CaptArmstrong

Ok so I got "American ships of the Colonial and Revolutionary Periods" by John F Millar and have to say there are some very interesting conjectural draughts in this book.  I scanned a few based on the original list made in this post, the Warren, Trumbull and the Alliance.  While the first two are pretty much just slightly altered versions of the class ship they belong to (Trumbull a Virginia type and Warren a Randolph type), his Alliance is in my opinion sort of a stretched out Raleigh and takes a bit of creative license. His reasoning is that she was built in the same yard as Raleigh by the same builders only a year later but looks very little like the Confederacy (wouldn't they have used the same builders plans?).  For each conjecture he mentions the methodology he used and while it's all a stab in the dark with some educated guesses it's nice at least that someone took the time to put this resource together and I enjoyed looking through all the ships regardless. What do y'all think? 

I'm not lumping Roux and Baugean with Bevan, far from it.  I would put them in the class with the van de Velds pére et fils.
Bevan lived 1852-1940, so had no access to the original subject matter.  Besides sailing ships he painted WWI warships in battle.
I don't necessarily require 100% historical accuracy, but we should do our best, and if plans are absent we have to go to other sources.  Even plans can mislead; if you find that your example was a bit of a misfit in one of more features from the available plans it would not be unusual.  Even ships of a 'class' had small differences.  Your research is to identify those small changes so you can stay faithful to your particular example.
The other option is 'Captain's choice' or 'good enough', the end of that particular scale being folk art.  I don't want to do folk art either out of ignorance or laziness.

fair enough for small details and certainly other artists, and I think there might be one instance where one of the later roux painters copied Antoine's Constellation for use as a British frigate-but overall Antoine roux and JJ baugean are benchmarks of reliability, and shouldn't be lumped in with the likes of bevan for having generic ships-if even for the simple reason that no two ships are the same in their paintings.

fair enough for small details and certainly other artists, and I think there might be one instance where one of the later roux painters copied Antoine's Constellation for use as a British frigate-but overall Antoine roux and JJ baugean are benchmarks of reliability, and shouldn't be lumped in with the likes of bevan for having generic ships-if even for the simple reason that no two ships are the same in their paintings.

Here comes a setting that has the hull. Set in an infinite ocean. "Infinite Ocean" is also the name of a specific plugin for cinema 4D. It creates the ocean carpet with the view to the distant horizon. All with minimal resource consumption.
 
I am currently working on a setting with some of my animated crew members.
 

That painting seems to show the right features-number of gunports, low bulwarks yet not flush decked, a particularly high length:breadth ratio. I believe the artist is Irwin bevan, he made a number of water colors depicting the smaller actions of the war of 1812-many of which were in Caxton pictoral histories naval war of 1812.
A few are here:
http://www.humanitie...rd-june-21-1807
http://www.artnet.co...auction-results
At least in terms of his 1812 works I've found him to pay good attention to rigs, size, and armaments-but his transoms and headrails all tend to be generic for frigates and sloops of war-so I doubt it is anything more than a representation in that respect. He did do a painting of the Adams being burnt which is in that book, though the transom looks little different from that of the uss United States he painted linked above.
 
Also, has anyone looked through the works of JJ baugean when studying the Adams and John Adams? He did a number of unidentified small us frigates while they were stationed in the Mediterranean. I've never found them all in one spot, but here are the 2 most easily found as an example.
http://www.daveblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USS_Boston_1799.jpg
http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/pu7378.jpg
As a contemporary with an eye for detail and seemingly good accuracy in well known ships, they could be insightful
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0VJyiHCd4Y/UhyeiiLsTVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/cE8pxHtx9kQ/s1600/President+frigate.jpg

That painting seems to show the right features-number of gunports, low bulwarks yet not flush decked, a particularly high length:breadth ratio. I believe the artist is Irwin bevan, he made a number of water colors depicting the smaller actions of the war of 1812-many of which were in Caxton pictoral histories naval war of 1812.
A few are here:
http://www.humanitie...rd-june-21-1807
http://www.artnet.co...auction-results
At least in terms of his 1812 works I've found him to pay good attention to rigs, size, and armaments-but his transoms and headrails all tend to be generic for frigates and sloops of war-so I doubt it is anything more than a representation in that respect. He did do a painting of the Adams being burnt which is in that book, though the transom looks little different from that of the uss United States he painted linked above.
 
Also, has anyone looked through the works of JJ baugean when studying the Adams and John Adams? He did a number of unidentified small us frigates while they were stationed in the Mediterranean. I've never found them all in one spot, but here are the 2 most easily found as an example.
http://www.daveblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USS_Boston_1799.jpg
http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/pu7378.jpg
As a contemporary with an eye for detail and seemingly good accuracy in well known ships, they could be insightful
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0VJyiHCd4Y/UhyeiiLsTVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/cE8pxHtx9kQ/s1600/President+frigate.jpg

That painting seems to show the right features-number of gunports, low bulwarks yet not flush decked, a particularly high length:breadth ratio. I believe the artist is Irwin bevan, he made a number of water colors depicting the smaller actions of the war of 1812-many of which were in Caxton pictoral histories naval war of 1812.
A few are here:
http://www.humanitie...rd-june-21-1807
http://www.artnet.co...auction-results
At least in terms of his 1812 works I've found him to pay good attention to rigs, size, and armaments-but his transoms and headrails all tend to be generic for frigates and sloops of war-so I doubt it is anything more than a representation in that respect. He did do a painting of the Adams being burnt which is in that book, though the transom looks little different from that of the uss United States he painted linked above.
 
Also, has anyone looked through the works of JJ baugean when studying the Adams and John Adams? He did a number of unidentified small us frigates while they were stationed in the Mediterranean. I've never found them all in one spot, but here are the 2 most easily found as an example.
http://www.daveblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USS_Boston_1799.jpg
http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/pu7378.jpg
As a contemporary with an eye for detail and seemingly good accuracy in well known ships, they could be insightful
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0VJyiHCd4Y/UhyeiiLsTVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/cE8pxHtx9kQ/s1600/President+frigate.jpg

That painting seems to show the right features-number of gunports, low bulwarks yet not flush decked, a particularly high length:breadth ratio. I believe the artist is Irwin bevan, he made a number of water colors depicting the smaller actions of the war of 1812-many of which were in Caxton pictoral histories naval war of 1812.
A few are here:
http://www.humanitie...rd-june-21-1807
http://www.artnet.co...auction-results
At least in terms of his 1812 works I've found him to pay good attention to rigs, size, and armaments-but his transoms and headrails all tend to be generic for frigates and sloops of war-so I doubt it is anything more than a representation in that respect. He did do a painting of the Adams being burnt which is in that book, though the transom looks little different from that of the uss United States he painted linked above.
 
Also, has anyone looked through the works of JJ baugean when studying the Adams and John Adams? He did a number of unidentified small us frigates while they were stationed in the Mediterranean. I've never found them all in one spot, but here are the 2 most easily found as an example.
http://www.daveblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USS_Boston_1799.jpg
http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/pu7378.jpg
As a contemporary with an eye for detail and seemingly good accuracy in well known ships, they could be insightful
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0VJyiHCd4Y/UhyeiiLsTVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/cE8pxHtx9kQ/s1600/President+frigate.jpg

That painting seems to show the right features-number of gunports, low bulwarks yet not flush decked, a particularly high length:breadth ratio. I believe the artist is Irwin bevan, he made a number of water colors depicting the smaller actions of the war of 1812-many of which were in Caxton pictoral histories naval war of 1812.
A few are here:
http://www.humanitie...rd-june-21-1807
http://www.artnet.co...auction-results
At least in terms of his 1812 works I've found him to pay good attention to rigs, size, and armaments-but his transoms and headrails all tend to be generic for frigates and sloops of war-so I doubt it is anything more than a representation in that respect. He did do a painting of the Adams being burnt which is in that book, though the transom looks little different from that of the uss United States he painted linked above.
 
Also, has anyone looked through the works of JJ baugean when studying the Adams and John Adams? He did a number of unidentified small us frigates while they were stationed in the Mediterranean. I've never found them all in one spot, but here are the 2 most easily found as an example.
http://www.daveblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/USS_Boston_1799.jpg
http://imageweb-cdn.magnoliasoft.net/nmm/supersize/pu7378.jpg
As a contemporary with an eye for detail and seemingly good accuracy in well known ships, they could be insightful
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-N0VJyiHCd4Y/UhyeiiLsTVI/AAAAAAAAAYM/cE8pxHtx9kQ/s1600/President+frigate.jpg

In the case of the President, it was likely a combination of factors that influenced the scrapping by the British.  Due to the on again/off again schedule for her construction, it's possible that a combination of white and live oak was used, as there were very significant challenges getting live oak.  When the 3 frigates got put on hold, one of the missions for Fox was to inventory the available supplies at the three yards and coordinate their shipment to the remaining 3 yards. When there was the prompt need to resume construction, what live oak that was available wasn't seasoned, perhaps contributing to the issue with rot.  HOWEVER - for a ship of the era, a 20 year career afloat was pretty good, particularly if there were no significant rebuilds done. 

The John Adams was very useful to the early navy as a flush corvette. So much so, that the specifications for the ten 1816 "Gradual Increase" sloops - the Boston/Concord Class - were to the dimensions of the old John Adams. But she was too small to carry long 24-pounders, even if only medium 24-pounder columbiads.
 
Of all the subscription frigates, only the John Adams was built out of Southern Live Oak, (by accident of geography, as she was built in Charleston) and so she outlived all the others. The old Frigates Boston and New York, built of inferior north-eastern white oak, were found too rotten by 1808 to be worth repairing, but the JA lasted until 1829 with almost constant service.

With his foolish alterations to the John Adams, I cannot help but wonder yet again how bainbridge was as successful as he was. He was reportedly a good seaman and navigator, but was tyrannical to his crew(slashing a man who dared speak to him first with a sabre) lost several warships to the enemy on fairly foreseeable errors of judgement, botched the building or repair of several warships badly (JA and 74 gun independence)-and enabled the early death of Stephen Decatur by urging the duel to continue as Decatur and Barron began to make amends. He just doesn't seem of the same calibre of leader and captain as Decatur, Hull, Stewart, Rodgers etc.
 
By my recollection Eckford was just told to design a corvette-had he been told the intended armament was 24pdrs I'm sure he could've come up with something better than what was chosen. (Which ended up being problematic until finally enlarged into the new cyane and levant design) Really they should've tried for 18-22x18pdrs, rather than trying to jump all the way to long 24s on a corvette. Perhaps they should've come up with refined versions of the corvette JA and A, and a new design to similar dimensions to trial against eachother for the larger 1820s corvette

John Adams Chronology:
 
1799: Frigate with twenty-four long twelve pounders on the gun deck and two twelves, bow chasers, and six 24-pound carronades on her spar deck. She retained this form when she fought with Commodore Morris Squadron, bombarding Tripoli, firing at gunboats, and engaging and destroying the 26-gun Lateen rigged Frigate Meshuda fighting alongside the USS Enterprize. She did a lot of fighting during this service. She had a bust figurehead carved by William Rush of Philadelphia. She was the first US Navy ship to carry carronades.
 
1804: converted to a store ship when she joined Preble's squadron off Tripoli. Gun deck full of cargo with eight long six-pounders on her quarterdeck and six long twelve pounders in the Waste of her spar deck! This would have required her having been converted to a mini-double-banked frigate! The rest of her guns were in the hold, but her carriages were scattered among other ships.
 
1807-09: Converted to a 24-gun flush decked corvette carrying twenty-two 42-pounder carronades and two long twelve pounders. No poop deck. Fox wrote in a letter stating that he intended to replace the bust with a scrolled fiddle head. The watercolor appears to show this. At some unknown point in her history, she received a bust head of John Adams again. Her replacement ship had one.
 
1811-12: Reverted back to a frigate in j.a.c.k.a.s.s frigate form in Boston, carrying thirty lighter carronades and two chase guns. No forcastle!
 
1813-14 Converted back to a corvette of 22 guns: armament varied in port, but they settled on 42-pounder carronades again by her 1814 sailing. Differed from 1809 version by having a 17-foot long quarterdeck (poop) cabin with a flush roof. This appears the ship shown in the watercolor. Note the sailor dudes on it. Retained this form until her breaking up and replacement in 1829.

Yes back to the John Adams indeed! very interesting notes though I am a bit confused. How many times was she a corvette and a frigate? Sounds like she was converted several times?  Also Wikipedia's entry on John Adams is confusing.  It doesn't differentiate between the original and rebuilt ship claiming it lasted until 1867 (which I am assuming it was rebuilt the same way Constellation and Macedonian were).  If I were to build a model of her it would most likely be as the sleek corvette Also any info on the elusive General Greene?

I continue ...
 
The John Adams became whole again in early 1813. It is possible that the JA never had a full forecastle deck installed in 1812, just a short platform called a "topgallant forecastle deck" for conning, as well as the armed quarterdeck, since that is the definition of a j.a.c.k.a.s.s. frigate: a frigate with no forcestle.
 
A confidential letter written by the new Secretary of the Navy William Jones, to Master Commandant William Crane, dated  April 16, 1813:
 
" ... You will proceed immediately to Baltimore and take command of the United States Ship John Adams, destined by the President, for a special and confidential service and in order to render her fit for service it will be necessary to cut down her topsides and reconvert her into an efficient corvette, as she was previous to her last repair and outfit at Boston.
 
About 16 or 17 feet of the after part of the quarterdeck and the topgallant forecastle will be retained, but without armament, or any thing above other ... other [than] the crane irons and ridge ropes. Her armament will be twenty heavy 12-pounders and four long 18-pounders."
 
Keep the cranes, Crane!
 
The confidential mission was to have been a raiding mission around Cape Horn on to the Oregon/Canadian coast to destroy the British settlements, and to protect the American presence in the northwest. Long guns would be needed to bombard any land settlements, if they chose not to go quietly. Politically connected millionaire John Astor was to accompany the expedition, since he had financed the American settlements already there. And so the ship was fitted out in the best possible fashion, and she was ordered to carry only the highest quality stores. The plan was cancelled when Crane and the ships' entire crew was instead sent on emergency status to Lake Ontario.
 
Crane had practical problems with the desired armament:
 
"The long 18-pounders in the yard are so badly made that they will not stand the proof. One burst on Lake Ontario and one burst yesterday. The 12-pounders are short, heavy, clumsy pieces, not of which will clear the stern ports." Fox was known to have decreased the rake of the JA's stern when she was razeed in 1807-9, but she might have still retained an excess stern rake, so much so that the guns couldn't reach all the way out. 
 
Crane wanted 32-pounder carronades, but they could only have been transported from the foundries in Maryland and Philadelphia by sea, and the British blockade was too tight.
 
Crane was unable to enlist a full crew in New York either, in another letter to the SecNav dated May 4, 1813.:
 
"I discover a very strong prejudice in the seamen against the John Adams."
 
Since the ship had been repaired and fitted for the tastes of Mr. Astor, it was decided to send her off on a diplomatic voyage. The retention of a long piece of the quarterdeck was probably to house Astor and his staff.  On February 5, the JA sailed under Master Commandant Samuel Angus to England carrying "Peace Commissioners" Henry Clay and Jonathan Russell, to try and negotiate the end to the war. On the way back, the JA was to bring her namesake's son, Diplomat John Quincy Adams, home.
 
John Quincey Adams noted in his memoirs on June 13, 1814:
 
"She (the John Adams) carries twenty-two guns, but is now only half-armed, having but twelve forty-two pound carronades." Presumably the rest of her guns were moved into the hold.
 
Apparently, Commander Angus suffered several "temporary attacks of insanity" after picking up Adams off the Texel, and even tried to pick a fight with two small British brigs of war on August 25, 1814, even though the JA was flying the flag of truce. The commander of one of them, the 10-gun HMS Helicon (only 18-pounder carronades), noted that the John Adams was a razeed frigate, she had all her guns mounted, and was painted all black.
 
Her consort was the 16-gun ex-French HMS Achates (24-pounders). That would have been an interesting battle!
 
CORRECTION, CORRECTION! HMS Helicon's consort was HMS Scylla, 18 guns, with 32-pounder carronades, a Cruiser Class Brig, not HMS Achates.

Back to the USS John Adams:
 
In 1812, after the JA have been converted to a fine fast and powerful flush decked corvette, William Banibridge ordered her upper works put back on so that he could have another frigate in the stable. The only benefit was the addition of eight 18-pouinder carronades to the new quarterdeck. She was so unstable that her 42-pounder main deck guns had to be swapped out for 32-pounders, and her two chase guns were reduced to nine-pounder and were placed on the lower deck since the new mini-forecastle couldn't take the weight.  These changes caused indignation amongst the officer corps, who new well the old ship. Master Commandant Charles Ludlow took the j.a.c.k.a.s.s frigate on her maiden voyage on September 7, 1812, and wrote to the Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton:
 
"I had a very good opportunity to try the sailing of the ship, and conceive it my duty to report the same. She cannot pass for more than a tolerable sailing merchant ship, and so crank that a ship of 20 guns ought to take her, in what would generally be called a topgallant breeze for ships of war."
 
This means that her main deck gun ports were under water!
 
Captain Ludlow continued:
 
"When I took command of this ship from Captain (Joseph) Tarbell he insured me that it was his intention  to apply to the department for orders to rejoin the ship again and wished me not to make any alterations. I have not made any of any consequence, but if Captain Tarbell is not to have her ... (which I will give up with much pleasure) I shall be under the necessity of applying for a survey of the ship, and trust can make it appear, that as a corvette, she will answer as a vessel of war, but at the present, she is unworthy of the name AMERICAN SHIP OF WAR, and I shall very reluctantly  hazard the reputation of her officers and that of the service; in her present state; she will be considered by the public; and particularly with any vessel she may have to contend with, as a 32-gun frigate, when she mounts 32 guns." 
 
Captain Ludlow was of a great and influential naval family, he having a brother  then serving as purser on the Constitution, and another brother Augustus Ludlow, destined to be the gallant, slain first lieutenant of the USS Chesapeake, of who the latter of which, many towns in the US would be named. (Ludlow, Vermont, for example.) Yet, he felt inclined to add:
 
"With due deference I have made the above report, and hope I have not exceeded the bounds of rectitude."
 
The report worked, and the JA sat out most of the war stripped of her guns in New York until the summer of 1814, intended as a 'harbor ship' for the defense of the port.
 
But she would get her salvation ...

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

Finished planking the bulwarks on the port side after installing the false deck.   The false deck was 1/16" thick.   Then I added some filler strips at the bow and stern where I thought I needed it.  At the bow to beef up where the hawse holes will be.  You can see these strips below which I used 1/16" thick scrap strips for these filler pieces.
 

 
The first plank (3/16" wide and 3/64" thick) was placed right below the gun ports.  The planking below the ports inboard is thick and stands proud of the planking between the ports.  This will be accomplished in two layers much like the wales.   Placing the plank directly below the ports first allows me to get the run of the planking correct as it must follow the bottom of the ports.  Then the remaining planks were added below that and above.  Once completed the second layer of thicker planking was added.  This is the spirketing.  It runs from the deck to the port sills and is thicker....but not by very much.  The original planking draft has the spirketing just 1/2" thicker.  I used 1/32" thick planks for the second layer and actually thinned them down a bit more.  Then I softened the edge where it stands proud along the sills.  I try to soften all of the hard edges like this.  The thickness of the hull where the caprail will be is 5/32" thick after planking.  The cap rail will be 3/16' wide hanging over a bit outboard. 
 
Once I get the planking done on the other side I will install the cap rail.
 

 
 

I can't help but doubt that painting's accuracy entirely-the vessels look more like whaling ships than frigates.
Uss frolick-solid research! I have that book and know the picture you are talking about-though I don't have access to it right now

Charlie, I might have an answer for you.
 
If anyone has both a copy of 'The Naval War of 1812', Chatham Pictorial History, Vol. 6, Naval Institute Press ANA a functioning scanner, I beg you look at page 49, bottom, at an engraving entitled "United States and Macedonian Frigates passing Hurl Gate", New York, by P. H. Hansel, Philadelphia, 1817. I believe it to be the most accurate depiction of the United States's stern. My reasoning is thus:
 
1. The sterns of both ships are shown in great detail, and the styles are clearly different from one another, in both the style of the scroll work to the number of windows. Artists of the period who fudged the details, usually fudged both ships identically.  We already know that the Macedonian had the stern of the Lively Class frigates, two other drawings of which survive. The Macedonian is propperly depicted there with six windows across her stern, and the same style of carvings.
 
2. The United States is shown with seven windows across her stern, plus a pair of what I can only describe as half windows in the back of her quarter galleries. While this might be dismissed as whimsey, remember that the US had a double-decked stern and galleries at one time. So these half lights might be a remnant her her early configuration. The 1820's Charles Ware spar deck plan shows here with quarterdeck roundhouses, another remnant which no other American frigate carried. Seven windows means eight counter timbers, which the Essex was rebuilt with, and which at least one of the 36 gun ships might have been built with since a unidentified gun deck framing plan with eight counter timbers survives in the Fox papers. Congress? Philadelphia? The Guerriere class stern requires eight counter timbers too.
 
3. For a while, the United States and the Macedonian found themselves blockaded in the Thames River, and they were hauled up river as for as they could be, and anchored with guns run out the stern ports for protection against British boat attacks. They  hung boarding nettings and ran a cable acroos the river, and rowed a constant guard down stream. They became quite the tourist attraction, but nobody got too close, and so they were viewed only stern on. (Source: "The William Skiddy Journal", 1813-15, an unpublished private journal written by one of the USS Hornet's midshipmen. ) I believe that Mr. Hansel got to see them at that time, made his preliminary sketch, complete with two guns run out of the U.S's quarterdeck stern chase ports. His depictions of the ship's broadside are sketchy, because he could not have seen them on the Thames. He partially hides them with smoke for saluting guns, (a common artistic ploy) and he even erroneously places guns in the Macedonian's planked-up waist, a feature she never had. 
 
4. A contemporary pencil sketch of the battle, drawn soon afterwards by one of the US's crewmen, shows seven windows as well. The original was held by the Naval Academy museum, (and may or may not still be there), but was photographed and published in John Spears's "The History of Our Navy", a lively, yet slightly racist Victorian book that is otherwise best avoided.

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

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

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.

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.