded by his younger brother, Capt. Joseph Bainbridge. The lines of the two sloops were stretched version of the Brig Argus, the navy's fastest sloop. As Builder Edmond Hardt had designed the Argus back in 1803, he was probably allowed all liberties in altering the two new sloops.
 
 
 
Long story short, the Sloops-of-War Wasp and Frolick were as identical as two ships could have been built to the same plans, but in different towns. Both builders answered to Bainbridge.
 
Chapelle's "official" USS Wasp plan wasn't drawn up until 1814, by Mr. Dougherty's assistant , one "Mr. Spottswood", well  after the Massachusetts ships had already been completed.

It's possible Peacock had the galleries added later in a refit at some point, something Wasp obviously couldn't have since she was lost before the end of the war.

Probably more Wasp then Syren since Syren's quartergalleries appear to be false? I believe you mean this image yes?  I love the lines of the ship, small but sleek I'd be curious to see how she matches up when placed size accurately in Talos's draught comparison image on the prior page.

The one I posted was the 1807 Wasp, looks like the 1813 one had badges like her sister the Frolic, yet Peacock which was also a sister ship had galleries.  I wonder if that was a builders decision or a captains?  Great comparison draughts though. 8)

Wasp (the 1812 one) had the galleries and cabins but not a poop deck.  Here's what I mean (below). The Syren by contrast had dummy -er mini-galleries?/badges as far as I am aware anyways.  And yes to my knowledge Peacock had both galleries and poop deck.

Probably more Wasp then Syren since Syren's quartergalleries appear to be false? I believe you mean this image yes?  I love the lines of the ship, small but sleek I'd be curious to see how she matches up when placed size accurately in Talos's draught comparison image on the prior page.

Yeah, Wasp might have been built with galleries, but the original design draught I was talking about shows the badges originally planned there.
 
http://i.imgur.com/gjnTlHr.jpg

Both Wasp (the second one) and Syren's draughts show quarterbadges on the stern, not galleries. Wasp's sister, Peacock's, lines taken off before they scrapped her show a poop deck and quarter galleries though.

Much like the Syren/Wasp, but because she had quarterdeck cabins and a flush poop deck, her two stern chase ports were glazed in windows, and the John Huggin's watercolor "American Corvette", painted probably during her diplomatic mission to England, 1809-10, shows that she retained her frigate's quarter-galleries, and that her poop deck extended right up to the mizen mast.

The rebuilt JA is a very good modeling subject. She was one of only a few sloops of that period to actually go into action. She still carried her twenty-four medium 24-pounders too: In 1838, she and the Frigate Columbia sailed half way around the world to bombard and burn two Islamic (go figure!) Sumatran pirate strong-holds: the cities of Kuala Battoo and Muckie, in what became known as Commodore Reid's Second Sumatran Punitive Expedition.

Also as a corvette it is likely her original stern was discarded for something akin to the USS Syren or Perry no?

Well the Constitution pictured there is definitely not from the 1840's. I'm unsure because by the 1820's the Potomac class was in service and ship designs were altered to the more streamlined designs, like Constitution which shares the same stern as the Java class and the original Potomac. It is wholly possible that John Adams was simarily upgraded and stern altered to a modern one (by 1830's standards) before she was broken up and fully rebuilt.  Though my opinion is leaning to the pic represents the rebuilt ship as well.  I am curious if someone decides to tackle the task of building a model of John Adams on this forum what their approach will be... wink wink

Here is a closer look

So you are saying that this is the 2nd John Adams aka of the Vincennes/Boston class?  That is plausible given the detailing though unfortunate.  So no information regarding her stern detailing survives then? The Lenthall sketch mentions 1859 however the Constitution wouldn't have looked that way by then no? Is that the date the watercolor was made?  Also would that then mean that the ship below is the Congress of civil war fame rather than the 1799 ship?

It's certainly the later sloop, the  original sloop would have had a more stereotypical stern like the other frigates. The Perry and Lawrence weren't launched until the 1840s, after John Adams was rebuilt. St Louis there is another one of the three designs for the 1820s sloops, she's out of scale with the other drawings. Congress' looks like the replaced version of that frigate too, though flattened out (it's a round stern) and missing the quarter galleries.

Oh, there goes CharlieZ again: "Have a closer look at my stern, ladies!" Or is it "my futtocks"?
 
Moving on ... It looks like a bust cameo of President Adams in the center taffrail, atop a stack of arms and flags, with a laurel wreath in the center and wreathed stars on either quarter... Works with me, for either sloop.

So you are saying that this is the 2nd John Adams aka of the Vincennes/Boston class?  That is plausible given the detailing though unfortunate.  So no information regarding her stern detailing survives then? The Lenthall sketch mentions 1859 however the Constitution wouldn't have looked that way by then no? Is that the date the watercolor was made?  Also would that then mean that the ship below is the Congress of civil war fame rather than the 1799 ship?

Here is a closer look

Report of Naval Constructor Josiah Fox, to Captain Thomas Tingey, Washing Navy Yard, August 26, 1807:
 
"...Having had the John Adams opened in her upper works, etc, where decay was most visible, find that the greater part of upper deck beams, many of the knees,  and a considerable portion of her upper works are in either a decayed or decaying state.  Two of the gun deck beams, only, have been found injured by decay; The frame chiefly of live oak and some cedar, is in a very sound state, as are also her wales,  bottom plank, ceiling, lower deck, together with the magazine, sail room and bread room, which are places most subject to decay.
 
This ship, from the over proportion of weight in her upper works, etc, is found to be very unfit for a frigate, experience has proved that she is very tender when under sail, sails heavily and steers bad, and that the weight of her upper works occasions her to strain very much at the wales, occasioning the bolts to work loose, and consequently cause considerable leakage."
 
First of all, it seems odd initially that Fox would find such fault in the design of the frigate, considering that he designed her! But the Charleston Frigate Subscription Committee back in 1799 was so concerned that the John Adams would draw too much water to sail over the port's notorious bar, that they altered her lines to make her more buoyant, and draw less water: They redrew her body lines plans with fuller, more rounder floors. This worked, but it made her roll too much. The frigate's forecastle and quarterdeck was converted into a spar deck , and was also raised and strengthened in 1804 to allow eight long 12-pounders to be mounted in her spar deck waist, because the gun deck was loaded up with supplies for Preble's squadron. The letter continues:
 
"To remedy those defects in her construction, and render her a valuable and likewise a formidable  ship, I take the liberty to recommend the expediency of cutting off (what i call in this instance) superfluous weight aloft, and make her into an elegant corvette, proposing to equip her with 24 42-pounder carronades on he gun deck only, by which mode of equipment, I conceive she be rendered more formidable than at present, as her round of shot [broadside] would weight 1008 pounds, whereas at present it weighs 336 pounds only. Her repairs (if what I recommend here is adopted) would cost not half of what it would take to repair her upper works, etc,  and could be effected in 1/3d of the time. She would be made a better sea boat in every respect. The accommodations of her officers and men would be found ample, as well as the hold for stowing provisions, water, cables, and other stores,. She would be enabled to carry her guns a good height from the water, bear a greater press of  of sail, sail faster, and the hull stronger, and kept in repair at much less expense than she has hitherto been ..."

The watercolor montage from the John Lenthal collection? Yes, repost it, but it was probably the rebuilt ship, but a valuable resource nevertheless.

Just for jollies he says. You sir are an amazing treasure trove of information. My sincerest gratitudes. Btw I thought the John adams stern was in that watercolor archive posted a ways back. The one with St louis and the rather unspectacular uss Congress? Let me know I can repost it.