uss frolick

Thought I had one more painting of the United States.  This one, painted by Thomas Buttersworth, Jr c. 1813, shows the United States and HMS Macedonian battle. Note the single dolphin striker on the United States (right side of painting).   It is on display at the Penobscot Marine Museum in Searsport, ME.
 

 
 

Greetings! I too am a history buff, and my name is also Steve!
 
The USF United States did have a formal roundhouse with doubled lights and galleries when launched in 1798, but lost all outboard traces of them after her pre-War-of-1812 rebuild, or possibly sooner. A have a set of deck plans circa 1820, drawn by Charles Ware, the Sail Maker of the Boston Navy Yard, which shows quarter-round closets on the open spar deck where the entrance to the upper privies would have been. But that was all that remained. I guess the officers of the watch refused to give up their traditional luxuries. But it must have been cramped.
 
There is a contemporary woodcut, circa 1813, of the United States and her prize HMS Macedonian returning home, that shows her with seven real windows across her stern, with partial upper half windows in the back of her quarter galleries at the gun-deck level. Frigates normally did not have windows on the back of the quarter galleries, only fake ones. Those eighth and ninth partial windows may also be a remnant of the more complicated doubled gallery structure. (For reasons that I won't go into now, i have high confidence in the accuracy of that engraving.)
 
The approaching USS Wasp (II) was identified by the British officers of HMS Reindeer in 1814 as an American by her white stripe, the "whiteness" of her sails", and her double dolphin striker, according to testimony at their court martial.
 
Then Naval Constructor Josiah Fox drew a picture of the dolphin striker of his Wasp (I) in 1806, along with all her other spars, and I believe she was of the doubled variety. I'll have to check.
 
The British officers of HM Frigate Macedonian testified that the reason that they stayed out of Carronade range of the USS United States during the initial stage of the battle was because Captain Cardin thought his foe was the almost entirely Carronade-armed USS Essex. So if the Essex had a characteristic set of doubles, then maybe the United States had them too.

If you go, the Naval Academy Museum has just acquired a contemporary Cruiser class model, fully rigged. Can't get much better than that, except that it's missing the wheel and capstan. Why? The new ivory import restrictions in the US prohibited its entry, even though it was clearly antique ivory! So, those parts had to be stripped off before it left England. These new regulations affect musicians (their instrument bows, for example). They don't dare go abroad to play now, because their instruments won't be allowed back into the USA.

Thank you sirs but your comments are inflated.
I tried another setup with led lights.

I'm starting to lean toward HMS Grasshopper. I'm saying this based on the brig Irene (ex-Grasshopper) model in the Naval Academy Museum, which shows both the fore and aft platforms. I doubt the Batavians would have gone to the trouble of adding those after her capture...
 
I forget who built that beautiful model, but I'm assuming they did their homework. I'll need to stop back in there and get some better photos next time I'm down that way. 
 
 

Joe:
Of those you mention I cannot confirm that any of them had the aft platform. The forward platform is mentioned in the accounts of the actions for Frolic, Peacock, Epervier, Reindeer and Penguin. I had made an assumption that the brigs with a forward platform also had the aft platform but am coming to realize that may not be true. Of course, Epervier could be modeled as either Royal Navy or US Navy. In the US Navy Epervier was armed with 18 x 32 pounder carronades. Her appearance in the US Navy is documented in Howard I Chapelle's The History of the American Sailing Navy. Please review the armaments as listed in the individual articles, they varied widely, e.g. Peacock and Reindeer were armed with 16 x 24 pounder carronades instead of the 32s and Epervier when captured had 2 x 18 pounder boat guns instead of the 6 pounder cannons.
Good luck

Reindeer and Frolic both had the fore platforms, as mention is specifically made of them having had their 12-pounder launch carronades mounted on them during their famous actions.

I don't think there are any rules to the class, HMS Pelorus is a classic example.  Initially brig rigged, she was converted to ship rig (a la Snake) in 1826.  The pictures below clearly show both fore and aft platforms on her in 1840 (back brig rigged!).  Having studied my own build at length during building (!!) the fore and aft platforms seems so be a big improvement (additional clear deck space for and aft) that I can't believe any ship wouldn't add.
 
It  would probably make more sense to buy the Snake kit and adjust for the brig rig than vice-versa, but either would work.  The head rail detailing is a little different on each kit.
 

11:40 PM Ships time, 102 years ago today, April 14, 1912. 
 
 
Allan

A short video that is a basic and essential for the way that I've come to do things...
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEo_clQ0-nA
 
Paul

Mark, it looks like you got La Venus. 

Both of books are excellent but do not expect that either one shows the ship exactly as it is today or at Trafalgar. You will need to use multiple sources and even then make a couple of choices. The focsle bulkwarks are one of the most contentious issues. The carvings on the taffrail are another.
 
Not to wax too poetic. But a real wooden ship is a living thing. It changes continously if slowly over time. These national treasures that are preserved for hundreds of years also reflect the vision of thier successive caretakes over the years
 
Good luck and please post picture of the results

A small update. I've added another batch of guns at the aft end of the gun deck. They were made and rigged exactly like the first batch at the fore end. Since I really hate repetitive tasks, there will be no more guns for a while. Next, I will do the aft end of the quarter deck framing, and then likely will do some work on the hull exterior before returning to more guns.
 
Bob

Then again, can we actually trust midshipman Dillon's account? He says that at times the lower deck 'was at times so completely filled with smoke', so how can we be sure the guns 'nearly kicked the upper deck beams' as he says?
 
With the 'excitement' of battle, may he not be 'guilding the lily' somewhat in his account – which we can put down to the exuberance of youth? Also, how much later after the battle did he record this – long enough for him to add a little embellishment perhaps?
 
Of course, he may be telling the truth – but I'm not 100% convinced.

Thanks so much Hamilton.
 
I've now completed the framing of the forecastle deck. This is a total departure from the kit construction which calls for only the beams to be installed. I went with beams, carlings, ledges and knees. All of the parts were made from boxwood, except the lodging knees which were cut from a sheet of cherry of the appropriate thickness, which I happened to have on hand (I had no boxwood sheet of that size). 
 
Owing to the small size of the parts and the cuts needed to be made, I decided to build up the deck framing in sections off the model and then install the completed sections and connect them in place on the model. This was a method that I had tried successfully on my Triton cross-section and I am pleased with the results here, as well. I'm hoping that similar results can be obtained on the larger sections of deck framing for the quarter deck and midship areas. Wipe-on Poly was used to finish the framing.
 
Prior to installing the deck framing, I mounted the stove on its previously mounted base.
 
I still haven't decided how much deck planking will be used, although i'm sure that it will not totally cover the framing. Right now , I'm thinking of using very little planking, at least in this area. I can defer that choice until the rest of the gun deck fittings are done and the remaining upper deck framing is in place. The remainder of the gun carriages have arrived from the Lumberyard and I'm now working on the next batch of guns to be installed.
 
The last photo is a current full profile shot , since Nigel has pointed out that I haven't posted one in quite a while.
 
Bob

Hi,
 
I received my reviewers copy yesterday and the book looks very promising. This is supposed to be book one of three on the development and history of the British Sloop.  Book one traces the development of small craft into the design and purpose of the sloops that most of us know of as the work horses of the last quarter of the 18th century. This volume ends at 1763.
First glance says this is going to be a very good series. I will have a more in depth review at a later date.
 
Thanks,
 
Bob Friedman

Bill,
 
Although not "authorized" to speak on ME's behalf I'm comfortable in saying that they would honor requests for replacement parts.
The method of requesting/receiving or distribution of them is totally unknown to me.
 
Decisions on masting & rigging are down the road a bit.
 
After seeing the work Bob is doing and having developed the proto-type I've always known that the kit was capable of producing an attractive model. It's not an "easy" build and I've said that throughout but this has been something totally different.
 
The problems have at times been any and all of frustrating, embarrassing, maddening and confusing (to name a few).
 
I pray this is the end of it.
 
Sam

I was about to post progress on my Vanguard in February of last year but found your site had crashed. Sad. Have been working diligently on the model this winter and have completed up to the adding of the Poop deck. After that will be the bow area then the three launches, the deck railings, and the chain plates and channels. I have been using a Bob Hunt practicum on building the Vanguard and have found it to be very useful. Here are a couple of pictures to show the ship's progress so far. Will try to add more as more work is completed. Glad to see the site is back up and running.

Hi Pat
 
Afraid I don't have a bunch of time to search out my references so I'm going from memory here but regardless I think this is one of those cases where you need to put yourself in the shoes of the people at the time and apply the basic rule, 'simple & functional' then decorate.
 
The cat heads would have been just long enough to keep the largest anchor clear of the hull, the longer it is the greater the danger sending men out there, life might have been cheaper then than now but you didn't throw away good seamen. Also, when you then haul the anchor up to the billboards you don't want to be pulling it into the hull as well as lifting it, ships were hard work, you don't want to make it harder.
 
The whisker booms were designed to spread the jibboom stays but they needed to be kept in line, if there was any upward or downward force on the whisker it would fold up as soon as you started taking up on the shrouds. So by placing the shrouds in place without the whisker and laying the whisker under or on top of the shrouds as appropriate will give you the line required, then push the shrouds out along that line. Basically you need to push them out to enough to clear any headwork, but if that doesn't give you enough side support to the jibboom you may need to go a little further, other warships of the period will give you an idea of what the navy considered an adequate angle.
 
As you pointed out merchant ships and naval ships were rigged with different criteria, man power, redundancy, weight considerations were all quite different so while the physics may be the same the arrangement may not be.
 
I do have a couple of books on rigging warships at home which I'll look at tonight and see if there's anything there that might help you but those books all relate to pure sailing ships 1750-1820 so there are likely differences to a later steamer with auxiliary sails.
 
BTW have you considered showing your research to Gary Renshaw at Modellers Shipyard, he may be interested in including it in his Colonial Ship series of model kits. I'm a little afraid if you only give it to the AWM it will disappear into their archives never to be seen again, much better to spread 'the word' first then give the material to a safe place and tell everyone where it is.
 
Not really surprised by the Navy Heritage Centre disinterest, the Australian military seem to think that they popped into existance in their modern form, they don't acknowledge their early heritage.
 
Mark D

I've been continuing with work on the bow end of the gun deck. Completed and installed are the fore jeer bitts and the fore topsail sheet bitts. These were made from boxwood strip with the sheaves "faked" in the same way that I did the bulwark sheaves ( two drilled holes with a scored line between them, blackened with a marker). I also made and installed the fore mast wedges. This was done with a single piece with the wedge lines marked in.
 
I then made up the base for the stove. This was done as discussed in the various recent posts. A metal base plate resting on wooden beams, set in a metal tray with a shallow lip. The parts were made of boxwood, with the beams left natural and the metal parts painted black. This was installed but the stove was stlll left off, although it's position, like that of the bitts , was determined by temporary fitting of the forecastle deck beams.
 
Lastly, I ran the anchor cable from the hawse holes back along the deck and around the riding bitts.With the exception of mounting the stove, this concluded the work under the forecastle deck. I am now working on the forecastle deck framing and will finish that before moving back along the gun deck.
 
By the way, I've noticed that some of the earlier posted photos in the log have now disappeared. Does anyone know how to retrieve them?
 
Bob
 
 
 
 
 

UPDATE COMING END OF THIS WEEK AFTER DISCUSSION WITH EXPO
 
SAM

NO
 
Sam

Let's not forget that Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin were aboard the Lively!
 
( ... At least in Patrick O'Brien's "Post Captain" they were.)

Joss I am looking forward to your work. These vessels were so dynamic in the evolution of ship design that the Amphion is definitely worth the attention you are giving it. I think this holds for all the nations involved in the maritime trade that designed and built their own frigates; of course as usual much of the fun is in the research.

I have the NMM draughts of Medea, as fitted out as Cochrane's HMS Imperieuse. She is very beautiful. Her carvings (presumably her new British carvings) are drawn separately in half inch scale. They are IMHO too intricate, with all their fine, swirling 'vine-ery' and 'rope-ery', to have been drawn in 1/4 inch scale. I suspect this is why the carvings had vanished from the plans at around this time.