trippwj

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. 

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. 

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. 

I'm making some very broad statements here, hopefully on point.  Ship designs were probably more heavily influenced by naval startegy and national policy as much as anything.  French ships were typically lighter built, because this made them fast which was needed to support their doctrine of ships putting to see for a specific purpose and otherwise moored in harbour.  The downside was that they were not built for endurance.  The opposite was the evolved British strategy of having ships continually at sea supporting the strategy of blockade or on distant station, which required stronger ships built for endurance.  For both these countries this had to fit within an extended window of hostilities.  In that context, the war of 1812 was pretty condensed with Americans essentially following a localized commerce raiding strategy and building highly effective ships for that strategic purpose.  Britain responded by building similar sized ships on a limited basis to counter that specific threat, but maintained its underlying commitment to it long standing approach to ship design which worked well both before and after .  Bottom line, every ship is a compromize of cost (building and operating), firepower, sailing quality, speed and endurance amongst others. Ships were probably much less influenced by the skills or training of the individual shipwrights than by the direction of the individual Admiralties in support of military strategy and national policy. 

We should be also careful with comparing that, measurement standards could be different (internal/external could be messed up, for example)

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.

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

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.

Wayne, Patrick
 
Thanks for the answers.
 
So I will mark the waterline on the hull using the cradle I made that keeps the keel at roughly the slope shown on the plans (4.5 d.) and use the kit plans to build the launch ways (3 d.) and in this case when the ship is displayed on the launch ways the waterline will not be horizontal.   I can live with that.
 
Thanks again.

Wayne,
 
Thanks for the answers and as I mentioned on my build log I will mark the waterline on the hull using the cradle I made that keeps the keel at roughly the slope shown on the plans (4.5 d.) and use the kit plans to build the launch ways (3 d.) and in this case when the ship is displayed on the launch ways the waterline will not be horizontal.  Hope I'm not over thinking this.

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.

Interesting commentary, gentlemen.  I would imagine that the British kept a close eye on ship design in Europe for obvious reasons.  To my eye, British ships were generally more purpose built, more efficient looking (lovers of French and Spanish vessels please hold your fire).  We Americans seemed to gravitate toward the British designs.  I would imagine that those interested in architecture would have similar discussions relating to British vs. European cathedrals.
 
Fascinating stuff!

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

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.

A general difference is that the United States, at her founding, had an unlimited timber supply. As a result, we didn't have to scarf a whole bunch of little timbers together, like the British did, to make a larger piece.  For example, we didn't have to make 'anchor-stock' type wales on our ships, like the British did. We just used long straight timbers. If the British had had a similarly nice piece of timber available to make their wales in the same easy way, they would have instead used it for something more important.
 
The first Sloop of War Wasp, for example, built in the Washington Navy Yard in 1806, had a 100 foot keel. It was made of only two pieces scarfed together, one of which was an 84 foot long straight stick of hickory! She also had choice bits of walnut, locust and cedar in her upper frame.

Okay, here it goes.
 
Is it the sardine carrier, Jacob Pike?
 
Cheers
Slog

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.

Totally in agreement Wayne,it is interesting though the French chose to do their scarphs differently,however they did employ far more sophisticated technologies to ensure lower hull stiffness.Gaeton's Fleuron is an ideal showcase for this.
 
Kind Regards
 
Nigel

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.
 

 

 

 

 
 

Folks,
 
Nice post. From an engineering point of view, I can't see why builders of wooden ships would ever use timbers of that length for deck structure, even if available. No matter how you slice it and dice, intermediate support columns or bearing walls would absolutely be necessary under a very long deck beam because it would deflect a considerable amount just from its own weight. These are the same principals used in building design and construction today. See Longridge's book on the Victory - it looks like a forest below decks for all the columns in place. Accordingly, if columns are required anyway, why not use shorter deck beams designed for a specific acceptable deflection? Shorter beams would be easier to install and readily available. Further, except for the keel and other members that are fully supported, I expect that the scarcity of long timbers was not the reason why they weren't necessarily used for deck sub structure. The requirement for columns necessitated by the live and dead loads associated with sailing ships would over ride the need for super long deck timber, in my opinion. Note that ideally, the scarph joints would be horizontal type centered over column locations where you have minimum moment but maximum shear load, which is resisted by the reaction at the column.
 
I would suggest you use the scarphed joints and place them at regular intervals. I doubt they were placed randomly, particularly on a 17th century war ship. In some instances where long spans were necessary and columns were not workable, I expect deck beams would have been lapped side by side, with the length of lap made long enough to occur well past the point of maximum moment which would be center span. I am not sure how far structural design had advanced during the 17-18 centuries, but considering some of the cathedrals built during that time, I expect it was fairly advanced and would have extended to ship building.
 
Note that I am offering what I think are common sense solutions based on time tested engineering principals. Of course, there may be information available that says I'm all wet. However, if you think I'm all wet please provide hard evidence to support your position. Nice topic and thank you for bringing it up. Maybe we can all learn something.
 
wq3296

I still have a great fondness for the works of Basil Lubbock: The Last of the Windjammers, The Colonial Clippers, The Tea Clippers, The Downeasters, The Western Ocean Packets, The Nitrate Clippers.
 
Harold Underhill: Deepwater Sail,, Sail Training Ships, Masting & Rigging the Ocean Carrier.
 
H I Chapelle, D R McGregor, Basil Greenhill, David Lyon, Brian Lavery, Rif Winfield, Robert Gardiner
 
But far and away I still remember a day over 40 years ago. It was about midnight on a Tuesday and the the library was almost deserted. I was looking for a book on Revolutionary War Naval History for a college course and I came across a crumbling copy of the illustrated catalog for the Henry H Rodgers collection of models at Annapolis. I didn't know models like this existed.  I sat on the floor of the aisle deep in the stacks of the Howard Tilton Librabry of Tulane University slowly going from one model to the next. In 15 minutes I developed a fixation that continues to this very day.
 
I own a copy now and take it off the shelf when the work is not going the way I know that it should. I tell myself that one day I will learn to do work like that.

Definitely a small fish not a big one!

Greetings, all.  Have taken a tip from the Master of Cotton Balls (Sjors) and will be trying to split my time a month at a time amongst builds.  The Essex will now be relgated to a shelf for the next month whilst I get back to my sorely neglected Emma C. Berry.  Here, then, are a couple of shots of where I am on the Essex.
 
I am prepping the hull for the first planking - nearly done with the fairing, still need to cut the rabbet along the bow area.
 

 
Question - since there is no "false deck", would it be prudent to add some additional deck beams to support the deck planiking, or would that be creating work with minimal benefit (see drawing of kit structure below)?
 

 
Meanwhile, Brett (my son) has been tackling the detail painting for the stern decoration - not done yet, but progressing.  He has all sorts of cool artist supplies, and found that one of his very fine artists pens was perfect for getting the tiny details around the scroll work to look better.
 

 
Still more to do, but looks a lot better than I could ever hope to accomplish!
 
So, until June (unless I decide to move the Harriet Lane back to the rigging table), that's it for now!

The May issue of the MSB Journal is now available at http://www.modelshipbuilder.com/news.php
 
Table of Contents:
 
Tidbits from the Past
Model Ships of the Royal Museum Greenwich
Shipwrecks of the World
Framing of a Hull—Part 3
Historical Naval Shipyards
HMS General Hunter Proto-type Model—Part 1
The Book Nook
Badges: Heraldry of Canadian Naval Ships
Gene’s Nautical Trivia