amateur

I was wondering whether a ‘boeier’-like planking would be possible, but I guess not, as the bottom is almost completely flat up to the stern. Boeier-jachts are planked using relatively narrow planks, that areheavily spiled and edge-bended. Statenjacht Utrecht is planked in the way Waldemar showed, albeit slightly different, as the planks from the side are slightly spiled, and edge-bended. Jan

Looking good so far. That profiled piece of timber at the stern is one heavy piece. It is one of the structural timbers of the lower stern. It is notched into the stern. Although drawn as a completely flat stern, in many drawings (also the older detailed one some posts before) the tmber is also slightly curved when seen from above, implying a slightly curved stern. Jan

Nice lines? Why do you leave so much room between the planks? Jan

J think the name is Jan Veltman. Not because I know anything of him, or seen a full signature, but Veltman (without d) is still a pretty common name, Veldmand certainly is not. Jan

@Robska: you show a steel tabernacle, made for a mast that is placed on the deck. The construction with masts with a counterweight is stepped on the keel, as you can see in the drawing in #44, this part tend to be relatively heavy in all dimensions. Jan

That traverse rail in #13 is the rail on which the lower block of the main sheet is attached. It goes over the tiller, but has noconnectionto it. and that is why I am not sure about 3referring to this part: it is above the cockpit, while it can (need?) be placed further aft: above the deck where it is not sitting in the way of people getting in or out… jan

@Waldemar By writing that there was no shi built to this drawing, I meant that this drawing is not a detailed construction drawing. Niot that it is notbased onsn actual ship/construction drawing. With respect to the book pf Lemmers: I did not at fist glance see the dofferenced between this drawing and thosein thr book. Can you enlighten me abit more by indicating whete the major differences ate? Jan

Hi, I was about to make a ‘final’ remark on the drawing from the national archive: I don’t know why the drawing is dated 1733, but my guess is that it newer. Also: it had never been used to buuld an actual ship. Doreltomins drawing certainly is contemporeneous. When in doubt, follow that one. By the way: I don’t think these construction methods are unknown. Couple of years ago there was a Dutch book titled ‘ In tekening gebracht’ authors:Lemmers/Hoving, describing these construction methods. Jan

Never seen that on Dutch ships. Would be interesting to see what type of ship that is. Do you have a link? Jan

It is also possible that the deckplan shows the deck-layout. In that case the line of the caprail falls even inside the line drawn, as the railing falls slightly inward. so: no errors, perhaps some slight imprecisions. I do not know of dutch inland craft that had a cable-run rudder. It was - as far as my knowledge goes - whipstaff or tiller. Jan

With respect to size, can you explain how you end up at 18 meter. I made a print of the drawing om a A4, the length of the scale in my print is around 4.3 centimeters, the length of the hull between perpendiculars around 19 centimeters. Dividing implies: 19/4.3*9 feet = 40feet. (Which is a nice round measure for a design drawing ). 40 feet equals 40 * 28.5 centimeters = 11 meters. That in turn is a relatively common measure for an inland sailing craft as this one presumably is. With respect to your questions: 1: belaying point. See picture below, heavy, slightly curved piece of wood, with a iron spike 2. difficult to say, but most probably a hole to feed the running part of a backstay, or of some lines to handle the gaff. Other option: iron ring used to fix the lower block of the tackle of the backdstay (or some line to the gaff). See below, Statenjacht Utrecht has both at this location: attachment of the tackle blocks, as well as the place for the running parts to feed through to the belaying points at the inside of the bulwark. 3: definitely not a whipstaff or tiller. Tillers were fixed at the top of the rudder, and sat ‘on top’ of the cabin. Tiller is not shown in this drawing. It micht be the ‘luiwagen’ for the mainsheet. However, I would have expeted it in the topview also. 4. and 5 already explained. You can see the arrangement in pne of the drawings I linked to: the mast can pivot backeards, and 5 is a hatch that can be removed to let the mast pivot backwards. The wider part up front is needed to accomodate for the counterweight. Bit difficult to see in this pic, but the sustem is a bit outdayed nowadays, so not many pics around in the net… with respect to your decklayout: I still prefer the two-cabin option over the one cabin/ open deck version. You may discover that your floor in the aft cabin sits too low: due to the form of the hull (and the thickness oh the frames), you may end up with a rather small floor in the cabin when laid to deep. Raising it will give more square feet. Second: in most drawings I know, there is a bench below the windows, in such a way that the windowsill is at ‘bench level’. I think in your layout this distance is a bit large. Jan

Which is consistent with the drawing we started with: the sternview shows the rudderpost from keel to the upper deck. I checked: all three models I posted have this setup/layout of the stern. Low res, but stull visible Jan

And another. I’m inclined to believe that this two-cabin was for one readon or the other a common layout https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=101005505 It is a pity thst these ics can’t be doenloaded at high resolution….😟 Jan

https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100146019 model from the collection in Rotterdam, datimg around 1780. Two cabins, like many of the posh yachts from that period. I dont see how you arrive at a depth of 3 meters for the cockpit. It is smaller. You need that depth anyway, as the door of the aft cabin is at that level. The depth is the distance beteen the two dotted lined in Waldemars sketch. My guess: only half of your estimation. This one is also intresting. Drawing of around 1750 of a jacht: https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100196711 This one shows another possibility: deck level in aft cabin lower than in the cockpit. Also here: no open space forward, but a deck that is raised till ‘standing height’ below deck. Jan

Yes, that would also be an interpretation. You can find drawings of both layouts: with and without a well, with/without forward cabin. That is why it is a pity that there are no deck-lines in the drawing. Jan