CaptArmstrong

You might want to contact the Peabody and Essex Museum in Salem, MA, for additional information about the Adams. They hold the Josiah Fox Papers in their collections, and all of his correspondence has been helpfully typed out, and sorted by individual ship.
 
The vertical beam measurements are usually the larger of the two.
 
113 feet could have been her length of keel measurement?

1. The list was compiled before the Adams was lengthened, c. 1807, I believe, as she would have been awfully short else wise! The Essex was rebuilt in 1807-9, and the Adams was begun before she was completed, according to the correspondence on the former.
 
2. This was the width of the gunports, which ought to have corresponded to the 12-pounders she carried early in her career.
 
3. The 'forward' was the 'forward perpendicular', i.e., the rabbet, as you state, at the level of the gun-deck.
 
4. The total number of the Adams' beams at that deck level, and each's cross-sectional dimensions.
 
Was the Adams built to a Fox design, or a Humphries design? I always thought the latter, as a possible reduced New York, but I believe the question has not been settled.
 
Wait until Talos wakes up and has had his coffee. He's sure to know, if anyone does.
 
 

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me:
 
1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 
 
2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear:  clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 
 
3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward"  etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 
 
4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"?
 
Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me:
 
1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 
 
2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear:  clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 
 
3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward"  etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 
 
4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"?
 
Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me:
 
1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 
 
2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear:  clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 
 
3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward"  etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 
 
4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"?
 
Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me:
 
1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 
 
2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear:  clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 
 
3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward"  etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 
 
4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"?
 
Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

I've been working on my reconstructive draught of the Adams as a corvette, starting from the unidentified 24 gun ship of 1799. Was looking through this thread hoping to find some spar dimensions, and was thrilled to come across the fox papers comparison ( FOX 773) of Adams, John Adams, and Boston-what an incredible resource! I'm wondering though exactly what some of the dimensions refer to, and I'm hoping someone with more familiarity with the writings of shipwrights can clarify for me:
 
1) I'm assuming that with a length on gundeck of 128' 4" and armament listed for QD & F'csle, this list is from the brief period after the Adams was lengthened, but before she had her upperworks armament removed and bulwarks cut down? 
 
2) Ports fore and aft (and up & down) in the clear:  clearly too small to be the distance between ports-is this the width and height of the gunports themselves? 
 
3) What point is 'forward' mentioned in "Center of fore mast from forward"  etc? Is it likelythe the fore part of rabbet of the stem used to measure the length on gundeck? 
 
4) What is referred to with the two lines after 'number of gun/berth deck beams" with "ditto sided/moulded"?
 
Thanks to anyone who can illuminate even a little bit about the above!

A photo I took of a painting of Macedonian in the Naval Academy

Something else that happened is I was able to import quarter-beam and mid-beam lines into the MATLAB hydro program and evaluate the curves for performance. Turns out that Jacques-Noël knew exactly what he was doing. They fall within acceptable modern parameters. Howard Chapelle and Merritt Edson would approve.
 
It also becomes apparent why French ships (although can only speak to Sané types) were so sensitive to trim in order to get most out of their performance regime. The lines purty near say outright that if they have a bit too much load drag, or sailed with a squat, they will suffer and become sluggish, like a lovely lady on the arm of a boor.
 
The kicker comes from Sané's famous 6 inch stretch after Villemaurin's sail trials in the historical Cornélie. Villemaurin noted stern trim sensitivity in great detail, load trimming both up and down, altering mast rake, and the sail suite. It told a lot to Sané. All of the stretch was put from Frame VII aft. Frame VII stayed where it was in the Venus (Hébé) and Virginie series. Frame VIII moved 3 inches farther aft from Frame VII and the aft perpendicular moved 3 inches farther back from Frame VIII. This centers the majority of the stretch smack dab in the region where the quarter buttock crosses the load waterline and stretches out the buttock lines in this area so they are considerably straighter.
 
I was amazed at what a simple 6 inches could do, until I realized that the difference between the "right" design curves and my "wrong" ones were the matter one inch or less, back and forth, up or down. Whoda thunk?
 
Wonder what Jacques-Noël would have done with access to a CAD program. I shiver to think.
 
Ciao. John

Thanks Druxey, that's nice to know. Speaking of translations ... had to do quite a bit of Vial du Clairbois for the lovely Cornélie.
 
The compound curvatures of the fashion frame (estain) and the filling transoms have always been quite painful to get right. The main reason is no one has done those for a Sané design before, so there is nothing to use as a guide or make intelligent judgments from. The British didn't take off enough lines in the right places to provide a suitable guide, and even the lines in the Chaumont Papers are way too few and far-between, besides being completely unidentified. Woof! Everything was a guestimate, and wrong, as it turns out. I had to go back to the well.
 
Vial has a section on this. Very informative, but superficial, and lacking in the very details that I needed for a proper understanding. Then I just happened to open Vol II. I had previously assumed Tome II was simply an 1805 retitling and reprint of Tome I with some additions. Wrogn again! I was fooled by the totally similar table of contents. Turns out that Tome II begins where Tome I leaves off. Seems that Tome I is the undergrad book having all the basics and sufficient gloss to get one started. Tome II, however, is the graduate level "design and construction theory" course book. Every section begins with the assumption you have Tome I open to the appropriate place and the Tome I drawings are at hand. Then it launches into detail ... thought I would have a heart attack! Woof!
 
All right! Design the darn things from scratch! This is better than buttermilk pancakes! So I did. And it worked. And it didn't just work, the lines flowed directly into those of the well documented sections from Sané's devis. My estain was a bit off in body plan and profile views, and the waterlines and buttock/bow lines behind the estain needed considerable adjustment. Before, they were smooth, but arbitrary. Always subject to tweaking back-and-forth depending on which curve I started with - body, waterline, diagonal, ...
 
Finally, after much sturm, drang und todesangst, I really think I have an understanding of French stern construction. Some pics. Waterlines (level lines) just flat look good. Not just that, but they grid out such that each level-line point projects right smack dab where it is supposed to on the profile buttocks and body plan, and arsey-versey.
 
All this was the basis of the loft of the filling transoms. Easy peasy once the surface was completely defined.

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! 

Thanks for the likes. I was a bit remiss and forgot to put up some pics. Here's some of the guidelines for the lofting. This part makes sure that the lines are ok in all three views and everything checks against the Devis. There are a (very) few places where the Devis is inconsistent by a (very) small amount, but they are all in the fiddly-bits category. All things considered, she's coming along beautifully; everything is falling right into place. That means it's time to be extra careful so I don't get bit in the Coulomb.

The stern lofting of Cornélie is pretty well finished and golly, does she have lovely looking buttocks.  Fashion frame(s) and filling transoms fair in nicely and the surface differentials, for defining the wood’s shape and curve, are complete. The remaining step is to position it all on the massif and define the pieces of the deadwood, and their curvatures. Whew! That was hard! Well, not so much hard as incredibly painstaking.
 
I got inspired by the 3D work done for the Swan Group by their European mystery guest. I am trying some of the same techniques to get rabbets looking right and get good plots of cutting-down lines, etc.. The goal is to have the plan set that includes a synthesis of benchmark lines representing both French and British practice. Much of what people are used to seeing on British plans seems to be missing somehow from the French equivalent. However, it is probably better to say that certain information is not necessarily missing, but is rather presented in a completely different manner. So why not combine the two? CAD is so cool!

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! 

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! 

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! 

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! 

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! 

Truly amazing find of the Hornet's transom! It certainly looks a lot like the Chesapeake, which I'm beginning to think was a fairly common style of American transom. Bumps her well up the list of my potential 3D builds. Any idea where the figurehead and trailboards drawing might be found?
 
I'd agree that the model doesn't look a lot like the New York, the bow isn't raked enough, among other things. I think it matches up quite well to the Essex though, especially after her refit that made her more wall-sided with fully built up bulwarks. Interesting how low the copper stops on the hull, everything seems in proportion otherwise.  
 
Judging by the early images of the united states, she had something like a French dunette: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/82972.html
without upper quarter galleries, but with a two-tier transom and balcony on the upper level.
 
Glad you made it through, Frolick!

Aww, thanks. Year is still young though! Hopefully we can keep at it. I think threads like this have been good for scholarship of antebellum US Navy ships in general. I know I've learned a lot in it.
 
I was thinking of Constitution's modern stern and that flattened arch on it again. Such a weird shape. Looking through plans in Chapelle, I noticed it popping up in a bunch of proposed smaller ships in the early 1830s, as well as the Boxers and possibly Peacock's rebuild as well.

Yep, that too!
 
I wanted to see how it looked complete, so I threw the fullsize TIFF of the stern drawing into Photoshop. I hadn't notice the arrows the eagle is standing on. Also here is Chapelle's take on Wasp/Hornet as well for comparison.
 
 

I'm beginning to think they all were, at least before the war broke out, but that the detail was too fine to reproduce on 1/4th inch scale plans.
 
I suspect a whole bunch of similar drawings went up in flames in 1814 in Washington, and again in Norfolk in 1861.

Truly amazing find of the Hornet's transom! It certainly looks a lot like the Chesapeake, which I'm beginning to think was a fairly common style of American transom. Bumps her well up the list of my potential 3D builds. Any idea where the figurehead and trailboards drawing might be found?
 
I'd agree that the model doesn't look a lot like the New York, the bow isn't raked enough, among other things. I think it matches up quite well to the Essex though, especially after her refit that made her more wall-sided with fully built up bulwarks. Interesting how low the copper stops on the hull, everything seems in proportion otherwise.  
 
Judging by the early images of the united states, she had something like a French dunette: http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/82972.html
without upper quarter galleries, but with a two-tier transom and balcony on the upper level.
 
Glad you made it through, Frolick!

By the way, there is a contemporary drawing of Hornets eagle figurehead and tail-boards, not as beautifully drawn. The eagle looks about the same, but if I recall correctly, there is a drum in the trail-board.
 
What is the significance of 17 stars? How many states were there in 1811?
 
That is a Nautilus tucked into end, and doesn't the shape of Hornet's stern board remind you of the Chesapeake's?
 
 

It's not one of the frigates that we were talking about earlier, but I ran into this nice drawing of Hornet's stern carvings just now.