- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
The Tecumseth
Tecumseth 1815
- Thread starter Dave Stevens (Lumberyard)
- Start date
- Watchers 15
-
- Tags
- tecumseth
The Tecumseth
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
lets start from the beginning launching of the twin schooners Tecumseth and Newash
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
reconstructing an historic ship is a long and arduous task searching for data and then separating misinformation from fact. It has been argued amoung model ship builders just because they have a drawing they can build a historical model of a ship. That is not the case most all ship drawing have little to no construction detail so it becomes just guess work as to how any ship was actually built. It is also fact writers, researchers, archeologist make mistakes or jump to the wrong conclusion.
William Bell did not design or build the twin schooners at Street's creek. Bell was nowhere even close to Streets Creek at the time of building and launching of the schooners. He was in Montreal sent there to look at timbers sent from England for the building of ship on lake Ontario.
The schooners Tecumseth and Newash were designed by Robert Moore who was the assistant shipwright at Kingston shipyard. It was Robert Moore 76 shipwrights, 5 blacksmiths, 4 joiners and 12 sawyers who built the schooners.
William Bell did not design or build the twin schooners at Street's creek. Bell was nowhere even close to Streets Creek at the time of building and launching of the schooners. He was in Montreal sent there to look at timbers sent from England for the building of ship on lake Ontario.
The schooners Tecumseth and Newash were designed by Robert Moore who was the assistant shipwright at Kingston shipyard. It was Robert Moore 76 shipwrights, 5 blacksmiths, 4 joiners and 12 sawyers who built the schooners.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
bit by bit the story is weaved together
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH
The sunken relics of the War of 1812 were not lost to local memory; fascination with the
War of 1812 preserved oral histories of the conflict into the 20th century. Anniversaries
of particular battles and a rebirth of interest in the 1920s and 1930s led to the relocation
and recovery of some vessels.242 In 1927, the wreck of H.M. Schooner Nancy was
recovered and put on display in Wasaga Beach, Ontario. Four vessels were rumored to
be located in Penetanguishene harbor; locals claimed that the hulls of Confiance and
Surprize were sunk at the west side of the harbor while another two wrecks, thought to
be Newash and Tecumseth, could be found near Magazine Island.
in 1933 the town of Penetanguishene sponsored a recovery in which salvers “floated the
wreck which we had seen in Colborne Basin [part of Penetanguishene harbor] across the
harbor to the town dock and placed its picked bones in the town park.”243 Local
historians suspected that the wreck was the American-built schooner Scorpion, a
participant in the Battle of Lake Erie that was captured by the British in 1814 and
renamed Confiance. The wooden remains attracted visitors and vandals alike, and over
time, the hull was pillaged: “much of it…disappeared, being transformed into chairs,
desks, gavels, walking canes, candlesticks, picture frames and other ‘souvenirs of the
Scorpion’.”244 In fact, the wreck pillaged by souvenir hunters was too small to be
Scorpion. Historian C.H.J. Snider later identified it as Scorpion’s smaller counterpart,
the American-built Tigress,245 also captured by the British in 1814 and re-named
Surprize.
The 1953 Salvage of Tecumseth
The allure of the War of 1812 continued in the decades following the recoveries of
Nancy and Tigress. In 1953, Professor Wilfrid W. Jury and students from the University
of Western Ontario began an archaeological project on the grounds of the former naval
establishment at Penetanguishene. Their survey was a success, mapping 30 buildings
and entertaining 17000 tourists.246
Jury and his students included the vessels from Penetanguishene harbor in their plans as
well. The scant remains of Surprize, ex-Tigress, were hauled onto the grounds of the old
establishment. That spring, it was announced that the hull of Scorpion would be
recovered, and Jury made preparations for a salvage attempt. He secured the services of
a dredge and crew for one day in late August, and the town prepared for the reemergence
of the old schooner. An obvious hindrance to the efforts appeared almost
immediately: no one had told Jury exactly where the wreck was located. Many of the
individuals who had been involved in the recovery of Tigress twenty years earlier had
passed away since those efforts. Nevertheless, Jury proceeded, determined to raise one
of the two wrecks near Magazine Island. At 7:30 a.m. on 29 August 1953, the last day
the dredge was available, “Operation Scorpion”247 began:
Surrounded by an armada of small craft armed with cameras, flashlights,
microphones and equipment for speech-making and broadcasting, the dredge
plunged its steel-toothed clamshell bucket into a buoyed area a hundred yards
[91.46 m] from the bank, where the water was 15 feet [4.57 m] deep. A pause
while the steel teeth crunched like fangs on a bone, and up rose the bucket,
spewing jets of water, with a tapered black timber in its jaws. Motor horns
among the growing gallery of automobiles and spectators lining the foreshore
‘sounded a peal of warlike glee’ as the derrick arm swung and the opening
bucket dropped the timber on the dredge’s deck. Next was brought up a shorter
mass of blackened oak, with a stout chain attached. This the ‘experts,’ pale
augurs muttering low, pronounced a shank-painter, and none gainsaid their word
– not even when murmuring, ‘Newash or Tecumseth,’ they diagnosed the next lot
of oak and ironwork as the port forechains, waterways and channel. The pile of
dripping wood and rusted iron grew on the dredge deck until both bows of the
wreck had been demolished piecemeal, and the water was opaque with disturbed
silt. Still the ship had not been budged.248
Jury and his crew worked late into the evening, until the remains were wrenched from
their grave and hauled onshore (fig. 14). Several timbers had been dislodged from their
original places on the hull. Twelve round shot were found, cleaned, and emblazoned
with the name “Scorpion.”249 The wreck was examined by a number of experts250 who
all reached the same conclusion. The wreck was certainly not Scorpion; it was too large.
Dimensions of the hull corresponded nearly exactly with a draft of two schooners
constructed in 1815: Tecumseth and Newash.
The wreck was specifically identified as H.M. Schooner Tecumseth, by evidence of the
rig. Three chainplates were recovered, indicating that the mast had three shrouds,
precisely as shown in the drawing. In addition, though the foremast step had
disappeared, bolts remained as testament to its location, which was far forward in the
bow.251 As Newash had been re-rigged as a brigantine and her foremast moved, the
foremast step would not have been in the same location as that in the draft.
Thus identified, the skeletal vessel was labeled and displayed. Archaeological work and
reconstruction continued at the former naval depot at Penetanguishene, and a museum
called Discovery Harbor (Havre de la Découverte) was established on the grounds. The
museum is home to two replica schooners, Tecumseth and Bee, which were
reconstructed on the basis of archaeological and historical evidence and sail the waters
of Penetanguishene Bay and beyond.
Early Publications
A photographer from Life magazine recorded the salvage in Penetanguishene, and an
article appeared in the publication shortly afterwards. Soon afterwards, experts on Great
Lakes vessels and other relevant topics, including historians C.H.J. Snider, Rowley
Murphy and John R. Stevens, visited the hull, helped identify the wreck and published
scholarly works on the vessel. Snider featured the vessel in his “Schooner Days”
column, published in the Toronto Evening Telegram.252 Murphy published
“Resurrection at Penetanguishene” in Inland Seas in 1954. He described the salvage and
illustrated the evidence that allowed the remains to be identified as Tecumseth. Stevens
prepared “The History of H.M. Armed Schooner Tecumseth.” In 1961, Stevens’ work
was printed along with Rear Admiral H.F. Pullen’s “The March of the Seamen.”
Together, Stevens’ and Pullen’s work presents a detailed view of the vessels. Pullen
concentrated his historical investigations on a naval uniform button found “between the
planking and the ceiling” of the ship.253 Based on the particular design on the face of
this button, Pullen traced it to the seamen who had traveled overland from New
Brunswick to Kingston in 1814, possibly even Lieutenant Henry Kent himself. Stevens
discussed the naval architecture of the schooner in his publication and drafted a number
of views of the hull, including a body plan, midship section, inboard profile, planking
expansion, a redrafting of Moore’s original construction design and a rigging plan.254
1970s Examination and Conservation Efforts
With the hull removed from Penetanguishene harbor, the archaeological remains of
Tecumseth were available for study. The shelter of Discovery Harbour (Havre de la
Découverte) protected the hull from the vandalism that had nearly destroyed Tigress, but
the remains were still subjected to the elements. In October 1976 Charles Hett, a
conservator, visited the wrecks in Penetanguishene. Hett examined the wooden remains
for signs of deterioration and sent five samples from Tecumseth’s hull to the Canadian
Conservation Institute for analysis. As one might expect, Hett’s report on the condition
of the hulls was not particularly uplifting.
Both wrecks show the deterioration which is to be expected when wood from
underwater burial is raised and allowed to dry without treatment. The
deterioration is caused by the collapse of weakened cell walls when the water
evaporates, and manifests itself in surface checking, warping, splitting;
dimensional changes which will vary according to the cut of the wood as well as
the type of wood. The damage describe above, and noticeable in varying degrees
in the two shipwrecks can be considered irreversible.
In addition to the damages noted above there is continuing deterioration due
largely to exposure to the elements. Both wrecks appear to be suffering from
extensive deterioration due to micro organisms [sic]. Areas which retain
moisture are most severely affected by this attack, notable the ribs. Considerable
detritus has accumulated in the areas between the ribs and the planking, this
detritus will retain moisture and will provide a continuing source of nutrition for
micro organisms [sic].255
In addition to damage from microorganisms, Hett noticed that mechanical erosion had
occurred while the hull was underwater, leaving the exterior surfaces weakened and the
planking thin.256 The already-fragile hull was subject to additional damage from
environmental effects, and Hett recommended that some type of structure be built over
both hulls, to protect them from further damage.
Hett found traces of preliminary conservation efforts:
Application of a commercial synthetic resin…[has] been made to the
wood and metal parts…This material is visible as a glossy varnish in the
iron, but is not visible on the surface of the wood. It is impossible to see
whether this has achieved any useful purpose, unknown materials should
not be employed for consolidation; in general they cause more problems
than they solve.257
As a result of Hett’s recommendations, both hulls were moved to a permanent display
area on the grounds of the museum. The remains of Tecumseth, being more substantial
and in better condition than that of Tigress, are more prominently displayed.
1997 – 1998 Archaeology
Although Jury’s efforts in 1953 have made the remains of H.M. Schooner Tecumseth
readily accessible for study by nautical archaeologists and the non-diving public alike,
modern archaeological techniques are far superior to those used in the salvage. The hull
certainly suffered tremendously in the dredge’s jaws and evidence of the vessel’s design
and construction was obliterated. As nautical archaeologists can attest, much more
information can be gathered about a shipwreck from studying it in situ, or by careful
excavation and recording, than by simply removing the wreckage off the bottom. The
timbers have also suffered from a minimal amount of preservation treatment and
continual exposure to environmental effects.
While studies undertaken shortly after Jury’s salvage analyzed the remains and
documented the overall history of the vessel, Tecumseth was not subject to modern
archaeological study. As part of a comprehensive Texas A&M University program to
investigate War of 1812-era shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, Tecumseth was visited by a
team of student archaeologists, led by graduate student Erich Heinold, over two weeks in
June 1997. The following summer Newash was surveyed in situ at the bottom of
Penetanguishene harbor. Dimensions were taken of all accessible timbers, using
measuring tapes and goniometers. Significant details of the hulls were drawn, to gain a
better understanding of the precise methods used in constructing the two ships and wreck
plans were made of the existing timbers of both hulls.
In addition to the archaeological study, Heinold searched for documentary evidence of
the two vessels. Because the ships had served in the Royal Navy, many Admiralty
records survive of their sailing careers and the events of the time; a number are currently
held in the Library and Archives of Canada in Ottawa.
Although Heinold compiled a large amount of archival and field documentation and
made detailed wreck plans (figs. 15 and 16), no final project or publication was
created.
Many of the field notes and copies of Admiralty documents made during the
archaeological investigations are held in the collections of Dr. Kevin Crisman, professor
of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University.
2007 – 2008 Investigations
Because a final publication had yet to be created, additional research was conducted in
preparation for the current project during the summers of 2007 and 2008. The author
made two trips to Penetanguishene, documenting specific details of Tecumseth each
time. Historical records in the Bayfield Room at the Penetanguishene Public Library
were consulted, and microfilm and transcribed documents at the Library and Archives of
Canada were analyzed for pertinent information.
While preparing this hull and rigging analysis, the author had the opportunity to discuss
matters of history, shipbuilding and seamanship with captains of modern reinterpretations
of contemporary vessels including the U.S. Brig Niagara and the topsail
schooner Pride of Baltimore II. Both vessels are reconstructions of War of 1812-era
ships, and the captains contributed insights into potential sailing characteristics of
contemporary sailing vessels.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH
The sunken relics of the War of 1812 were not lost to local memory; fascination with the
War of 1812 preserved oral histories of the conflict into the 20th century. Anniversaries
of particular battles and a rebirth of interest in the 1920s and 1930s led to the relocation
and recovery of some vessels.242 In 1927, the wreck of H.M. Schooner Nancy was
recovered and put on display in Wasaga Beach, Ontario. Four vessels were rumored to
be located in Penetanguishene harbor; locals claimed that the hulls of Confiance and
Surprize were sunk at the west side of the harbor while another two wrecks, thought to
be Newash and Tecumseth, could be found near Magazine Island.
in 1933 the town of Penetanguishene sponsored a recovery in which salvers “floated the
wreck which we had seen in Colborne Basin [part of Penetanguishene harbor] across the
harbor to the town dock and placed its picked bones in the town park.”243 Local
historians suspected that the wreck was the American-built schooner Scorpion, a
participant in the Battle of Lake Erie that was captured by the British in 1814 and
renamed Confiance. The wooden remains attracted visitors and vandals alike, and over
time, the hull was pillaged: “much of it…disappeared, being transformed into chairs,
desks, gavels, walking canes, candlesticks, picture frames and other ‘souvenirs of the
Scorpion’.”244 In fact, the wreck pillaged by souvenir hunters was too small to be
Scorpion. Historian C.H.J. Snider later identified it as Scorpion’s smaller counterpart,
the American-built Tigress,245 also captured by the British in 1814 and re-named
Surprize.
The 1953 Salvage of Tecumseth
The allure of the War of 1812 continued in the decades following the recoveries of
Nancy and Tigress. In 1953, Professor Wilfrid W. Jury and students from the University
of Western Ontario began an archaeological project on the grounds of the former naval
establishment at Penetanguishene. Their survey was a success, mapping 30 buildings
and entertaining 17000 tourists.246
Jury and his students included the vessels from Penetanguishene harbor in their plans as
well. The scant remains of Surprize, ex-Tigress, were hauled onto the grounds of the old
establishment. That spring, it was announced that the hull of Scorpion would be
recovered, and Jury made preparations for a salvage attempt. He secured the services of
a dredge and crew for one day in late August, and the town prepared for the reemergence
of the old schooner. An obvious hindrance to the efforts appeared almost
immediately: no one had told Jury exactly where the wreck was located. Many of the
individuals who had been involved in the recovery of Tigress twenty years earlier had
passed away since those efforts. Nevertheless, Jury proceeded, determined to raise one
of the two wrecks near Magazine Island. At 7:30 a.m. on 29 August 1953, the last day
the dredge was available, “Operation Scorpion”247 began:
Surrounded by an armada of small craft armed with cameras, flashlights,
microphones and equipment for speech-making and broadcasting, the dredge
plunged its steel-toothed clamshell bucket into a buoyed area a hundred yards
[91.46 m] from the bank, where the water was 15 feet [4.57 m] deep. A pause
while the steel teeth crunched like fangs on a bone, and up rose the bucket,
spewing jets of water, with a tapered black timber in its jaws. Motor horns
among the growing gallery of automobiles and spectators lining the foreshore
‘sounded a peal of warlike glee’ as the derrick arm swung and the opening
bucket dropped the timber on the dredge’s deck. Next was brought up a shorter
mass of blackened oak, with a stout chain attached. This the ‘experts,’ pale
augurs muttering low, pronounced a shank-painter, and none gainsaid their word
– not even when murmuring, ‘Newash or Tecumseth,’ they diagnosed the next lot
of oak and ironwork as the port forechains, waterways and channel. The pile of
dripping wood and rusted iron grew on the dredge deck until both bows of the
wreck had been demolished piecemeal, and the water was opaque with disturbed
silt. Still the ship had not been budged.248
Jury and his crew worked late into the evening, until the remains were wrenched from
their grave and hauled onshore (fig. 14). Several timbers had been dislodged from their
original places on the hull. Twelve round shot were found, cleaned, and emblazoned
with the name “Scorpion.”249 The wreck was examined by a number of experts250 who
all reached the same conclusion. The wreck was certainly not Scorpion; it was too large.
Dimensions of the hull corresponded nearly exactly with a draft of two schooners
constructed in 1815: Tecumseth and Newash.
The wreck was specifically identified as H.M. Schooner Tecumseth, by evidence of the
rig. Three chainplates were recovered, indicating that the mast had three shrouds,
precisely as shown in the drawing. In addition, though the foremast step had
disappeared, bolts remained as testament to its location, which was far forward in the
bow.251 As Newash had been re-rigged as a brigantine and her foremast moved, the
foremast step would not have been in the same location as that in the draft.
Thus identified, the skeletal vessel was labeled and displayed. Archaeological work and
reconstruction continued at the former naval depot at Penetanguishene, and a museum
called Discovery Harbor (Havre de la Découverte) was established on the grounds. The
museum is home to two replica schooners, Tecumseth and Bee, which were
reconstructed on the basis of archaeological and historical evidence and sail the waters
of Penetanguishene Bay and beyond.
Early Publications
A photographer from Life magazine recorded the salvage in Penetanguishene, and an
article appeared in the publication shortly afterwards. Soon afterwards, experts on Great
Lakes vessels and other relevant topics, including historians C.H.J. Snider, Rowley
Murphy and John R. Stevens, visited the hull, helped identify the wreck and published
scholarly works on the vessel. Snider featured the vessel in his “Schooner Days”
column, published in the Toronto Evening Telegram.252 Murphy published
“Resurrection at Penetanguishene” in Inland Seas in 1954. He described the salvage and
illustrated the evidence that allowed the remains to be identified as Tecumseth. Stevens
prepared “The History of H.M. Armed Schooner Tecumseth.” In 1961, Stevens’ work
was printed along with Rear Admiral H.F. Pullen’s “The March of the Seamen.”
Together, Stevens’ and Pullen’s work presents a detailed view of the vessels. Pullen
concentrated his historical investigations on a naval uniform button found “between the
planking and the ceiling” of the ship.253 Based on the particular design on the face of
this button, Pullen traced it to the seamen who had traveled overland from New
Brunswick to Kingston in 1814, possibly even Lieutenant Henry Kent himself. Stevens
discussed the naval architecture of the schooner in his publication and drafted a number
of views of the hull, including a body plan, midship section, inboard profile, planking
expansion, a redrafting of Moore’s original construction design and a rigging plan.254
1970s Examination and Conservation Efforts
With the hull removed from Penetanguishene harbor, the archaeological remains of
Tecumseth were available for study. The shelter of Discovery Harbour (Havre de la
Découverte) protected the hull from the vandalism that had nearly destroyed Tigress, but
the remains were still subjected to the elements. In October 1976 Charles Hett, a
conservator, visited the wrecks in Penetanguishene. Hett examined the wooden remains
for signs of deterioration and sent five samples from Tecumseth’s hull to the Canadian
Conservation Institute for analysis. As one might expect, Hett’s report on the condition
of the hulls was not particularly uplifting.
Both wrecks show the deterioration which is to be expected when wood from
underwater burial is raised and allowed to dry without treatment. The
deterioration is caused by the collapse of weakened cell walls when the water
evaporates, and manifests itself in surface checking, warping, splitting;
dimensional changes which will vary according to the cut of the wood as well as
the type of wood. The damage describe above, and noticeable in varying degrees
in the two shipwrecks can be considered irreversible.
In addition to the damages noted above there is continuing deterioration due
largely to exposure to the elements. Both wrecks appear to be suffering from
extensive deterioration due to micro organisms [sic]. Areas which retain
moisture are most severely affected by this attack, notable the ribs. Considerable
detritus has accumulated in the areas between the ribs and the planking, this
detritus will retain moisture and will provide a continuing source of nutrition for
micro organisms [sic].255
In addition to damage from microorganisms, Hett noticed that mechanical erosion had
occurred while the hull was underwater, leaving the exterior surfaces weakened and the
planking thin.256 The already-fragile hull was subject to additional damage from
environmental effects, and Hett recommended that some type of structure be built over
both hulls, to protect them from further damage.
Hett found traces of preliminary conservation efforts:
Application of a commercial synthetic resin…[has] been made to the
wood and metal parts…This material is visible as a glossy varnish in the
iron, but is not visible on the surface of the wood. It is impossible to see
whether this has achieved any useful purpose, unknown materials should
not be employed for consolidation; in general they cause more problems
than they solve.257
As a result of Hett’s recommendations, both hulls were moved to a permanent display
area on the grounds of the museum. The remains of Tecumseth, being more substantial
and in better condition than that of Tigress, are more prominently displayed.
1997 – 1998 Archaeology
Although Jury’s efforts in 1953 have made the remains of H.M. Schooner Tecumseth
readily accessible for study by nautical archaeologists and the non-diving public alike,
modern archaeological techniques are far superior to those used in the salvage. The hull
certainly suffered tremendously in the dredge’s jaws and evidence of the vessel’s design
and construction was obliterated. As nautical archaeologists can attest, much more
information can be gathered about a shipwreck from studying it in situ, or by careful
excavation and recording, than by simply removing the wreckage off the bottom. The
timbers have also suffered from a minimal amount of preservation treatment and
continual exposure to environmental effects.
While studies undertaken shortly after Jury’s salvage analyzed the remains and
documented the overall history of the vessel, Tecumseth was not subject to modern
archaeological study. As part of a comprehensive Texas A&M University program to
investigate War of 1812-era shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, Tecumseth was visited by a
team of student archaeologists, led by graduate student Erich Heinold, over two weeks in
June 1997. The following summer Newash was surveyed in situ at the bottom of
Penetanguishene harbor. Dimensions were taken of all accessible timbers, using
measuring tapes and goniometers. Significant details of the hulls were drawn, to gain a
better understanding of the precise methods used in constructing the two ships and wreck
plans were made of the existing timbers of both hulls.
In addition to the archaeological study, Heinold searched for documentary evidence of
the two vessels. Because the ships had served in the Royal Navy, many Admiralty
records survive of their sailing careers and the events of the time; a number are currently
held in the Library and Archives of Canada in Ottawa.
Although Heinold compiled a large amount of archival and field documentation and
made detailed wreck plans (figs. 15 and 16), no final project or publication was
created.
Many of the field notes and copies of Admiralty documents made during the
archaeological investigations are held in the collections of Dr. Kevin Crisman, professor
of Nautical Archaeology at Texas A&M University.
2007 – 2008 Investigations
Because a final publication had yet to be created, additional research was conducted in
preparation for the current project during the summers of 2007 and 2008. The author
made two trips to Penetanguishene, documenting specific details of Tecumseth each
time. Historical records in the Bayfield Room at the Penetanguishene Public Library
were consulted, and microfilm and transcribed documents at the Library and Archives of
Canada were analyzed for pertinent information.
While preparing this hull and rigging analysis, the author had the opportunity to discuss
matters of history, shipbuilding and seamanship with captains of modern reinterpretations
of contemporary vessels including the U.S. Brig Niagara and the topsail
schooner Pride of Baltimore II. Both vessels are reconstructions of War of 1812-era
ships, and the captains contributed insights into potential sailing characteristics of
contemporary sailing vessels.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
unlike the General Hunter where there are no drawing we can identify as being that of the General Hunter and only conflicting data the Tecumseth and Newash do have a drawing.
information on the drawing does say Streets farm so the location is correct and it does agree with historical data, The date also matches up of April 23, 1815. Also we have measurements to verify.
This is very typical of plans of the period it has only a few waterlines and no construction detail, If we were to build this it would be total guess work as to how it was actually constructed. We would have to rely on other ships of the time and place.
General Hunter
a reconstruction of a historic vessel or an attempt to do so. Aside from actual building of a model it is also the thrill of tracking the vessel through history and trying to reproduce the model as close to the real ship as possible and leaving room for the "best guess" option. A historic...
shipsofscale.com
information on the drawing does say Streets farm so the location is correct and it does agree with historical data, The date also matches up of April 23, 1815. Also we have measurements to verify.
This is very typical of plans of the period it has only a few waterlines and no construction detail, If we were to build this it would be total guess work as to how it was actually constructed. We would have to rely on other ships of the time and place.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
without any construction detail on the Tecumseth plans we can take a look at the transport Nancy built on the lakes in 1789. This shows the typical British framing style of double molded frames and filler frames. The filler frames were timbers held in place by the planking and were not nailed together. We can assume this is how the British built ships on the lakes but then we would be wrong. First the Nancy was built for the fur trade for Forsyth Richardson and company, the Nancy was pressed into service by the British Provincial Marine. Ships built in British yards on the lakes all used double frames and not the mold and filler system. One reason for this is there were no British shipwrights around the Great Lakes any shipwrights were Irish and French. If there were no shipwreck of the twin schooners and we took a wild guess and framed the hulls using sistered frames we would be correct. The bones of the Tecumseth were found and it does confirm the guess, the hull was indeed double framed as well as all the other ships built in the British yard at Kingston and all the Americal Ships were all double frames. The framing of the Nancy was changed and rebuilt over the life time of the vessel so we can not confirm this is the original framing system.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
The French had established a fur trade with posts and transport system, the British took control of the fur trade
We can not go very far back with ship building on the Great Lakes , before 1800 the only vessels on the lakes were canot du maritre a big canoe often 35 feet long and 6 feet wide capable of a 5 ton cargo, and the bateaux . After the American revolution the British banned all private built vessels on the lakes and only British vessels were allowed which were around 30 ton transports.
We can not go very far back with ship building on the Great Lakes , before 1800 the only vessels on the lakes were canot du maritre a big canoe often 35 feet long and 6 feet wide capable of a 5 ton cargo, and the bateaux . After the American revolution the British banned all private built vessels on the lakes and only British vessels were allowed which were around 30 ton transports.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
the starting point is the original drawing, first it is imported into a CAD program. This is because what you see is a JPEG image and there is nothing you can do to it because it is a "raster" image and in order to use it as a drawing it has to be converted to a "vector" file so the lines can be worked with and the drawing can be read by 3d printers, laser cutters and CNC machine.
and now we have a working file drawing, with this drawing we can begin to add construction detail. The first thing noted is the blue slanted line running through the profile drawing. This is the water line and it tells us there is a rake to the keel. The hull sits deeper at the stern than the bow.
and now we have a working file drawing, with this drawing we can begin to add construction detail. The first thing noted is the blue slanted line running through the profile drawing. This is the water line and it tells us there is a rake to the keel. The hull sits deeper at the stern than the bow.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
Heinrich has pointed out there is a study and photo collection of the wreck done by John Stevens which was mentioned in the General Hunter topic where he also did a rearch paper and a drawing of the General Hunter. The same John Stevens museum curator.
Thank you Heinrich for the offer to assist in research.
Thank you Heinrich for the offer to assist in research.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
laying out the drawing brings up the first issue and that is the blue waterline.
This has been a hot debate among model ship builders and that debate is , are hulls frames perpendicular to the keel or to the waterline?
you can see in the drawing the top green drawing is how the hull would float and notice the framing would tilt backwards. The bottom drawing shows the frames perpendicular to the keel.
A majority of ship drawings the warerline is parallel to the keel so framing would naturally be perpendicular to the waterline and keel.
This has been a hot debate among model ship builders and that debate is , are hulls frames perpendicular to the keel or to the waterline?
you can see in the drawing the top green drawing is how the hull would float and notice the framing would tilt backwards. The bottom drawing shows the frames perpendicular to the keel.
A majority of ship drawings the warerline is parallel to the keel so framing would naturally be perpendicular to the waterline and keel.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
one of the pit falls in model ship building is taking a construction detail and applying to ALL ships one example is using chocks to attach frame components yes they were used in yards in England but not in North American yards in general, because there are some rare examples where they were used. I will break the rule and look at other ships with a rake to the keel to see how the frames are set on the keel. The Jefferson and the Eagle were built in the same location (great Lakes) at the same time period by two different shipwrights and both ships were built with frames perpendicular to the keel. Now does that mean ALL ships with a raked keel have frames perpendicular to the keel? i don't really know.
That is a very good question. We know for a fact that Jefferson’s frames were raised perpendicular to the keel. The notches in the aft deadwood for the can’t frames are also perpendicular to the keel. The finished reconstruction model, when mounted with the proper drag, has the frames tilted aft. If you are not looking for it, you hardly see it.
I believe that the hull was framed and planked, the deck beams were added, the unfinished hull was launched and then the rest of the structure and bulkheads were constructed plumb as she floated with the proper drag. We have notches in the keelson for stanchions but, unfortunately don’t have the corresponding deck beams to determine if they were tilted as well.
I’ve wondered a lot about this in the past. You often see drafts of vessels where the body plan shows the drag in the keel with each successive section sitting lower than the one before it. If you lift the section off of this draft, you would have to fasten it to the keel slightly tilted if you want to keep the true shape of the section. I’m not sure how they drafted Jefferson or how they lifted and lofted the frames but I can tell you with certainty that her frames are perpendicular to the top of the keel.
ok we know for sure the frames of the Jefferson built by Henry Eckford and the Eagle built by Noah Brown erected the frames perpendicular to the keel, The Tecumseth was designed and built by Robert Moore so can we say for sure he built the same way as Henry and Noah?
Rather than assume or take a wild guess we have what remains of the hull so all that has to be done is look at it.
i sent an Email to the museum and asked a staff member to take a picture of the high lighted area.
the results
the frame notch sides and bottom are perpendicular to the keel.
OK then can the statement be made that hulls with a rake to the keel have frames that tilt back when the ship is floating? Again can't say for sure in all cases, but what can be said here are three ships build by 3 different shipwrights and all three are built the same.
This little detail means nothing to builders using bulkhead construction or does not apply to builders who do not draw plans. It is a big deal if you are framing a hull or drafting plans. There is no need to go deep into detail so for this build log i will just skip over it and move on.
That is a very good question. We know for a fact that Jefferson’s frames were raised perpendicular to the keel. The notches in the aft deadwood for the can’t frames are also perpendicular to the keel. The finished reconstruction model, when mounted with the proper drag, has the frames tilted aft. If you are not looking for it, you hardly see it.
I believe that the hull was framed and planked, the deck beams were added, the unfinished hull was launched and then the rest of the structure and bulkheads were constructed plumb as she floated with the proper drag. We have notches in the keelson for stanchions but, unfortunately don’t have the corresponding deck beams to determine if they were tilted as well.
I’ve wondered a lot about this in the past. You often see drafts of vessels where the body plan shows the drag in the keel with each successive section sitting lower than the one before it. If you lift the section off of this draft, you would have to fasten it to the keel slightly tilted if you want to keep the true shape of the section. I’m not sure how they drafted Jefferson or how they lifted and lofted the frames but I can tell you with certainty that her frames are perpendicular to the top of the keel.
ok we know for sure the frames of the Jefferson built by Henry Eckford and the Eagle built by Noah Brown erected the frames perpendicular to the keel, The Tecumseth was designed and built by Robert Moore so can we say for sure he built the same way as Henry and Noah?
Rather than assume or take a wild guess we have what remains of the hull so all that has to be done is look at it.
i sent an Email to the museum and asked a staff member to take a picture of the high lighted area.
the results
the frame notch sides and bottom are perpendicular to the keel.
OK then can the statement be made that hulls with a rake to the keel have frames that tilt back when the ship is floating? Again can't say for sure in all cases, but what can be said here are three ships build by 3 different shipwrights and all three are built the same.
This little detail means nothing to builders using bulkhead construction or does not apply to builders who do not draw plans. It is a big deal if you are framing a hull or drafting plans. There is no need to go deep into detail so for this build log i will just skip over it and move on.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
the baseline has been established ( bottom of the keel) so drawing can begin. Now the frames have to be drawn on the plans.
On a rare occurrence you will find a plan with the frames drawn in. This case notice it is not the typical double frame and two single frames. They appear to be all single frames. Once again to assume the British built hulls with a double frame with two single frames between the doubles is incorrect, there are all kinds of variations on framing up a hull depending on the master shipwright, place and time, purpose of the ship and materials on hand.
this is more the typical ship drawing and what do we see? nothing
The reason is simple ship drawings show a shipwright What is to be built and not How to build it.
if you are a master shipwright you can look at any drawing and know exactly how to build it. That is why you hold the title as Master Shipwright.
All the Master Shipwright has to say is "give me 120 ship carpenters and 60 days and i will build it."
On a rare occurrence you will find a plan with the frames drawn in. This case notice it is not the typical double frame and two single frames. They appear to be all single frames. Once again to assume the British built hulls with a double frame with two single frames between the doubles is incorrect, there are all kinds of variations on framing up a hull depending on the master shipwright, place and time, purpose of the ship and materials on hand.
this is more the typical ship drawing and what do we see? nothing
The reason is simple ship drawings show a shipwright What is to be built and not How to build it.
if you are a master shipwright you can look at any drawing and know exactly how to build it. That is why you hold the title as Master Shipwright.
All the Master Shipwright has to say is "give me 120 ship carpenters and 60 days and i will build it."
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
lucky for this project we have a shipwreck to work with so we know exactly how the hull was framed and the size of the timbering righrt down to the inch. If we did not have the bones of the Tecumseth from this point on it would be based on "best guess"
If we did not have the shipwreck data the "best guess" would be based on this information. We know the Tecumseth was a 160ish ton vessel. we know this was found among the papers of William Bell who was working at the Kingston shipyard at the same time as Robert Moore. Bell might of been the master shipright at the yard and Robert Moore his assistant that i don't know it is an assumption. This does give some information on timber sizes but is does not say how the hull was framed, that would sill be a guess. Based on all the other shipwrecks it would be a reasonable guess to say all the frames are doubled frames.
If we did not have the shipwreck data the "best guess" would be based on this information. We know the Tecumseth was a 160ish ton vessel. we know this was found among the papers of William Bell who was working at the Kingston shipyard at the same time as Robert Moore. Bell might of been the master shipright at the yard and Robert Moore his assistant that i don't know it is an assumption. This does give some information on timber sizes but is does not say how the hull was framed, that would sill be a guess. Based on all the other shipwrecks it would be a reasonable guess to say all the frames are doubled frames.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
pre planning is the first step in a project like this, after the researching is done.
1 what will be the scale of the model
the Tecumseth is a small ship so a larger scale of 1:32 or 3/8 inch= 1 foot, larger scale will allow more detail and larger scale makes the model easier to work on.
2 how the model is built
are you going to hand cut all the joinery? do you have a small mill? are you planning on laser cutting parts? how about all the frame parts, are you going to build frame blanks or cut out each part and assemble the frames?
3 using a framing jig or not
No doubt about it a jig will help in setting up the framing but it is not necessary
4 what material
this is wide open from salvaging wood from a firewood pile to buying an expensive exotic wood.
5 plans
how are you going to draw out all the frames and parts? with a pen and paper or CAD? do you have the software and know how to use it? do you know how to draw the shape and bevels of the framing?
This is why 90% or better of builders in the hobby build ships out of a box
1 what will be the scale of the model
the Tecumseth is a small ship so a larger scale of 1:32 or 3/8 inch= 1 foot, larger scale will allow more detail and larger scale makes the model easier to work on.
2 how the model is built
are you going to hand cut all the joinery? do you have a small mill? are you planning on laser cutting parts? how about all the frame parts, are you going to build frame blanks or cut out each part and assemble the frames?
3 using a framing jig or not
No doubt about it a jig will help in setting up the framing but it is not necessary
4 what material
this is wide open from salvaging wood from a firewood pile to buying an expensive exotic wood.
5 plans
how are you going to draw out all the frames and parts? with a pen and paper or CAD? do you have the software and know how to use it? do you know how to draw the shape and bevels of the framing?
This is why 90% or better of builders in the hobby build ships out of a box
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
keel drawing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
taking the CAD drawing of the keel assembly and turning it into a 3D model now it can be viewed in all directions and look close at the joinery.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
Personally i do not have a laser cutter but my plan is to laser cut parts. There are a lot of laser cutting services where you send in your drawing and material and they do the cutting and send it back. There are helpful and friendly laser cutters and there are ones who reject your drawings with nope can't and won't cut it, they don't say why or they charge you an arm and a leg to "fix" your files. This is on you the designer to research the service and provide files they can cut, there is no standard each service is different. Some may have a little 50 watt laser that can not cut the thickness of your material in one pass, the cutting area can be from 4 feet by 8 feet down to 9 x 14 inches. There are many pit falls because drawings do not always export and import from software to software so lines may not connect, splines and arc and editing may not be interperted from your drawing into a usable cutting file. Some laser cutters are just cranky and insist on their way and others will tell you check for broken lines or double lines or use a this or that and they will work with you.
I have used the same service for many years and come to know the laser cutter and the operator and the guys in the CAD department.
a bright future for the hobby would be services offered for laser cutting, CNC milling and 3D printing and CAD designing so builders can create custom projects.
I have used the same service for many years and come to know the laser cutter and the operator and the guys in the CAD department.
a bright future for the hobby would be services offered for laser cutting, CNC milling and 3D printing and CAD designing so builders can create custom projects.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
building in virtual reality is the future of kit instructions you download the file and you watch how the ship is assembled, walk around and into the ship looking at everything at any view point.
the next step here is 3D animation but for now we are just going to build assemble part starting with placing the stern post then the inner post followed by the deadwood then the false keel, rising wood and stem.
the next step here is 3D animation but for now we are just going to build assemble part starting with placing the stern post then the inner post followed by the deadwood then the false keel, rising wood and stem.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 5,128
- Points
- 728
you may begin to notice there is a lot of joinery involved in model ship building which is something to conside when embarking on a scratch project or attempting actual scale ship building.