Princess Charlotte 1814

Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)

Sponsor: dlumberyard
Staff member
Sponsor
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
4,516
Points
678

another pieces of information that might be true or might not

these super frigates built on the lakes were a wakeup call for British shipwrights and that is why they are built so different from the typical British ships.
The British built ships with sistered frame every other or every third frame then filled in between these frames with loose filler timbers.

frameshape sf.jpg
they even went as far as to reduce the size of the frame pieces as the frame reached the top which is another British thing American built ships did not tapper, same size from the keel to the cap rail.

tapered frames3.jpg

my guess was to reduce weight, less weight the faster the ship. This worked until the British faced the American frigates and their cannon shot bounced off the sides of the ships. Thus the nick name "old iron sides" while the Americans could do a lot of damage to the British ships. American built war ships were a solid wall of heavy timber as you can see during repairs of the Constitution

constitution framing2.jpg

The British admiralty realized their hull construction was no match for the American build hulls so they took the American system and used it in the construction of the super frigated built on the lakes.

this double frame filler frame style for some odd reason was thought that is how all ships must of been built as we can see in a model of the American Built confederacy model. Wrong style of framing for an American built ship. Like the Princess Charlotte the Confederacy would have been almost a solid wall of sistered frame very close together.

confed.jpg

this all begs the question how picky can you get when it come to actual historical accuracy and does it really matter?

in the academic world very picky down to the smallest detail, in the hobby of model ship building not so much. Could be why the "hobby" is not taken all that serious by the academic community there is a lot of artistic license going on in the hobby, which is well and fine.
 

Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)

Sponsor: dlumberyard
Staff member
Sponsor
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
4,516
Points
678

i set in place the 3 floor timbers in front of the stern rising wood
the first purple one are the floors without the cross chock the next 2 blue ones have the chock in place

k1st futtock2.jpg
the first futtock is notched over the keel and sits tight to the floors and cross chock

k1st futtock1.jpg

k1st futtock3.jpg

looking down you can see the top of the first futtock (pink) does not come up to the top of the yellow chock

k1st futtock4.jpg

what the ship carpenters did was set a chock on top of the first futtock like this

k1st futtock6.jpgk1st futtock7.jpg



the chock filled in the space level with the yellow cross chock

k1st futtock5.jpg
 
Last edited:

Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)

Sponsor: dlumberyard
Staff member
Sponsor
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
4,516
Points
678

this now completes phase one of the stern section for the Princess Charlotte

lets take a look there are the last 3 frames that sat on the keel in various stages of construction and the last full frame that sat on the rising wood

fin1.jpgfin3.jpgfin4.jpgfin5.jpg

fin2.jpg

recap of some of the parts and joinery used to build the frames

parts1.jpgparts2.jpgparts3.jpgparts4.jpgparts5.jpgparts6.jpgparts7.jpg
 

Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)

Sponsor: dlumberyard
Staff member
Sponsor
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
4,516
Points
678

phase one modeling was done based on archaeological study of the wreck. Phase 2 is all "best guess" because there is nothing left on the wreck to look at. There are some clues from the wreck to help with phase 2 reconstruction for example we know hanging knees were not used to support the ends of the deck beams. There are painting of the stern so we know what it looked like. Construction of the stern and the decks are based on typical ship building practices, however, basing things on "typical" practices is what leads builders astray especially with a ship like the Princess Charlotte. But there is no choise in the matter.
these are the frames that were 3D modeled there are 16 more frames in the stern section

cad1.JPG

the rest of the frames are drawn out in the bodyplan

cad3.JPG

phase 2 starts with 2D CAD drawings

cad2.JPGstern.JPG

Before jumping into phase 2 of a 3D stern model of the Princess Charlotte i am taking a break and moving on to another project i have in the works which has a deadline.

i used bold colors for the parts so you can tell them apart from one another, the final 3D model can be rendered as realistic wood etc.

i will be back
 
Last edited:

Uwek

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
25,151
Points
1,138

Location
Vienna, Austria
Just made a short research in the NMM drawings and I found one
I think, that until now you did not post it here

j3673 Princess Charlotte 1814.jpg

Princess Charlotte (1814)​

Scale: 1:96. Plan showing the body plan, sheer lines with inboard detail, and longitudinal half-breadth for Princess Charlotte (1814), a 42-gun Fifth Rate Frigate, as built at Kingston Naval Yard for use on the Lakes.

Signed by Thomas Strickland [Master Shipwright, Kingston Naval Yard, Point Frederick, Upper Canada, Lake Ontario, 1812-1815]


and also this engraving

a3914.jpg

 
Top