You're welcome, Roger. The only delegation which arrived with a plan was the Virginia delegation, and the Virginia plan called for a legislature chosen on the basis of the proportion of population, which, if mooted, would have torpedoes the convention on day one.
The Virginia plan would also have had a plural executive, a committee rather than one chief magistrate (the President). The point of that was to keep the executive weak. It was a bad idea. In the Continental Congress, the executive was a President chosen by the members from among their own ranks (each state could send a many members as they chose, but had but a single vote). Essentially, that executive was only an executive in the way that a middle level manager is an executive--simply enforcing (or trying to enforce) policies determined by others.
Seeing Washington sitting in the President's chair day after day during the convention strongly influenced the powers accorded to the President in the constitution. The executive imagined in the constitution had great powers, because the image before the public man was of Washington, a true paragon of integrity. In respect of personal probity and selfless devotion to the ideals of the republic, the whole shootin' match went down hill beginning with president number two, and has not improved since. Washington did not, however, get everything he wanted--he wanted a provision that bills the President vetoed would require a three fourths vote for Congress to override--but by and large, he was happy with the result.
I can't recommend a single book which describes the convention and its deliberations well, unfortunately. It takes a lot of reading to get a good sense of what actually went on. That's because most writers descriptions of the significance of persons and events is strongly influenced by the political opinions they hold when they begin the endeavor.