uss frolick

All Feldman's numbers are guesses, made either by him, or the curator at the time of the Naval Academy. If you don't know the scale of the original model, and you don't know a single dimension of the real brig, then all you have to play with, is proportions, and you have to guess.
 
The conversion specifically of the Enterprize, at least, from a schooner into a brig, is shown in the correspondence of the time to have been made by her 1811-13 commander, the soon-to-be-famous Lieutenant Johnston Blakeley, over the objections of Tingey and others. As Blakeley explained to the Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton, wanted a more stable gun platform.  In this, he was successful.
 
At this point, I must make a shameless plug for my book, "Blakeley and the Wasp", Naval Institute Press, 2001. I have two chapters on the Enterprize when JB had her.

That's interesting about the Santee's new stern frames too. It mean that they took a lesson from the Adams lengthening and made the new midship section not so far aft along in the hull. The Portsmouth (NH) papers noted only that in 1855 Santee "was remodeled and her prow was made sharper".

Excellent!
 
As they say in Alabama, "Stop your fiddlin', and start your widdlin."

Option One: Lengthening a ship can really only be done relatively EASILY amidships, where the task at hand is making a bunch of copies of the midship frame that would not interfere with the existing lines. This was done to the Adams frigate, in the extreme, but by creating such a long midships 'flat', it altered the ebb of the water around the hull so badly, that it created a 'chatter' at the rudder that it wore out the pintles and gudgeons after only a couple years.
 
Since the Enterprize had to be so completely rebuilt after only a half dozen years since her visit to the Mediterranean dockyard, I suspect that the midships keel splice was equally as rotten as the majority of the new frames that had to be replaced. I suspect that they pulled out the keel splice and replaced it with a longer splice. I don't think that they would have added a eight feet midship keel splice in 1804, and then added a second five foot splice in 1811 right next to it. That would have been structurally unsound in the dangerous extreme.
 
Option 2: However, in the 1850s, the navy lengthened the Frigates Santee and Sabine by replacing everything forward of the midships frame, including the keel, and re-lofting the lines to a new forward frame design. This was done in anticipation of a steam conversion which never came. If this was the method employed on the Enterprize, then it would have been more difficult, requiring a complete redrawing of her plans. But since the US Navy didn't even have plans in 1811 to 'redraw' (by their own admission) they would have had to take the lines off first, in order to have something in which to alter. So they might have just completely rebuilt her lines to a whole new set of plans, making use of the after keel and those floor timber which they could make fit.

Option One: Lengthening a ship can really only be done relatively EASILY amidships, where the task at hand is making a bunch of copies of the midship frame that would not interfere with the existing lines. This was done to the Adams frigate, in the extreme, but by creating such a long midships 'flat', it altered the ebb of the water around the hull so badly, that it created a 'chatter' at the rudder that it wore out the pintles and gudgeons after only a couple years.
 
Since the Enterprize had to be so completely rebuilt after only a half dozen years since her visit to the Mediterranean dockyard, I suspect that the midships keel splice was equally as rotten as the majority of the new frames that had to be replaced. I suspect that they pulled out the keel splice and replaced it with a longer splice. I don't think that they would have added a eight feet midship keel splice in 1804, and then added a second five foot splice in 1811 right next to it. That would have been structurally unsound in the dangerous extreme.
 
Option 2: However, in the 1850s, the navy lengthened the Frigates Santee and Sabine by replacing everything forward of the midships frame, including the keel, and re-lofting the lines to a new forward frame design. This was done in anticipation of a steam conversion which never came. If this was the method employed on the Enterprize, then it would have been more difficult, requiring a complete redrawing of her plans. But since the US Navy didn't even have plans in 1811 to 'redraw' (by their own admission) they would have had to take the lines off first, in order to have something in which to alter. So they might have just completely rebuilt her lines to a whole new set of plans, making use of the after keel and those floor timber which they could make fit.

Option One: Lengthening a ship can really only be done relatively EASILY amidships, where the task at hand is making a bunch of copies of the midship frame that would not interfere with the existing lines. This was done to the Adams frigate, in the extreme, but by creating such a long midships 'flat', it altered the ebb of the water around the hull so badly, that it created a 'chatter' at the rudder that it wore out the pintles and gudgeons after only a couple years.
 
Since the Enterprize had to be so completely rebuilt after only a half dozen years since her visit to the Mediterranean dockyard, I suspect that the midships keel splice was equally as rotten as the majority of the new frames that had to be replaced. I suspect that they pulled out the keel splice and replaced it with a longer splice. I don't think that they would have added a eight feet midship keel splice in 1804, and then added a second five foot splice in 1811 right next to it. That would have been structurally unsound in the dangerous extreme.
 
Option 2: However, in the 1850s, the navy lengthened the Frigates Santee and Sabine by replacing everything forward of the midships frame, including the keel, and re-lofting the lines to a new forward frame design. This was done in anticipation of a steam conversion which never came. If this was the method employed on the Enterprize, then it would have been more difficult, requiring a complete redrawing of her plans. But since the US Navy didn't even have plans in 1811 to 'redraw' (by their own admission) they would have had to take the lines off first, in order to have something in which to alter. So they might have just completely rebuilt her lines to a whole new set of plans, making use of the after keel and those floor timber which they could make fit.

Actually, no, he was referring to a refit at the Washington Naval Yard between October 1811 and the beginning of May 1812, where Enterprise was taken out of the water, given the length increase, and rerigged as a brig. (“Soon after the late war commenced”, as in right at the start of the War of 1812) So just once. Her keel length before that date was the same as when she was launched.
 
William James was a very pro-British lawyer and his work was focused on showing that the RN didn’t really “lose” any of the single-ship duels of the War of 1812, because the American ships always outclassed their opponents in size, crew, and firepower (Constitution, United States, Wasp, Hornet, etc). He easily would have gone with the American measurements if it made them look even bigger.
 
His numbers for Enterprise were very accurate though. As I mentioned in that post, they took a memorandum book from USS Chesapeake when she was captured. In it were full dimensions (including full spar and sail dimensions!) for at least Constitution, President, Chesapeake, and the Enterprise as a schooner (obviously wasn’t updated after her 1812 refit when she was turned into a brig). James mentions as proof of the book’s accuracy that President and Chesapeake’s numbers were checked against the captured warships. I think that this book, if it survives, could be invaluable. I did find reference to a signal book from Chesapeake in the British archives, which this could have come from, or it might be a different book that might be collecting dust somewhere.
 
The reason he brought up Nautilus is the brig was laid up in Deptford (as HMS Emulous) from 1816 to 1817, while he was writing this. He was using the exact gunport spacing between two of her ports, either measuring her himself or going from measurements taken off of her during that time laid up and added that to the known length of Enterprise from the memorandum book (knowing that a gunport was added to each side). It’s possible her lines were taken then too. She was probably closest to Enterprise as-built anyway, being a fellow Baltimore Clipper schooner from the same time period before 1800 as well as possibly being built by the same man (Henry Spencer).

Nobody knows how big the Fair American was. There is no scale on the model and no dimensions survive. The old Modelshipways kit guessed at the scale of the model with their solid hull kit and thought 3/16th on an inch was right. When they went over to the POB kit, they changed the scale to 1/4" sclae, even though the model was the same size! I think she was larger and the earlier 3/16th of an inch was closer to the truth.
 
The model was thought to have been in 3/8 inch scale. So MS took the likes off, reduced the plans by half, and called it 3/16 scale. Later, for some unclear reason, they determined that the model was instead in 1/2 inch scale, so they relabeled the kit as 1/4th. I think she was closer to 100 feet on deck than 70-ish, so IMHO, MS got it right the first time.

You are correct - James was a British writer providing "their side" of the story.  HOWEVER - factually, in terms of vessel dimensions, rigs, and (usually) weight of iron (that is, number and sizes of guns) he was fairly accurate considering the references he used (plus or minus a foot here a tun there, but very accurate on the British vessels).
 
His logic seems reasonable - though perhaps skewed.  He has used the Nautilus as his model (perhaps also for the length), and then added her 8' 6" for adding an additional port.  If the the length for the Nautilus is extended 8' 6", you get about 96 feet.  HOWEVER - we must always be cognizant of inconsistencies in the manner in which ships were measured in different nations at different times.  There is a very good chance that what appears to be a major difference is much less when those vagaries are considered.
 
Here are the dimensions given by Dudley Knox (editor) 1945. Register of Officer Personnel United States Navy and Marine Corps and Ships’ Data 1801–1807. Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.ibiblio.org/anrs/docs/E/E3/nd_barbarywars_register_shipdata.pdf.
 
Note there is no reference to any rebuild in Venice in his narrative.  For reference, I have also provided the information on the Nautilus.
 

Remember also, that not all heavier vessels pursuing you are behind you, like the classic motorboat chase in From Russia With Love ("Heave too, Mr.Bond! Spectre Three: You're firing too close!").
 
They only have to be to windward of you, most likely on your weather quarter where the stern ports are of no use. It seems that a recoiling gun could cut your tiller rope. In the heavier American sloops, like the Wasp and Hornet, the iron goose-necked tiller and its tackle were below in the great cabin, so perhaps the Enterprize was retrofitted with this device by 1813.

Remember also, that not all heavier vessels pursuing you are behind you, like the classic motorboat chase in From Russia With Love ("Heave too, Mr.Bond! Spectre Three: You're firing too close!").
 
They only have to be to windward of you, most likely on your weather quarter where the stern ports are of no use. It seems that a recoiling gun could cut your tiller rope. In the heavier American sloops, like the Wasp and Hornet, the iron goose-necked tiller and its tackle were below in the great cabin, so perhaps the Enterprize was retrofitted with this device by 1813.

Taken from "A Full and Correct Account of the Chief Naval Occurrences of the Late War Between Great Britain and the United States of America" by William James.
 
 
The MS Memorandum book is described earlier in the book. It was captured by the RN when they took the Chesapeake and had dimensions for multiple ships. It might still exist in the British archives.

Here's a nice example from Syren though.  Beautiful work 

Remember, there's a big tiller with all its relieving tackle covering the deck aft the wheel.

Robinson said that he wanted to lengthen her, implying that he didn't. The lengthening must have happened in 1811. An additional 7.5 feet is substantial.
 
Dumb question: Did Salvini use the English-measure foot or the slightly longer French foot?
 
Carvings unknown. Probably a simple billet-head forward, and minimal astern: Stars -  maybe a small eagle. All that we know about her stern, is that just an hour before they fought the Boxer in 1813, Burrows decided to chop away a section of it so that one of his nine-pounders could be run out aft, just in case he had to flee a stronger force. (A move which disheartened the men, according to a court martial held for cowardice against Masters Mate William Harper.) So no stern chase ports as re-built.
 
Use similar USS Vixen for general appearance.

Sorry to hear about the lost half hull model.
 
That's interesting what you pointed out about the lengthened section of the Salvini Plan. I didn't see that. 
 
Remember that the American Commander Robinson noted (rather strangely for a letter up the chain of command) that he wished that he could have lengthened her a bit. Perhaps Robinson and Salvini spoke of the idea, and were in full agreement. So maybe Salvini went ahead and copied the Enterprize, lengthened her (on paper, at least) and added all those European fiddly bits that make any Mediterranean naval officer's heart swoon, like a full projecting head, false stern windows, thick carvings and swivel gun posts for and aft.
 
Were I to model the Enterprize, I would take that first plan, remove the lengthened center section and the swivel posts, redraw a simpler head, and space the gun ports to fit the paintings.

Remember, there's a big tiller with all its relieving tackle covering the deck aft the wheel.

Remember, there's a big tiller with all its relieving tackle covering the deck aft the wheel.

Robinson said that he wanted to lengthen her, implying that he didn't. The lengthening must have happened in 1811. An additional 7.5 feet is substantial.
 
Dumb question: Did Salvini use the English-measure foot or the slightly longer French foot?
 
Carvings unknown. Probably a simple billet-head forward, and minimal astern: Stars -  maybe a small eagle. All that we know about her stern, is that just an hour before they fought the Boxer in 1813, Burrows decided to chop away a section of it so that one of his nine-pounders could be run out aft, just in case he had to flee a stronger force. (A move which disheartened the men, according to a court martial held for cowardice against Masters Mate William Harper.) So no stern chase ports as re-built.
 
Use similar USS Vixen for general appearance.

Things that need to be done (but not by me.)
 
1. Some brave soul needs to redraw the lines of the Venice Arsenal brig plans to a common size, and superimpose them over the Chapelle unidentified schooner plans, as well as with those of the US Navy plans of the USS Vixen, a brig that had been intended to have been built to the Enterprize's model. This may lead to a proper identification of the plans. But that darn head on the Venice plans is too large for any American Naval Vessel to have grown during a repair overseas. It would have added way to much weight! No commander would have allowed it. At best, those plans are a design of a proposed new Italian brig BASED PERHAPS on the lines of the Enterprize.
 
2. Take the lines off that half-model and similarly compare them with the above.
 
Now, we may never know any more about the hull form of the Enterprize than what we do right now, but anyone interested in building a model of her has options. Were anyone here commissioned to build a model of her, they could start with Chapelle's unidentified draught and alter it to fit one of the two contemporary watercolors.
 
Both paintings were created by artists renown for their technical accuracy. But the Roux drawing shows the Enterprize with eight broadside ports, while the Baugean drawing shows her with eleven - or at least ten with an armed bridle port. Author Geoffrey Footner dates both paintings from 1806, but only the Baugean print has a date "1806" clearly marked on her. Since neither maritime artist would screw up the number of ports, we must conclude that each represents the schooner at her two stages, before and after her 1804 arsenal rebuild. Since we know that the Enterprize gained an unspecified number of ports as a result of the rebuild during her Venice stay, we must conclude that the Baugean print marked 1806 represents her as "post-repair". The Roux drawing must show her as launched in 1799. This is the opposite conclusion from what Mr. Footner has put forth!
 
Fun fact: The Enterprize also gained a 24-pounder (a medium-Columbiad) pivot gun carriage that was designed to mount over the main hatch in battle, but to be stored in the hold when not in use. In 1812, her then captain Johnston Blakeley mounted the pivot gun and carriage when he sailed down Balize River to attack the 26-gun British Ship sloop HMS Brazen below New Orleans. An untimely hurricane permanently cancelled the fight.

Excellent!
 
As they say in Alabama, "Stop your fiddlin', and start your widdlin."

uss frolick, you are so right. The draughts are from somewhere else. However, the tablature is almost identical in every signifigant respect, so I have to wonder about those nice plans.
 
Venus and the first Justice were very much of a muchness.They should show identical on an overlay. The second Justice (March 1810 devis) was Sane's definitive expression of the fregate de 18. He used the lines of the first Justice, and only tweaked the topsides. The devis of the Pallas class is identical in every respect to the 1810 Justice devis, except for 2-3 lignes in 2 places (2/12-3/12 of a French inch).
 
A French friend sent me a monster plan and the devis, of Armide, a Pallas class laid down before the end of the war, but not launched till 1821. Her tablature, below the 6th ribband, is identical to the plan/tablature of the Justice from the Rochefort draught/devis. Their station plans overlay perfectly.
 
So, as you say, to heck with published draughts. Sane wrote these devis, and some of them have notations in Sane's own hand, so you know it was his work. Don't know where the other plans come from. At this point, I don't care. Going forward.
 
John

Cheers John!
 
I'm not sure why you are comparing the body lines of the La Venus and the La Justice, two different ships, and expecting them to line up, even imperfectly. I've looked at so many draughts of Sane designed frigates over the years, that were supposedly sister-ships, and their outboard profiles don't even look remotely alike. Visually, it's almost like every French frigate is a one-off! If I were you, I would examine one of the MANY later British Admiralty as-actually-built draughts of Sane designed ships, and not one of the first earliest frigates like Venus.
 
And I don't believe that every ship attributed to Sane was actually designed by him. The classic example is La Renomme of 1806, later HMS Java, "said" to have been designed by Joel Sane in the records. Although her specific draughts do not survive, there is a surviving contemporary rigged model of La Renomme in the Musee de la Marine. Photographs of her bow-on show a midship section shape drastically different from Sane's classic, French apple-body. Instead, it shows a frigate more attributable to Forfait with the long "V-shape" dead-rise. (Forgive my French spelling throughout.) As it turns out, Forfait built many ships in the Nantes region - where Renomme/Java was built - and the draught of one frigate in particular from the NMM, known to have been a Forfait designed frigate, bears a striking resemblance to the model, and even includes two features unique to only that model and not seen on other draughts.
 
It's almost like since Sane designed so many ships of all types - hundreds - that whenever a question arose later on about who designed the mysterious "frigate X", about whom the historical records are at best fuzzy, the clerks might have said, "Uh, I don't know. The probability is high that Sane designed her."

Cheers John!
 
I'm not sure why you are comparing the body lines of the La Venus and the La Justice, two different ships, and expecting them to line up, even imperfectly. I've looked at so many draughts of Sane designed frigates over the years, that were supposedly sister-ships, and their outboard profiles don't even look remotely alike. Visually, it's almost like every French frigate is a one-off! If I were you, I would examine one of the MANY later British Admiralty as-actually-built draughts of Sane designed ships, and not one of the first earliest frigates like Venus.
 
And I don't believe that every ship attributed to Sane was actually designed by him. The classic example is La Renomme of 1806, later HMS Java, "said" to have been designed by Joel Sane in the records. Although her specific draughts do not survive, there is a surviving contemporary rigged model of La Renomme in the Musee de la Marine. Photographs of her bow-on show a midship section shape drastically different from Sane's classic, French apple-body. Instead, it shows a frigate more attributable to Forfait with the long "V-shape" dead-rise. (Forgive my French spelling throughout.) As it turns out, Forfait built many ships in the Nantes region - where Renomme/Java was built - and the draught of one frigate in particular from the NMM, known to have been a Forfait designed frigate, bears a striking resemblance to the model, and even includes two features unique to only that model and not seen on other draughts.
 
It's almost like since Sane designed so many ships of all types - hundreds - that whenever a question arose later on about who designed the mysterious "frigate X", about whom the historical records are at best fuzzy, the clerks might have said, "Uh, I don't know. The probability is high that Sane designed her."

I think you've entered the "when in doubt, flip a coin" zone, Charlie.   Ok.. exclude the Syren.