SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

Questions about frigate Hancock

1493 views
6 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2005
Questions about frigate Hancock
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 8:02 PM
ok, I've spent the last 2 months learning CAD and fun stuff like redrawing plans and lofting frames. I'm amazed at guys who loft frames by hand and don't go completely mad. I know I came close a few times after realizing my methodology was off once or twice. For example, realized after I had lofted all the frames that my lifted measurements for the cant and half frames were from the center of keel rather than the deadwood. Whoops, tack a few more days of redrawing there. Repeat 4 or 5 times for various reasons. But I'm done, finally, and quite happy with the results. I used Chappelle for the lines with the exception of modifying the bow to be more correct. Sadly, the Hahn plans show the Chappelle bow as well, so it was easier to just work off the Chappelle plans. Anyhow, I've decided I'm going to build the ship fully planked and finished on one side and completely open on the other. No quarter gallery even to better show the stern framing. Fully finishing the one side leaves me with two questions.

1) Was the Hancock coppered on the bottom? With such a short build time, I'd suspect no.

2) Armament seems to call for 12-12 pounders on the gun deck. There are 13 ports on the plans. I'm assuming the foremost port was used solely as a loading port sans gun. Is this a correct assumption?

Next step, building a half model. I've invested too much effort in the plans to realize the frames are still off after cutting and assembling the frames and the bow will probably be a lot of trial and error without a physical model for reference.
  • Member since
    December 2002
  • From: Derry, New Hampshire, USA
Posted by rcboater on Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:48 AM
It was not unusual to have more ports than guns-- it allows the Captain to shift the guns for the best trim. An important part of "tuning" a sailing vessel is getting the trim right. (I'm the term "trim" in the naval engineering way- the adjusting of the ship's draft fore and aft.) Some ships may be faster when trimmed to float with the waterline parallel to the water-- others may track and handle better when trimmed to be slightly down by the stern-- it all depends on load, hull shape, etc.

Guns are heavy, and yet easy to move compared to other ballast. Having the extra ports allows the Captain to shift the guns to help trim the vessel- an act that may be needed several times on a long voyage, as stores are consumed.

Webmaster, Marine Modelers Club of New England

www.marinemodelers.org

 

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 23, 2004 9:23 AM
ah, thanks. That makes sense. I always wondered why the ships gun rating and number of ports were different (think the Essex was cut for about 38 and rated 32). So many books to read; so little time.
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:50 AM
This one I can help with! I did a model of the Hancock some years ago, and in the process did quite a bit of digging in the primary sources.

The best pictorial sources on the Hancock's actual appearance (you probably know this) are (1) the Admiralty draught that was made after her capture by the British, and (2) the series of four oil paintings by Francis Holman, now in the Peabody-Essex Museum of Salem, Massachusetts. Back in the late seventies, right after it acquired the paintings, the museum published a book, Fired By Manley Zeal, by its then maritime curator, Philip Chadwick Foster Smith. (I imagine you have a copy; if you don't, you're in for a treat.) That book contains good reproductions of the paintings and the Admiralty draught. The latter has also been reproduced in the American Neptune, and, come to think of it, in the series of articles I did for the British periodical Model Shipwright, back in 1982-83. (My memory is, as usual, foggy. Didn't we discuss this in the forum a few months back?)

I made the same decision you did, though: I worked from the Chapelle plans, modifying the shape of the bow to match the Admiralty draught. (The latter has a few other tidbits Chapelle didn't reproduce, such as the thickness of the bulwarks. And he added some things, like the gratings on the platforms at the break of the quarterdeck.)

The only info I found about the Hancock's armament was a couple of vague references in the great Naval Documents of the American Revolution series, published by the Navy Department. There's one document (I don't have it in front of me) in which the Continental Congress authorizes the purchase of priming wires and powder charges for the Hancock - some for 6-pounders, some for 9-pounders, and some for 12-pounders. That seems to establish that she carried weapons of those three calibers. On the basis of the proportions of the powder charges in that document, I gave my model twenty-four 12-pounders on the maindeck, six 6-pounders on the quarterdeck, and two 9-pounder bow chasers on the forecastle.

The empty ports in the bow were indeed quite common. They were sometimes referred to as "bridle ports," used for passing a "bridle," a heavy line used to tow the ship or pull her up to an anchor. I have a minor disagreement with Harold Hahn on one small point regarding armament, though. He gave his Hancock two small guns on her quarterdeck, firing through ports in the transom. The plans show openings there all right, but I don't think they're gunports. They're too small, and too high off the deck.

I'm pretty sure she wasn't copper sheathed. At the time of the Revolution the Royal Navy was in the process of adopting copper sheathing; warships got coppered when they came in for refits. I know of no evidence of copper sheathing in the American Continental Navy.

If you're interested, post an e-mail address and I'll be glad to e-mail you some photos of my Hancock. It sounds like you're taking a different approach (mine is solid-hull, rigged with furled sails, on the scale of 3/32"=1'), but it's sometimes useful to see how other folks have dealt with research and modeling problems.

Good luck. She makes a handsome model.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    November 2005
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, December 23, 2004 8:04 PM
Thanks a lot. Your advice from 2 months ago and now have been indispensible. I'd be very interested to see pictures of your model. e-mail is gmorse@csc.com. When we had this discussion way back in September I was just at the point of wanting to redraw the plans, your advice made me go out and buy the Hahn book and the two Chapelle books. I don't think Fired by Manley Zeal was mentioned, but off to find that one as well. My Hahn book has been my bible for this project, especially around framing the stern and transom. You're right about the transom ports. I hadn't even noticed they're only about 24" wide compared to 30" on the quarterdeck..
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: Greenville, NC
Posted by jtilley on Thursday, December 23, 2004 10:25 PM
I've heard for a long time that older people can remember things that happened a long time ago better than recent stuff. It's true. My 54-year-old brain recalled the work I did on the Hancock (or some of it, at least) 25 years ago, and forgot our forum chat of a couple of months ago. Spooky.

I imagine Fired By Manley Zeal is hard to find nowadays, but definitely worth the effort. It contains virtually everything that's known about the Hancock, along with a nice narrative of the "battle" in which she was lost.

I hope the Peabody-Essex Museum still has those paintings on exhibit. They were regarded as a major acquisition at the time, but I have the general impression that the museum has rather de-emphasized its maritime collections recently. If they're still hanging in public view you'll want to take a look at them. (My recollection is that you live in that neck of the woods. Correct?) They're tantalizingly vague on some points and contradictory on others (e.g., the Hancock's color scheme), but fascinating. P.C.F. Smith thinks Holman, the artist, may well have actually seen the Hancock when she was being refitted in England.

I'll send some pictures via e-mail. My e-mail server seems to be out of commission tonight, but I'll try again. (If it's still not working tomorrow I'll have to wait a while. We're going to Texas on Xmas day to visit the grandchildren.)

Let me know if I can be of any further help.

Youth, talent, hard work, and enthusiasm are no match for old age and treachery.

  • Member since
    March 2011
Posted by Capt.Gio on Monday, March 28, 2011 8:48 PM

Sir,

 

Mr. Hanh, is laid up in a bed now, spoke to his wife who talked to me the other day. My question to Mr. Hahn was the transom device work. Hahn said the Hancock has a "FIVE" pointed star on the port side of the scroll work that says "Dont Tread on ME"! Please, can you confirm if that is true?

ggneis@optonline.net  please if you know this to be true can you confirm the question?

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.