CaptArmstrong

Well said! 

I agree entirely with your assessment of frigate designs. 
 
I think a mix of large (constitution class) frigates with more numerous Endymion/Pomone class vessels would be a smart balance. Though at a minimum of strength, stowage, and stability to carry 24pdrs, the Endy still had enough to be effective, and her speed was of course outstanding. What is the record on the bellona's performance? I can't say I know much about that class beyond its existence.  And I bow to your knowledge of 17th & early-mid 18th century shipbuilding 
 
I'm sure many here already (JohnE & Bava especially) know the late 18th century design differences between British and french frigates as well or better than I, but I'll add my take on why french 18pdr frigate design in particular was still viewed as superior in the late 18th/early 19th century by many British officers:
 
Though the British built the first 18pdr frigates-and the french took several years to catch on-when they did they built them at much more effective dimensions for 28x 18pdrs (~150' x 39', compared to 141' x 38'10" for hms Minerva) allowing them an edge in speed and even secondary armament due to the advantage of a higher lwl and L/B ratio, as JohnE mentioned. Of course This was standard design priorities at play for french warships at this point. But it was only compounded by the developments of the 1790s, which saw unwavering British conservatism in the face of some radical french experimentation.
 
British captains realized that their early 18pdr ships were cramped and a touch slow, but the admiralty was only willing to increase the dimensions of this still new type (notably length) very slowly and incrementally. In the 1790s, a foot was added every year or so to each of the surveyor's (rule and henslow) designs, gradually improving  speed in each new design by small amounts. (Roughly, and by speed I'm going by the highest quoted speed in sailing reports, from what I've read of Gardiner. ) Still, the dimensions (and iirc speed) of Sane's initial 18pdr design of 1782 was not entirely matched by British designed 38s until 1799 with the active and amazon. About the same time, the amphion and apollo were launched (the lead ships of the most successful 32 and 36 gun 18pdr classes) along with the copied Leda. However, at this moment of embracing reasonable dimensions at last, st Vincent became first lord of the admiralty(1801). He ordered a revival of a 36 gun frigate design from the 1780s, along with the 12pdr Richmond class of 1757 in fir! Just After his administration finished in 1804, the 154' lively (laid down in 1799) was launched, and along with the ledas, apollos, and amphions became the standard designs of the napoleonic wars- reliably matching french speed and size 20 years after the 18pdr type was introduced  
 
In the same timespan, the french had experimented with some radical designs, and had been building the more traditional but very effective sane design in numbers. Other 18pdr designs reached 160' long, and employed radically fine lines for such large hulls. The Seine  class by Forfait and the even bigger Resistance are prime examples
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66536.html
 
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/66549.html
 
The latter clearly has a highly experimental hull form, and even had screws to adjust the rake of the masts for different points of sailing! 
A number of these ships turned out to be fine sailers, but I don't think it could be said with certainty that they were better outright than the Sane design or the livelys, especially considering all the design criteria listed by beef wellington. Some of the more experimental ideas weren't repeated or were immediately reconfigured (Forfait's fregate-bombards come to mind) I doubt they had as lasting of an effect on design nor offered as much real design superiority as the earlier innovations of the two Blaise's. But, considering the comparative size of British 18pdr ships at the time, and the radical forms of some french ships, they left a lasting impression of french design and a willingness to think (and build) Innovatively. When you have one of those (or a Sane 18pdr frigate) coming into harbor as a prize, and you can see an enlarged fir built royal Caroline (essentially a 100 year old hull form) on the stocks as part of your nation's response to that threat, it's easy to see how one could wonder if your shipwrights were less able.
 
The British did match the french for speed in 18pdr frigates in time for the napoleonic wars, while likely retaining their traditional advantage in seakeaping, stowage, cost, and strength. But they took their time doing so due to institutional conservatism. During the French Revolution there was a marked disparity between the two nation's frigate designs in innovation along with size and related performance-which left a lasting impression on the British officer corps, contributing greatly to the impression of french design superiority at that time. 

From what I've read (I'll readily admit I know less about Spanish shipbuilding than French, British, or American) the Spanish 74s carried lighter armaments than was common in other navies-sort of like enlarged old 70 gunners. So instead of 32pdrs and 18s or even 24s, they'd carry 24pdrs on the lower and 18s on the upper gundeck
 
https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=2708
 
i think the reasoning (other than blind conservatism)  might've been a greater emphasis on longevity and speed rather than line of battle parity.

From what I've read (I'll readily admit I know less about Spanish shipbuilding than French, British, or American) the Spanish 74s carried lighter armaments than was common in other navies-sort of like enlarged old 70 gunners. So instead of 32pdrs and 18s or even 24s, they'd carry 24pdrs on the lower and 18s on the upper gundeck
 
https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=2708
 
i think the reasoning (other than blind conservatism)  might've been a greater emphasis on longevity and speed rather than line of battle parity.

I tend to think the 74s from about the 1780s and 90s are the nicest looking but they continued to build them for decades following that so there must have been improvements. I guess the improvements meant reducing weight higher up by eliminating decoration. 

Just when I was re-reading this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/periklisdeligiannis.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/quadrireme-quinquereme-decemereme-and-other-multumeremes-part-i-the-colossal-warships-of-the-hellenistic-era/amp/ what an amazing find! I'm sure that as these wrecks are studied further they can yield answers to some long-running debates about rowing arrangements etc of ancient vessels. Though it's unclear if any warships are among the wrecks, they should also be quite useful for better understanding ancient construction techniques. Marvelous stuff! 

The transom is just my best guess, based on what was recovered, the Annapolis taffrail.  I've studied Wm. Rush's work for many years and try to see the carvings as he might have.  The President carvings were interesting in that while not by Rush,  Daniel N. Train was trained by by him.   My take on the President based  on written description,  Corne' didn't do a painting of the stern. 

I really like that transom! Reminds me a lot of the USS President's after capture, and it has clean lines despite all the carvings. Were you inspired by this engraving?
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/h65000/h65865a.jpg

Trying first time to post pictures of my take on Philadelphia carvings- 

But an important name! And above the waterline apparently not too far apart from the evolved form of the original ship, as de Kay comments in his "Chronicles of the Frigate Macedonian" about an older British gentleman living in the US who came aboard the ship during a port call on her first commission. He had been a sailor on the original British ship under John Carden and stayed in the US after his capture by Decatur. He told the American sailors stories about his service on her, pointed out his duty station, etc.
The more I look at it, the more I think that she wasn't built to the original ship's dimensions but instead built to the standard US 2nd class frigate dimensions of the time, eg: Congress and Constellation. She was rated and armed exactly as Constellation was anyway and they are only a foot apart in beam and /six inches/ apart in length. They were fairly close to the original ship's dimensions anyway, so not a huge difference. It makes sense that they would build to their class standards instead of arbitrarily making one eight to ten feet shorter just to match the older vessel. No one's going to notice that it's different, it's not like they upscaled her to a 1st class frigate. What's more interesting to me is everyone I've read (Chapelle, etc) comments that the change in dimensions was because she had longer, narrower clipper-style ends for speed, but looking at the lines compared to each other...
 
Interestingly, Constellation's replacement was built to the dimensions of a razee frigate...Cumberland in this case, except a lot narrower (five feet less beam, just about the same length). She was just a purpose-built, lighter, more optimized version of it. Had she been a true razee or kept to the original's dimensions, she would have been the exact same dimensions as Macedonian instead of being twelve feet longer. It reminds me that I was recently going through the length/width ratios of the American ships of that era, looking at proportions and trying to figure out a sweet spot for a 3rd class frigate (as mentioned below). Jamestown stuck out at me. Three inches narrower than Saratoga, but 17 feet longer (163 feet to 146.3 feet). Highest ratio I found in the American ships I was looking at (pretty much all the frigates ever, plus the post-war 1st and 2nd class ship-sloops).
There's some similarities in basic hull forms, of course, but pretty different. Designed by the same guy in roughly the same time period. Definitely a more modern hullform compared to the earlier 1st class frigate designs though, but an evolution instead of a huge difference. Congress is also the 1st class to Macedonian's 2nd class. I've had a mind to come up with my own design for a 3rd class frigate equivalent too, a follow-on to ships like Boston just for fun.

If she's French, her name would be spelt La Diane, n'est-ce pas? I always thought that this Diana was one of the spanish Mahonesa-class

I don't think they could mount them on the gundeck. That would be just above the water line and way too close to open in any kind of weather. I think if purchased it would more likely get the sides built-up and used as an open-decked sloop like the aforementioned Maryland and Patapsco. That whole raised/sunken quarterdeck cabin thing, where it is in between the main deck and gun deck, is so merchant-y too. Not a typical warship and an enigma.

She is unusual in that her gun-ports are above the level above the quarter galleries, instead of at that level, which would never have been done in a naval-built vessel, but was seen on paintings of merchant ships at the time. I think that the above "18-gun ship" was a merchantman with good sailing qualities that the navy was considering purchasing. Had they done so, ports would have been cut at the gun deck level, to lower the center of gravity, and those above would have been removed. On many merchant ships, cargo would have been stowed at the level of a naval ship's lower gun-deck.
 
I getting sick of writing 'gundeck' and having auto-correct substitute 'gunlock'!

And the lines look very much like a fuller version of the 6th rate....would not be at all surprised if they had the same designer. With 18 ports she could plausibly be the Trumbull? If any of the vessels built for the navy at all-being a purchase certainly seems possible!

It's definitely not the Adams! But I am using it as a starting point for a conjectural draught of how the Adams could've looked as a corvette. do you know if the as-built length on gundeck of the Adams was 113' as Chapelle suggests, or the undated 128'4" noted in the fox papers? I agree that the Merrimack or an improved Maryland/Patapsco are likely subjects of the plan of the 6th rate.

And the lines look very much like a fuller version of the 6th rate....would not be at all surprised if they had the same designer. With 18 ports she could plausibly be the Trumbull? If any of the vessels built for the navy at all-being a purchase certainly seems possible!

And the lines look very much like a fuller version of the 6th rate....would not be at all surprised if they had the same designer. With 18 ports she could plausibly be the Trumbull? If any of the vessels built for the navy at all-being a purchase certainly seems possible!

It's definitely not the Adams! But I am using it as a starting point for a conjectural draught of how the Adams could've looked as a corvette. do you know if the as-built length on gundeck of the Adams was 113' as Chapelle suggests, or the undated 128'4" noted in the fox papers? I agree that the Merrimack or an improved Maryland/Patapsco are likely subjects of the plan of the 6th rate.

It's definitely not the Adams! But I am using it as a starting point for a conjectural draught of how the Adams could've looked as a corvette. do you know if the as-built length on gundeck of the Adams was 113' as Chapelle suggests, or the undated 128'4" noted in the fox papers? I agree that the Merrimack or an improved Maryland/Patapsco are likely subjects of the plan of the 6th rate.

It's entirely possible. I'll throw together a comparison of their lines later. I should note that Silverstone rates Merrimack as a 24-gunner, with a 9-pdr main battery of 20 guns and 8 x 6-pdrs on the quarterdeck/forecastle. Both could fit that ship.
 
EDIT: The 460 ton figure Silverstone gives for Merrimack are also similar to RN 20-gun ships in Winfield like the Sphinx class of 1773.

I always wondered if the above unidentified 20-gunner might not have been the USS Merrimack of 1798, since her body plan and profile kinda resembles the Essex, and William Hackett built both ships a year apart. Few dimensions survive for the Merrimack, if I recall correctly.

Hi all! Just for fun I thought I'd add the plan in question.

Thanks Frolick, that was mighty quick! 
 
1. Ahhh, this makes much more sense! I wrote down 113' on gundeck for the Adams from Chapelle the other day, but he must've subtracted 15' from the ~128' assuming that was the lengthened dimension, when he actually should've added 15 for the corvette version to get 143' 4". 
2.  Perfect! I reckon I should use the gunport dimensions from the Philadelphia, Chesapeake, or New York to get the sizing right for 18-pounders. 
3. That makes it simple enough!
4. I think I see, would moulded be the vertical dimension and sided the horizontal?
 
I can't say I know whether she was closer to Fox or Humphreys' designs-she may have been an independent one like Essex. I'm certainly hoping so, given the design I'm using as a basis. Given that he definitely designed the John Adams at the same time, and her dimensions differ from the Adams just about as much as the Boston, I would doubt she was designed by fox.  It was also said that she was too fine-lined for her original rate, and more than any other US navy designer of the time fox seems to have preferred marked knuckles amidships like British and French designs, resulting in a full & somewhat hexagonal midship section (as opposed to the high-deadrise V shape of the Essex, or almost-v of the Humphreys Frigates)  Hopefully Talos can shed more light!

Thanks Frolick, that was mighty quick! 
 
1. Ahhh, this makes much more sense! I wrote down 113' on gundeck for the Adams from Chapelle the other day, but he must've subtracted 15' from the ~128' assuming that was the lengthened dimension, when he actually should've added 15 for the corvette version to get 143' 4". 
2.  Perfect! I reckon I should use the gunport dimensions from the Philadelphia, Chesapeake, or New York to get the sizing right for 18-pounders. 
3. That makes it simple enough!
4. I think I see, would moulded be the vertical dimension and sided the horizontal?
 
I can't say I know whether she was closer to Fox or Humphreys' designs-she may have been an independent one like Essex. I'm certainly hoping so, given the design I'm using as a basis. Given that he definitely designed the John Adams at the same time, and her dimensions differ from the Adams just about as much as the Boston, I would doubt she was designed by fox.  It was also said that she was too fine-lined for her original rate, and more than any other US navy designer of the time fox seems to have preferred marked knuckles amidships like British and French designs, resulting in a full & somewhat hexagonal midship section (as opposed to the high-deadrise V shape of the Essex, or almost-v of the Humphreys Frigates)  Hopefully Talos can shed more light!

Thanks Frolick, that was mighty quick! 
 
1. Ahhh, this makes much more sense! I wrote down 113' on gundeck for the Adams from Chapelle the other day, but he must've subtracted 15' from the ~128' assuming that was the lengthened dimension, when he actually should've added 15 for the corvette version to get 143' 4". 
2.  Perfect! I reckon I should use the gunport dimensions from the Philadelphia, Chesapeake, or New York to get the sizing right for 18-pounders. 
3. That makes it simple enough!
4. I think I see, would moulded be the vertical dimension and sided the horizontal?
 
I can't say I know whether she was closer to Fox or Humphreys' designs-she may have been an independent one like Essex. I'm certainly hoping so, given the design I'm using as a basis. Given that he definitely designed the John Adams at the same time, and her dimensions differ from the Adams just about as much as the Boston, I would doubt she was designed by fox.  It was also said that she was too fine-lined for her original rate, and more than any other US navy designer of the time fox seems to have preferred marked knuckles amidships like British and French designs, resulting in a full & somewhat hexagonal midship section (as opposed to the high-deadrise V shape of the Essex, or almost-v of the Humphreys Frigates)  Hopefully Talos can shed more light!

Thanks Frolick, that was mighty quick! 
 
1. Ahhh, this makes much more sense! I wrote down 113' on gundeck for the Adams from Chapelle the other day, but he must've subtracted 15' from the ~128' assuming that was the lengthened dimension, when he actually should've added 15 for the corvette version to get 143' 4". 
2.  Perfect! I reckon I should use the gunport dimensions from the Philadelphia, Chesapeake, or New York to get the sizing right for 18-pounders. 
3. That makes it simple enough!
4. I think I see, would moulded be the vertical dimension and sided the horizontal?
 
I can't say I know whether she was closer to Fox or Humphreys' designs-she may have been an independent one like Essex. I'm certainly hoping so, given the design I'm using as a basis. Given that he definitely designed the John Adams at the same time, and her dimensions differ from the Adams just about as much as the Boston, I would doubt she was designed by fox.  It was also said that she was too fine-lined for her original rate, and more than any other US navy designer of the time fox seems to have preferred marked knuckles amidships like British and French designs, resulting in a full & somewhat hexagonal midship section (as opposed to the high-deadrise V shape of the Essex, or almost-v of the Humphreys Frigates)  Hopefully Talos can shed more light!