amateur

No, this model of schouw nearly never had a well, and if they had, it was located midships, were the living area is on this one. On the original wooden shouw, there was just a wooden bench at the back, no well. Nowadays, these boats are steel-hulled, and almost always motorized. The motor is in the back, just below the bench. In other ways: it is most probably the engine bay. (BB just didn't like to put a propeller on the hull, but they retained the engine bay just in case ) Jan These

The black-white-grey tunnel is a red herring I presume Apart from the funnel colours: it could be an 1940-ies exxon tanker.... Jan

Hey! spoilsport, I almost found it Now you've to post agina (or is Andy allowed to post half a ship as he named the other one correctly?) Jan

That's a nice one! Is it from cardboard, of is it wood you use for these deck-details? Jan

You could try the swedisch version of the WASA-Museet web-site http://www.vasamuseet.se/sv/Utstallningar/Vasamodellen/Fargschema/ and http://www.vasamuseet.se/sv/Utstallningar/Vasamodellen/Detaljbilder/ Jan

As Andy says; they all ollok black, and rather sausage-like. As a total ignoramus on subs: is there anything that makes it possible to identify the sub from this picture? Jan

With respect to the last shroud: For Dutch ships in the 17th century there is no evidence that eyesplices were used (actually, almost no evidence available at all) After much debate, on the Batavia -reconstruction in Lelystad they followed the practive of using a clove hitch on the last shroud, but taking the loose end backwards and make a small lashing to keep it from unravelling. Jan

I'm affraid we need a higher resolution pic to be able to read the name on the bow. As far as I discovered she's one of four sisters. No way of checking which one. They all look very much alike Jan

It's Dutch, I'm almost sure. Some island-hopping working boat in the east? Jan

cont. I checked the foto's in the Winter book of the zweidecker: they do not follow the height/width rule by Van IJk, they are slightly wider than high, but there is certainly not a quarter difference... Also, the drawings suggest that there is no strict 1/3-1/3-1/3 division of the distance between the decks: the port dimension is roughly 1/3 of the distance, but is placed slightly lower than Van IJk suggests. The ports in the zweidecker seem to follow (more or less), the 'rule' that gunports of higher decks are 25% smaller than those of the deck below. Jan

Rules, hmmmm, perhaps you're asking too much here.... Van Ijk pg 61 is not on the dimension of the gunports, it is on the dimension of the stern. He calulates the dimension of the length of the stern, as the sum of all separate parts. pg 65 is on the dimension of the ports in the transom. Problem there: he just states that the ports are square, and about as far from the stern as they are wide. No dimensions at all. On page 92 he is making a small remark on the gunport sils, not on the dimension What you are looking for is on page 117, but that is as unclear as the remainder of the tekst on the gunports I read it as: the gunports are high one third of the distance between the decks measured at the main mast. The distance between the deck and the lower sill is one third, and the distance between the (lower end of the) upper sill and the deck is one third. When the distance between the decks is more or less (goning to the aft or to the front of the ship), this only has an effect of the distance between the upper sill and the deck above, otherwise not all guns would fit at all ports. The width of the ports is one fourth more than the height of the port (btw this differs from Witsen, stating that gunports are higher than their width) Their position in the hull should be such that there is a even distance, but all structural parts can be placed to have maximum strength, and none of the knees have to be removed in order to place the gunports. (gunports were only made into the hull after planking the outside and installing the deck beams) NB: Van IJk states at page 61 the distance at the Verdek, as 6ft in the first, and 6ft9 in the second example, which gives him the port dimension of 2' and 2'3" in the two caluclations. The gunports on the deck above, can be one fourth smaller than those of the main gundeck. Their distance should be roughly equal to those on the main gundeck (otherwise the hull may be weakened) There is no remark on gunports at the other decks whatsoever in the book. Hope this helps Jan

That didn't take you too long... It is Indrapoera. One of the ships of the Rotterdamsche Lloyd, build for the regular trips to the east. Jan

Next one: completely different type of ship Jan

going to mention them all: HMS Warspite Jan

HMS Conway?

btw the sub is called hook and ladder Jan

is/was it wawona? (the ship, not the sub ofcourse) Jan

is it victory chimes?

Good morning? she's at the end of her working day at the moment OK, and now looking for three masted floating things. Jan

How on earth did you find that one? just google ship, and looking at all two masted things?? Jan

By its looks a fairly standard two-masted schooner.... Not much of a clue in the background either Jan

boats, ships, floating or submerging things, sorry guys, I didn't want to offend anyone by my choice of words Jan

Oh, now I see, It's the base for the upperstructure... That changes my question: why didn't you use this 'upward extension' over the full length of the ship? Jan

Hi Piet, I'm a bit strugling: most frames suggest a normal 'tube-like' hull, but the aft frames have an upward extension: what is that for? I can see them on the frames-layout, but I can't relate them to the pictures of the sub itself.... Jan

I used to be an addict to this game since 2009 Jan