CaptArmstrong

Extremely interesting drawings of the United States, Macedonian, Syren etc! I had no idea there were any such close up illustrations of the us frigates during the war of 1812-great addition to the knowledge base. I'd say the curvature of the United States rails looks very close to the original for the class(though also chapelle's NY & Philly) except the end of the middle rail is moved slightly forward-likely to accommodate a bridle port. It would also appear that the headrails of the Macedonian were altered after capture-appearing quite different(perhaps even closest to the rails of the President in 1815) from the lively class rails-which were much more standardized than the US ships necessarily were in the 1812 period.
 
I doubt the rails of Philadelphia and New York were reconstructed by Chapelle from the 1820s versions-those are much too small and angular. Chapelle likely worked from this plan for Philadelphia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/USS_Philadelphia_builder%27s_sail_plan.jpgand he mentioned an extant inboard profile for New York, which could've shown an outline for the rails-though without seeing it, who knows for sure what conjecture process he used. It appears that unfortunately the Philadelphia figurehead plan uses the erroneous 1820s head, but also shows some nice gingerbread details, as do the others!

I don't dispute that Chapelle used the 1820s plans for the lines, but I was referring specifically to the headrails-as they are entirely different shapes. does he mention them specifically in relation to the 1820s draughts in HIstory of the American Sailing Navy? I admit I don't have my copy on hand. What large and powerful vessels those later sloops grew to be!

Extremely interesting drawings of the United States, Macedonian, Syren etc! I had no idea there were any such close up illustrations of the us frigates during the war of 1812-great addition to the knowledge base. I'd say the curvature of the United States rails looks very close to the original for the class(though also chapelle's NY & Philly) except the end of the middle rail is moved slightly forward-likely to accommodate a bridle port. It would also appear that the headrails of the Macedonian were altered after capture-appearing quite different(perhaps even closest to the rails of the President in 1815) from the lively class rails-which were much more standardized than the US ships necessarily were in the 1812 period.
 
I doubt the rails of Philadelphia and New York were reconstructed by Chapelle from the 1820s versions-those are much too small and angular. Chapelle likely worked from this plan for Philadelphia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/USS_Philadelphia_builder%27s_sail_plan.jpgand he mentioned an extant inboard profile for New York, which could've shown an outline for the rails-though without seeing it, who knows for sure what conjecture process he used. It appears that unfortunately the Philadelphia figurehead plan uses the erroneous 1820s head, but also shows some nice gingerbread details, as do the others!

Extremely interesting drawings of the United States, Macedonian, Syren etc! I had no idea there were any such close up illustrations of the us frigates during the war of 1812-great addition to the knowledge base. I'd say the curvature of the United States rails looks very close to the original for the class(though also chapelle's NY & Philly) except the end of the middle rail is moved slightly forward-likely to accommodate a bridle port. It would also appear that the headrails of the Macedonian were altered after capture-appearing quite different(perhaps even closest to the rails of the President in 1815) from the lively class rails-which were much more standardized than the US ships necessarily were in the 1812 period.
 
I doubt the rails of Philadelphia and New York were reconstructed by Chapelle from the 1820s versions-those are much too small and angular. Chapelle likely worked from this plan for Philadelphia https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/USS_Philadelphia_builder%27s_sail_plan.jpgand he mentioned an extant inboard profile for New York, which could've shown an outline for the rails-though without seeing it, who knows for sure what conjecture process he used. It appears that unfortunately the Philadelphia figurehead plan uses the erroneous 1820s head, but also shows some nice gingerbread details, as do the others!

And then, following the paradigm of reconstruction, the artist did a cove carving that was too perfect for words.
 
The ‘original’ Cornélie had a note of a busy cove carving that may not have been done in actual practice, but looked good in dockyard records. Since this ship is not of the ‘original’ Cornélie , it seemed good and right to let the artist have the freedom to play.
 
This was the result: Cornelia and Vesta offering, together, to la flamme sacrée. It is  right in line with the figurehead. Oh, gosh, an artist that “knows” ships as well as “knows” his Greek and Roman. Life doesn’t get any better.
 

 
Ciao John
 
 

Have a sneak peak of the carvings. The only known reference to the carvings of the “real” Cornélie is a few sentences in dockyard records. Not much to go on, but her figurehead was described as Cornélie, “hair bound in roman fashion and holding a vessel of the sacred flame”.
 
Cornelia Scipionis Africana, mother of the Gracchi, was the touchstone of motherhood virtue (home and hearth) in Rome; the only woman who ever got a statue in the forum. She refused the marriage proposal of Ptolemy Physcon, who offered the crown and treasures of Egypt, by bringing out her sons and saying “These are my treasures.” Who would not love a ship named for such an incredible woman.
 
The Roman goddess of motherhood (and virtue, and other stuff) was Vesta (the Greek Hestia) who was keeper of the sacred flame of home and hearth and virtue. Her statues and images show her holding a ‘vessel’ of the sacred flame. Some of these are brass cups having the flame, but most are of the ice cream-cone shaped bundle of rods with la flamme sacrée issuing from the top.
 

 
Since I can’t draw, one of our members and contributors offered to come and play. He did the perfect figurehead. Can’t begin to say how well this works.

She already is a beauty, John,  a beautiful french lady.
 
And it looks like this plan is going to be an absolute joy to work with
 
Edit:
 
Looks like the original plan for La Cornélie has been found in the archives...your version is spot on, John!
 

 
Why Sané is mis-spelled Johné and it has a scale with french and british feet is still a mistery for historians, though.

Bit more marginal progress on the profile. Added some moulding to the rails and the quarter galleries, for CaptArmstrong. It's a bit crude but he's right, it does add a skoosh of pizzaz. Showing a peek of the cabestan on the QD. I'll have that full-view on the internal profile plan. Also saw that Vial has stanchions bracketing the entry port, so I put some in there as well.
 
Thing this plan view is getting to the diminishing returns stage, so off to the internal detail profile. Need to have something suitably close to complete for when Bava wants to do a 3D of her.
 
Still no carving art, but have recieved an offer of assistance that can't be refused. I think she's going to be a beauty.
 
J
 

Ahoy all!
 
I am a team member and coordinator with Hearts of Oak, an upcoming Nautical/seafaring/naval/piratical game initially set in the mid 18th century, being developed by the long-standing game modifying community at a website called PiratesAhoy!.
http://www.heartsofoakgame.com/
 
Hopefully that gives some context for what I am doing, because though I can build in a good amount of detail, I cannot, for example, build in as much detail as the absolutely stunning 3D model of the HMS Pandora on these forums. This is because of the requirements of a game engine and the abilities of most people's computers. Anyway, hopefully what I come up with is at least somewhat visually pleasing.
 
Quite some time ago a 3D shipbuilder named Bava(who has been active on these forums) started building a model of the HMS Southampton, and though he progressed quite far, he eventually lost interest in the project.
http://modelshipworld.com/uploads/monthly_02_2013/post-395-0-97196500-1361961947.jpg
http://richardsmodelboats.webs.com/32gunfrigate.htm
 
As he worked with me for Hearts of Oak, the opportunity came up to finish the ship, and I flattered myself by taking it on
 
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CArmstrong/misc/screens/Southampton/16.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CArmstrong/misc/screens/Southampton/20.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CArmstrong/misc/screens/Southampton/21.JPG
http://media.moddb.com/images/games/1/20/19616/12.JPG
 
While there is certainly still much to be done, I have a few questions that might be answerable with the expertise so often shown here.

Should I add camber to the hatches? EDIT-yes of course, done Should the gunport lids in the waist be removed? I am not entirely sure when that practice ended.(probably will do) I had to make an odd bend in the bottom of the chainplates as they meet the hull on the wale but extend below it. Would that have been feasable, or should I add thickness to the parts below the wale instead? Might this vessel have been fitted with a skylight? Nothing is shown on the Quarterdeck aft of the mizzen in the plans, which is unusual. However with this ship being somewhat of an experiment at the time it was built, there were several features that were different from later frigates.

Update time:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/38.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/28.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/29.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/30.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/31.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/32.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/33.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/34.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/35.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/36.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/37.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/22.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/23.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/24.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/25.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/26.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/27.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/39.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/40.JPG
 
as of right now I'm thinking I'll remove the waist gunport lids as per Richmond and Alarm class models in the NMM collections.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/42.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/43.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/44.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/45.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/46.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/47.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/48.JPG
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43901618/CA/misc/screens/Southampton/49.JPG

Okay. Got it, CaptArmstrong. Yes, I can do that. Justice and Cornélie were both originaly built Virginie class ships, from the same yard that did Virginie (Brest). I have the NMM plans of Virginie that include much of that detail. Very similar to Boudriot's Venus, but a 10 years later class and so with particular detail differences, but substantially much of a muchness. I can use both references to advantage. Thank you.
 
John

Aha, I don't mean carvings in that sense! That does sound like a number of unusually conservative motifs for a ship built before the Bourbon Restoration, though. In the Image below, I've highlighted the parts I am talking about for adding detail in red. Base image is of HMS Anson borrowed from this thread: http://modelshipworld.com/index.php/topic/828-64-gun-ship-anson-build-in-1781-in-plymonth/
 
Image:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v1w7eiuxop6a64h/Anson-modified.jpg?dl=0
 
The lines would be exactly as straight/slightly curved as what you already have, there would just be more of them.
Boudriot's Venus plans include similar details, and might make a decent reference for placement, if its something you feel would be appropriate to include

Looking Brilliant!  For this plan, I would recommend adding a touch more detail on the transom and potentially to the headrails too.
These images of the Armide-class Flore model show that each individual moulding on the quarter galleries/transom/head have detail and varying levels of protrusion, rather than simply being flat. While of course there are way too many carvings on this model to attempt to replicate on your plan, if some more detail could be added to the moldings in the plan at the bow/stern, it could add a lot of detail to any model even in the absence of much in the way of carvings.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Flore_img_0338.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Flore_img_0336.jpg
 
I made a 3d model of an 'average' early Sane 18pdr frigate from the plans of the Proserpine and Hebe, with some details drawn from the plans of Sybille & Venus. If what I'm suggesting isn't clear from the Flore model, hopefully one can see the rounded surfaces and different layers within each molding in these images
 
https://photos-5.dropbox.com/t/2/AACpDjOwsJzrA2Bg32oofV8EHZ0POKqf_DmNBbyRXbCsgw/12/43901618/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Hebe32.JPG/EP3VyiEYy1ogBygH/gAKop8o2Bi6FAaCDDPpkV9RwIv3hEMkCaMpdSEyZjLw?size=1280x960&size_mode=3
 
https://photos-2.dropbox.com/t/2/AABdmABsusgn0iv31YUzOV46Kw8ug4U-Tjf-aFvi31sMHw/12/43901618/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Hebe44.JPG/EP3VyiEYy1ogBygH/xzPnzK9pGMfg1spw9j7LNnVwWeSK17D5fB15qLfXS5k?size=1280x960&size_mode=3
 
Really great work on this plan! 

Looking Brilliant!  For this plan, I would recommend adding a touch more detail on the transom and potentially to the headrails too.
These images of the Armide-class Flore model show that each individual moulding on the quarter galleries/transom/head have detail and varying levels of protrusion, rather than simply being flat. While of course there are way too many carvings on this model to attempt to replicate on your plan, if some more detail could be added to the moldings in the plan at the bow/stern, it could add a lot of detail to any model even in the absence of much in the way of carvings.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Flore_img_0338.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Flore_img_0336.jpg
 
I made a 3d model of an 'average' early Sane 18pdr frigate from the plans of the Proserpine and Hebe, with some details drawn from the plans of Sybille & Venus. If what I'm suggesting isn't clear from the Flore model, hopefully one can see the rounded surfaces and different layers within each molding in these images
 
https://photos-5.dropbox.com/t/2/AACpDjOwsJzrA2Bg32oofV8EHZ0POKqf_DmNBbyRXbCsgw/12/43901618/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Hebe32.JPG/EP3VyiEYy1ogBygH/gAKop8o2Bi6FAaCDDPpkV9RwIv3hEMkCaMpdSEyZjLw?size=1280x960&size_mode=3
 
https://photos-2.dropbox.com/t/2/AABdmABsusgn0iv31YUzOV46Kw8ug4U-Tjf-aFvi31sMHw/12/43901618/jpeg/32x32/1/_/1/2/Hebe44.JPG/EP3VyiEYy1ogBygH/xzPnzK9pGMfg1spw9j7LNnVwWeSK17D5fB15qLfXS5k?size=1280x960&size_mode=3
 
Really great work on this plan! 

Thinking on the Forfait/Sané discussion of Java/Renommée and had an 'oh gosh' moment.The sterns of French ships were straightened up, along with the tumble home, after 1805, and things got squirrley. Been using the Rochefort draught of Justice as a model, but have some newer and more detailed draughts that I use for 'fiddly bits'. Unfortunately, I used the Erigon draught for the stern. Erigon was an 1811 Pallas class, built in Holland, and was a teensy bit out-of-school for Cornélie. So went back to the well.
 
Took angle measurements of the Justice draught and Boudriot's Venus. Turns out the Justice was only a few degrees straighter than Venus (5 degrees), but significantly more relaxed than Erigon (10 degrees).Woof !!!
 
So did the CAD thing and tilted everything out, and stuck an extra  pane in the lights, and lined things up like they should be, and made sure there was sufficient space between the central lights to put some Egyptian columns in the filials. Ok, so here's the push:
 

 
I just thought if I was going to put a classic 1800 head on her, it made sense to put a classic 1800 stern on her, as well.
 
John

This past spring, ussfrolic reached out to me about collaborating on a project with the US frigate John Adams. He got me access to a copy of a design draught for her and I duly reconstructed it from there. I’ve been sitting on it for a couple months since then and hadn’t started the proper thread for it. At frolic’s prompting I’m finally getting it started. He’ll fill in more of the background in following posts.
 
I intend to do more with the drawings, including an attempt to illustrate later versions of the ship, including the sloop and jackass frigate years. I also found spar dimensions for her as of the Barbary Wars, so I’ll be drawing a sail plan as well. The bare hull isn't entirely finished yet either, there’s still a few bits here and there missing, but it’s overall complete. I suppose “fitted out” would be a better term…
 
I reconstructed the steps, side lights from a deckplan that showed them, the bridle ports, and the head and waist rails. I’m going to fiddle with a couple different designs for the rails as far as waist and forecastle, but this is a start.

I thought the Hackett family built the Hancock, Alliance, and Essex? not the Raleigh, Alliance, and Essex? i should certainly think there would be similarites between the Alliance and Essex, but it seems unlikely to me that they were as similar as say, Constitution and Constellation- there was 20 years of shipbuilding development between them and one would think the Hacketts kept up with that through the ships they built inbetween, incorporating the knowledge into the form of the Essex.

I thought the Hackett family built the Hancock, Alliance, and Essex? not the Raleigh, Alliance, and Essex? i should certainly think there would be similarites between the Alliance and Essex, but it seems unlikely to me that they were as similar as say, Constitution and Constellation- there was 20 years of shipbuilding development between them and one would think the Hacketts kept up with that through the ships they built inbetween, incorporating the knowledge into the form of the Essex.

Captain Armstrong: To my knowledge the Hancock was a member of the Randolph class which included Randolph, Raleigh, Hancock, Warren (the most powerful of the bunch) and the ill fated Washington. Calling it a class though might be a bit of a stretch more like they were al 32's built to a conceptual plan but each builder added variation based on their own design preferences. I dont think at this point a Federal commission to build a class of ship was really possible but I think the general concept was there.
 
Is there any record or Alliance's carving detailing? While I wouldnt say that Essex is in any way a direct descendent to the Alliance like Guerriere class was to Constitution, the builder surely worked off of what they had done in the past and in general the non Humphreys ship were more traditionally British in appearance. The subscription frigates werent trying to reinvent the wheel however I imagine they followed their own evolutionary path.

One unusual thing about the Alliance: Late in the war, she was able to replace her 12-pounders with the guns that had been ordered to be cast for the lower deck of the Bon Homme Richard, had the latter survived - twenty-eight long French 18-pounders. No other contemporary American frigate could carry that many guns on their main deck, except the Confederacy! So the Alliance had some special characteristics of many other ships. But from the few contemporary paintings that do survive of her, every one conveniently sketched in John Millar's book, and unlike the Confederacy, the Alliance appears to carry a round modern bow, not a beak-head bulkhead.

One theory about the Alliance in "The Frigate Essex Papers"  is that, since she was built by the same Hackett family that would go on to make the Essex 20 years later, both frigates were built to the same general model, with slightly differing dimensions.

Nice conjectural draughts! I think it makes some sense that alliance differs from confederacy-the two were of similar size but by no means the same dimensions. It might've been deemed prudent to have a more conventional frigate design for alliance instead of taking the risk of having both large frigates be galley frigates. I'd like to see the stretching conducted with the Hancock rather than Raleigh-though I do admit the profile and transom of the Raleigh derived alliance look nice and balanced. I just think the Raleigh had lines a bit fuller than ideal for a frigate, though I see the historical lineage as why he chose it as the model as making perfect sense.
 
On the topic of the Hancock-upon close comparison, I wonder if it was actually a modified version of the Randolph design, with a more upright stem and corresponding hollow in the garboards. Though Hancock was 4 feet longer, 1 foot wider, and 6 inches deeper, it had the exact same length:breadth ratio as Randolph. Maybe some newer research has discussed that, but I'm fairly certain Chapelle considered them as separate designs in the same way that Randolph clearly differs from the Raleigh.

Nice conjectural draughts! I think it makes some sense that alliance differs from confederacy-the two were of similar size but by no means the same dimensions. It might've been deemed prudent to have a more conventional frigate design for alliance instead of taking the risk of having both large frigates be galley frigates. I'd like to see the stretching conducted with the Hancock rather than Raleigh-though I do admit the profile and transom of the Raleigh derived alliance look nice and balanced. I just think the Raleigh had lines a bit fuller than ideal for a frigate, though I see the historical lineage as why he chose it as the model as making perfect sense.
 
On the topic of the Hancock-upon close comparison, I wonder if it was actually a modified version of the Randolph design, with a more upright stem and corresponding hollow in the garboards. Though Hancock was 4 feet longer, 1 foot wider, and 6 inches deeper, it had the exact same length:breadth ratio as Randolph. Maybe some newer research has discussed that, but I'm fairly certain Chapelle considered them as separate designs in the same way that Randolph clearly differs from the Raleigh.

Regrettably, American builders were not noted for using plans until late 18th/early 19th century, and even then most were disposed of after building. Millar did a great job taking anecdotal and sparse documentary information, applying logical analysis to develop possible drawings.
I like your conjectural process - similar that used by Chapelle and Millar but with easier access to a lot more information!
 
For those that would insist on 100% historical accuracy, good luck! Few plans at the NMM can claim 100% accuracy for as built, particularly as regards internal construction, deck arrangements, rigging and belaying plans (well, you get the picture).
 
Keep digging, Charlie! Time for that trip to the historical society in Philly (but wait until the Popeleaves) to check the sources Brewinton used.