trippwj

I have been going through the Naval Documentary History of the War of 1812 (will post full citation and link later). Other than approximate time the references changed from schooner to brig, nothing yet on what was done in the navy yard.

To Secretary of the Navy from Master Commandant Thomas Robinson, Jr., U. S. Navy VENICE Jan 27, 1805 (EXCERPT) Pages 309-310 in Knox, Dudley, (editor). 1944. Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers. Volume V Naval Operations Including Diplomatic Background from September 7, 1804 through April 1805. Vol. V. 6 vols. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.ibiblio.org/anrs/barbary.html When we came to rip the Schooner to pieces we found her in a most deplorable situation, it was the astonishment of every one, how she brot us here, Her Beams were all off at the ends, the floorings & futtocks perfect powder & in fact to sum up all its only necessary to inform you that in addition to building a new schooner we have to pull to pieces an old one - but there is this pleasing reflection, she will be more durable than her companions, for better Timber I never saw than we are puting in her. I have the pick from frames of Frigates that have been from twenty to five Years dress'd out numberd & piled away under cover for use, - There never was n pendant treated with more respect, or Officers with more attention than the Enterprizes has been both here and at Trieste, being the first of our Vessels of War in either of those Ports & her construction so different from any thing they had ever seen, she astonish'd & delighted, - To Secretary of the Navy from Master Commandant Thomas Robinson, Jr., U. S. Navy VENICE Feb. 18, 1805 (EXCERPT) Pages 358-359 in Knox, Dudley, (editor). 1944. Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers. Volume V Naval Operations Including Diplomatic Background from September 7, 1804 through April 1805. Vol. V. 6 vols. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.ibiblio.org/anrs/barbary.html SIR I had the pleasure of addressing you under date of 27th Jan to which I must refer you for particulars respecting the US Schooner Enterprize, but as we proceed in her repairs and you consequently must feel anxious to know our progress I feel a great pleasure in executing that part of my duty. - I have this day got her Bends on and her ceiling compleated. - I was Obliged to put in a new Stem and Stern Post, in doing the latter I have taken out the Square tuck and have also altered in a small degree the fashion of her top sides, by not giving her so much tumble home aloft, which will afford a better Deck and more room to manage her Guns, but in every instance I have been particular in preserving her model below, that she may continue to possess her good qualities as a fast sailer and good sea Boat - It astonishes me how her stern hung together, it was at first a miserable piece of work and when we broke it down perfectly rotten. - The schooner is as full as I think necessary of the best Timber I ever saw, the Master Carpenter of the Arsenal says (and I think with great reason) that she will be a good Vessel after this repair forty years. - Oh! how I wish I had got permission to give her a few feet more Keel and opened her a little what a sweet Brig I would have made her, and with no apparent expence, but Sir it is dangerous for Officers young in rank to take libertys. –

You are correct - James was a British writer providing "their side" of the story. HOWEVER - factually, in terms of vessel dimensions, rigs, and (usually) weight of iron (that is, number and sizes of guns) he was fairly accurate considering the references he used (plus or minus a foot here a tun there, but very accurate on the British vessels). His logic seems reasonable - though perhaps skewed. He has used the Nautilus as his model (perhaps also for the length), and then added her 8' 6" for adding an additional port. If the the length for the Nautilus is extended 8' 6", you get about 96 feet. HOWEVER - we must always be cognizant of inconsistencies in the manner in which ships were measured in different nations at different times. There is a very good chance that what appears to be a major difference is much less when those vagaries are considered. Here are the dimensions given by Dudley Knox (editor) 1945. Register of Officer Personnel United States Navy and Marine Corps and Ships’ Data 1801–1807. Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.ibiblio.org/anrs/docs/E/E3/nd_barbarywars_register_shipdata.pdf. Note there is no reference to any rebuild in Venice in his narrative. For reference, I have also provided the information on the Nautilus.

It would certainly appear that those stern chasers, while certainly important when needed, had great potential to serve the pursuer well - recoiling into the tiller rigging could really ruin the day! Not to mention the challenge for the gun captain to avoid gun and ropes!

Indeed, pigment was a varied beast - some powdered, some already in oil. Look at the ship's stores orders and you can get a feel for the relative colors applied. I believe it was the Goodwin article which pointed out that almost no red is shown being recieved, implication that it is over represented on models today. The ship's carpenter and his mates then mixed it to whatever ratio (2 parts A to 3 parts B or whatever). All by estimate, mind you, not precision scales or containers. It was a very well designed process to obtain cores for paint analysis - intent was to get into some "original" wood via multiple samples. The twchnical committee which oversees these things (NOT the Royal Navy, by the way - they are tenants on the Victory) is very much aware of the importance of scientific rigour and historic accuracy. Among other changes, I suspect you shall see a great reduction in the amount of varnished wood in favor of "white wash" - see Goodwin for some analysis.

Steel and Lever are, unfortunately, a mitelate for your ship. You may want to take a look at Falconer and see what he has to say. Robin Brooks (robinb on the forum) has been doing extensive research on Endeavor and may have some thoughts on this as well.

In the time of interest, various merchants provided the slops - they were acquired locally not via central contracting- and officers bought their own uniform. Anticipate a range of dark blues, some much darker than others. Expect some of the dark blues to be closer ti blue jeans in shade. Shirts and waistcoats would also varie in level of adornment.

Happy birthday, Mauro. Your model is beautiful!

Well, now, there's several options! Any particular ship or class of ship as the approach used was highly dependent upon the rig?

After several months of distractions (well, 6 weeks with the grand kids doing stuff, including working on Cricket's Pilot Boat Elsa (formerly Phantom), then starting work (2 weeks in Bangor for training, a week of driving 50 miles each morning and afternoon for training at another office, then a week of open to close training locally) I finally got a bit of ambition today to place a couple of planks on the ECB. Not much to show, but at least the first 2 strakes are lining up well port and starboard. Till the next time -

If they were bolts of some sort it would make sense, but not drilled through and (as mentioned above ) with a lead bushings. Also, since they are so far below the waterline, some poor non-SCUBA equipped crewman would need to hold his breath to attempt to reach them. Looking at the holes on the Constitution, it appears they are circular with something (lead bushings?) inside which, when the copper was applied, the covering sheets were nailed thoroughly around each hole. What confuses me is why the rough pick-axe like holes punched through the copper? The intent of the nailing (along with the under layer of tarred felt or whatever concoction they used on the Connie) was to minimize any water seepage into the wood - over time, that would become a major impediment to speed and maneuverability. I have not come across anything as yet in Humphreys writings on his design, and not sure where to even begin to look in Falconer or other period references!

True dat, Dan. Were one so inclined, one could estimate the specific density relative to seawater of similar volume to see if it would float or not.

Interesting hints! I suspect, based purely on conjecture and speculation, that if they were related to rudder manipulation they would be for re-seating rather than removing. Even with all the weight of the copper plates, nails and ironwork, the rudder should still float if unseated. HOWEVER - to get it aligned at sea would require some method to first "pull" it under, then to bring to the correct alignment with the sternpost, and seat it into the proper position (pegs and holes type of thing). Or, as often happens, I could be totally mistaken.

Looking good,Frank

Welcome aboard, Philip. You may want to start your search with the New Bedford whaling museum and Mystic Seaport. Good luck!

No nastiness intended, Jay. Just standing up for the historical nature of Marquardt's work. He is not wrong when looking at his intent - as built, not as rebuilt/revised/redesigned over a 2 hundred year history. What Henry, Dan, Jonathan and Google provide is information from an entirely different era in the life of the ship. When one considers that nearly everything above the keel and a few floor timbers has been replaced, it is not surprising that there have been significant changes from what Humphreys originally designed, Claghorn built and Marquardt attempted to depict. On any historic ship, whether the Constitution, the Victory, or even 20th century vessels such as the Lexington or the Massachusetts, the changes in construction practice, intended use, and technological advances are evident - these were not static structures, but active duty vessels that were continually adapted to meet changing requirements. As I stated above, knowing the desired period you want to replicate (in this case the ship as she currently is configured) aids all of us trying to aid you in finding information and resources.

Jay - That clears up my confusion - you refer frequently to Marquardt as being "wrong" where what you actually mean is that he is not showing the modern structures. My sole intent in the comment above was to point out that Marquardt wasn't wrong - he is quite accurate for the period he was portraying. Building it as close as possible to any period is a challenge - your efforts on this are impressive. It helps those of us that have been trying to answer questions, however, to know what you are trying to accomplish. I now know to disregard any of the info from Humphreys, Fox, Claghorn, Knox and so on and rather focus on the drawing from the CD that are primarily the 1927-31 rebuild. Those are closer to what you are working on than the historical data. As to other features (such as the powder rooms and so on), those, too, are quite likely to have evolved over the many rebuilds, so the 1816-1819 plans are not particularly relevant to the as-is condition you are trying for. As to your comment regarding building with hands and tools, that is also something I enjoy greatly, though achieve miserably (note the poor quality in my build logs). I happen to also find the historical (more academic aspect) a great challenge and a satisfying past time. Being able to dig back to the description of how a vessel was designed is, to me, a fun project. For now, though, I will drop back to lurker - I have very limited information that is not readily available (such as the CD from the museum) that I can contribute to the discussion of the ship "as is"

I keep getting confused, Jay. Is your model intended to show "as built" (1797), War of 1812, or "as is"? Marquardt is closest to "as built", with some issues. The drawings by Ware (1816-1819) are closest to 1812 and for the most part agree with as-built. Anything from 20th century is not reflecting "as built" but "as repaired, rebuilt, repeatedly). Marquardt didn't miss the structures noted - they are more recent changes to the ship, not original design.

The more traditional name for the unit was the "camboose". Caboose (also camboose, coboose, cubboos derived from the Dutch kombuis) is a term used for a small ship's kitchen, i.e. galley, located on an open deck. At one time a caboose related to a smaller kitchen aboard a merchantman, while aboard a warship it was called a galley. William Falconer's 1780 An Universal Dictionary of the Marine describes a caboose thus: "a sort of box or house to cover the chimney of some merchant-ships. It somewhat resembles a sentry-box, and generally stands against the barricade on the fore part of the quarter-deck". Sometimes the caboose was portable. Prior to the introduction of the caboose the furnaces for cooking were, aboard three-deckers, placed on the middle deck, and aboard two-decked ships in the forecastle. The term was sometimes also applied to the cast-iron stove used for cooking on deck or in galleys during the early 19th century, as well as an outdoor oven or fireplace.

Greetings, Jay and Company. Been off-line for the most part since Sunday (travel to get orientated for new job). Mobbsie let me know my inbox floweth over - will get that taken care of shortly!

In terms of the center beam, here are two plans from 1926 - the Orlop and Berth Decks with Planking removed. Berth Deck 18285-.pdf Orlop Deck 19506001.pdf Also see this one from Ware (1819) showing the location of the forward filling room on the Orlop deck. 1819 Ware plan Orlop.pdf Barrels of powder may have been stored in locations other than just the filling room - consider for a moment how many barrels of powder the ship would carry (about 11 pounds per round from a 32 pound gun, give or take a mite). There are, in the various papers I have not yet had transcribed, several discussing delivery of powder and shot for the Connie, as well as many discussions about the outfitting (which, since those are in my printed books, are currently about 130 miles from here). The point being that there would, assuming 44 guns needing 10 pounds per shot (on average) = 440 pounds per shot. Add to that the anticipated number of shots (let's be conservative and say only 20 per gun at the most) results in more than 8000 pounds of powder (at least 80 barrels at 100 pounds per barrel).

Greetings - have found the document I was looking for. Here is what JH had to say about the Orlop Deck beams: Pillars or stantions 3 tier under the gundeck and one under the upper deck made to shift Lower deck beams of the best heart pitch pine sided 16 inch and moulded 14 inch. The longest beam to spring 6 inches and the rest by the same mould. Carlings in 3 tier 6 by 9 inches of white oak Ledges in 3 tier 5 by 6 inches of white oak, 2 between each beam Spur beam one of live oak on each side of the main hatch tabled kneed and bolted on the foreside of the beam on the after part of the main hatch 12 inch by 14 and for gundeck the same. Orlope deck to be laid 6 ft 2 inch below the upper part of the lower deck beams of the best heart pitch pine sided 12 inches and moulded 10 inch laid with 2 inch common plank kneed with one good live oak knee at each end bolted with inch bolts. It will be best to put the clamps on the ceiling 3 inch thick Gundeck beams One under each port and one between of the best heart pitch pine as near as the hatchways & masts will admit as per draft, sided 18 inch & moulded 15 inch. All other beams to be laid directly over and under the frame. UPPER DECK Beams placed over the gundeck beams sided 13 and 14 inches moulded of the best heart pitch pine Source for the above: Humphreys, J.Contemporaneous or Certified Copy (made for information of action) to Henry Knox. 1794. Letter Humphreys to Henry Knox. Dimensions and Articles for 44 Gun Frigates. Contemporaneous or Certified Copy (made for information of action). Uselma Clarke Smith Coll. #1378D. Historical Society Of Pennsylvania. http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=10736. Also see the attached transcription Knox, H. 1794. Letter, Knox to Tench Cox. Dimensions of Beams from Humphreys. Letterbook Copy. Sec Navy Requisitions on Sec Treas, RG45. National Archives and Records Administration. http://wardepartmentpapers.org/document.php?id=12215. 1794-10-22 HK to TC dimensions of beams ZXA06-86-88.pdf

One thing ti keep in mind is the difference between the magazine (location barrels of powder are stored) and the powder room (aft in the Connie, location where barrels were opened and cartridges/powder bags were filled). I believe only the powder room was coppered since that is where powder would be most exposed. Just arrived at hotel so will check Humphreys after dinner.

Copper lined to prevent sparks and also water inftration. As to the center line beam, that is probably not original - will check what Humphreys described tonight.

Interesting concept. One teensie fly - the stanchions (posts in your description) were intended by Humphreys to be moveable, not fixed. I need to verify the number of rows (I think it was 3 but not sure). I also need to do a bit of checking into those deck lights - not quite sure if they were original or later addition.