uss frolick

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Great Yankee super-ships, to be sure, but they were not unique. Let's give credit where it is due ...
 
The 24-pounder French Sister-frigates La Forte and L'Egyptienne predated Humphries frigates by about a half dozen years. They were of the same dimensions, force (thirty 24-pounders on the main deck) and design (flush decked, about 170 feet on the gundeck) and they were not only very successful, but Forte in particular, gained world fame for commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean, and for defeating a British 74. The Forte's successes and characteristics would have been known to H. when he was drawing up his own first draughts. NMM has L'Egyptienne's draughts, btw.
 
Then there was the slightly smaller, but equally successful  24-pounder Frigates La Resistance and La Vengeance, built circa 1794, each also mounting thirty long 24-pounders ...
 
Humphries was known to have been under a "French Influence" when he designed the big yankee 44's, but most writers have assumed that this was limited to the Continental Frigate South Caroline, ex L'Indienne (spelling?), seen by him in Philadelphia during the war, which was built to French designs in Holland. But Forte was much closer to Constitution, et al, in all respects than the South Carolina was.

Recognizing that these are from a much later era than the original query, here are a couple of snippets from Fincham (1825) - An Introductory Outline of the Practice of Ship-building available via Google Books in PDF (I have not been able to locate an edition with the plates as yet but continue to seek same)
 
Concerning the Keel (Fincham, 1825 – page 9)
 
4. As the keel cannot be obtained in one piece, as to length, several pieces are bolted together lengthways, by what-is called a side or vertical coak scarph; the scarphs being in length about three times the depth of the keel. The coaks are for the support of the bolts, especially to resist the strain when the butts of the scarphs are being caulked; they are one-half the length of the scarph, and their breadth one-third its depth.
.
5. The scarphs are bolted with from six to eight bolts; eight, from frigates upwards, and six to smaller vessels: half of the bolts are driven from each lip side, with a ring upon the head, and clenched upon a ring on the opposite side.
 .
6. The French and most other nations have flat or horizontal scarphs; but as these scarphs tend to weaken the keel, in the direction in which it is most subject to strain, more than the side scarphs, the English mode is preferable; for the keel bends vertically, which brings a tension on the upper or lower fibres, according as hogging or sagging takes place, which fibres are cut off, in a greater number in these scarphs, to let in the lips; and when sagging takes place there is a tendency to open the joint at the lower lip; this opening will cause the scarphs to leak, except a  stopwater be placed at the intersection of the joint of the scarph with the outer edge of the garboard seam, or by increasing the length of the scarphs.
 
Concerning Deck beams (Fincham, 1825 page 70) –
 
169. The beams are distinguished into single pieces, two ( b ), three ( c ), and sometimes four piece beams (f and g): the length of the beams and the timbers that can be provided to make them will determine the number of pieces they are to be composed of, which should always be as few as possible; for the quantity of timber required to make them will be increased with the number of pieces, because the number of scarphs is increased.
 
170. When a beam is made or composed of more than one piece, the pieces are united together with vertical scarphs. If in two pieces ( b ), the scarph is 1/3, if in three pieces ( c )  1/4, and when in four pieces (f and g) 1/5 the length of the beam.
 
171. The scarphs are distinguished into right and left hand scarphs, and are named by the hand that is on the side of the angle, or the side from which the wood to form the scarph is taken off; when at the side end, the face is towards the scarph and looking upon the upper surface; they are bo1ted with from seven to nine bolts; so as to make their distances apart from 16 to 18 inches, placed alternately. about 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 inches from the upper  and lower part of the beams. An equal number of them is driven from each lip side and clenched upon the opposite; in addition to these bolts, one nail is driven into each lip on the opposite edge to the nearest bolt, and one bolt is frequently driven up and down in each lip to prevent its splitting.

A general difference is that the United States, at her founding, had an unlimited timber supply. As a result, we didn't have to scarf a whole bunch of little timbers together, like the British did, to make a larger piece.  For example, we didn't have to make 'anchor-stock' type wales on our ships, like the British did. We just used long straight timbers. If the British had had a similarly nice piece of timber available to make their wales in the same easy way, they would have instead used it for something more important.
 
The first Sloop of War Wasp, for example, built in the Washington Navy Yard in 1806, had a 100 foot keel. It was made of only two pieces scarfed together, one of which was an 84 foot long straight stick of hickory! She also had choice bits of walnut, locust and cedar in her upper frame.

Those are good points, Bart.  I guess I was thinking more of folks like Joshua Humphreys.  In his youth, he was a ship carpenter’s apprentice in Philadelphia, and after the death of the master, Humphreys was given control of the ship yard. His later creation of his own ship yard made him well-known in the colonies as a naval architect, and he was commissioned by the U. S. government in 1776 to build ships in Philadelphia and prepare them for the Revolutionary War.  As I recollect, he did not visit Britain prior to the start of the 1800's, if at all.
 
Many of the New England ship builders actually had closer ties to French influence (Canadian influence) and Irish than strict British practice.  In fact, when you look at ship yards such as Portsmouth NH while the builders had British ancestry, they had been in New Hampshire since the mid 1600's - whatever influence came from Britain would have been long since diluted by the local maritime environment and nature of the fisheries and mercantile activities from those regions. See (for example) Preble's History of the United States Navy-yard, Portsmouth, N. H. (1892). 
 
In the Historical Society records for this region, the early permanent settlers of this part of Maine were from Massachusetts - and had been there for many years. The records on ship builders I have seen so far are for locally trained folks - they started building their own boats for fishing (patterned after the French, Portuguese, Spanish and British vessels in the  Newfoundland/Bay of Fundy fisheries) but to their own preference.  These evolved into privateers and merchant vessels in response to market pressures (for lack of a better phrase).  While there were similarities to boats built in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, they also had some unique characteristics that set them apart.

A general difference is that the United States, at her founding, had an unlimited timber supply. As a result, we didn't have to scarf a whole bunch of little timbers together, like the British did, to make a larger piece.  For example, we didn't have to make 'anchor-stock' type wales on our ships, like the British did. We just used long straight timbers. If the British had had a similarly nice piece of timber available to make their wales in the same easy way, they would have instead used it for something more important.
 
The first Sloop of War Wasp, for example, built in the Washington Navy Yard in 1806, had a 100 foot keel. It was made of only two pieces scarfed together, one of which was an 84 foot long straight stick of hickory! She also had choice bits of walnut, locust and cedar in her upper frame.

Sounds like a great book! I'll definitely be picking one up ... 

Captain Blakeley and the Wasp: The Cruise of 1814
 
Stephen W.  H. Duffy
Hardcover: 348 pages including Index, extensive Notes and Bibliography.
Publisher: US Naval Institute Press (2001)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1557501769
 
In celebration of the 200th anniversary of the start of his historic, and ill fated, cruise, it is my honor to present to you a brief review of a narrative of Captain Johnston Blakeley's career in the early American navy, culminating in one of the greatest raiding cruises every undertaken.
 
There are many tales of the accomplishments of America’s young navy during the War of 1812, and several of the most famous names in American Naval History were blazed into the national consciousness during that conflict.  Although the most successful American naval officer of the War of 1812, Johnston Blakely never enjoyed the fame that he had for so long desired.  His fame was posthumous.
 
In Captain Blakeley and the Wasp: The Cruise of 1814, Stephen Duffy tells, in a readable and coherent fashion, the story of Master Commandant Johnston Blakeley and the highly successful cruise of the American sloop of war Wasp in 1814. Duffy draws on archival information from numerous institutions to introduce the reader to the young Blakeley, tracing his youth and formative years through to his early years serving under Thomas Truxton on the President and John Rodgers on the John Adams to his command of the brig Enterprise in 1811. Blakeley’s skills and ambition are rewarded – he is sent to Newburyport, Massachusetts to supervise the construction of the Sloop of War Wasp.
 
Duffy demonstrates his passion for detail and accuracy as he chronicles the building of the Wasp and Blakeley's struggles to outfit and crew his new ship, an effort made more difficult by national politics and by rivalries within the Navy. Designed by Naval Constructor William Doughty as a commerce raider, Wasp was rated at 509 tons and 22 guns with a crew of 173.  Blakeley left port on May 1, 1814, at the helm of the newly commissioned Wasp. 
 
Blakeley captured his first prize on June 2, 1814.  Within the following month, the Wasp captured and burned four more prizes.  Blakeley secured his place in American naval history on June 28, 1814.   Blakeley and his crew chased and brought to battle the Royal Navy’s HMS Reindeer, a Cruizer class brig sloop of 18 guns.  One of the hardest fought battles of the war followed, and when it had concluded, Blakeley’s guns had overpowered and reduced the British vessel to a drifting hulk.  Also damaged, Blakeley sailed to L’Orient, France to offload prisoners and seek repairs.  En route, despite the damage incurred during the battle with the Reindeer, the Wasp still captured two more prizes.
 
The Wasp was back at sea by August 27, and Blakeley set course for Gibraltar.  He continued cruising successfully throughout the fall, even winning a battle over the HMS Avon.  As news of Blakeley’s success filtered back to the United States in October and early November, he became a hero, and Congress promoted him to Captain on November 24.  Meanwhile, the Wasp’s return was long overdue, and rumors swirled concerning the ship’s fate.  The British never made claims to sinking the ship, but the Wasp vanished somewhere on the Atlantic, possibly foundering in a gale.  The last confirmed sighting was by a Swedish crew on the Adonis.  They saw the Wasp on October 9, 1814, some 225 miles southwest of Madeira.
 
Duffy is able to provide a cogent and informative interpretation of the available archival records, and brings Blakeley to life as a tragic hero of his time. Faced with the common constraint imposed on any student of history, Duffy was faced with the paucity of primary source accounts from Blakeley and his close associates, as well as the conflicting accounts in the British and American records.  Duffy was very selective and effective in his use of reasonable speculation about the thoughts of the young officer regarding various situations. Mr. Duffy has succeeded in providing not just a story of a young man who was in the right place with the right ship at the right time, but also presents a well-researched and documented study of a junior officer in the small American navy at the beginning of the 19th Century.
 
 

 

Apparently the crew referred to these as "Spice Boxes" (presumably because they resembled a common household item) and they were commonly included on the larger frigates for the convenience and privacy of the ships officers. It is tough to determine how permanent these were... You'd think they were flimsy screens that were easily removed when clearing for action.  It seems that they might've been more solid fixtures... Captain Stewart ordered them removed prior to the battle with Cyane and Levant to give better clearance for the forward gun crews.  They were not reassembled after the battle - probably because they were removed with an axe. On the cruise home the British officers began to grumble and get very surly about the lack of private facilities for the gentleman.  (Apparently the were used to having these on Guerriere) They felt that it was very undignified to have to relieve themselves using the leeward channels like common sailors.  One of the American Lieutenants finally got fed up and remarked loudly to one of them something to the effect that the prisoners were well positioned to attest that American officers cared more about their gunnery than about their round houses... Presumably that ended the trouble.
 
Here is my representation:
 

 

 
A fun detail that will get buried once my spar deck is in place.
 
Evan

The Guerriere had a pair of these structures fixed just forward of the number-one main deck gun. In order that they could use the bridle port as a chase port without having to tear the closet down every time they cleared for action, the dockyard fitted an extra pair of long French 18-pounders (21-pounders English) to be permanently fixed in the bridle ports. This is how the Guerriere mounted thirty long 18's on her main deck. But there must have been a lot of room between the two ports, since in most French or English frigates, there would not have been enough room to work the guns, without collisions, let alone room for the fixed closets between them.
 
Oh, I wish someone would find the Guerriere draughts!!!

The Constitution museum publishes a blog at http://usscm.blogspot.com/
 
One of the more recent posts (January 2014) discusses the "facilities" available aboard the Connie.  The following is extracted from their blog post:
 
Frigates typically carried two “round houses” forward on the gundeck.  These structures, consisting of wooden half cylindrical screens erected against the ship’s side provided a sheltered place to do one’s business.
 

 
A detail from a ca. 1817-1820 plan of USS United States' decks by Charles Ware.  The red arrow points to the starboard round house.
 
Before Constitution’s battle with HMS Levant and HMS Cyane, the ship’s crew removed the round houses to “afford room to work the forward deck guns in action.”  According to Chaplain Assheton Humphreys the removal of the “spice boxes”, as the crew called them, forced the officers “to make the chains [the narrow platforms on the side of the ship to which the shrouds were attached] the scene of their profane rites,” or stealthily slip into the quarter galleries.

Also the following:
 
"The Republics Private Navy: The American Privateering Business as Practiced by Baltimore during the War of 1812" by Jerome R. Garitee, Mystic Seaport, Wesleyan University Press, 1977.
 
"Tidewater Triumph: The Development and Worldwide Success of the Chesapeake Bay Pilot Schooner." by Goeffrey M. Footner. Tidewater Press Centerville, MD, 1998.
 
As far as plans are concerned, Chapelle's "The Search for Speed Under Sail" is the best.

For more academic reading, there is Carl E. Swanson - Privateering in Early America International Journal of Maritime History December 1989 1: 253-278, http://ijh.sagepub.com/content/1/2/253.citation
 
Dan Conlin - Privateer Entrepot: Commercial Militarization in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, 1793-1805 The Northern Mariner/Le Marin du nord, VIII, No. 2 (April 1998), 21-38. http://www.cnrs-scrn.org/northern_mariner/indices/index_vol_8_e.html
 
 

Since my last post, I was able to contact and correspond with a former Long Beach Naval Shipyard project manager who was involved with the final fitting of radar and electronics aboard USS NEW JERSEY prior to her Sept. 1968 departure for WesPac. Richard Landgraff and I have been erstwhile correspondents/battleship enthusiasts since the 80’s and have now re-established contact after quite a few years of absence. Richard spent well over 30 years at LBNSYD working on the IOWAs through the years as the needs of the Navy changed and the ships were in service and out. Currently he is involved with the USS IOWA Museum located at the L.A. Ports.

After an exchange of photos and a critique of my (2nd) mast assembly, Richard made a few observations which I have amended this week:

1) The foremast on NEW JERSEY was removed in 1967 at Philadelphia NSYD and replaced with a 36” diameter lower pole. The current available plans of NJ of this time period do not show the mast correctly. They also show the mast with a starboard side vertical ladder and this is also incorrect. The ladder is mounted on the front face of the mast; I now have photo proof of this thanks to Richard. I have removed the mast from the conning tower, modified (enlarged) the two mast support brackets and replaced (modified) the lower mast pole to achieve the required diameter ( 3/16” @ 1:200 scale) or as near to it as I could make it without major damage to the rest of the assembly. Historical Note - the original IOWA class foremasts were designed to be lowered in order for the ships to pass under the Brooklyn Bridge in New York harbor. If you compare these photos with the prior photos posted a week or so ago you will see the differences in the mast structure. I've also added the wire rope stabilizing stays on either side of the mast extending to the rear of the ECM equipment houses.
 
2) The forward tubular bracing I made for the lowest radar platform is not correct and was modified per Richard's directions to more closely resemble the actual bracing. In addition, side tube bracing that was omitted from the after brace was added. These corrections are not all that evident in my photos below.
 
In addition to the technical knowledge I have learned this week, Richard has also provided me with other snippets of battleship history (namely involving NJ) that probably no one else is aware of. This kind of first-hand lore is slowly but surely disappearing as those associated with battleships and their construction/modification take their final shore leave. I am keeping these items of lore in a separate file as they are related to me in order to hopefully preserve these stories.

One item of interest that I will share is that any photos you see of NEW JERSEY in her late 60's configuration with her 40mm gun tubs up forward of Turret 1 are PRE-deployment photos. Those tubs were removed the day I arrived on board in Sept. 1968 and Richard was supervising the yard crew removing those tubs. We left a couple days later for Westpac.

The photos show the new mast structure with only touch-up painting left to be complete. I will begin work on the 08 Level Conning Station and ULQ-6 antenna arrays next week.
 
Hopefully, I'll be able to "retain" Richard as my own "Dreadnaught Consultant" on this project since his 1st hand knowledge of this ship is so extensive.
 
Hank

As promised, here are 2 period engravings showing the United States with the single dolphin striker.
 

 
The next is from a watercolor by Gunner William H. Myers, of USS Cyane, showing the Squadron's ships sailing in line abreast, 1842-43.
Ships are (from left to right): USS United States, USS Cyane, USS Saint Louis, USS Yorktown and USS Shark.

Copied from Journal of a Cruise on the USS Cyane, 1842-1843, by William H. Myers.
 

 
Both pictures were found at the US Navy History and Heritage Command website at http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-u/u-states.htm
 
The image below is from the Chesapeake Mill website at http://www.chesapeakemill.co.uk/history.html
 

 
Hope these help!

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