USS Randolph 1776

[Waldemar]

 

This is most probably the only US ship (frigate) from the Revolutionary period for which original plans have survived. Admittedly, they are available online, but the quality is not the best, as it appears to be essentially a scan of aged microfilm of not very good sharpness, so a lot of the detail is blurred. Does anyone have a better copy than the one available on the archive website?

 

In addition, does anyone have and can provide a good quality scan of a page from the Joshua Humphreys' notebook concerning this very frigate? Granted, this page is already transcribed and available (as is the entire manuscript), but I would nevertheless like to verify the numerical data, which is quite easy to get wrong in the process.

 

Besides, what does the term ‘hanging gundeck’ mean? The stated value on the transcribed page is 1 foot 7 inches.

 

 

The copy of the draught itself available at:

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-65000/NH-65618.html

 

 

And reproductions of both mentioned above items:

 

 

 

 

[trippwj]

2 hours ago, Waldemar said:

In addition, does anyone have and can provide a good quality scan of a page from the Joshua Humphreys' notebook concerning this very frigate? Granted, this page is already transcribed and available (as is the entire manuscript), but I would nevertheless like to verify the numerical data, which is quite easy to get wrong in the process.

I can vouch for the accuracy of the transcription. The numbers were checked by three people during the transcription and publication process. The original photos of the pages are not publicly available (ownership issues). If there are specific values you question I will check with the lead transcriotionist and see if she can relocate the original image.

[Waldemar]

 

14 hours ago, trippwj said:

I can vouch for the accuracy of the transcription [...].

 

Thanks, Wayne. Nonetheless, I'm already having some doubts as I've noticed in several places in the document that ‘foremast’ has been reworded to ‘foremost’ (and the other way round) and in addition, for Randolph itself, the distance between decks seems to not match the draught (5‘ 2" versus 5‘ 7").

 

And, almost forgot, the Randolph is listed in the title as a 23-gun frigate instead of 32-gun one.

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 12:53 PM by Waldemar

[Tony Hunt]

I think Howard Chappelle redrew this plan and published it in one of his books - probably The American Sailing Navy?

[Waldemar]

 

Thank you, Tony. Yes, I have this publication in my home library, as well as probably all of Chapelle's other major works. Indeed, there is a wealth of interesting, important and useful information about this frigate (actually the whole frigate series) contained therein. Nevertheless, I intend to do something that even Chapelle himself did not do, which is to reverse-engineer the design of the Randolph, and to do this I need a copy of the original design in the best possible quality, as opposed to later redrawings which necessarily distort the original somewhat and, worse, somehow lose very important details found on the originals. By the same token, British-made plans of these early American ships are also unsuitable for my purposes.

The point is that I have some observations about the presumed design method used (in a conceptual sense) and I would like to take a closer look at this for confirmation (or otherwise) of these presumptions. They may explain why the American designs were marked by such a specificity of shape rather than another. 

 

[Waldemar]

 

22 hours ago, trippwj said:

The original photos of the pages are not publicly available (ownership issues).

 

The document is available online for anyone interested (see link below), just only up to page 162 of the manuscript. In a malicious twist of fate, the page with the data for Randolph 1776 is already on the next, first page of the non-accessible part of the whole document, that is 163–164. And the archive wishes USD 37.50 for making one scan of this double page available. Funny.

 

Historical Society of Pennsylvania: DAMS : Volume/Folder : Principal Dimensions [1719-1828] [10581]

 

Under the circumstances, I won't even bother to approach the other archive (the navy) for a better copy of the original ship's plan anymore, and I think I'll give up on this project altogether. It's a pity, because the results and conclusions of this investigation could be really interesting, and actually unknown or unrealized until now. More precisely, I already have near certainty about the design methods applied in early American ships, nevertheless, adequate input material is obviously needed to present this adequately.

 

 

 

Edited Monday at 08:39 PM by Waldemar

[Chapman]

Hello Waldemar,

Interesting project. I hope a better plan for the Randolph can be found.

 

M.V. Brewington thought about the design of the first US frigates many years ago.

His article, with plans for the first US frigates, can be found online. I don't know if you're familiar with it.

Published in: The American Neptune Vol. VIII No. 1 January 1948
Unfortunately, the plan for the Randolph isn't any better there either.

[Waldemar]

 

 

9 hours ago, Chapman said:

M.V. Brewington thought about the design of the first US frigates many years ago.

His article, with plans for the first US frigates, can be found online. I don't know if you're familiar with it.

Published in: The American Neptune Vol. VIII No. 1 January 1948

 

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:

 

 

 

[Martes]

The class of the frigate was mostly dictated by the number and the caliber of the guns - which implies more or less fixed spacing between the gunports for a given calibre,  and a fixed length of the deck for a given number of guns, and those parameters would be quite close everywhere at the time. 

 

Standard requirement for a fast, ocean going vessel would also suggest the range of depth of the ships, but there would be nothing hinting at the shape of the hull.

 

Certainly, the American shipbuilders aimed to keep in pace of the contemporary European frigates, and at times built ships suited for guns they didn't in fact have. But this more or less limits the extent of the influence on the designs.

 

It's the European, and in particular, French privateers you're looking for.

[Waldemar]

 

41 minutes ago, Martes said:

It's the European, and in particular, French privateers you're looking for.

 

 

Ah, you may have spoiled my surprise, but perhaps that's for the better, as the further fate of this very venture is quite unclear indeed. On the one hand, you might have had it easier, as we have discussed the issue privately before, yet, on the other hand, with your watchful eye for shapes you yourself must also have noticed the striking resemblance to French light craft of Louis XIV's time, such as the frigate l'Aurore 1697 (body plan shown in the thread on the Mary Rose 1511).

Now, I would still like to say that people, while attempting similar analyses, usually focus on comparing dimensions, which is completely missing the point. After all, absolute dimensions, just like many of the proportions, are simply determined by a kind of circumstances which have little in common or being quite independent of design methods, as you pointed out above.

 

 

[Martes]

Additionally to what we discussed, there is a simple logic behind this.

 

1. From the beginning of the 18th century, the North American shipyards (before they went, uhm, rogue) were a source for British-flagged merchant vessels and privateers. That was their trade, literally, and that's what they knew how to build.

 

2. When attempting to buy ships or technologies on the Continent (France and Netherlands) they couldn't turn to official military shipyards, so they would interact with private shipyards and shipbuilders as well, and the closest those built to warships are, again, privateers.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

Now, I would still like to say that people, while attempting similar analyses, usually focus on comparing dimensions, which is completely missing the point. After all, absolute dimensions, just like many of the proportions, are simply determined by a kind of circumstances which have little in common or being quite independent of design methods, as you pointed out above.

Yes, that's what I wanted to point out as explicitly as possible. After all, there are a lot of examples of ships that are almost indistinguishable in profile, but have completely different hull form.

[Waldemar]

 

Well, fine, now that it's “all” cleared up, I at least have a smooth excuse not to spend a perverse amount of money on the decent quality copies of source material needed to prepare free presentations after all. I'm off back to my favourite 16th and 17th century (and European archives ).