trippwj

While looking through some older Nautical materials I had downloaded, I came across the attached series of articles from The U. S. Nautical Magazine and Naval Journal from 1857 discussing the competition that resulted in William Webb building the Harriet Lane. Rather interesting set of specifications spelled out in the requirements article, closely matching the HL. Also a peek into the politics of the times! Never know what you will find in these old journals! Note that the article with a description of the proposed Revenue Cutter was by John Griffiths - one of the losing bidders, and also (coincidentally) the publisher and editor of the magazine. It is interesting to see how closely many of the dimensions and fittings align with the winning model proposed by Webb. Pages from 1857 Monthly_Nautical_Magazine_and_Quarterly.pdf

What they said! Those colours look great!

Both a capstan and a windlass showing on the plans from grant. Here is a drawing from China Tea Clippers by George Campbell (1954) of both a capstan and a windlass.

Based on the information from the USCG historian, the Dallas was a very shallow draft cutter, drawing 6 feet. TYPE/RIG/CLASS: Topsail schooner / Surprise Class COMMISSIONED: 1816 DECOMMISSIONED: Sold, 1821 DISPLACEMENT: 51 3/95 tons PROPULSION: Sail LENGTH: 56’8" BEAM: 17’ DRAFT: 6’ Dallas1816.pdf

Attached is an article from 1831 showing a compound capstan. Can also be found via Google books at http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Transactions_of_the_Society_Instituted_a.html?id=mlQ1AAAAMAAJ 1831 COMPOUND CAPSTAN.pdf

Looking good, Sal - nice job on this boat!

All I can say is WOW! That is some very impressive detail work, Sherry. Nicely done!

Thought I would throw in an illustration from Rees' Cyclopedia (1820) of the deck beam scarphing on a 74 gun ship.

Well put, Jason, and there is the essence of the issue - at the time in question (177x), there was no true American "Admiralty" to make those decisions - they issued general requirements to purchase "Sloops" or "Schooners", then for some "Frigates". Individual colonies then also had vessels built, but to no set mold or designs. The first effort at a standard design criteria wasn't until the first 6 frigates were ordered in the 1790's - and even those, whilst built based on the model and preliminary draughts by Humphreys, varied dramatically in final product, influenced by the builders personal vision and the Naval Captain (assigned to each as superintendent during construction). Add to that the subscription built vessels (such as the Essex) which were totally designed and built based on the local contract - then sold to the Federal government when completed. The concept of a standardized naval construction program - plans, materials, methods and so on - was much slower to take root in America, partly a result of our desire for "States Rights" during the earliest days of the Republic, and also a general mistrust of central government.

Hi, Sal - good question! I have also posted a response to your build log. In this case, it appears that the ship sat lower at the stern than the bow - not at all uncommon for these types. Increased speed, supposedly, as well as providing the rudder more bite and increased stability. The launch ways are angled to allow the ship to slide into the water - think of them in relation to the ground and the keel is parallel to the ways. 2.5 to 3.5 degrees was very common for launching ways - about the ideal slant to let the vessel slide in a controlled manner into the water, but not so much that she would start to move before the blocks were removed. The waterline is in reference to the way the ship will set in the water and will not match the slant of the ways. In the water, the stern would be lower, hence that 4.5 degree angle as opposed to the ways. They are really two totally different and unrelated sets of angles. the masts also showed different amounts of "rake" - in general, the fore mast had slightly less rake or angle than the aft (main) mast. This was very common across nearly all ship types.

Those are good points, Bart. I guess I was thinking more of folks like Joshua Humphreys. In his youth, he was a ship carpenter’s apprentice in Philadelphia, and after the death of the master, Humphreys was given control of the ship yard. His later creation of his own ship yard made him well-known in the colonies as a naval architect, and he was commissioned by the U. S. government in 1776 to build ships in Philadelphia and prepare them for the Revolutionary War. As I recollect, he did not visit Britain prior to the start of the 1800's, if at all. Many of the New England ship builders actually had closer ties to French influence (Canadian influence) and Irish than strict British practice. In fact, when you look at ship yards such as Portsmouth NH while the builders had British ancestry, they had been in New Hampshire since the mid 1600's - whatever influence came from Britain would have been long since diluted by the local maritime environment and nature of the fisheries and mercantile activities from those regions. See (for example) Preble's History of the United States Navy-yard, Portsmouth, N. H. (1892). In the Historical Society records for this region, the early permanent settlers of this part of Maine were from Massachusetts - and had been there for many years. The records on ship builders I have seen so far are for locally trained folks - they started building their own boats for fishing (patterned after the French, Portuguese, Spanish and British vessels in the Newfoundland/Bay of Fundy fisheries) but to their own preference. These evolved into privateers and merchant vessels in response to market pressures (for lack of a better phrase). While there were similarities to boats built in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, they also had some unique characteristics that set them apart.

Hi, sal - good question! In this case, it appears that the ship sat lower at the stern than the bow - not at all uncommon for these types. Increased speed, supposedly, as well as providing the rudder more bite and increased stability. The launch ways are angled to allow the ship to slide into the water - think of them in relation to the ground and the keel is parallel to the ways. The waterline is in reference to the way the ship will set in the water and will not match the slant of the ways. In the water, the stern would be lower, hence that 4.5 degree angle as opposed to the ways. They are really two totally different and unrelated sets of angles.

In thinking about the timber for masts, the British had been using New England (particularly Maine) trees for masts and spars for many years - see The Kings Broad Arrow for some good information. As to a side by side comparison, I have not seen any good comparisons. Below are a brief comparison of the British fifth Rate HMS Lark of 32 guns and the Continental Navy Frigate Randolph of 32 guns. have not done any digging yet for mast and rigging details - doubtful there is much for the Randolph unless in a painting somewhere. Class & type: British Richmond-class fifth-rate frigate HMS Lark Built in 1761-62 Tons burthen: 680 61⁄94 bm Length: 127 ft 2 in (38.76 m) (gundeck) 108 ft 0.375 in (32.92793 m) (keel) Beam: 34 ft 5 in (10.49 m) Depth of hold: 12 ft 0.5 in (3.670 m) Sail plan: Full-rigged ship Complement: 210 officers and men Armament: 32 guns comprising Upperdeck: 26 × 12-pounder guns Quarterdeck: 4 × 6-pounder guns Forecastle: 2 × 6-pounder guns Type: Continental Navy Frigate Randolph Built in 1776 by Wharton & Humphreys (Philadelphia) Designed by Joshua Humphreys Length: 132 ft 9 in (40.46 m) Beam: 34 ft 6 in (10.52 m) Draft: 18 ft (5.5 m) Depth: 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m) Armament: 26 x 12 pdrs; 10 x 6 pdrs

well done, Slog. Your turn!

Sorry, Jan - wrong fish! While this vessel was not from Eastport, it was an important part of a fishery which at one time was concentrated in Eastport, Maine. Small fish - big money back in the day!

While the arrangement of spaces would be similar, each ship would be unique as there was no standard in the Colonies. With very few exceptions, the American ship builders were not experienced with war ships - they built merchant and fishing vessels. As to framing, very few had any knowledge of the British Establishment, and not many had been trained in British yards. Many were self taught - learned the skills in a yard but little formal training. Each had institutional knowledge to guide him, not written rules.

Recognizing that these are from a much later era than the original query, here are a couple of snippets from Fincham (1825) - An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-building available via Google Books in PDF (I have not been able to locate an edition with the plates as yet but continue to seek same) Concerning the Keel (Fincham, 1825 – page 9) 4. As the keel cannot be obtained in one piece, as to length, several pieces are bolted together lengthways, by what-is called a side or vertical coak scarph; the scarphs being in length about three times the depth of the keel. The coaks are for the support of the bolts, especially to resist the strain when the butts of the scarphs are being caulked; they are one-half the length of the scarph, and their breadth one-third its depth. . 5. The scarphs are bolted with from six to eight bolts; eight, from frigates upwards, and six to smaller vessels: half of the bolts are driven from each lip side, with a ring upon the head, and clenched upon a ring on the opposite side. . 6. The French and most other nations have flat or horizontal scarphs; but as these scarphs tend to weaken the keel, in the direction in which it is most subject to strain, more than the side scarphs, the English mode is preferable; for the keel bends vertically, which brings a tension on the upper or lower fibres, according as hogging or sagging takes place, which fibres are cut off, in a greater number in these scarphs, to let in the lips; and when sagging takes place there is a tendency to open the joint at the lower lip; this opening will cause the scarphs to leak, except a stopwater be placed at the intersection of the joint of the scarph with the outer edge of the garboard seam, or by increasing the length of the scarphs. Concerning Deck beams (Fincham, 1825 page 70) – 169. The beams are distinguished into single pieces, two ( b ), three ( c ), and sometimes four piece beams (f and g): the length of the beams and the timbers that can be provided to make them will determine the number of pieces they are to be composed of, which should always be as few as possible; for the quantity of timber required to make them will be increased with the number of pieces, because the number of scarphs is increased. 170. When a beam is made or composed of more than one piece, the pieces are united together with vertical scarphs. If in two pieces ( b ), the scarph is 1/3, if in three pieces ( c ) 1/4, and when in four pieces (f and g) 1/5 the length of the beam. 171. The scarphs are distinguished into right and left hand scarphs, and are named by the hand that is on the side of the angle, or the side from which the wood to form the scarph is taken off; when at the side end, the face is towards the scarph and looking upon the upper surface; they are bo1ted with from seven to nine bolts; so as to make their distances apart from 16 to 18 inches, placed alternately. about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches from the upper and lower part of the beams. An equal number of them is driven from each lip side and clenched upon the opposite; in addition to these bolts, one nail is driven into each lip on the opposite edge to the nearest bolt, and one bolt is frequently driven up and down in each lip to prevent its splitting.

I seem to recollect that the keel was assembled with vertical scarphs - that is, the two keel pieces had a left and a right piece vice one atop the other - in order to maximize the strength to avoid the weakness inherent in the other style. it may have been in Sutherland (1711) or Rees that I saw that tidbit. Will need to do some digging. In the case of the deck beams, where particularly for a man or war they carried significant weight, it would make sense to scarph the same manner.

Here is the thread on Baggywrinkles http://modelshipworld.com/index.php?/topic/1133-baggywrinkles/?hl=baggywrinkle#entry21330

Welcome, Jeff! The Phantom looks like a fun build, with plenty of smaller tasks you can devote a half hour to at a time, whether it is sanding a part of the hull (always there when you come back) or building a deck feature. As Patrick pointed out, the goal is to have fun - it's a hobby!

Definitely a small fish not a big one!

Very nice, Grant - and a useful tutorial for later! Will file this away for future. Glad the finger was only a wake-up call for you!

So, a quick hint, then. This fine old gal is a relic from what was once a thriving industry here in these parts. Think small cans...

Thanks, Bob. That is really my concern on the deck planks - at scale, the bulkheads are the equivalent of about 12 feet apart - a bit far for the butt shifts. Actual practice would have had beams about 36 to 48 inches apart on the gun deck, with additional stringers (probably not the right word) about 16 inches apart in between the beams (based on the framing diagram from Takakjian).

Greetings - at sorry to have neglected this lady for so long! The ECB gets my attention this month - have beveled and now installed 4 frames since the first (may not seem like much, but after taking so long to get the first 9 in, 4 in les than a week is really moving!!!) So, here is her present status. I have frames 14 and 15 in preparation right now, hope to get them in by tomorrow evening.