need some ideas please

[garyshipwright]

Yes I have David Lyons book, but there are some inaccuracies.
Princess Charlotte was launched july/august of 1814. She was renamed Burlington but not until October as she was in Ordinary. There would have confusion as a nother ship was the Princess Charlotte.
As far as the Psyche her keel was laid September of 1814 and launched December 24th of that year.
She was to have 28 -28 pounders on the gun deck but only 26-30 pounders on the upper deck.
This all confirmed by Thomas Mossington who was in charge of pay and acquisitions. I have his papers and he did keep a pretty detailed accounts of both pay and what was need in dispersments for each ship.
If you look in the book, British smooth bore armament, they did make 28 pounders.
A lot of supplies for the ships in North America were salvaged of of old or damaged ships. Not necessarily on the lakes. Ships docking at Quebec, or Nova Scotia, that were beyond fixable were torn down for their supplies.
Example, cordage, sails etc., came from ships docked at Quebec for use on the lake ships.

Thanks Davef. I don't think I have the British smooth bore armament and will have to give it a look. I do have one by Adrian B. Caruana vol 2 and gives the gun establishment up to 1815 and still have the same listing on the guns and then another one Naval Guns , 500 years of Ship and coastal Artillery by Hahs Mehl but also doesn't give any thing different. I did find something called the British smooth bore artillery by David McConnell that was printed in 1988, and doesn't list any thing under a 28. Can you give me more info on the book sir, could be a good addition to the library. Most books have those inaccuracies which its nice when I can use my primary research to see if the book is accurate. .

 

[garyshipwright]

Davef . Just a question but what establishment are you using for your scantlings for the Psyche and what books of John Fincham do you have? Might be good ones to get if I don't have them. You also mention a framing plan of the Psyche which show the spacing of her frames which might be good to have to. Could be good for researching them in the future. Just wonder. Any chance of getting a copy of it, the framing plan that is. I will pay for the plan. Once again thank you. Gary

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

the ships built at Kingston were lets say one of a kind custom built ships. Yes it was an English royal shipyard but the shipbuilders were French from Quebec and William Bell was a Scottish shipwright. There were some Shipwrights from England but only a few the work was carried out by local shipwrights.

Bell was the master shipwright at the British yard at Fort Malden when the Americans over ran the fort Bell and his gang of ship builders went to Kingston to help build the frigates. Records show there were no British shipbuilders among them they were all French shipwrights.
so you can not compare the Kingston ships with British built ships in England.

if all the ships were French built by the same ship builders at the same time in the same yard i would bet they built them the same. so the timbering of the Princess Charlotte and the Psyche were probably the same.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

this is the Psyche as sent from England but not as she was built
it was designed as single frames it was one of the fir built ships the shipwrights at Kingston doubled up the frames to make sistered frame.

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

way back i was creating a 3d model for the framing of the Princess Charlotte for Parks Canada i have been looking for that file buy so far have not found it.

but if i remember correctly because of the extreme deadrise the frames they did not have floors so all the frames were built like the 1/2 frames you would see at the stern of a ship. Lap scarfs and cross chockes joined the frames at the keel

 

[garyshipwright]

the ships built at Kingston were lets say one of a kind custom built ships. Yes it was an English royal shipyard but the shipbuilders were French from Quebec and William Bell was a Scottish shipwright. There were some Shipwrights from England but only a few the work was carried out by local shipwrights.

Bell was the master shipwright at the British yard at Fort Malden when the Americans over ran the fort Bell and his gang of ship builders went to Kingston to help build the frigates. Records show there were no British shipbuilders among them they were all French shipwrights.
so you can not compare the Kingston ships with British built ships in England.

if all the ships were French built by the same ship builders at the same time in the same yard i would bet they built them the same. so the timbering of the Princess Charlotte and the Psyche were probably the same.

So Dave you say that she was built with sister frames so wouldn't that be all bend's like the French did on their ships or like the americans did, when they built the Constitution and am sure every body that worked on her was americans? Maybe not but that still makes her a american ship. I don't believe they still know how she was framed when first built. My thoughts on why Bell double her frames probably had some thing to do with the guns they added to her in Kingston. If they had stuck to the plan that was recieved then her framing would of been right. Building her with all double frames I don't believe was new. Any way just trying to help and have a good thread. Dave just trying to be on the same page as your self and her history. How many times did the Psyche sail before she was drydock for good and did she ever do battle with any other ships? How well did her fir frames stand up to the water that she sailed in and was wonder what your using to figure out the dimension of her timbers/scantling. DaveJ said some about the book British smooth bore Artillery and was wondering if you have a author name of the book? Thought I might get it for the library. Care to share sir? If her plan being used is drawn up by the English and she is being built for the English using Bell who was in charge and was a Scottish shipwright being paid by the English navy building her in a English ship yard wouldn't that make it a English ship even if every body else was French? Am sure she flew the English flag didn't she. If you have something primary that says her frames were done this way then I would have to agree. But seeing it in print does help makes up one's mind. I do believe we talked about the Kingston ships many years ago and believe I called them full size ship kits. You do know that the English spent a whole lot of money doing this and in the end they found out it was a dumb ideal.I wonder if Bell got the ok with the board to do her framing this way. Have you seen any thing that said this was ok with them? Just wondering.

 

[garyshipwright]

way back i was creating a 3d model for the framing of the Princess Charlotte for Parks Canada i have been looking for that file buy so far have not found it.

but if i remember correctly because of the extreme deadrise the frames they did not have floors so all the frames were built like the 1/2 frames you would see at the stern of a ship. Lap scarfs and cross chockes joined the frames at the keel

Dave there was so many different joints that the boat builders used that its possible.

 

[garyshipwright]

Dave if you look at body plan showing the end of the keel you can see that she was post to have a main keel and what looks like two false keels. But both of the false keel's may of not been installed. There really isn't any way to know for sure what else was changed in her unless it was writtern down some where. Is there a plan of her after she was built showing what she looked like? Dave I thought you was going to show me a framing plan of her double frames that they did. O well.

 

[davef]

Thanks Davef. I don't think I have the British smooth bore armament and will have to give it a look. I do have one by Adrian B. Caruana vol 2 and gives the gun establishment up to 1815 and still have the same listing on the guns and then another one Naval Guns , 500 years of Ship and coastal Artillery by Hahs Mehl but also doesn't give any thing different. I did find something called the British smooth bore artillery by David McConnell that was printed in 1988, and doesn't list any thing under a 28. Can you give me more info on the book sir, could be a good addition to the library. Most books have those inaccuracies which its nice when I can use my primary research to see if the book is accurate. .

I'm sorry it has taken me overnight to get back to you. I have an eye condition that if I over do looking through magnification glasses and the computer I get massive headaches.
Anyway, I looked and found I actually have 2 books.
British smooth bore artillery in Canada by David McConnell and Simmons heavy ordinance of 1937
Had to blow the dust off them, tells you how much I use them. What I trying to say, I thought I would need them when building but I don't Research tells me what's on the ship and besides when building a model I don't beieve you can actually scale the right size.
As far as the Psyche, She was never outfitted and in upper and lower Canada at the time the cannons available were a hodge podge of sizes anyway.

 

[davef]

Davef . Just a question sir but what establishment are you using for your scantlings for the Psyche and what books of John Fincham do you have? Might be good ones to get if I don't have them. You also mention a framing plan of the Psyche which show the spacing of her frames which might be good to have to. Could be good for researching them in the future. Just wonder sir.Any chance of getting a copy of it, the framing plan that is. I will pay for the plan good sir. Once again thank you. Gary

I don't use establishments per say. I use Steel's Naval Architecture book of 1805. It's a 2 volume book but I only have vol.1. This lists every rate, scantling etc. in order. So I don't have to look else where for missing info. Expensive but worth it.

 

[davef]

the ships built at Kingston were lets say one of a kind custom built ships. Yes it was an English royal shipyard but the shipbuilders were French from Quebec and William Bell was a Scottish shipwright. There were some Shipwrights from England but only a few the work was carried out by local shipwrights.

Bell was the master shipwright at the British yard at Fort Malden when the Americans over ran the fort Bell and his gang of ship builders went to Kingston to help build the frigates. Records show there were no British shipbuilders among them they were all French shipwrights.
so you can not compare the Kingston ships with British built ships in England.

if all the ships were French built by the same ship builders at the same time in the same yard i would bet they built them the same. so the timbering of the Princess Charlotte and the Psyche were probably the same.

And this I totally agree with.

 

[garyshipwright]

Thanks Davef for getten back, I think the eye strain is affecting all of us as we get older, and have those problem to. I use to get bad head ackes but not so much any more,t finding after looking at the screen to much my eyes start to hurt to. She is your build and you can build her any way you want, good luck.

 

[davef]

way back i was creating a 3d model for the framing of the Princess Charlotte for Parks Canada i have been looking for that file buy so far have not found it.

but if i remember correctly because of the extreme deadrise the frames they did not have floors so all the frames were built like the 1/2 frames you would see at the stern of a ship. Lap scarfs and cross chockes joined the frames at the keel

I have a drawn diagram of that by walker.

 

[garyshipwright]

I don't use establishments per say. I use Steel's Naval Architecture book of 1805. It's a 2 volume book but I only have vol.1. This lists every rate, scantling etc. in order. So I don't have to look else where for missing info. Expensive but worth it.

I use that also and have both vols of them. Very good books and your right they are costly. If your using Steel I do believe it was the establishment of scantling which gave the sizes of timbers for English ships. Good choice.

 

[davef]

So Dave you say that she was built with sister frames so wouldn't that be all bend's like the French did on their ships or like the americans did when they built the Constitution and am sure every body that worked on her was americans? Maybe not but that still makes her a american ship. I don't believe they still know how she was framed when first built. My thoughts on why Bell double her frames probably had some thing to do with the guns they added to her in Kingston. If they had stuck to the plan that was recieved then her framing would of been right. Building her with all double frames I don't believe was new. Any way just trying to help and have a good thread. Forgive my question Dave just trying to be on the same page as your self and her history. How many times did the Psyche sail before she was drydock for good and did she ever do battle with any other ships? How well did her fir frames stand up to the water that she sailed in and was wonder what your using to figure out the dimension of her timbers/scantling. DaveJ said some about the book British smooth bore Artillery and was wondering if you have a author name of the book? Thought I might get it for the library. Care to share sir? If her plan being used is drawn up by the English and she is being built for the English using Bell who was in charge and was a Scottish shipwright being paid by the English navy building her in a English ship yard wouldn't that make it a English ship even if every body else was French? Am sure she flew the English flag didn't she. If you have something primary that says her frames were done this way then I would have to agree. But seeing it in print does help makes up one's mind. I do believe we talked about the Kingston ships many years ago and believe I called them full size ship kits. You do know that the English spent a whole lot of money doing this and in the end they found out it was a dumb ideal.I wonder if Bell got the ok with the board to do her framing this way. Have you seen any thing that said this was ok with them? Just wondering.

They say that Humphries copied the french when he built the Constitution. Don't know. Maybe an influence don't know.
I looked at the Charlotte wreck to confirm my suspicions of her framing. I posted a pic of what was found at the wreck and believe Strickland would have copied that idea for speed of construction.
Never apologize for asking questions. That is how we learn. I Do NOT know all the answers but I read and ask a LOT of questions.
The Psyche was launched on Dec.24th of 1814. a treaty was signed next day. All war activities ended. She was never outfitted or sailed. As a matter of interest, She was continued finishing her in secret, because the british did not trust the americans. They felt america would invade. If you read the Barrie Fonds several times the shipyard was put on alert because American's had hostilities as America grew.
It's an old argument that I will continue to argue.
Bell did not have any part of the Psyche. As his own papers state, He went the the Admiralty to argue that he should be Master shipwright there. Strickland arrived in June of 1813 and was the master shipwright. Bell return to England in July and did not return till after the St. lawrence was launched and Psyche was already on the slipway.
There were 4 ship kits sent and only the Psyche was retrieved. The yard had to hire a private contractor with a fleet of Bateauxs to get her. Very expensive in the day.
In the upper right corner of the plans in red the Admiralty approved the changes that Strickland made.

 

[davef]

Dave if you look at body plan showing the end of the keel you can see that she was post to have a main keel and what looks like two false keels. But both of the false keel's may of not been installed. There really isn't any way to know for sure what else was changed in her unless it was writtern down some where. Is there a plan of her after she was built showing what she looked like? Dave I thought you was going to show me a framing plan of her double frames that they did. O well.

If you examine the corrected plans of her the body plan , the keel area you will see the false keel has been crossed off.
There is no way we can be sure. but again using the Charlotte as an example built by Strickland. The keel was enlarged but no false keel.
The Psyche was originally 13" square with a false keel added. I believe she was expanded to 13" sided and 18" moulded

 

[garyshipwright]

Sorry I don't have the corrected plans of her body plan just looking at the one's that David uploaded. Are those the one that your talking about?

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

back starting in the colonial days of North America British shipwrights were banned from coming here and building ships. Ship building here was established by the French and Scottish and the Dutch thus the name of New York was New Amsterdam before the British took it over.
Anyhow this is why you do not find English style of ship construction in North America.

At Kingston the ships were sub contracted to local shipwrights to do the building


keel of the Princess Charlotte was 12 x 16 rider keelson 12 x 5 false keel 12 x 5 room and space 25 1/2 to 28 the frames were not space the same. average space between frames 2 to 4 inches

 

[Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)]

here lies the bones of the Princess charlotte

 

[garyshipwright]

The Psyche was launched on Dec.24th of 1814. a treaty was signed next day. All war activities ended. She was never outfitted or sailed. As a matter of interest, She was continued finishing her in secret, because the british did not trust the americans. They felt america would invade. If you read the Barrie Fonds several times the shipyard was put on alert because American's had hostilities as America grew.
It's an old argument that I will continue to argue.

Well you do realize that the americans were at war with England who was taking americans off of American ships and pressing them to work on ships who we was at war with. I don't believe the French did that which is why we wasn't at war with them. Seems that trust is a two way street and at that time why would they trust the English. We already fought for are freedom against them and kicked them out. England had no right and what every reason they gave was just BS. Maybe they thought that americans would not do anything because of their size but some times size doesn't matter when you have to stand up to a bully Are you saying that she never sailed? Hum thought I read that she sailed twice.