Cruizer-class Brig-Sloops of the Royal Navy

[Chapman]

Does anyone have a set of rigging plans I could purchase?  I am building the Julia which is a brig sloop of the seagull class which appears very similar to the cruiser class and when I purchased the plans from the admiralty they did not come with rigging plans.

Hello !

 

Perhaps also of interest

 

There are also plans of the Seagull in the Danish archives. Including a plan of masts with dimensions. However, the figures are for the second half of 1808. So I'm not sure if the Danish standard shows.

[CharlieZardoz]

Hi all! I am curious since most ships tend to have slight differences in the bow and stern decorations (carvings if any) among class ships, were there any for the Cruizer class and more importantly is there any record of what they might have been?

 

The HMS Scorpion miodel does seem to have some scrollwork and a model of Epervier I've seen has what looks like a figurehead.

Edited October 19, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[Beef Wellington]

Charlie - don't think any of these class had anything of note regarding decoration, figureheads were not used for ships of this class at this time period, and there is no need for any gingerbread given the lack of great cabin lights.  Just a little molding for the rails...headwork would just be limited to a scroll and not much else.  The reason for this class was increased economy and more efficient use of the available seamen.

[CharlieZardoz]

Hi Jason! Well yes I get that and understand what these ships might have had was minimal at best but these images show what I mean. HMS Scorpion seems to have some basic scrollwork similar to Syren's stern and then there is this strange figurehead on Epervier. Neither pic is clear enough for me to make out so by all means I'm open to interpretation lol  Maybe it's something that is -er at the discretion of the model builder? 

 

 

Also check this build log and look at these various flourish concepts.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1716548&page=13

 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[druxey]

Small brigs of this time period certainly did not sport figureheads - no monies were expended on them. They either had scroll or fiddleheads. The figure on the model of Epervier is very suspect: the original 1803 draught 'as captured' from the French shows a small bird-like figure. The 1812 draught of a new brig of the same name shows no sign of anything like a figure, just a couple of ornamental curlicues.

[CharlieZardoz]

That makes sense of course. Do you happen to have an image or source (book?) of these to see what these looked like?

[jwvolz]

Charlie,

 

That Epervier model has some issues, and they aren't limited to the figurehead, at least based on my research, so take that whole build with a grain of salt. 

 

The Irene model below it includes some of the changes after she was captured, which are documented in the Irene book, including the changes to the stern and head. 

[CharlieZardoz]

So that's Irine not Scorpion? My mistake then and yeah one day ill splurge on the book I just love adding to my resources on ships

 

The link for the rc model of Scorpion looks amazing not sure if its accurate but looks pretty neat.

 

And im thinking one day I may build the Caldercraft kit and if I do id like it to be the Epervier

Edited October 20, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[druxey]

Charlie: If you go to the Royal Museums Greenwich Collections web site, put 'Epervier' in the seach, you'll find the images I referenced.

[CharlieZardoz]

Hi yes I see the plan. However the French one of 1803 to my knowledge isnt a Cruizer class ship. The ornamentation on that one is clear. I will assume these ships had very little decoration if any and especially by 1812 they would have been further streamlined. This does look a bit like a builders plan though and the billet looks like it could hold something maybe a scroll? But what can I say I like knowing the suttle nuances between ship classes. Are there any clearer images of the Irine models stern?

Edited October 20, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[CharlieZardoz]

And here is the plan for Scorpion/Cruizer which comparing the two you can see the subtle differences between 1797 and 1812.

[uss frolick]

British ships were not without decoration, but the styles were different, more subdued. Gone were the clunky allegorical figures of Truth, Liberty, etc., and in their places came modern scroll and vine-work, in the French fashion. The problem was that the scrolls, flora and intertwined hawsers were too fine to be represented in 1/48 scale, and so they no longer appeared on the draughts. Instead, separate drawing were made for both bow and stern carvings in 1/2 inch scale, where the detail could be better shown. The problem is that hardly any of those detailed little drawing survive. But some do, like the prize Frigates Imperious (Spanish ex-Fama) and Chlorinde (French), drawn in 1809 and 1810 respectively, following their extensive rebuilds.

 

A brig much smaller than the Cruisers, HMS Boxer, was captured by the USS Enterprize in 1813, but not bought by the US Navy because she was too small. (She was a gun-brig, not a brig-sloop, because she lacked a continuous berth deck, instead having only fore and aft platforms.) Boxer was purchased by a Maine merchant, who used her for years afterwards as a coastal trading vessel. When she was finally broken up, her figurehead - a small lion bust - and her corresponding stern coat-of-arms-thingy were saved, and are now in a maritime museum in Maine. I saw pictures of them both a long time ago, but I can't recall the source.

Edited October 20, 2016 by uss frolick

[CharlieZardoz]

Yes this is what I thought thank you. Also the tip of Epervier's bow looks like something should be there no? Frolick what do you think?

[Beef Wellington]

JimSmits put a snake figurehead on his 'Snake', captains desires are held in check only by the size of their purses :D

[uss frolick]

Yep, I think so, just enough room for a vicious looking epervier - or sparrow-hawk.

[jwvolz]

Charlie,

 

This is the stern of the Irene model at the US Naval Academy. I should say, I can't be sure the model you have the photo of is Scorpion or Irene, but it is clearly based off the Irene plans, due to the mid-ship lowered bulwarks,, raised forecastle and poop ( even higher than Cruzier class), deck layout and changes to stern. 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Joe V.

[CharlieZardoz]

Thanks Joe. That is a perfect view though can anyone make out that symbol above the name Irine? Looks like to animals with a sort of crest?

 

So Irene and Grasshopper are the same ship yes? Interesting though that the stern shape differs a bit again from Epervier and Scorpion/Cruizer. Ill have to invest in that Irene book

Edited October 21, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[druxey]

Charlie: The model Joe posted is a modern one, and, again, is a bit suspect as to details. Try to examine photos of contemporary models if you can. I believe that The U. S. Naval Academy Museum in Annapolis has at least one Cruizer class model in their collection.

[uss frolick]

Notice that the above model wears a square tuck stern. HMS Reindeer and only five other fir-or-teak-built Cruiser-brigs did. Grasshopper did not.

[Beef Wellington]

Notice that the above model wears a square tuck stern. HMS Reindeer and only five other fir-or-teak-built Cruiser-brigs did. Grasshopper did not.

 

Can you confirm your comment Frolick, I think it was the opposite, only the fir/teak built DID NOT have square tuck stern.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Beef Wellington

[uss frolick]

Nope. You got it backwards. All fir-built ships in the RN had anachronistic square-tuck sterns. Fir timber was too weak to form a modern round tuck, so the RN builders resorted to an ancient, much stronger type last seen on The Sovereign of the Seas! The area under a rounded stern was very high stress structurally. The fir frigates Leander and Newcastle, built of fir, and designed to catch the Constitution Class ships, show square tucks on their framing plans. England was running out of oak in 1812.  The Sloop Levant, which fought the Constitution in 1815, and her dozen stablemates built in 1813-4, had square-tucks too, and she was built of fir. The famous Reindeer, which fought the Wasp in 1814, was fir, and her plans also show a square tuck. 

 

The Frigate Shannon model in Annapolis shows a square tuck stern, but she is actually a model of the Eurotas, later altered to represent the oak-built Shannon. HMS Eurotas was an 1812-built fir copy of the Leda Shannon Class.

 

The problem was that fir tended to splinter much worse than oak when struck by shot. When Leander fought at The Battle of Algiers in 1816, she suffered 135 casualties

 

I think teak was ok for the round tuck, but definitely not fir.

[Beef Wellington]

Hi Frolick, would you mind sharing some pictures of the plans you are looking at.  Every plan I've seen of the Cruizer class on NMM has a square tuck stern,  and that's certainly how the kits are made.  Many thanks.

[CharlieZardoz]

Also here is the image of the Scorpion stern from that excellent rc model from the link I posted. Square tuck not sure if that's accurate based on what frolick is saying.

[jwvolz]

I'm very intrigued now with the square vs. round tuck information, as like Jason, all the plans I've seen have the square tuck. This includes the Chapelle drawings in The History of the American Sailing Navy of the captured Epervier. 

[jwvolz]

Alert with a square tuck from earlier in this very thread:

 

 

[uss frolick]

You may well be right. All fir vessels were square tuck, but oak ones could be too, I suppose. Was this a nod towards economy? The cruisers were built in private yards. Why would they all have such a old fashioned stern if built of oak? If their frames were lightly built, then would the stronger square tuck have been a precaution? But a square tuck places the plank end seams very close to the water, and this promoted rot and leaks. The round tuck placed those ends up much higher. Now I'm confused.

[jwvolz]

With the size of the class, and their designed purpose, particularly at a time when the RN was in massive build mode, the likelihood of am economical to build design seems to make sense. 

[CharlieZardoz]

Well frolick when was the square tuck eliminated completely? We know Enterprize was built with one in 1799 and then later removed so it could be a time period thing since this class was built over the course of a few decades. Also are these all builders plans which are all sort of based off the original cruizer plan (with a few bits redrawn) so looking at them I honestly can't tell a difference... To tuck or to untuck that is the question. Tehe

Edited October 21, 2016 by CharlieZardoz

[uss frolick]

The square tuck appears flat from the side. That dark vertical line, about two feet long, at the back of the waterline, which is part of a narrow triangle, denotes one.

 

Irene/Grasshopper has one too. Curious. Petrajus says, on page 62-3:

 

"The Irene, together with a number of brig-sloops and ship-sloos and even frigates of the time, was not only built of fir, but had what was called a 'square-tuck' besides.  It was a curious step back in history, which may have had something to do with the necessity for the Admiralty to have a great many plain, but serviceable ships built in the shortest amount of time. Normally, the connection between the transom piece and the stern post was achieved between athwartship timbers, called 'transoms '. The principle one was the 'wing transom'. It formed the base for the 'counter timbers', and the hooding ends of the planking were fastened to it, inasmuch as they could not be brought into  the stern post rabbet.

 

The lowest transom was generally short and sharp, like the letter 'V', the top one approached the shape of the beam, while the intermediate transoms formed a transition between these extremes. The transoms were dovetailed into the fashion pieces and let in on the stern post, besides being bolted to them. The did the same service to the planking of the stern as the frames did to that of the sides.

 

The closing of the counter and the stern was affected by a frame of  cross beams and stanchions, arranged in accordance with the number of windows, ports, etc. 

 

As already pointed out, the construction of the Irene's stern frame was unusually simple. 'Fayed' upon the fore side of the main post was a sort of inner post, on top of the rested the transom, let in on the stern post. Just as in the 17th century, the fashion pieces served to accommodate the hooding ends of the bottom planking as well as the planking of the tuck. There was only this difference that they were let now let into the rabbets, cut in the fashion pieces, so that these timbers remained visible for their greater part. That this was so, appears from the clause in the contract for the Raven, relating to the matter, and the expansion plan, mentioned before."

 

The Raven's contract given in appendix 1, page 271, notes:

 

"FASHION PIECES: To be sided 11 inches, rabbeted, on the outside, to receive the plank of the bottom, and on the aft side, to receive the plank of the tuck."

 

 

According to David Lyon, in The Sailing Navy List, page 142, Raven is listed as one of only six fir built brigs. They are:

 

Beagle, Elk, Harrier, Raven, Reindeer, and Saracan. Victor and Zebra were built in Bombay out of native teak.

 

There are separate plans of for the oak, fir and teak versions. 

 

The plans of the Scout, of 1804, to which nearly all were built, shows, on page 140, no square tuck stern ... ! But Grasshopper was an oak brig. Did Petrajus make the Irene fit the wrong draught and contract?

 

So I guess I was right the first time? Now I am really confused!

Edited October 21, 2016 by uss frolick

[Beef Wellington]

I'm confused now. Are we agreed that the square stern was the norm for the Cruizer class, as evidenced by various contemporary models and plans, and that there were (possibly) exceptions to this for the small number of fit/teak built ships? If so, I'm happy