anaxamander49

I am dreadfully late with this reply but, perhaps, my comments will be of some worth. I bought the SOTS kit about 8 years ago at a relatively lower price and, yes, it was from a modeler who decided not to build this ship. The moment I opened it, I knew I was also not going to build it. It wasn't accurate enough for me. The hull form is a mess. So, I've spent that last 8 or 9 years researching this ship, getting some terrific information from others at this site, and from the late Frank Fox, who was a naval historian expert in this era of shipbuilding. One or two folks told me that I should just try another ship. Why did I persist? Because it is fun (at least for me). I think that's the point. You may or may not complete this model, and you may or may not set it down, only to pick it up a few years later. But, just have fun with the thing. Just beware that there is a lot of bad information out there about this ship. Darivs Architectvs has correctly pointed out that McKay's book contains a number of errors. A book by James Sephton on this ship is also problematic. Both contain errors too numerous to list here, but check out the reviews of McKay's book on Amazon for a partial listing. Also, you will want to have a decent representation of this ship. Most people use an engraving by John Payne, or a drawing by Willem van de Velde. Please don't. Neither is accurate. Instead, begin with a painting by the ship's builder, Peter Pett. You can see the painting here: https://collections.mfa.org/objects/32448

Thank you all for your input. It's been very helpful. I've asked several questions on various MSW forums, and I'm always amazed at how helpful everyone is!

Can anyone recommend a good software package for drawing lines plans? My primary interest is in just drawing the sheer, body, and half breadth plans. Any 3D model I create would just be to ensure the hull is fair before I start making sawdust, so I don't need something that produces great artwork. My secondary interest is not spending too much. AutoCAD, for example, is a bit out of my reach. As an FYI, I've tried Inkscape, which has the advantage of being free, but it isn't satisfactory. I'm now fiddling with Delftship. Is this the best I can do? Thanks in advance for your advice!!!

I'm working on an early 17th century ship, and have a really naïve question that will clearly show I've never used Delfthsip before: Delftship asks you to input the length. What length? The length of the keel? The length that corresponds to the distance from the foremost station to the aftmost station? Some other length? Thanks!!!!

I've just received a copy of McKay's new book on the Sovereign of the Seas. Here is a picture of the gun rigging he proposes. Does that look reasonable? (Note that the cascabel shown on the gun doesn't seem to look very much like the cascabel's on guns made by John Browne, who made the guns for the Sovereign.) Charlie T.

Thank you to Mark P and all of the others who've responded to this. It's all very interesting and very helpful.

Thank you very much! Clearly, there's a breech rope, no matter what kind of carriage. I'm wondering if it isn't best to just use the kind of gun rigging found on more "modern" guns. I'll keep digging..

I hope this isn't hijacking a thread, but I'm in a situation where the more I read, the less I know and, unfortunately, Caruana's book is a tad pricey, so I'd appreciate any help you can give me. Specifically, I'm interested in cannon tackles around 1640, and more specifically, the kind of tackles that might have been on the Sovereign of the Seas (1637). I've read Peter Kirch's book "The Galleon", and he not only says guns of this era didn't recoil (which may be an overstatement), but also that they were loaded from the outside of the ship. Similarly, James Sephton in his book on the Sovereign shows a drawing of a gun carriage that had trucks (wheels) on its front, but there is a skid at the back of the carriage. It seems to me that these guns would have been difficult to pull back to load. So, my questions are: (1) Did guns of the 1640 era have any tackle at all? (2) If so, what kind of tackle? Sorry to belabor the point, but I'm at a real loss here. Thanks for any help you can give me.

Thank you very much for your answers! They are both very helpful, and I sure do appreciate them.

I am researching the Sovereign of the Seas (1637), but this question could pertain to many other English and Dutch ships of the same era. Specifically, RC Anderson, in his book "The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast", notes that the knights associated with the fore and main masts were between decks (see pages 76-77 of his book). This implies that the ropes leading to the knights went through a hole in the deck. Is that correct? If not, how did they travel to the knights? If this is correct, then I have several questions: (1) Are there any "rules of thumb" for how big to make the hole? (2) Was the hole directly above the knight or somewhere else? If somewhere else, where? (3) Was the hole covered in any way (such as with a leather flap) to keep water from leaking through it to the lower deck where the knight was? (4) Was there any protection on the ropes that led to the knight to protect them from abrasion? Thanks so much for your help!

Thank you both for your suggestions. They were very helpful. I am planning on building a model of this next year, and would like to read both books before beginning.

Given that the thread is about two years old now, and given the difficulties I have had in locating this book (it seems to be "out of stock" at the usual places; e.g. Amazon, the publisher), does anyone currently know where I can purchase a copy of Sephton's book?