HMS Psyche drawings

n this case on a French stern the frames are square to the keel but the fashion timber cants back so the transom can be bolted to the back side. The the hull frames are built off the fashion timber. Sometimes the wing transom sat on the fashion timber sometimes it is bolted to the back face of the fashion timber.

The actual way the Psyche stern was built is an unknown. All you can do is figure in the circumstances at the time, who built the ship and take your best guess.

On the drawing by Strickland :"as built" the transoms are as such looking like they are bolted to a canted frame. The last pic you had could actually be that, a canted fashion piece bolted to the backs of the Transoms. Thanks. I keep learning.
Also your last statement is very true. How she was built is an unknown. She wass destroyed on the stocks in 31 therefore we will never know for sure how she was built. But from the other ships built in Kingston, Bell did have the ships he built in Amherstburg to use for the designs at Kingston. They were successful there and see no reason to doubt them in Kingston.
There was a phrase I saw in an article somewhere, but cant remember where, but it described ships built like the ones at Kingston. Their purpose was war. To be built fast and how long they last is a guess.
I'll keep drawing and asking questions and hope to come close to what she was.
I have added quite a bit to the Inboard works drawing and suspect I am done for now. Unless there are mistakes or missed items I am going on to other drawings.inboard.jpg
There was a phrase I saw in an article somewhere, but cant remember where, but it described ships built like the ones at Kingston. Their purpose was war. To be built fast and how long they last is a guess.

i also read something about an inspection of the Kingston ships after the war, the Admiralty sent inspectors to determine what to do with the ships. it was said they were not built to "admiralty standards" but were built fast and built just for war. The war ended before a major battle took place but judging from what was being built at Kingston, British may have won the battle.
I think perhaps one advantage the British had was to employ French shipwrights because the French were building ships on the lakes a 100 years before the British got there. So the French knew how to build ships and sail the inland seas.
interesting the war of 1812 was between the Americans and British but it was the Scottish and French who built the war ships for both sides.

three huls.jpg

these ships were one of a kind design because they did not have to carry provisions there hulls were built for speed and built to carry "heavy metal" they were built for war.

the Princess Charlotte's hull shape very narrow and both the Charlotte and Psyche were built with speed in mind

charlotte.jpgcharlotte deck view.jpg
I know Dave is right about the designing of these ships from Admiralty plans. It just means that no matter how much research you do or many years of looking into the plans it comes down to it is just your interpretation of how she was built.
What I try to do is as much research and evidence to prove as much as possible that this was how she was built.
That said the question of the Psyche's decks are in question.
There are 3 details that I am going to use to show my case for the way Bell designed it.
1). If you refer to the x section of the St. Lawrence above you are looking at the decks against the frames. The beam is across to the other side of the ship, but what you will notice is there are 3 carlings situated against the frame( side) of the ship but cut into the beam. The 3" decking is on top of this. This holds true for the other decks except the bottom deck which happens to be the Orlop deck. Here they used lodging knees and a lot of bolts through the hull to secure it. This lodging knee was made from straight lumber not compass oak. Straight grained means it runs from one side to the other all are straight. No bending of the grain.
If you look at the inboard plan of the ship you will see, the 3" deck , below that what looks like a beam and then below that a smaller section of the actual beam.
Pic 1 This is also shown on the drawings of the Princess Charlotte and I also suspect on the Prince Regent plans as well.carlines.jpg
2) The second evidence is the deck transom of the top deck of the Psyche. This pic shows that the 3" decking and the carlings are indeed used and inserted into this transom.
top transom.jpg
3) and lastly are newspaper advertisments at the time of construction of the ships looking for compass oak. It was in short supply or not at all and Bell had to make ideas work. The articles that state this are by Walker and Kopps.

So based on this evidence I have started the drawing of the upper deck of the Psyche, carlings included.
I was going through some old stuff I had backed up on CD and came across some Cad Drawings of the Psyche dunno where got them from as I didnt draw them up
I was going through some old stuff I had backed up on CD and came across some Cad Drawings of the Psyche dunno where got them from as I didnt draw them up

a while back Winston and i had this idea to post a bunch of drawings that anyone could use. What they are was when Harold Hahn gave me his plan collection of about 120 sets of plans i started to scan them some were CAD tracings others were originals. The ships built at Kingston were among the drawing collection. So this is where you might of gotten the drawings from.
here is an interesting little fact about the cant frames at the stern.

the last ship William Bell built at the Amherstburg shipyard was the General Hunter when the wreck was found i was reading the archaeological report and came across this. So it looks like William Bell used the French style of building on the General Hunter so it would be logical he continued using the same method when he got to Kingston.

By the example given, I do agree that Bell, continued to design the same way in Kingston. I guess the old adage if it worked don't change it.
I already came up with the last frame as a cant frame. Stricklands "as built" drawing has the transoms as though the frame was canted. Frame 24 only went as far as the wing Transom. Using frames 22 and 23 , I was able to reverse draw the 24th frame. I guess the only way to know if it's right is to build the model.
I have the Transoms as inset into the frame but no fashion piece. No room for it.
With the room and space set small anywayit would be very strong.
As a side note
Sharing ideas, whether based in fact or speculating because of items that are on the drawing elsewhere, are tremendous.
I like what is happening between people here and it SHOULD continue into others ideas if it's ok.
For me, Dave S. said that no matter what, we will only guess at to what was really built. Yes, BUT and that's a big BUT, by using information from the drawing, "as Built" and past ships designed and built, we CAN develop a set of plans that are reasonably close to how it was built. Nothing would or could be better than the actual ship or wreck, but we do what we can.
As the wreck of the Princess Charlotte shows, it is incomplete. The decks and upper workings are missing. So even then it is guess work to redesign it.
But have a group of people with shared interest together. we can come up with a reasonable set of drawings.
Why not start something like this for other ships. It doesn't matter your degree or level of experience, ideas are ideas, and they can by used or not.
One person draws wile others discuss how or why. Like Dave S. just did, providing some written evidence from another vessel but the same esigner, could be answers to how a problem can be solved.
Sorry for the rant, but this has always been a particular irritant for me when help is needed.
very well said Dave

in the past we did encounter people who will argue just to be right and this type of discussions, like we are having here would break down into hurt feelings or name calling. Some people just go by the book and say look here page ??? shows how an English ship was built. What they do not take into account is maybe it was built that way and maybe not, depends on who the shipwright was and under what circumstances the ship was built.

i say it again we can reconstruct a ship from our "best guess" and present a set of drawings saying this is how the ship could have been built and NOT how it was built.

I like what is happening between people here and it SHOULD continue into others ideas if it's ok.

and it is happening with other ships take this wreck as an example, the complete ship is being reconstructed first as a 3d model and from there a set of drawings and model. How anyone or team goes about a reconstruction? this topic on the Psyche demonstrates the process.

i tip my hat to you Dave for the amount of work you are doing on the Psyche

Ok so who is good with written language.
This is directly above the main mast on the quarter deck. I am having trouble deciphering it.
My best guess is something to do with bitts but not sure.wording.jpg
Main beams running vertical and carlings above main mast at bottom.

Been taking my time as theree are a lot of little areas that are questions.
The mast partners are one that I had to work out.
Goodwin's book helps but I am not sure as the Psyche was built under different circumstances without establishments being the normal.
Anyway thanks for any imput.
As soon as I read your reply. I swore.
It hits you in the face with a smack. :)
Thanks it was so obvious