Malachi

Most fore-and-aft riggers in our timeframe were trimmed heavily by the stern to counter this effect. It was not unusual for a 60' cutter to have a 12' draught aft. That´s more or less the same draught as on a 100' feet frigate.

Versatility, I guess. And the big lateen sails, especially on the main mast, were difficult to handle and required a large crew. With the introduction of topsails, those lateens became smaller and easier to manage. That most probably came at a price, though, as the performance close-hauled most probably suffered. As with everything else when sailing ships are concerned, it´s very difficult to improve one aspect without making another one suffer. That´s a greek-ottoman xebec at the end of the 18th century, showing the mix of sails quite nicely.

Now that´s a lovely little vessel, thanks for showing, Hethwill. And the Danes. And the Swedes. The evolution of xebec-type ship was different in the northern countries, though, as they eventually became square-rigged (or mixed like polacres). Here are two examples from the swedish armens flottan: The first one is from the 1760s, the last from the late 1780s. Like most of their mediterranean cousins, they also had extra yards onboard, so the lateen sails could be swapped for square sails when circumstances demanded a change.

Uhm, what? Af Chapman (the guy in the retro hoodie in my profile pic, btw) was 2 years old in 1723. And he built 3 or 4 Indiamen, the first one in the 1760s, the last one in 1803.

I very much doubt the marine royale would have named a meagre 50-gunner after Louis XIV. All the other 'royal' ships were vaisseaux de 1er ordre. So it´s very probable that it´s just a model with no full-size counterpart.

God, that thing is ugly...and the circular stern for the later ships prolly made things even worse The only ones who managed to pull off a good looking true double-banked were the French, imo. Edit: Just noticed, why is the Java in the SoL subforum? ^^

Oh, there´s other fun stuff on threedecks, look at the entries for the swedish Vasa and Venus, for example: The Venus is listed with 156' (imperial), that´s not correct, that´s her length p/p in swedish feet and thus her length in imperial feet would be slightly shorter. Vasa has her length given in swedish alen (exactly two swedish feet), but her length in imperial feet is 371' 6''. Quite the ship, indeed. So, when looking at the entries for ships of the smaller nations, try to cross-reference the data if possible

Dimensions for this ketch are 83' length p/p, 22 3/5' breadth moulded. The sail plan for this type of vessel is on plate LXII of the Architectura Navalis Mercatoria, more info on how to calculate mast lengths are to be found in the corresponding treatise by af Chapman (link). One thing to watch out for: a swedish huqvert/ketch would usually have a loose-footed gaff sail on the main mast. The deck lay-out needs to reconstructed by using other, more detailed plans for a contemporary, similiar-sized ketch, like those for the british Speedwell or Cruizer (both 1752, IIRC) or the danish Amager (1759) or Echo (1773).

Though separated by 1,900 miles of ocean and islands, Barbados and Charleston were remarkably alike. Charleston had been founded less than fifty years earlier by a group of Barbadian planters who had successfully replicated their West Indian slave society in the coastal swamps of southern Carolina. A compact, walled city of 3,000, Charleston’s streets and low, swampy shoreline were lined with Barbadian-style homes, high-ceilinged frame structures with large windows, balconies, and tiled roofs. Quote from 'Republic of Pirates'. And please don't mention Black Sails and research in the same sentence, Wind.

Black Sails...lol.

They built the Surprise, so I'm pretty sure they'd sail it, too. And I've never heard of a danish 48-gun Walkyrie, when was that ship launched? There was a corvette called Valkyrien in the mid-1840s, but a SoL?

Four replies and no one mentioned the long 18-pounder chasers fore and aft? Oh tempora, o mores....( I blame the control perk) I had a closer look at the plans and I have to say that ship-class was quite an interesting piece of naval architecture. The body plan shows a really unusual inversed tumblehome with slightly overhanging sides, probably to soften the rolling motions, not surprising given the heavy armament this relatively small ship had to carry. Second interesting point is the length-to-breadth ration of ~3.5 while the vast majority of ships of this size had a L/B ratio of 3.8 to 4. This made the brig a more stable gun platform and stiffer , but was thought to decrease the speed (which was probably not the case). It also gave the ship more room to store provisions. I already said that these vessel primarily acted as 'motherships' for the gunboats operating in the waters of the danish and norwegian coasts, providing the crews with warm meals and other needed materials. Third feature is the underwater hull shape. These waterlines set the standard for danish ships for the next 50 years and were in stark contrast to the french-inspired 'hollow' lines used by previous danish shipwrights like Stibolt: Lolland-class, 1810, J. J. Pihl Gefion, 1843, 24-pounder frigate, A. Schifter Lougen, 1791, 18-gun brig, E.W. Stibolt So, that´s enough naval geekness for today

Not the prettiest ship ever, but I really like this little, ugly duckling and it packed quite a punch: Plans: Cross section showing the two different guns carried onboard: left is a 'normal' long 18-pounder, right the short version. This drawing is one of ten, visualising the waterlines under different angles of sailing. The hull is divided into triangles so the displacement can be calculated accurately. Dimensions: Length p/p : 95 danish feet (100' 1'' according to british measurement) Breadth moulded: 28' Depth in hold: 13' 1'' Draught aft: 12' Height of battery 5' The four 'pihlske brigger' (named after their designer, Jens Pihl) primarily acted as motherships for the gunboats deployed in the war against Great Britain. They were considered as excellent seaboats, very maneuverable, stiff and able to carry a considerable press of sail. According to the replica website, the builders expect a speed under sail of 13 knots. Armament: 8 short 18-pounders, 8 long 18-pounders, two ships carried 2 6-pounder chase guns, others used the long 18s as stern/bow chase guns. (The short danish 18s were longer and heavier than british 18-pound carronades and had a longer range. In use from the early 1790s till the late 1840s) Sister ships: 4 ( Falster 1810, Bornholm 1811, Møen 1815, Frederiksværn 1814) Service history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Lolland_(1810)

Plans: Dimensions: Length p/p : 87 danish feet (92' 6'' according to british measurement) Breadth moulded: 24' Depth in hold: 15' 7'' Draught aft: 12' Height of battery 4' 6'' Armament: 14 short 18-pounders (The short danish 18s were longer and heavier than british 18-pound carronades and had a longer range. In use from the early 1790s till the late 1840s) Sister ships: 1 Service history: Launched 1819, sold 1834 to a merchant company. Visited the West Indies 5 times (7 years in total). EDIT: Sorry, wrong subforum, please move to Unrated Vessels. Thanks!

Model: (that´s the second Lougen, built in 1805 and given to the norwegian navy in 1816, almost identical to the first one) Plans: Dimensions: Length p/p : 89 danish feet (94' 7'' according to british measurement) Breadth moulded: 26' Depth in hold: 11' 6'' Draught aft: 11' Height of battery 4' 3'' Armament: 18 short 18-pounders, 2 6-pounder chase guns (The short danish 18s were longer and heavier than british 18-pound carronades and had a longer range. In use from the early 1790s till the late 1840s) Sister ships: 11 Service history:

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections.html#!csearch;authority=vessel-356950;browseBy=vessel;vesselFacetLetter=V But this thread should be in the history section.

Both pictures show the fifth Vanguard (1787 - 1821), not the one designed by Symonds

The other way round: Most SoLs could store up to 8 - 9 months provisions if needed. Only large frigates like La Forte or Connie could take equal amounts for their crew (and some smaller British ones :p)

P...P...Po...Port...something.

'Cover' the seas? Only the british RN really did that. And reasons for smaller ships were pretty simple: Cost efficiency and lack of trained sailors.

Frigates carried 32s, just not quite in the NA time frame (I think the first was launched in 1824). @Rade she wouldn't have been able to carry 24 longs, 7' 12-pounder max as I said in one of my posts above.

Is das nicht der uralt-skin der cherubim (noch bevor die cherubim geheißen hat)?

Looks like a Turner painting. Style points +10

100 % sure. That's the replica of the Shtandart, built at the beginning of the 18th century.

I think that's the fault of the kit plan, for whatever reasons it had the upper gun deck and weather deck lowered by one or two feet compared to Chapman's design. The beakhead bulkhead is also much more pronounced than on the original.