uss frolick

I used to use wood from a guava tree.  It's pretty much like apple wood;  good to work with and no grain.   

On all flushed deck American corvettes like the Wasp, Peacock, Frolick, Argus, Hornet, etc., all the guns were, by definition, open to the elements. Yet in the US Navy, at least, all spar-deck gun-ports were fitted with "Half Lids and Bucklers", so called. These were split ports that fit around the gun barrel, or in this case, the carronade barrels. The lower halves dropped down on hinges, while the upper halves were completely removed inboard and held in place with two pair of sliding bolts on either side. On American frigates of 1812, the gun-deck ports were fitted with them too. Only after the war, did the upper halves of the gun-deck ports get hinged upwards (as is currently shown on the Constitution.) At no time did American frigates, or sloops of war, ever have full, one-piece upward hinged gun-ports like the Victory has. Even during the Revolution, the Continental frigate Confederacy was noted as having been fitted with half lids and bucklers. The was the French naval practice at the time.

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-buried-boat-revolution-7751e21d35d49dfe27d255ec46048403
 

Congress had not yet authorized the rank of 'Admiral', so 'Commodore was the highest honor the navy could legally bestow upon a senior officer. The highest seniority belonged to John Rogers, a man ironically with no notable naval victories to his name.

Congress had not yet authorized the rank of 'Admiral', so 'Commodore was the highest honor the navy could legally bestow upon a senior officer. The highest seniority belonged to John Rogers, a man ironically with no notable naval victories to his name.

Hull is now in primer so I can see all the "goobers" and take care of them.  At the moment, I'm fitting out the main deck level of the forecastle as I won't be able to access that area once the raised forecastle deck is fitted.  

Oh, and I just remembered: I believe the canon had an 'eye' for the breach rope not shown on the drawings above!
 
Here are a drawing and a painting by the famous marine painter C. W. Eckersberg, showing (likely) this pattern of short 18 pounder canon on the deck of the corvette Najaden:
 

 
BR
TJM

Scale wetness? It is a ship after all ...

Scale wetness? It is a ship after all ...

I can't read it without subscribing to the Bangor Daily News. Funny how the story is blurred out, but the adds aren't ... 😆

Indeed an excellent article (and easy to find online) — many thanks, Chapman. In a convenient, compact way, it provides information that creates the necessary historical context for this issue. I have also refreshed myself with the content of the related section in The 32-gun Frigate Essex (1799) by Portia Takakjian, published 1990, however, it looks like, that in terms of today's state of knowledge regarding the design methods employed by early American designers, the statement just made by Brewington in his 1948 paper is in fact still relevant:
 

 
 

Wayne, this is an impressive and useful list, which would deserve the occasional update. I appreciate that your bibliography is tilted toward the great days of sail, say up to the mid-19th century; and that it's just a listing from your own personal collection rather than an encyclopedic coverage. In that vein, I still think there are a few things that could be usefully added (both to the list, and perhaps to your library).

For seamanship, I notice you haven't included John Harland's 1984 "Seamanship in the Age of Sail" (London: Conway Maritime Press, 320p). It's no lightweight, and I'd be surprised if anyone can surpass it for depth of scholarship or comprehensiveness. A grand book to be sure. 

Again on seamanship, two books written in modern times, but relating to square-riggers, and written from an instructive point of view for sail training ships are:Regan & Johnson's "Eagle Seamanship: a manual for square-rigger sailing" (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, various editions -- I have the 1981 1st edition, and the 3rd edition was published 1990); and Willoughby's "Square Rig Seamanship" (London: The Nautical Institute 1997) is a captain's view of what various levels of seaman should be expected to know, again on training ships. You could say these two aren't "authentic" in that they were written lately, but I would say that they are, that they are focussed on the same mechanics of sail handling and sailing tactics, and present an easier to comprehend approach to the same material you see from the 18th and 19th century writers, without the tangled phraseology. 

On Tonnage, since you list Owens' (1907) clearly-written "The Tonnage and Freeboard of Merchant Ships" , then I would also recommend E.W. Blocksidge, "Hints on the Register Tonnage of Merchant Ships" (Liverpool, Charles Burchill & Sons, 1933). Apart from the challenge of actually finding a copy, it's also clear and instructive. 

Since you've listed a fair few David MacGregor books, another is "Fast Sailing Ships: their design and construction 1775-1875" (London: Conway; 1st ed 1973, 2nd ed. 1988). Mostly its about clipper ships, and you know MacGregor's presentation -- dense with plenty of detail, bits and pieces, old plans and a chronological narrative.

While on clipper ships, I'm surprised you didn't list George Campbell's 1974 "China Tea Clippers" (London: Adlard Coles). His copious drawings are extraordinary for their precision, detail and depth of knowledge -- and their beauty. It's really a must-have, no two ways about it. 

I suppose this goes under shipbuilding, Basil Greenhill and Sam Manning's "The Evolution of the Wooden Ship" (London: B.T. Batsford, 1988). I don't know about the evolution bit, if there was really an attempt to do justice to that idea, it was well and truly upstaged by the pages and pages of Manning's drawings of all stages in the construction of a late-19th century British-style two-masted wooden coastal schooner. A first-class book if that's a topic of interest. 

I could go on about so many regional studies of shipping types -- every country has its local literature on their particular vessels, fleets and industries engaging wooden ships. Tempting, but that's just too much. Maybe I can close this list with two slightly odd-ball recommendations, both in German language. Both of these probably best fit under your "Masts and Rigging" category. I mention them because I don't think they are likely to get many English speakers recommending them:
 
F.L. Middendorf 1903, "Bemastung und Takelung der Schiffe", an extremely deep engineering text for shipyard designing and building the large ocean carriers of the turn of the century -- the so-called "grain ships" for example -- but incorporating design details for other late-nineteenth century merchant sailing vessels as well. He doesn't worry about wooden hulls, because this is a book that was meant for the naval architecture offices of European industrial shipbuilding yards -- it's all steel. But, it's about the masting and rigging of these ships, so that's not limited to steel. Astoundingly detailed, there's just nothing like it in English language; but it must be said it is austere and intellectually demanding. The book was photo-reproduced (perfectly of course -- after all it's Germany we're talking about) in 1971 by Horst Hamecher Kassel. You would need to have a serious interest in large ocean carriers to need this book; but if you are such a person, this is the book to have.

Jens Kusk Jensen, "Handbuch der Praktischen Seemanschaft auf Traditionellen Segelschiffen" (translates to "Handbook of Practical Seamanship on Traditional Sailing Vessels"). This was originally published in 1901, 2nd edition 1924, originally written in Danish. The 1924 edition was translated into German in 1989 and published by Palstek Verlag GmbH, Hamburg. There is no English translation. I get the impression this work is very well known among the traditional seamanship fraternity in Denmark and Germany. It covers masting, rigging, sails and seamanship. Unlike Middendorf, it is a more down-to-earth treatment but again contains some details not seen in English books.  However, translation is heavy going if you're not a German speaker, and really most of the content can be gleaned from English works. It's just that there is so much in one place here. 

Enough for now, eh?

Those similarities are very interesting, but Corne's East India Marine Hall ship painting does not fly a pennant, the mark of a naval vessel in commission, but what appears to be a big merchant house flag. It could be one of the big Salem East-indiamen like the Belisarius, America or Grand Turk. The (third) America was the former 28-gun French Corvette La Blonde.

This is the first time I see that last photo - with the stern at the hull - and it´s just incredible !! 
What a beautiful sight !
 
I said it before and I have to repeat it here: this cross-hemispherical cooperation is a lot of fun and how you, T.B.E. realized for what I before just had a rough idea was and still is a miracle. I have to state that T.B.E. really had to shorten that explanation about how we found the presented layout. As he mentioned - it was journey for several weeks with a lot of exchange of information, concerns, rethinking, again studiing the sources, even finding new ones (!), rethinking the old interpretation .. Just as an example: T.B.E. did not like the appearance of the white window frames - and while discussing the possible alternatives and their likelyhood we recognized that the 1803 Cornè painting - done before the 1804 Tripolis-paintings showing that stern! - showed red window frames in the galleries. Accidently we stepped over another representation of the ship which - it seems - by now has not been identfied as USS Constitution. And even if it is not Constitution - the similarities are really obvious ! - it at least shows that red windows on a big American frigate are a likely alternative:

This is a painting in Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, MA, USA. It was done by Felice Cornè in 1803 - the year he did that famous side view. 

Even if the ship was just intended as a "typical" American frigate - it shows red window frames we believe the ship had in its earlier years. From historian point of view it is not a proof - as both sources are Cornè and one of the sources even does not for sure represent Old Ironsides. But we think in a case like this, where not that much sourves are available the principle of Occam´s Razor must be valid.  
 
Or if you take the name "Constitution" on the ships stern: Cornè showed it like this:

 and in his 1803 side view - he presented the name like that below the ship:

William Bass (Author of "Old Ironsides - Superfrigates of the many faces") calls this font "roman" .. And what T.B.E. did by hand to represent this on the model is justs incredible! 
 
 
I will as soon as possible try to recollect and write down that interesting journey and our findings in @uss frolick "stern view" -thread - as we did not only reconstruct the 1797 stern in more details - but also found out more about the 1812 stern worth sharing.  
 
 
What impressed both of us a lot: when we were "theoretically" considering the likelyhood of this or that detail - found a desicion based on pure ration ... and T.B.E. realized it on the model : it always added an even better balance and beauty to the structure. .. as if that new feature really belonged to that position! As if the beauty itself wanted to be a proof. This focus on "function", "likelyhood" and "ratio" leads to a very credible and plausible design - which also has the beauty of a baroque stern. 
 
That was a unique experience! Thanks a lot, T.B.E.. Looking forward to our next steps! 
 

The final one of the series. I wonder what happens...
 
 

As have all the good designers, sadly. You are wise to keep your secret recipe close to the vest -- just like Miss Mamie and Miss Emily.
 

I found this letter years ago in the National Archives Microfilm Rolls. Dated December 31st, 1811, Washington Navy Yard Commandant, Captain Thomas Tingey, wrote his report to Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton. He had been ordered to survey the hulls of the Frigates Boston and New York, then in ordinary in the yard, to see if they could be repaired for service. The nation was spiraling towards war with Great Britain, and the US Navy needed every ship of war it could get.
 
"Sir,
 
The master and the foreman of the ships carpenters , having been asked to re-examine the state of the Frigates New York and Boston - have reported the following as to the state of the Frigate New York:
 
The whole of the floor timbers and first futtocks are of white oak - twenty six of the floors (being those in the extreme ends) and the whole of the first futtocks must be replaced with new. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks and top timbers are of live oak, cedar and locust, and appear tolerably sound, particular(ly) those of live oak. The fore and the after end of the keelson, all the ceiling, decks, beams knees, together with the Wales, upper works and part of her bottom plank, will require to be new. Probably a few of the knees may answer again, or be better fitted in a smaller ship.
 
Of the Boston, they state that, the whole of her frame being white oak, "consequently a great part is rotten, but being a better quality than that of the New York", her floors and first futtocks appear to be in a better state. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks, and the top-timbers, stern frame, hawse pieces and breast hooks must be new, together with most of her ceiling, all of her beams, knees, decks, upper works and part of her bottom plank.
 
Maturely considering the foregoing report, and from my own knowledge of the state of those ships, I am clearly of the opinion that, to repair them completely,  (having no dock for that purpose), it would cost full as much, as to build new ships of equal rate. I therefore respectfully recommend that the New York be broken up, and a new ship built to repair her. But inasmuch as the form of the bottom of the Boston, is worth preserving (being probably the swiftest sailing ship in the world), I cannot hesitate to recommend that she be repaired, not withstanding the extent of the expense." 
 
As this is respectfully submitted, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, Your Obt. Servt., Thos. Tingey"
 
Note that although both ships were only twelve years old, both were completely used up. Such was the poor quality and temporary utility of northern white oak for ship-building. But the hull form of the Boston was so impressive that Tingey desperately wanted to preserve it. This implies that the navy did not possess a copy of her draught at that time, even though a copy of her builders draught was found in the National Archives. 
 
 

I found this letter years ago in the National Archives Microfilm Rolls. Dated December 31st, 1811, Washington Navy Yard Commandant, Captain Thomas Tingey, wrote his report to Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton. He had been ordered to survey the hulls of the Frigates Boston and New York, then in ordinary in the yard, to see if they could be repaired for service. The nation was spiraling towards war with Great Britain, and the US Navy needed every ship of war it could get.
 
"Sir,
 
The master and the foreman of the ships carpenters , having been asked to re-examine the state of the Frigates New York and Boston - have reported the following as to the state of the Frigate New York:
 
The whole of the floor timbers and first futtocks are of white oak - twenty six of the floors (being those in the extreme ends) and the whole of the first futtocks must be replaced with new. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks and top timbers are of live oak, cedar and locust, and appear tolerably sound, particular(ly) those of live oak. The fore and the after end of the keelson, all the ceiling, decks, beams knees, together with the Wales, upper works and part of her bottom plank, will require to be new. Probably a few of the knees may answer again, or be better fitted in a smaller ship.
 
Of the Boston, they state that, the whole of her frame being white oak, "consequently a great part is rotten, but being a better quality than that of the New York", her floors and first futtocks appear to be in a better state. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks, and the top-timbers, stern frame, hawse pieces and breast hooks must be new, together with most of her ceiling, all of her beams, knees, decks, upper works and part of her bottom plank.
 
Maturely considering the foregoing report, and from my own knowledge of the state of those ships, I am clearly of the opinion that, to repair them completely,  (having no dock for that purpose), it would cost full as much, as to build new ships of equal rate. I therefore respectfully recommend that the New York be broken up, and a new ship built to repair her. But inasmuch as the form of the bottom of the Boston, is worth preserving (being probably the swiftest sailing ship in the world), I cannot hesitate to recommend that she be repaired, not withstanding the extent of the expense." 
 
As this is respectfully submitted, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, Your Obt. Servt., Thos. Tingey"
 
Note that although both ships were only twelve years old, both were completely used up. Such was the poor quality and temporary utility of northern white oak for ship-building. But the hull form of the Boston was so impressive that Tingey desperately wanted to preserve it. This implies that the navy did not possess a copy of her draught at that time, even though a copy of her builders draught was found in the National Archives. 
 
 

I found this letter years ago in the National Archives Microfilm Rolls. Dated December 31st, 1811, Washington Navy Yard Commandant, Captain Thomas Tingey, wrote his report to Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton. He had been ordered to survey the hulls of the Frigates Boston and New York, then in ordinary in the yard, to see if they could be repaired for service. The nation was spiraling towards war with Great Britain, and the US Navy needed every ship of war it could get.
 
"Sir,
 
The master and the foreman of the ships carpenters , having been asked to re-examine the state of the Frigates New York and Boston - have reported the following as to the state of the Frigate New York:
 
The whole of the floor timbers and first futtocks are of white oak - twenty six of the floors (being those in the extreme ends) and the whole of the first futtocks must be replaced with new. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks and top timbers are of live oak, cedar and locust, and appear tolerably sound, particular(ly) those of live oak. The fore and the after end of the keelson, all the ceiling, decks, beams knees, together with the Wales, upper works and part of her bottom plank, will require to be new. Probably a few of the knees may answer again, or be better fitted in a smaller ship.
 
Of the Boston, they state that, the whole of her frame being white oak, "consequently a great part is rotten, but being a better quality than that of the New York", her floors and first futtocks appear to be in a better state. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks, and the top-timbers, stern frame, hawse pieces and breast hooks must be new, together with most of her ceiling, all of her beams, knees, decks, upper works and part of her bottom plank.
 
Maturely considering the foregoing report, and from my own knowledge of the state of those ships, I am clearly of the opinion that, to repair them completely,  (having no dock for that purpose), it would cost full as much, as to build new ships of equal rate. I therefore respectfully recommend that the New York be broken up, and a new ship built to repair her. But inasmuch as the form of the bottom of the Boston, is worth preserving (being probably the swiftest sailing ship in the world), I cannot hesitate to recommend that she be repaired, not withstanding the extent of the expense." 
 
As this is respectfully submitted, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, Your Obt. Servt., Thos. Tingey"
 
Note that although both ships were only twelve years old, both were completely used up. Such was the poor quality and temporary utility of northern white oak for ship-building. But the hull form of the Boston was so impressive that Tingey desperately wanted to preserve it. This implies that the navy did not possess a copy of her draught at that time, even though a copy of her builders draught was found in the National Archives. 
 
 

Attached is a recently discovered MIT link to a high-resolution file depicting the frigate USS Boston. Thanks to Baugean and the MIT Museum.

I found this letter years ago in the National Archives Microfilm Rolls. Dated December 31st, 1811, Washington Navy Yard Commandant, Captain Thomas Tingey, wrote his report to Secretary of the Navy Paul Hamilton. He had been ordered to survey the hulls of the Frigates Boston and New York, then in ordinary in the yard, to see if they could be repaired for service. The nation was spiraling towards war with Great Britain, and the US Navy needed every ship of war it could get.
 
"Sir,
 
The master and the foreman of the ships carpenters , having been asked to re-examine the state of the Frigates New York and Boston - have reported the following as to the state of the Frigate New York:
 
The whole of the floor timbers and first futtocks are of white oak - twenty six of the floors (being those in the extreme ends) and the whole of the first futtocks must be replaced with new. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks and top timbers are of live oak, cedar and locust, and appear tolerably sound, particular(ly) those of live oak. The fore and the after end of the keelson, all the ceiling, decks, beams knees, together with the Wales, upper works and part of her bottom plank, will require to be new. Probably a few of the knees may answer again, or be better fitted in a smaller ship.
 
Of the Boston, they state that, the whole of her frame being white oak, "consequently a great part is rotten, but being a better quality than that of the New York", her floors and first futtocks appear to be in a better state. The 2nd and 3rd futtocks, and the top-timbers, stern frame, hawse pieces and breast hooks must be new, together with most of her ceiling, all of her beams, knees, decks, upper works and part of her bottom plank.
 
Maturely considering the foregoing report, and from my own knowledge of the state of those ships, I am clearly of the opinion that, to repair them completely,  (having no dock for that purpose), it would cost full as much, as to build new ships of equal rate. I therefore respectfully recommend that the New York be broken up, and a new ship built to repair her. But inasmuch as the form of the bottom of the Boston, is worth preserving (being probably the swiftest sailing ship in the world), I cannot hesitate to recommend that she be repaired, not withstanding the extent of the expense." 
 
As this is respectfully submitted, I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, Your Obt. Servt., Thos. Tingey"
 
Note that although both ships were only twelve years old, both were completely used up. Such was the poor quality and temporary utility of northern white oak for ship-building. But the hull form of the Boston was so impressive that Tingey desperately wanted to preserve it. This implies that the navy did not possess a copy of her draught at that time, even though a copy of her builders draught was found in the National Archives. 
 
 

From the French site Drouot.com.
 
The 28-gun "La Tourterelle", or "The Turtledove" - a wonderful name for a man of war - was captured in 1795 by the 32-gun frigate HMS Lively. While the two ships seem to have been a close match for each other, Tourterelle mounted only 8-pounders on her lower deck, while Lively mounted 18-pounders on hers. But the stubborn frenchman just didn't want to give up, and only struck after heavy casualties. Historian William James reported 18 dead and 25 seriously wounded.  Tourterelle reportedly even used an oven to heat hot-shot in the action, but to no avail. The painting, a watercolor wash on paper, ("lavis sur papier") shows her at the conclusion of the action, greatly damaged, have lost much of her top-hamper. Tourterelle was a sister ship to L'Unite' - later HMS Surprise. Her draught survives in the NMM and is, IMHO, the prettiest sloop there, and she and the painting closely agree on all the details! She was broken up in 1816.
 
https://drouot.com/fr/l/10996015
 
To see a full screen, click the black bar marked, "Voir les Resultats" ("See the results"), then click the four-arrow tab on the left.

Thank you Chris.
 
Don't forget your French followers 😉.
For me, it will always be 'La Tourterelle' (The Original), even though I really like the novels by Patrick O'Brian.

And unlike L'Unite, La Tourterelle (620 tons) fought like hell before she struck to a larger opponent. She even used a special oven to heat "hot-shot" in her defense, but it didn't help her. Lively was a rare, 18-pounder 32-gun frigate. Tourterelle's "as taken" profile with carvings is just too beautiful!

So your kit could be used to make La Tourterelle (the turtledove)?