HMS Psyche drawings

Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
134
Points
78

When I got the plans from the NMM I was surprised at what I found.

As you can see. there are many things to look at. At first glance there are double openings for the gun ports. there are two decks each, there are a mess of lines at the stem, things missing that should be there. As there isn't a contract that I could follow how other ships were built in the Yard and by Strickland had to be used.
The following picture shows the front stem area. Here you will notice thick dark lines under the bowsprit. The before and after. Which one is right?


In the stern area there are missing items. Where if any are the transoms? How are the decks attached and hoe about the deadwood.

Never mind the mess at the cabin lights area. This would probably take care of it's self once the stern was redrawn.

All of the darker lines are the changes Strickland made to the original drawings. If I wanted an accurate model I need to distinguish what is the changes. In this next photo is the descriptions of the ships specifications. What you will notice is the depth of hold measurement. It reads original 12' but it is cross through and 10' 3" is added. This means to me he lowered the deck 1'9" and it would stand to reason he lowered everything by that amount.

I guess my next challenge was to draw what I had knowing certain measurements of the original ship.
She was, Gun Deck 130' long and the Breadth Moulded was 35'4". The Keel was similar in design of the ships built in Kingston. I do be leave for lack of long, straight and thick enough material. The Keel was in three parts. The top part, with the rabbit was 15 sided x 14 moulded. The next under the Keel was 6 inches sided and the false Keel was 5" thick. For a brand total of 25" As most ships required a rising wood to attach the frames to, the drawings supplied roughly measured 5" thick. What is interesting is that it runs under the Stern posts.

psyche plan.jpgblowup of front section.jpgstern.jpgdepth of hold.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Zoltan
I hope you will like what I am doing.
This is a process I do go through when I draw up a ship.

The next step is to set the heights of the decks. On the plans , at the mid section there are frames drawn in, These are used to show several things. The first is the room and space. Even though they are digital copies they do give an approximation of the sizes of the frames but also the spacing. In this case they are approximately 11" with a spacing of 5". The other is the order of the frames. Which ones have the floors spanning the Keel but which ones have the first futtocks against the keel. The next important lines are the height of the frames and the Keelson depth. In this case the Psyche has 14" floors at the Keel and the Keelson is 7 to 8" depth. Why I say 7 to 8" because right now I don't know positively but the frames are recessed onto the frames to lock them into place.
The following pic shows what I am describing.


Usually on top of the frames there are the ceiling planking and next to the Keelson is a plank called the Limber Strake. Based on evidence from Walker's article," Wreck Baker" no Limber Strake was found. Also if you look at the time line to build the Psyche, she was launched in less than two months. I would suspect shortcuts were made. Also maybe lack of materials had a part in that as well. So if that's the case I put four inch thick planking on the frames. From here I measured up 10'3" and made a mark for the under side of the planking for the lower deck. All this was done at the dead flat frame or station.

deadflatarea.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I did next was to draw in the two Perpendiculars at the fore rabbit and aft rabbit. This measurement was 130'. Because I am drawing on top of the digital plans I drew in approximately the station lines. They were approximately every 70" with a few exceptions. Because Strickland lowered everything by 1'9", it means that to maintain the 130' gun deck length he had to move the stem out as well. The dark lines on the stem show what he did. It affected everything, bowsprit, hawse holes, figurehead, Keel, etc.


As you can see by the above pic the red arrows show the slight changes done.It shoves everything out and down. The red x just means it is not part of the final drawing. I made my first mistake on the upper gun ports because my research led me to be-leave that 32 pounder carronades needed more elevation to go the same distance as 28 pounder long cannons. But I was wrong. So the x area means the ports and rails were lowered.
On the next pic it is showing the changes Strickland had to do for the lower stem/ Keel area.


The red lines show the changes to the front of the Keel and the Rabbit.
I need to determine where the gun deck is to draw it. I add 3" for the planking,to the 10'9" to get the top measurement of the lower deck. From here I added 70" to get to the underside of the gun deck. Again I added 3" for the planking to arrive at the top side of the gun deck. I drew a straight line from the underside of the gun deck planking to the fore perpendicular. Next I had to determine the sheer. Using the original plans and where the gun deck was drawn I estimated the fore sheer to be 3.875" and the aft sheer to be 17.5" _ Like I said because there is no contract available measurements from the plans are used within reason). After making marks at both perpendiculars, I drew in the gun deck. From here it was relatively easy to draw in the lower deck. Next step is to draw the stem.

stem changes.jpglower stem.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok I got the drawings fine so as soon as I get something going in Solidworks I will post them here along with any notations you might need to know about
 
I am very sorry that I haven't posted further. I am learning a new program called Solidworks and I feel it better in the long run. Being able to show a 3D representation as you design the plans is in the futuer for a lot of things today.
When I get going I will post what I have done.
Thanks Dave
 
Hello Folks
I am back to finish the H.M.S.psyche and then build an Admiralty model of her.
I decided to scrap everything I had previously done. The High Resolution plans I got from the N.M.M. were so distorted that I decided it was easier to draw it out rather than trace the existing plan.
As an example of the distortion, the keel when you drew a straight line across it was lower in the middle by 9".
The station lines were off as much as 3" on the vertical.
So I use the plans as measurement guides now and am redrawing it.


As previously stated the Psyche presented itself in a rather unique way. Not only was it part of a shipment to Canada of pre-framed up ships, but it was also modified to suit Commodore Yeo. It went from originally 32 gun Frigate to 54 guns. Research is needed here for anyone going to outfit her. She is listed as having 28-28 pounders on the gun deck and 32 pounders on the upper deck. There isn't any listings for 28 pounders but Dave Stevens did mention that they could be 24's but a very long gun. But also mentioned that their was odd ball cannons around the Great lakes and they could be there.
The very first area I came across that was a problem, was the Depth of Hold. She was listed as 10'3' Not a problem. When I measured from the top of the frames to the underside of the first deck planking, it should have been 10'3" plus 4 or 5" for a Limber strake. No such thing. It measured exactly 10'3'. Did Strickland draw in the Limber strake as part of the floors or did he omit it altogether. When the framing is drawn I may know then.
As the plans only show the Depth of Hold that is the way I drew it.

I have drawn the basics of the ship as Inboard works plan. And will continue to add the inner details.
As I can only draw for so long before headaches and eye strain it will be awhile doing this.
Thanks
 
this is the Princess Charlotte based on the archaeological study done on the wreck
even the PC wreck was not an exact match to the plans. There was a 10 foot over all difference between the wreck and the drawings.

back bone.jpg
 
Yes I have Walkers cad drawing he did. There is some differences.
I guess I am wrong in one area. I was always under the impression the keel itself was never touched. Here you have it notched
for the frames.
I also found out reading Mossington papers. The keel was 13x13 with an added 12x13 piece. I guess you really can't say it was the false keel. As it would be , I assume ,bolted directly to the keel.
 
Last edited:
i added the notches because i was going to make a kit and build the hull in a jig so you needed the keel notches so the frame would line up with the notches in the jig
 
Last edited:
Hi everyone
So I have been busy as much as I can in a week.
Breasthooks, riders, deck beams etc.
If you look closely at the upper 3 decks you are going to notice a very big change to ordinary ship construction. On top of the beams are another set of beams. In my estimation, and using the Regent, and Princess Charlotte as previous examples, Strickland possibly deviated from the norm due to speed. The St. Lawrence Regent used Lodging knees. But the Charlotte used them on the Orlop deck only. According to the survey of the wreck, there was no evidence to suggest the Lodging Knees were used on the other decks.
I would put them on the Psyche's Orlop deck, but I feel Strickland, put the second "Layer" of beams to give support for the extra weight of the cannons, but also to compensate for the lack of Lodging knees and Hanging Knees. These are all possibly bolted in place.
There was no evidence at all to suggest Hanging knees were used on the St. Lawrence, or the Charlotte at all.inboarda.jpg, Regent or Princess Charlotte.
 
Since my last update I have added the gun ports and adjusted decks and railings where they were a problem. All 3 masts were calculated and added.
When I do a drawing I wonder and try to figure out why, such and such, was done. I speculated before that a second Layer of beams etc. made up the decks, and bolted to those beams and through the ledges as well.
To give credence to that theory, if you look at the gun deck, at the wing transom area. You will notice a beam added to the underside of the gun deck and bolted to 4 beams. In the original drawing it also extends to the side of the stern post. My theory is because they are using half frames up the Deadwood, there probably isn't enough strength to stop any movement of the sternpost under load. This beam is bolted to the underside of the beams od the gun deck and then bolted to the sides of the stern post. BTW there are 2 of these beams, one on ether side of the sternpost.
Using Walker's paper, He stated on the Charlotte there were 3 types of frames, Full, Half and cant. The body plan of the Psyche shows NO eveidence of cant frames in the stern.
That's my theory anyway
ports.jpg
 
I would put them on the Psyche's Orlop deck, but I feel Strickland, put the second "Layer" of beams to give support for the extra weight of the cannons, but also to compensate for the lack of Lodging knees and Hanging Knees. These are all possibly bolted in place.

i thought of using a second layer of beams on top of the first beams
i would question that idea for the following reasons and this is just my thoughts on it.
first off in ship building in general the idea is to keep the upper part of the ship as light as possible to prevent the ship from being top heavy. Ship with to much weight in the upper part tend to make the hull roll. Ships built on the lakes often used a heavy wood such as White Oak for the floors and first futtocks and Cedar for the upper parts of the frames to keep the weight as low as possible. so adding a second set of beams on top of the originals would add a lot of extra top weight. If you wanted to move the deck up just raise the deck clamps. If you wanted more support for the cannons just increase the amount of beams or use bigger size beams.

adding beams to compensate for lack of knees whould do the opsite and not add straingth to the ship but the extra weight bearing down on the clamps and sides of the ship would cause the sides to buckle outward. Henry Eckford when he built the Jefferson did not use knees, what he did was to notch the ends of the beams over the clamps and add a beam on top to clamp the beam in place. The Jefferson deck still showed signs of breaking away at the sides.
the plan does show the gun ports were moved i dont know if they were moved up or down and you can see 2 deck line drawn one is the original and one is the new location.

nothing in the original drawing shows the use of or not the use of cant frames. Again i think the Psyche was built just lile the charlotte.

psyche.jpg
 
Goudie was brought in to build ships at Kingston. In another thread, Dave S., you mentioned that He and Henry Eckford were childhood friends. Is it possible that the 2 of them exchanged ideas around ship construction. It seems possible as the modified plans of Psyche show this extra beam on top of others. As you said Eckford tried this on the Jefferson.
Also there are deck planking on top of this extra beam. Ideas.

If the depth of hold is the indicator, he lowered the decks 21". It stands to reason he also lowered the gun ports as well. This is the way I am drawing it. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Well Dave S. I concede the discussion we had about Bell vs. Strickland to you.
Let me explain.
I do seem to forget that back then, it was not a simple matter to get approval for plans at a timely pace. The plans for Psyche would have been in Canada before Strickland and that would mean Bell had to change them.
But the most significant reason, if you examine the plans for the St. Lawrence, Regent Charlotte and the Psyche they all show the same pattern of construction on the decks.
The tip was the cross section of the St. Lawrence.. It shows 3 Carlings inset and bolted to the beams and then bolted to the frames and possibly to the clamps. The beams however were notched into these clamps.
If all the plans show similar style of construction, it was designed by the same Master Shipwrighty, Bell.
Anyway., Dave S. I have gotten information from Archives Ontario, Archives Canada,(different entity) articles from Texas A and M university and of course some internet information. I also have Jonathan Moore's articles of his dives onto all the wrecks. The Mossington and Barrie Papers.
The only problem was I skimmed through them looking for the word Psyche but did not READ them.
It is also hard to convert old english to modern. It does take time.
I have spent the last several days reading and learning again. Surprising what you can learn if you READ.
Hit me over the head several times to get me to learn, And you can never insult me or offend. Just tell me I'm wrong and set me on the right path.
I thought the purpose of these sites were to learn and even pass on information, I intend to do that I hope.
 
I would put them on the Psyche's Orlop deck, but I feel Strickland, put the second "Layer" of beams to give support for the extra weight of the cannons, but also to compensate for the lack of Lodging knees and Hanging Knees. These are all possibly bolted in place.

i thought of using a second layer of beams on top of the first beams
i would question that idea for the following reasons and this is just my thoughts on it.
first off in ship building in general the idea is to keep the upper part of the ship as light as possible to prevent the ship from being top heavy. Ship with to much weight in the upper part tend to make the hull roll. Ships built on the lakes often used a heavy wood such as White Oak for the floors and first futtocks and Cedar for the upper parts of the frames to keep the weight as low as possible. so adding a second set of beams on top of the originals would add a lot of extra top weight. If you wanted to move the deck up just raise the deck clamps. If you wanted more support for the cannons just increase the amount of beams or use bigger size beams.

adding beams to compensate for lack of knees whould do the opsite and not add straingth to the ship but the extra weight bearing down on the clamps and sides of the ship would cause the sides to buckle outward. Henry Eckford when he built the Jefferson did not use knees, what he did was to notch the ends of the beams over the clamps and add a beam on top to clamp the beam in place. The Jefferson deck still showed signs of breaking away at the sides.
the plan does show the gun ports were moved i dont know if they were moved up or down and you can see 2 deck line drawn one is the original and one is the new location.

nothing in the original drawing shows the use of or not the use of cant frames. Again i think the Psyche was built just lile the charlotte.

View attachment 177345
you sated that you didn't know which way they moved the decks. On the plan with the half breadth and body plan you can read a description of what was done.
A plan showing the body plan, sheer lines with midship framing, longitudinal half breadth proposed (and approved) for building Psyche (1814), Prompte (1814), both 32-gun, Fifth Rate Frigates. Note the modifications dated December 1813 to lower the decks and corresponding gun ports. On March 1814, this plan was sent to Canada for building the Psyche (1814) on the Lakes, after additional modifications to add a spur deck. Annotation: top right (black) ; "The deck to be lowered, in other respects this Draft is approved for the frames of two ships for service or the Lakes in Canada. To be prepared with all possible dispatch to be constructed of fir timbers: 22 December 1813." top (red) ; "A copy sent to Chatham 23rd Dec 1813 agreeable to the alterations in red with the Head, Cathead Bowspirit & Dead Eye And Wale lowered 1ft 9in" top left (black) ; "By order from Sir Robert Hall Acting Commissioner of the Navy to Canada, dated 9th Nov 1814. The Pysche was to have a spur deck added to her capable of carrying guns fore & aft."

Date made 21 December 1813
Also as you can see approvals were given in December 1813 Strickland arrived in June of 1814. Must have been Bell who modified the plans.
 
Again on the modified plan

. A plan showing the inboard profile after alterations for building in fir Psyche (1814), Prompte (1814), both 32-gun, Fifth Rate Frigates at Chatham Dockyard. Four copies of this plan were sent to Quebec for Mr.Strickland, Master Shipwright, between January and March 1814.

Date made 31 January 1814

Plans were already modified and sent. I would hazard a guess that Strickland carried the plans with him and the fir framing and supplies when the sships departed in February and march 1814
 
Taking a break from the inboard plan, and working on the body plan and framing plan.
The framing plan helps to show how the frames are layed out , with the room and space. I haven't quite got that figured out right now.
 
Back
Top