References
- 1949 . The History of the American Sailing Navy 64 New York
- 1806 . Letters of George III Vol. III , 55 – 9 . Memoirs of the Rise and Progress of the Royal Navy, London,. In fact Derrick later notes that they were too full in the after part, which is only one of a number of criticisms made of the ships of this Establishment by a later Surveyor, Sir John Williams, in a letter to the King dated 11 January 1774. This is to be found in Fortescue's London, 1927–8, Vol., pp. The writer is indebted to Dr Roger Knight for this reference
- 1774 . Roebuck This ship was far larger than the 1745 44's, having similar dimensions to the class of
- Even this was a belated addition being two years later than the penultimate of her class
- 1974 . M.M. , 60 ‘The First English Frigates’, No. 2, p. 165. In fact the Admiralty's lack of terminological precision with regards to the sixth rates, is trivial in comparison with the Navy Board's confusion in thought about these vessels. For example, they gave the much smaller 20's, ordered between 1753 and 1756 the same masts and spar as the late 24's. Their disingenuous defence of the resulting crankness can be found in letters to the Admiralty: N.M.M.: ADM/B/152 24 May 1756; ADM/B/153, 28 June and 19 July 1756. Later they twice report contracts for three ‘20-gun ships’ where one vessel in each case is a 28 (ADM/B/150, 6 June and 30 June 1755)
- Progress Book II, 431
- 2 April 1756 . The Southampton 2 April , sheer, No. 2355, mentions that the other three were built from this draught. As the contract for Southampton was signed on (N.M.M. ADM/B/152, 2 April) the design was already fixed
- 1733 . These ratios, laid out in Table 1, are obviously significant elements in the initial stages of design because the unratified Establishments of and 1741, where only round figures are used, give length-to-breadth ratios of 3–48 and 3–50 respectively for every class of vessel. Furthermore, for all classes from 70's to 20's in 1733, this common ratio is achieved by increasing the breadths by different amounts. In fact the change in the ratios between 1677 and 1745 provides a simplified graph of English warship design
- The yard may have been sent an unmodified copy by mistake
- 1759 . Arethusa Typical French frigates were, of 3·83, Brune, 1761, of 3·79 and Danae, 1759, of 3·90. However, they vary from the little Emerald, 1757, of 3·40 to the unusual Baleine, 1760, of 4·68; 3·7 to 3·8 is the average
- 1907 . Southamptons Most museum models of early 32's are referred to generally as but many are Richmonds. The National Maritime Museum's 1757–1 and 1757–2 (although the former carries a label specifically calling it a ‘Southampton Class frigate’) are both Richmonds. The Science Museum's 32, Inv. −56, is also of this class but Laird Clowes' attempt to find a particular prototype—he decided on the Juno- was lucky enough to land on a vessel of the right class. In fact, weighing up the evidence, his identification is almost unimpeachable
- 1800 . History of Marine Architecture 3 vols; London −1802, Vol. Ill, Ch. XI
- In some cases figures are quoted to the nearest ⅛ inch. The accuracy of the surveying, however, is unlikely to live up to such fine tolerances simply because of the difficulty of carrying out the survey on a newly launched ship. Letters on this problem are to be found in the Public Records Office, ADM 95/63–66 and 77–78. However, in general, gun deck lengths of about 6 inches or more either side of the designed dimensions are unusual and probably means that the vessel belongs to a different class
- 2 April 1756 . 2 April , Navy Board to Admiralty, N.M.M. ADM/B/152
- 1968 . The Search for Speed under Sail 64 London
- 1751 . Dolphin Four years, if one ignores the of
- At this time the term ‘frigate’ was also used of sloops, but these were the first ship-rigged sloops in the Navy, and so ‘frigate’ simply meant frigate-rigged (that is, ship-rigged)
- II,425
- List for January 1771
- 1964 . Royal Yachts 8 G. P. B. Naish, London
- 30 October 1754 . Deal Castle, Squirrel 30 October , and the Tygre-derived Biddeford support the thesis that differences of more than about 6 inches in gun deck length indicates a new class. Because these vessels had their prototypes noted, the writer at first assumed that they were sisters of the Seaford Gibraltar respectively. In fact they were all replacements for earlier sixth rates, by draughts prepared under the same Admiralty Order of. For some reason the replacement vessels were directed to be 400 tons, instead of the 430 of the Seaford Gibraltar specification (and also two out of three of their predecessors). Possibly, the Admiralty meant 430 tons but was not being specific or else it was a scribal error—either way, the Navy Board executed its instructions to the letter and modified designs were prepared
- Y5-Y10
- II, 568
- Arehitectura Navalis Mercatoria Plate XLIV
- Circe, Pallas, Jason, Hebe, Thames, Minerva, Alexandria. The first ship of this class was to have been the Medea, but the order was cancelled in 1800