trippwj

I enjoy the tactile experience of books. There are many I would not consider obtaining in digital format. I also enjoy holding a print magazine or journal. I am, however, a realist. We have more than 500 books still in storage, with no space in the house for them. I like the option of obtaining magazines as PDF files for future reference. I have no space to keep printed copies. The digital spin (Kindle etc.) are not as appealing to me. Many books, sure, but not magazines.

No worries, Bob. My Essex still awaits some attention. I just haven't had the time for any building the past few months, and I am still struggling with planking on 3 separate builds. I am trying to get my feeble mind around planking my Emma C. Berry before I restart the Essex.

Not sure if this helps, but here is the cover for the 1812 edition - Note that there are 39 draughts claimed on the title page. The on-line (pdf) version does not include any draughts, but does offer the following TOC listing the draughts.

Coppering of a ship's hull was coming into common use for naval vessels during the late 18th century (I believe around 1780 for the Royal Navy). the US coppered, at great expense, our first Frigates (1794-98). As to the use of copper on merchant vessels, due to the expense it was much less common. At the period in question, the process for rolling sheet copper was still relatively new in the US (see discussion in Smith's The frigate Essex papers) and, while more metal smiths were able to make it, the physical plant required was substantial. I think our colleague Frolick hit on the answer above - if they had the money. Then copper bottomed it was, otherwise white stuff.

Interesting question. i suppose the answer is "it depends". If it was custom built for the purpose, perhaps - intent was to appear as somewhat innocent, confused for a merchant until in range. I suspect the level of fancy work was reflective of the owners, but no documentation I can cite.

Regrettably, for the time period in question, it was done as you are attempting - various reference points were marked based on some method of estimation (ratio of a to b, stuff like that, which varied over time and between designers) and then connected using splines or other similar flexible forms (not the ships curves as we know them today, but a flexible adjustable form. I appologize for not having the reference right to hand, but there is a very nice contemporary illustration available showing the tools of the trade at the time. These did not include ships curves, ducks or anything similar - just rather basic compass, dividers, squares, straight edge, and adjustable battens/bows for curves. Not the types of tools that readily converted to numeric modelling. You may want to take a look at Mungo Murray (1754), Sutherland (several editions, most published posthumously, but each very good. I prefer his 1748), and Stalkartt (1781 - a bit later than the period in question, but still relevant) to get an insight into how the naval architect of the period developed a design. Rees (1819), Steel (1794-1805) and others of that period are also quite handy, if a bit more advanced scientifically (related to displacement and resistance calculations, but still no mathematical models of the hull form itself). The use of "whole moulding" was pretty much limited to small vessels by the 18th century. There is some discussion in the 1711 Sutherland (which is repeated by many others in later publications). It is difficult to find much reference to the method prior to Sutherland. Richard Barker has several excellent articles concerning not only whole moulding but other old methods of ship design available on his website. One other item to consider - has several very nice chapters - is Nowacki, Horst, and Wolfgang Lefèvre, eds. 2009. Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross-Disciplinary Comparison. BRILL. https://books.google.com/books?id=8FoHYXEwAXEC

Looking at things logically, there would likely be very few actual ports on a merchant converted to privateer. The hull and deck structures were not sturdy enough to handle the number of guns required for naval service, and a privateer would do everything possible to avoid contact with a military vessel. Given the fact that the gun ports would be more for show than practicality on the privateer, the spacing could be somewhat arbitrary - to get the most present with the minimum compromise of structural integrity (remember, these were not built to the same scantlings as a naval vessel, so not nearly as many frames present, with more space between frames). You may want to take a look at the Dutchess of Manchester (while actually a snow, it is a good exemplar of a documented American merchant vessel of the timeframe). You may also be able to extract some useful information from Robinson, John, and George Francis Dow. 1922. The Sailing Ships of New England, 1607-1907. Salem, Mass. : Marine Research Society. http://archive.org/details/sailingshipsofne00robirich. Salisbury, William. 1936. “Merchantmen in 1754.” The Mariner’s Mirror 22 (3): 346–55. doi:10.1080/00253359.1936.10657196 provides a good reconstruction of several samples from Mungo Murray (1754. A Treatise on Ship-Building and Navigation. In Three Parts, Wherein the Theory, Practice, and Application of All the Necessary Instruments Are Perspicuously Handled. With the Construction and Use of a New Invented Shipwright’s Sector ... Also Tables of the Sun’s Declination, of Meridional Parts ... To Which Is Added by Way of Appendix, an English Abridgment of Another Treatise on Naval Architecture, Lately Published at Paris by M. Duhamel. London, Printed for D. Henry and R. Cave, for the author. https://archive.org/details/treatiseonshipbu00murr. ) There may also be some useful information in Chapman's Architectura Navalis, though I have not looked in there recently.

Eek! That was one wicked warp there. I suspect you would have been chasing accumulating errors all the time if you tried to straighten it out and use it. Sorry I am a bit late arriving - I see a spot back there in the corner. Will await patiently the next steps.

I just downloaded it again (have been using it for a few years now without any problem). The newly downloaded version asked twice about enabling content - answered yes both times. Works fine for me using Excel (Office 365). Also worked fine under Excel 2007 and 2003.

Probably the 2 best for historical research are Mariner's Mirror (Society for Nautical Research) and The Nirthern Mariner (Canadian Nautical Research Society). While each has a tendency to highlight the home team, so to speak (SNR is from UK), they each cover a broad variety of topics.

I would say the NRJ if you like how to build and how I built mine articles. If looking for historical research that actually examines the construction and so on, don't bother, you won't find it there. At best, there is a cursory history of the subject vessel before the how I built mine, but nothing like there used to be back when folks like Chapelle and his peers were contributors.

An interesting comparison - muzzle loading black powder guns of old had a muzzle velocity on the order of 1,600 feet per second. The 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun used by the US Navy has a muzzle velocity on the order of 2,600 ft/sec. 16 inch guns on an Iowa Class Battleship likewise were about 2,600 ft/sec.

For an interesting discussion of the history and production of pine tar (same stuff, generic name) during the day of hemp, see https://maritime.org/conf/conf-kaye-tar.htm The utility on model shrouds and standing rigging is at best marginal - the scaling of the lines (and the material used) will likely result in a change to the accuracy of the hue relative to the material. It also is potentially a source of frustration over time as it could become a great dust attractant and collector, as well as occasional liquification and dripping onto otherwise clean woodwork. I am not sure if anyone has taken samples of rigging from contemporary models to determine the nature of the compound used to obtain the tinting. Would be an interesting analysis!

Wow! she came out quite attractive!

Very nice find! Here is the link (note it is the 1812 edition) Steel, David. 1812. The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture; Or: A Treatise on Ship-Building, Theoretical and Practical, on the Best Principles Established in Great Britain. With Copious Tables of Dimensions, &c. Illustrated with a Series of Thirty-Nine Large Draughts, ... Steel and Company. https://books.google.com/books?id=TWsmw-QqvmAC

Fortunately, most of the noise from firing the guns was to the outside of the hull as the sound was directed out of the gun barrel. It would still be very loud in the hull, but the concussive shockwave of the firing was not present to rupture ear drums and such.

There is, somewhere here on MSW, some pretty good discussion on the evolution and history of pigments. As i recall, which is in itself of dubious value, red was not a very common pigment until the 18th century, and even then, when looking at carpenter's stores, not abundant as compared to other pigments. Ochre is the colloquial term used by archaeologists to describe an earth or rock containing red or yellow oxides, most commonly hydroxides of iron. Red ochres typically consist of iron oxides (Fe2O3) derived from hematites (from the Greek word for “blood-like”) and other iron-rich rocks. Red ochres are relatively common in natural geological and soil formations, with archeological evidence of use since more than 30,000 years ago. Use as a pigment for ships is less tangible, surprisingly, than other uses. It would require fairly regular updating as the pigments and binders of the period were rather impermanent. It wasn’t until the late 18th century that the French developed a method for artificially producing a similar red pigment. It may be of some interest to take a look at recent research concerning the HMS Victory where they have determined that it was not painted red in the Orlop, but rather the flats of the deck (deck referring to the level of the vessel, and flat the surface trod upon) was most likely unpainted, while the bulwarks (walls) were more likely a lighter shade (quite possibly whitewashed). See Goodwin, Peter G. 2013. “The Application and Scheme of Paintworks in British Men-of-War in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” The Mariner’s Mirror 99 (3): 287–300. doi:10.1080/00253359.2013.815993 for a very interesting analysis by one of the top living experts on the Victory.

Have you checked Abe Books - several listed there (reprints of the 1794 edition including folding plan sheets) for less than $50 US https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/steel's-elements-mastmaking-sailmaking-rigging/ Alternatively, there is an on-line version available at http://www.hnsa.org/resources/manuals-documents/age-of-sail/the-elements-and-practice-of-rigging-and-seamanship/which includes the plates.

The Underhill book on Masting and Rigging is very nice. As to the sail trimming and so on, the Harland book is probably a great choice.

Try again - I just fixed my typo (having a tough time with pasting into posts so had to type it in manually). It should read wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=22775

Well, dang! Try this one: http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=22775

For those of you with curiosity concerning how the first US Frigates were equipped for sea, you may find a ten page listing of the sundries received by the Frigate United States in 1798 at the following link: http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=27521 There are some interesting items - including the quantity of powder (268 barrels), grape shot (3,705 2lb grape), compasses (several), 6 panes of glass, 99 gal sherry wine, 48 3/4 gal port wine, 62 gal molasses, and 462 gal of vinegar.

Here is an August 24, 1797 letter from James McHenry to Captain Barry titled "Uniformity of Dress on Ships of War". I realize this is a mite earlier than the period in question, but though you may find it of interest. Source: McHenry, James. 1797. “Uniformity of Dress on Ships of War.” http://wardepartment...nt.php?id=22778

While it has been some time since this thread was last active, here is an August 24, 1797 letter from James McHenry to Captain Barry titled "Uniformity of Dress on Ships of War". I realize this is a mite earlier than the period in question, but though you may find it of interest. Source: McHenry, James. 1797. “Uniformity of Dress on Ships of War.” http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=22778

Have you considered the Bluejacket Constitution? It still builds to about 40 inches, but is a very solidly researched model. Combines some solid hull with POF (solid hull below the gun deck). http://www.bluejacketinc.com/kits/ussconstitution.htm