HMS Surprise- The movie version

L'Unite was a 'Corvettes 24 de 8', in service from 1793 until captured in 1796 (Boudriot). The British uprated her to a 'fifth rate' or 'frigate' (Lyon). By this time she was effectively a sixth rate based on her 9 pdr. armament (but if my memory is correct, rating her as a fifth rate entitled her commander to a post captain slot) 

L'Imperieuse was an 18 pdr. frigate in service from 1786 until captured by the British in 1793 (Boudriot). The British renamed her Unite in 1803 (Lyon). She was finally hulked in 1836 (Lyon) a remarkably long life - so much for the stereotype that the French built frail ships.

Well, this is getting interesting.  I do have a copy of Mr. Goodwin's book, and when I compared the L'Unite drawings in it with the Admiralty draught Russ posted it became pretty clear that they depict two different ships.  It seems the British captured two French frigates of that name. 

The one described in the Goodwin book, according to the text, was in Royal Navy service for six years, being captured in 1796 and sold in 1802.  She retained her French name throughout that period.  The one shown in the Admiralty draught that Russ posted is, obviously, the one that got renamed H.M.S. Surprise.

There are quite a few differences.  The Unite in Mr. Goodwin's book has a raised poop (actually more of a roof over a roundhouse); the one in the Admiralty draught has shoulder-high bulwarks on her forecastle.  The distribution of the gunports is different, as is the number of deadeyes for the lower shrouds.  The angles made by the sternposts and transoms are a little different, as are the shapes of the rabbet line at the bow.  The bow of the ship in the Admiralty draught has a considerably leaner and meaner look - as one would expect in a ship that was built quite a bit later. 

Presumably Mr. Goodwin (a fine scholar who knows precisely what he's doing - and is listed as one of the technical advisors for the movie "Master and Commander") based his drawing on the Admiralty draught of the earlier Unite.  Which - if either - was the inspiration for Mr. O'Brian I have no idea.  Bottom line:  we know what the real H.M.S. Surprise looked like, because we have the Admiralty draught.  We know what the ship used in the movie looks like (quite a bit different from the real ship), because she still exists.  We know that O'Brian, when he was writing his novels, was (some of the time, at least) visualizing a vessel that looked at least a bit different from the real one.  But we don't know, and have no way of knowing, just what the one in O'Brian's head looked like.  Maybe Captain Aubrey did command a ship that looked like La Flore.  Nobody can prove he didn't.

Folks, I do believe I'll stick with models of real ships.  I enjoy digging up bits of information from historical sources, and filling in the inevitable gaps with inference and personal taste.  But reading the mind of an eccentric, ideosyncratic, and deceased novelist is beyond my capacity.

John:

I dug this up over at DDM. This may be what you were thinking of. This is the NMM plan of L'Unite aka Surprize.

http://members.aol.com/batrnq/images/WSurprise.jpg

Russ

Shipmates:

                     In the book Nelson's Ships by Peter Goodwin ,Chapter 22 is the profile of the captured French ship L'Unit'e. There is a RN profile of the ship when she was still French "configured". She was a 38 gun ship in the French Navy. The profile shows her having 14 gun ports per side on the gun deck.The history is "mixed" in the text it is known that the first "refit" the RN did to her was change her to a 36 gun ship.It is not clear if she was "cut down" her bulwarks were changed to reflect the higher "step up" of the aft bulwarks. I can not remember where I read this but some writer once claimed that the L'Unit'e was reworked agin and became the 2nd HMS Surprise. I do not know if this is factual or the writers opinion.

                     Bill Luther took the profile from this book and enlarged it to 1/130 scale, he laid the starbroad hull 1/2 from the JR kit on the scale copy. The fit was almost perfect. The aft bulwarks did not match up perfectly but that might be due to what plans were used to make the Lindberg JR. I cut down the hull of the JR to 13 gun ports per side.That was two gun ports from the center waist. I covered the aft most gun port over. She now has 12 gun ports per side.

                      I can scan this profile and send it anyone who would like a copy. I am currently working on the sails, the vac sails are not up to par. I am expermenting with making paper sails.

                                                                                              Ferg  

Well, Schoonerbumm has saved me a trip to the library.  My recollection of the photos being in the Lyon book obviously was (like so many of my recollections these days) in error.  Sorry about that.  Seems like I've seen those drawings somewhere or other.

What's the scale of that old Lindberg kit?  For my 1/128 Hancock I found that the smallest size britannia metal deadeyes from Bluejacket were about right for the lower fore and main deadeyes.  Model Expo sells some nice walnut ones that are smaller than that.  They're a little thick, but can be filed down.  The smallest deadeyes I've ever encountered commercially are some beautiful turned bakelite ones that I bought from Model Shipways about 25 years ago. I used them for the topmast shrouds of the Hancock.  I haven't seen those bakelight deadeyes on the market for years; I have a few left, but nothing would induce me to part with them.

sumpter250 wrote:

I still haven't settled exactly what I'll do about deadeyes,and lanyards, but it's getting close to time for at least lower deadeyes, and chainplates.

Apparently, then the NMM has a fair set of drawings for L'Unite. That's the good news. Note the description given in Lyon that mentioned decoration. That might very well mean they included her figurehead and perhaps some of the stern carvings as well. I have seen several "as captured" drawings from the NMM collection and most of them do include the figurehead and stern decorations. Quite often, when designing their own ships, the British did not include all the decorations on a "design" draught, but did on a few of the 1770s "as built" plans of their frigates.

Provided they did not do any serious rebuioding of L'Unite's struture before sending her back to sea, those drawings might well be useful in recreating Surprize.

Russ

The Sailing Navy list doesn't have any drawings of Surprize (L'Unite) but does confirm that the NMM has 'lines & profile & decoration/quarterdeck and forecastle'.

O'Brien is not a reliable source for many technical details (he's not well considered by many sailors for the accuracy/realism of his sailing descriptions).  His talent was in scripting soap operas for men.

P.S.: Yo, Sumpter250, got any more pics of your excellent model?

I'm in New Jersey for the weekend, and left "Surprise" in fresh paint. At this point, I have some serious masking before the next color is sprayed. I need to get the hull paint done before installing the guns, and working the main deck details. I'll get pics up as soon as I can. I still haven't settled exactly what I'll do about deadeyes,and lanyards, but it's getting close to time for at least lower deadeyes, and chainplates. I did get a reasonable facsimile of the carving on the transom done. I'll feel better about it after the painting is done.

I think Russ has it right.  O'Brian seems to have based his fictional ship on the real Surprise/ex-Unite. Why he did that, rather than inventing a fictitious ship, will, I guess, remain a mystery.

The Royal Navy's policy was to prepare plans for every significant vessel it acquired, whether by construction, purchase, or capture.  (Thank goodness.  Admiralty draughts are among our best sources of information on American sailing warships - especially those of the Revolutionary War.)  My recollection is that the Admiralty draught of the Surprise/ex-Unite is indeed the one that's reproduced in David Lyon's Sailing Navy List.  The more I think about it, though, the less confident in my memory about that I am.  Our university library has the book; I'll try to remember to take a look at it the next time I'm over there.  Apparently the book is out of print and hard to find.  I couldn't locate a new or used copy at either the Barnes and Noble site, Amazon, or Bookfinder.com.  That's a shame.  It's a first-rate reference work - and a real wish book for modelers.  In addition to tabular information about every ship of the Royal Navy during the sailing ship period, it contains hundreds of photos of Admiralty draughts.

Russ is, of course, right about the problems of working with those old drawings.  Aesthetically they're things of great beauty, but as plans for modelers they do have their drawbacks.  The truth of the matter is that for many practical modeling purposes a good photo of an Admiralty draught is as good as the full-size prints the NMM sells.  When I was working on my little model of the Continental frigate Hancock some years back I worked from a print of the Howard I. Chapelle drawings, which are available from the Smithsonian (which charges quite reasonable prices and offers good mail order service).  Chapelle's drawings are tracings from the Admiralty draught, with corrections to fair the lines (among other things).  I found photos of the Admiralty draught in a couple of books, enlarged them to the model's scale on a xerox machine, and used them as a check on Chapelle's details.  (He had the nasty habit of making changes from contemporary sources - sometimes for questionable reasons.  That's another story.)  For anybody starting with a kit, buying full-size prints from an Admiralty draught would be a waste of money - if you can find a photo of it.

John:

I cannot comment on the oines in that book either, but I can add a few tidbits to yours.

It may be that the plans Lavery refers to are, in fact, the admiralty draught of the captured L'Unite that was later renamed Surprise. As I understand it, it was this ship that was the inspiration for O'Brien's novel.

Now, regarding the copies of plans from NMM. They are, in fact, very expensive. As I commented recently on another forum, a set of 7 drawings for a British light frigate of the 1770s would cost me, after all was said and done, around $200 US. And then I would have to redraw those plans in order to use them as they would have distorted from temperature and humidity over the last 200 years.

Russ

I don't have the book Weasel505 mentioned, so I can't comment on the drawings reproduced in it.  It should, however, be fairly easy to tell whether they're the genuine Admiralty draughts or a modern version.  An eighteenth- or nineteenth-century Admiralty draught is characterized by beautiful draftsmanship (though the amount of detail varies considerably from drawing to drawing), handsome cursive lettering all over the place, and a "scale bar" running along the bottom of the outboard profile.  The scale bar consists of seven closely-spaced horizontal lines running the length of the ship.  Vertical lines are marked every foot, and numbered every five feet.  In the last foot at each end are a pair of diagonal lines forming a V, which let you step off units of two inches.  Some modern draftsmen (e.g., Howard I. Chapelle) adopted the same system, but virtually every Admiralty draught of the period has a scale bar like that.  The cross sections (which generally appear to the left of the sheer plan and waterline plan) include a series of diagonal lines that have no obvious relation to reality; they in fact indicate the radii of the circle arcs that form the cross-sections.  In good reproductions the background of an Admiralty draught usually looks light grey, probably with some darker spots at one end.  (The original was done on drafting cloth and kept rolled up for decades; the end with the stains was on the outside.)  Once you've looked at a few Admiralty draughts, it's tough to confuse them with anythig else.

If I'm not mistaken (as I could be; I haven't looked at the book in a long time) the Admiralty draught of H.M.S. Surprise is in fact reproduced in at least one other book:  David Lyon's The Sailing Navy List.  I don't have a copy of that one either; the price is beyond my budget.  But a good public or university library might have a copy.

The National Maritime Museum does sell prints of the plans in its collection.  They used to be notoriously expensive, and getting them delivered took a notoriously long time.  I think I've heard that the situation has improved in recent years; not ever having ordered any such plans myself, I can't comment from personal experience.

O'Brian was a novelist - an intensely knowledgable but highly eccentric one, to say the least.  I'm not the least surprised (oops) that he changed some details of the ship to suit his own purposes.  What does surprise me, in fact, is that he picked an actual ship to put in his fictitious stories.  C.S. Forester didn't do that.  Real ships occasionally poke their bowsprits into the Hornblower books (Hornblower was court-martialed on board H.M.S. Victory), but the Atropos, Hotspur, Renown, Lydia, Sutherland, Witch of Endor, etc. are all purely fictitious.  (Somebody may find one or more of those names attached to a ship somewhere in the history of the Royal Navy, but Forester clearly didn't intend any such association.)  One of the HECEPOB (Hideously-Expensive-Continental-European-Plank-On-Bulkhead) kit companies did produce a kit labeled "H.M.S. Atropos" some years back, but it was a reboxing of another kit representing a French corvette.

It seems that modelers determined to build Captain Aubrey's ship have their work cut out for them.  On the other hand, it's pretty clear that, in some respects at least, the vessel in question only existed in O'Brian's imagination.  Since he's dead, it would be hard for anybody to prove that a model of Jack Aubrey's Surprise was "inaccurate."

Hi all,

Surprise is still alive. A question about Surprise drawings:

In the book "Patrick O'Brian: Critical Essays and Bibliography", the chapter by Brian Lavery states that the plans for Surprise  "...survive in the National Maritime Museum". His chapter includes line drawings and a cut-away of Surprise, but nowhere does it indicate that these are THE National Maritime Museum plans.

Can anyone confirm or reject that these plans are from the National Maritime Museum? Better yet, can anyone recommend a source for the "official" Surprise plans from the museum? Other than going there myself?

I ask this because these plans (and others from various Internet sources) conflict with O'Brian's written descriptions of Surprise. Yes, I am a pain in the ass.

Thanks,

Weasel

P.S.: Yo, Sumpter250, got any more pics of your excellent model?

As was mentioned alsewhere here, sectioning the hull in the area of the sixth, and seventh gunports, the two halves mate up well with little distortion.

I laid out a centerline on paper, and then crossed it with two lines, perpendicular to the centerline, and spaced the exact distance of the removed section of hull, and another line to mark the aft end of the keel. The hull half was then laid down, with keel on the centerline, and at the aft end mark, and taped down, to hold it in place. A machinists square (or any small square) was positioned on each of the "cut lines", against the bulwark. The keel, and bulwark were marked with a scribe line. The second hull half was done the same way. Masking tape was carefully laid on the hull, in line with the scribe marks (forward and after, on each hull half). to provide the line to cut to. Joining the sections was not difficult. I use MEK (Methyl Ethyl Ketone) as a solvent cement, it evaporates quickly, and the joint stabilizes fairly rapidly. A strip of styrene backs up the joint. Any mismatch, will occur somewhere in the turn of the bilge. It is most critical that the keel be straight. and the line of the bulwark be fair. It is better that there be a small space open at the turn of the bilge, where it can be backed with the styrene strip, than to have the hull crooked at the keel or bulwark. Cutting, close to the mark, and sanding to final fit is, of course, always the correct procedure. Pre assembly fit can be checked by laying the hull sections on a sheet of glass, and checking the joint alignment. The joined hull sections can be laid back on the glass sheet to help maintain alignment untill the joint sets.

   Woodgrain detail? Go look at a board that has been painted, and maintained. Find the wood grain if you can, then picture it reduced 130 times. You will have to sand the hull in the area of the joint, you can re-create the wood grain, or sand the whole hull. After a coat of paint, anything close to scale, in the way of grain detail, will probably disappear. Hiding the seam?  Any gaps in the seam should first be filled with styrene pieces/strips/bits, and sanded, then, use your favorite body putty, wetsanding if necessary. I use Squadron white putty, and help it flow into the finest areas with a little Testors liquid plastic cement, on the "application tool" (whatever you use to apply the putty).

A glass of wine with you, sir!

One last thing, The sheet of paper, with the lines on it? keep it safe, I used it to lay out the transom windows. The arc of the bottom of the transom windows, is laid, across the centerline, and gets the window spacing laid out on it. The tramsom piece is marked with the centerline, and the slant of the outer window openings, and taped on the marking line on the paper. Following the slant of the outer windows crosses the centerline, some distance up from the transom. That point is the radius point for all the windows on the transom. The same technique is used for the gallery windows, which radiate forward from the line of the slope of the transom. In this case, the aftermost edge of the gallery window plate, is laid against the centerline, the window spacing, at the bottom of the windows, is marked on the plate, with the approximate slant of the forwardmost window edge, which then determines the radius point for all the gallery windows.

Pete

weasel, First, my appologies, I didn't intend to hijack your thread, but it began to appear that I did.

A glass of wine with you, sir! Apology? Never in life! Hijacking a thread, such stuff! The more threads on our dear ol' barky the better, do you not see, ha, ha, ha! I give you joy in your new thread!

But seriously folks....

I think you have hit the proverbial nail on the head with your decision to model the movie version of Surprise, a.k.a. the "HMS" Rose, as modified for the film. It's the only source of "accurate" plans we have, at least to my knowledge. I like the idea of following one KNOWN plan and sticking to it; to try to go with questionable published plans, fanciful wooden models, and written descriptions leaves me uncomfortable, like I'm just guessing. If I put that much effort into a model project I want it to be accurate according to something real.

As I'm sure you are well aware, there are great pics of Rose-as-Surprise at the HMS Rose website. To adapt the Lindberg kit I suppose you have abandoned the kit decks for wood-grained styrene sheet? And here is my burning question: can you describe how you cut and spliced the hull, specifically, how you rejoined the sections, and blended in the seam? What happened to the kit's wood grain? Sand it all off? How did you hide the seam, please?

I'm currently on book 20 (the last) in the series, Blue at the Mizzen (and I'm bummed). In reading the series I have made some notes on POB's written descriptions of Surprise, as well as notes on Geoff Hunt's cover artwork for the series. Hunt's artwork is reputed to be "very accurate", even by O'Brian himself, but accurate according to what I don't know. In any case I present my notes below for the board's perusal, use, or non-use:

HMS Surprise According to PO’B

 Text References:

 The Letter of Marque

Quote 1, p.37: “’… And even now, although this is not the Admiral’s supper table,’ he said quietly, looking at the wheel, which in the Surprise was just forward of the mizenmast, ten feet away, with its helmsman…”

 Quote 2, p. 66: “…but the four men at the wheel and the officer standing behind them with one arm around the mizenmast…”

Implication:       The wheel is in fact forward of the mizzen, not behind, as usually depicted, ca. 1813

Quote, p. 66:    “Most of the watch were in the waist, sheltering from the worst of the spray, rain and flying water under the break in the forecastle…”

 Implication:       Either 1) that there is a step up from the waist to the forecastle, OR 2) that the waist is open and one can go directly under the forecastle deck (2 seems more likely)

The Yellow Admiral

Quote, p. 131:  “…he fell: fell almost straight, just brushing the maintop in his fall and striking one of the starboard quarterdeck carronades…”

Implication:       The quarterdeck had more than one carronades and one was located very near the main mast, ca. 1813-1814

The Hundred Days

Quote, p. 127-128:      “The gun crews had been waiting for the word, and now the red-painted lids all flew up as one, while two seconds later the guns ran out…”

 Implication:       The gun port lids were painted red, presumably on the inside, since the exterior had the Nelson Chequer; perhaps the interior walls of the gun deck were red, ca. 1813-1814

Quote, p. 165:  “…he had given Billy Green, armourer’s mate, a shove as he went aft along the gangway, a shove that Green had returned with such force that Killick plunged between the skid beams to the deck below…”

 Implication:       The waist was indeed open, with gangways on both sides and skid-beams for the boats and spars, and not grated over, ca. 1813-1814

Geoff Hunt Cover Art:

 The Truelove

 1. Shows ship’s boats on davits at stern and on starboard quarter (and, presumably, larboard quarter), ca. 1813-1814

 The Wine Dark Sea

 1. Shows the quarterdeck extending forward to the location of the main mast, ca. 1813-1814

2. Shows an open-topped waist with skid-beams supporting ship’s boats, ca. 1813-1814

 Blue at the Mizzen

 1.  Shows the quarterdeck extending forward to the location of the main mast, 1815

2.  Shows an open-topped waist with skid-beams supporting ship’s boats, 1815

3. (on full-sized painting, not just the book cover) Shows ship’s boats on davits at stern and on starboard quarter (and, presumably, larboard quarter), 1815

 A lot of variability here. That's why I like the idea of doing the movie ship plan, since trying to sort out all the other info seems undoable.

Anyway, I am inspried by your Surprise thus far and am glad that my kit (well, the hull) is still on my desk, masking taped together, and not put back into the stash. Your gallery windows are some fine styrene work, outstanding! Can't wait to see more!

All for now, and hope I haven't been boring,  

Weasel

P.S.: If you see weird formating above, I have no idea how that happened.....

weasel, First, my appologies, I didn't intend to hijack your thread, but it began to appear that I did.

In the pics I posted, I hadn't yet cut back the bulwarks, That cut happens behind the main shrouds, and wasn't immediately visible. It's been done  I'm working on the bow, and gun deck details. Attaching, and painting the gunport lids will be fun, and I don't know if I will try to reproduce the lanyards used to open the ports. That will depend on what materials I can find.

Greg,  I emailed you some info on the sails.   Pete

 Sweet!  Send me the info about the sails...sounds excellent!

           ewaldbros@hotmail.com

                        greg

Mighty impressive work! Do keep us informed. I see you cut back the quarterdeck; should the bulwarks be similarly cut back too? That's how it looks in pictures of HMS Rose that I have. More later.

Weasel

Transom, and quarter galleries are scratchbuilt from Evergreen sheet, and strip styrene. I still have some detail work to do on the galleries, and a lot of work on the bow. The Surprise's bowsprit has a lower rise than the "Roger", I have some changes to make.

All the cannon are ready to install, and I'm starting on the gratings that I'll need. I cannot, in any form of good conscience, use the shroud/ratline/deadeye assemblies. I am looking into the possibility of using just the deadeye/lanyard part, with thread shrouds, and formed wire chainplates. Also, at 1:130 there are a lot of details I may have to leave off the finished model, though, the challenge is there to try to include them. I think furled sails will be the best approach, and I'll include as much rigging as I can find material to do it with. The heavy rigging will be fine enough at this scale, some of the lighter rigging may be left off, as it would be almost invisible.

I could use a full front, clear, picture of the figurehead. I'm still trying to determine whether or not the fore deck is raised, and if so, how big is the step, and how far abaft the bow it raises.

And my next project was to be an outside frame 30" gauge 2-6-6-2 in O scale!

Beautiful job!

The new transom looks almost like a resin casting.... any for sale? 

How about a peek at the new bow?