Jaager

I do not know how to write this so that it comes across in the way that I intend it. 
I mean this as one way to look at it.  It may well be incorrect.  But it is a vulnerable flank if you disagree
 
 
I do not place much value in using the survivors from 1765 1799 1800-on as sources of information for how these vessels looked when launched.  Especially "officers country" in the stern.
They were "improved" - remodeled - rebuilt - about every 20 years.  This was done by sequential generations who were hostile to the past and ashamed of and embarrassed by older practices.  They were aggressively "modern" in their outlook.  A new "modern" every 20 years at a time of profound tech change. 
Then, when GB or the US became wealthy enough to have surplus to preserve some of the past - it was done by strong personalities who were more driven by preconceived visions in their imaginations than what was left of actual past documentation.
 
For the most part absolutist historians have been left with hodgepodge  monsters too substantially altered to rescue back to their original iterations.  They are probably more valuable remaining as what they are.  But what that is - is far from representing their as launched versions.
 
Zealous PR people tend to exaggerate if not outright lie about what they are selling.
 
Almost everything in your examples are post 1860.  I have to draw a line for the sake of my sanity.  It is still far to broad, but 1860 is a hard limit for me.

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:
 
I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 
I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 
 
There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  
 

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:
 
I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 
I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 
 
There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  
 

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:
 
I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 
I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 
 
There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  
 

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I did. and as I said, I have no answer. I just do not know.
 
I think some speculation around the subject could be fun though.
 
If there is no surviving data,  then whatever you decide should stand.
(as long as it does not involve something like an electric winch and a Honda generator 😉)
I apologize if absurdist humor and exaggeration does not translate.

All of this looks to me like something that a team of ship's carpenters could alter on their own in an afternoon or two.
I do not think that obsessing about there being a single "answer to it" would have a definitive solution.  I see it as a moving target.
Anything contemporary could be and probably is correct.  Just avoid anachronism. 
 
It may be an artifact from the photography, but the holes for the pins look to have about twice the probable diameter.

I did. and as I said, I have no answer. I just do not know.
 
I think some speculation around the subject could be fun though.
 
If there is no surviving data,  then whatever you decide should stand.
(as long as it does not involve something like an electric winch and a Honda generator 😉)
I apologize if absurdist humor and exaggeration does not translate.

Siggi,
 
I have no idea.  But if I was the noncom in charge of this operation,  I would think seriously about having a dolly or truck at the inboard end of the davit and using my team to move the beam in/out/arc/aft as needed.  I would also  have rope handles at file intervals along the beam.  A beam like that would be a bear to manhandle without some accessories. 
notches in the beam and hollow Mickey Mouse hat rope loops  with rope handles instead of ears.

As I was doing yet another of my denken experimenten  (slang from my German American major professor) about this
 
I am seeing that something more involved than just loosing the end of a rope was involved in setting an anchor.
I can see that the fluke could rip a chunk out the the channel or even the wale unless the anchor was swung out before letting gravity take control.  A fish davit could have a two way function.

You may have better luck if the English word is spelled correctly not david  but davit.
I think that a rough definition using "fish" as a verb   is:   
a fish davit would be  a line with a hook on the distant end attached to the outer end of a pole
 
to fish means hooking something in the water and pulling it up.
 a cathead crane can get a heavy anchor up and out of the water but it will hang like a bell
to tie it down means rotating it ~ 90 degrees and securing it to the side of the ship so that it is not a wrecking ball.
Given the weight of the anchor on a liner fishing and rotating the fluke end was probably a non-trivial chore.
I wonder if the tool used to do it - the fish davit - could not be loose -  a disposable item - not really a permanent part of the hull?

All of this looks to me like something that a team of ship's carpenters could alter on their own in an afternoon or two.
I do not think that obsessing about there being a single "answer to it" would have a definitive solution.  I see it as a moving target.
Anything contemporary could be and probably is correct.  Just avoid anachronism. 
 
It may be an artifact from the photography, but the holes for the pins look to have about twice the probable diameter.

As I was doing yet another of my denken experimenten  (slang from my German American major professor) about this
 
I am seeing that something more involved than just loosing the end of a rope was involved in setting an anchor.
I can see that the fluke could rip a chunk out the the channel or even the wale unless the anchor was swung out before letting gravity take control.  A fish davit could have a two way function.

As I was doing yet another of my denken experimenten  (slang from my German American major professor) about this
 
I am seeing that something more involved than just loosing the end of a rope was involved in setting an anchor.
I can see that the fluke could rip a chunk out the the channel or even the wale unless the anchor was swung out before letting gravity take control.  A fish davit could have a two way function.

The first step is to seal the cut ends.  What you use is not critical.  Hot paraffin, shellac,  old varnish,  old paint - oil based is probably better.  Thick - the object is to make it difficult for the water to get out at open ends of the tubes that are wood.  Different rates water migration produce stress = splitting and checking
 
Length:  that depends on you - close to the longest that you use on your bench - a tad more to account for loss from seasoning.
De-bark:  now if you have the patience.   It allows the water easier egress.  It removes the eggs and larvae of wood borers. 
A draw knife or spoke shave makes a quick job of it if the branch is secured from moving.
The old rule is one year per inch of thickness to reach water concentration equilibrium. 
I would aim at ~2" thickness and 2 foot length for my system.
Seal the ends NOW.
 
Wood can do ugly things as it dries,  splits and checks ate the worse-  bow and twist is not helpful -
Protect for the elements - no rain or snow - direct sun = uneven drying
good air flow around all sides = sticker the rick
Serious downward pressure - weights on top of the rick may reduce twist and bow
 
 

It all depends on just which products you are calling a stain. 
If it is a commercial product in the US and it is labeled as being a Stain - think surface product - a wood shade pigment in a binder that is thin enough to let some grain show thru.  It may also include a dye component,  but a commercial product = Stain - is intended to be used on a 1:1 scale object.
This is not an especially favorable product to have in the way of a bonding surface.
 
If it is a true solution.  a pigment - in alcohol or water - or a dry powder that you get into solution -  and a solution does not need mixing or shaking - it is a single unit that requires a physical action to separate -
it goes into the wood - it becomes part of the wood - it does not affect a glue bond.
 
We need to be on the same page as far as the definition of the terms.  
 
Chuck :  a commercial STAIN - would probably have an unfavorable outcome if that is used before bonding.  
A dye has very little surface tension. it runs everywhere.  if you have adjacent planks with different colors dying after bonding and avoiding bleed over would be difficult.
 
OllieS :   if the UK terms a dye as being a stain - you are correct -  but  noun stain  and verb stain  are causing confusion.
 
Chuck :
An oil finish -   does leave layer on a primed surface.
A primer can be a coat of half saturated shellac or half saturated oil.  It fills the pores and voids in the wood.  follow on coats stay on the surface.  Unless the coat is too thick or the oil has deteriorated - it then polymerizes and is a layer - one big single unit.  How thick the layer is depends - on the volume applied - which oil it is - 
I think the thickest is polyurethane -  but then polyurethane is a true synthetic plastic -  it might as well be polyethylene - polyvinyl - polypropylene - etc  a better living thru chemistry sort of thing
 
 
 

It all depends on just which products you are calling a stain. 
If it is a commercial product in the US and it is labeled as being a Stain - think surface product - a wood shade pigment in a binder that is thin enough to let some grain show thru.  It may also include a dye component,  but a commercial product = Stain - is intended to be used on a 1:1 scale object.
This is not an especially favorable product to have in the way of a bonding surface.
 
If it is a true solution.  a pigment - in alcohol or water - or a dry powder that you get into solution -  and a solution does not need mixing or shaking - it is a single unit that requires a physical action to separate -
it goes into the wood - it becomes part of the wood - it does not affect a glue bond.
 
We need to be on the same page as far as the definition of the terms.  
 
Chuck :  a commercial STAIN - would probably have an unfavorable outcome if that is used before bonding.  
A dye has very little surface tension. it runs everywhere.  if you have adjacent planks with different colors dying after bonding and avoiding bleed over would be difficult.
 
OllieS :   if the UK terms a dye as being a stain - you are correct -  but  noun stain  and verb stain  are causing confusion.
 
Chuck :
An oil finish -   does leave layer on a primed surface.
A primer can be a coat of half saturated shellac or half saturated oil.  It fills the pores and voids in the wood.  follow on coats stay on the surface.  Unless the coat is too thick or the oil has deteriorated - it then polymerizes and is a layer - one big single unit.  How thick the layer is depends - on the volume applied - which oil it is - 
I think the thickest is polyurethane -  but then polyurethane is a true synthetic plastic -  it might as well be polyethylene - polyvinyl - polypropylene - etc  a better living thru chemistry sort of thing
 
 
 

Ah,  the place where an RN admiral was executed on his quarter deck for being too timid.
 
A 22 gun is essentially a corvette (Sloop-of-War)  not as bad as a frigate but it is still a formidable subject as a first wooden model - coming from plastic or coming in cold.
 
I imagine it is a difficult read in translation, but you could read the "For Beginners-" post at the top of this forum
If you do start with the 22 gun  and it becomes too much - the beginners topic may show you a way to recover your ambition by taking a smaller bite and succeeding at it.
Plastic is probably more of a negative stepping stone into wood and sail  - assembly instructions (plastic) and fabrication plans (wood) are different things.
 

Ah,  the place where an RN admiral was executed on his quarter deck for being too timid.
 
A 22 gun is essentially a corvette (Sloop-of-War)  not as bad as a frigate but it is still a formidable subject as a first wooden model - coming from plastic or coming in cold.
 
I imagine it is a difficult read in translation, but you could read the "For Beginners-" post at the top of this forum
If you do start with the 22 gun  and it becomes too much - the beginners topic may show you a way to recover your ambition by taking a smaller bite and succeeding at it.
Plastic is probably more of a negative stepping stone into wood and sail  - assembly instructions (plastic) and fabrication plans (wood) are different things.
 

It all depends on just which products you are calling a stain. 
If it is a commercial product in the US and it is labeled as being a Stain - think surface product - a wood shade pigment in a binder that is thin enough to let some grain show thru.  It may also include a dye component,  but a commercial product = Stain - is intended to be used on a 1:1 scale object.
This is not an especially favorable product to have in the way of a bonding surface.
 
If it is a true solution.  a pigment - in alcohol or water - or a dry powder that you get into solution -  and a solution does not need mixing or shaking - it is a single unit that requires a physical action to separate -
it goes into the wood - it becomes part of the wood - it does not affect a glue bond.
 
We need to be on the same page as far as the definition of the terms.  
 
Chuck :  a commercial STAIN - would probably have an unfavorable outcome if that is used before bonding.  
A dye has very little surface tension. it runs everywhere.  if you have adjacent planks with different colors dying after bonding and avoiding bleed over would be difficult.
 
OllieS :   if the UK terms a dye as being a stain - you are correct -  but  noun stain  and verb stain  are causing confusion.
 
Chuck :
An oil finish -   does leave layer on a primed surface.
A primer can be a coat of half saturated shellac or half saturated oil.  It fills the pores and voids in the wood.  follow on coats stay on the surface.  Unless the coat is too thick or the oil has deteriorated - it then polymerizes and is a layer - one big single unit.  How thick the layer is depends - on the volume applied - which oil it is - 
I think the thickest is polyurethane -  but then polyurethane is a true synthetic plastic -  it might as well be polyethylene - polyvinyl - polypropylene - etc  a better living thru chemistry sort of thing
 
 
 

It all depends on just which products you are calling a stain. 
If it is a commercial product in the US and it is labeled as being a Stain - think surface product - a wood shade pigment in a binder that is thin enough to let some grain show thru.  It may also include a dye component,  but a commercial product = Stain - is intended to be used on a 1:1 scale object.
This is not an especially favorable product to have in the way of a bonding surface.
 
If it is a true solution.  a pigment - in alcohol or water - or a dry powder that you get into solution -  and a solution does not need mixing or shaking - it is a single unit that requires a physical action to separate -
it goes into the wood - it becomes part of the wood - it does not affect a glue bond.
 
We need to be on the same page as far as the definition of the terms.  
 
Chuck :  a commercial STAIN - would probably have an unfavorable outcome if that is used before bonding.  
A dye has very little surface tension. it runs everywhere.  if you have adjacent planks with different colors dying after bonding and avoiding bleed over would be difficult.
 
OllieS :   if the UK terms a dye as being a stain - you are correct -  but  noun stain  and verb stain  are causing confusion.
 
Chuck :
An oil finish -   does leave layer on a primed surface.
A primer can be a coat of half saturated shellac or half saturated oil.  It fills the pores and voids in the wood.  follow on coats stay on the surface.  Unless the coat is too thick or the oil has deteriorated - it then polymerizes and is a layer - one big single unit.  How thick the layer is depends - on the volume applied - which oil it is - 
I think the thickest is polyurethane -  but then polyurethane is a true synthetic plastic -  it might as well be polyethylene - polyvinyl - polypropylene - etc  a better living thru chemistry sort of thing