trippwj

I heartily recommend the book "Those Vulgar Tubes" for a tour of the various designs.  Did they always use them? Probably not always, but who knows?

I heartily recommend the book "Those Vulgar Tubes" for a tour of the various designs.  Did they always use them? Probably not always, but who knows?

I heartily recommend the book "Those Vulgar Tubes" for a tour of the various designs.  Did they always use them? Probably not always, but who knows?

The two pieces may or may not be related.  The Mary Rose (1509) exhibits some unique components of the frames that seem to not represent the Mediterranean skeleton- first construction. Barker has some interesting, and well documented, analysis concerning design methods, as do Steffy and Unger which acknowledge the similarity between northern shipbuilding and Mediterranean, but also note the important differences.
 
Being able to utilize mathematical and graphic methods to fit curves onto sections derived through other design systems is interesting, but coincidence does not equate to causality.
 
I think there are some intriquing aspects to what you are doing, however discounting the work of previous researchers, some with hands-on experience with vessels such as the Mary Rose, presents challenges. The question becomes one of cart and horse, whether the design methods known to be in use at the time period in question or the building systems were the determinant of shape, since drawings were not known to be used.
 

You can only implement the suggested solution if you, personally, have no vices.

Waldemar, my understanding is that this technique was not purely Mediterranean - have you seen Brad Loewen's work on Hauling Down the Futtock vs Espalhamento - https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17791/22170 ?
 
Steven

In the 1795 flag act the two extra stars and stripes were added for Kentucky and Vermont. Tennessee (1796) and Ohio (1803) Louisiana (1812) entered as states, however no new flag act was established. Various unofficial flags were flown with the additional stars and stripes.  The United States flag was fifteen stars and stripes throughout the war of 1812. In 1818 Congress decreed that one star would be added for each state on the 4th of July following statehood, and there was to be thirteen stripes to represent the 13 original states. There was no standard pattern for the arrangement of the stars until 1912.
 
Regards,

I have a 15 star/15 stripe flag (replica) that I was presented as part of a War of 1812 celebration at the Buffalo and Erie County Naval and Military Park in Buffalo, NY. A note that came with it said the flag was used  May 1, 1795, through July 3, 1818. This would have been on Lake Erie and that area.
 
The flag was 3x5 (actually 60 x 34 inches).
 

The detail on the midship mould addressing folio 35 that are more complete. I would love to see either a complete transcription or digital version of the full manuscript.
 
Adams notes that after the early highly decorated folios the remainder reads more like a guide for an apprentice - more technical and mathematical. The later sections (probably added by Wells) incorporate logarithms, dating those parts as post 1610 or so.
 

I found the attached article, published in the Army and Navy Chronicle in 1838 to be quite interesting.  I believe the author was 1) describing the state of the refurbishing of the Ohio before its first voyage and 2) a bit of a plea for construction of a dry dock at the New York Navy Yard.
 
Anyone interesting in constructing a model of the Ohio will find the second page particularly useful as it provides dimensions of the ship itself, as well as masts and yards.
 
Enjoy!
Ship of the Line Ohio Article.pdf

The detail on the midship mould addressing folio 35 that are more complete. I would love to see either a complete transcription or digital version of the full manuscript.
 
Adams notes that after the early highly decorated folios the remainder reads more like a guide for an apprentice - more technical and mathematical. The later sections (probably added by Wells) incorporate logarithms, dating those parts as post 1610 or so.
 

Sources in my post.

Affirmative. The difference between the early folios in Fragments and the later folios is dramatic. Early folios (including the folio 19 image) are elaborate and watercolored. The later folios are much more technical. See Adams (2013) page 145 as a quick summary, references Barker (1986). Barker has perhaps the most in depth information available on the manuscript that has been published. I have a copy of the full Barker "Fragments" including the footnotes and drawings, but unfortunately neglected to note where I found it!  As I recall, I had to take snapshots of each page and paste into a Word document in order to obtain a digital version.
In Appendix 2, Adams provides both the transcription from Folio 35 (the midship mould)  as well as a somewhat easier to understand modern elaboration. If you are working from Folio 19 (the three moulds superimposed on the sheer draught) the narrative there is greatly simplified.
 
Adams, J. R. 2013. A Maritime Archaeology of Ships: Innovation and Social Change in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. 2nd Revised ed. edition. Oxford, UK ; Oakville, CT: Oxbow Books. Barker, Richard. 1986. “Fragments From The Pepysian Library.” Revista Da Universidade de Coimbra XXXII: 161–78. http://home.clara.net/rabarker/Fragments83txt.htm   Also see: McGowan, Alan Patrick. 1981. Tiller and Whipstaff: The Development of the Sailing Ship, 1400-1700. H.M. Stationery Office.   The figure below is excerpted from Barker.    

No random guesswork concerning the methods. The details are in the text. The elaborate draught is thought to illustrate for the Queen the general design concept rather than define the process. This wasn't a builders draught as such but in some ways analogous to the "Admiralty model" of s slightly later period.
 

In Adams' (2013) book he provides a detailed analysis, including reconstructing the lines from Baker, Wells, and Deane for the midship mould. These moulds all have a common characteristic of no deadrise for the flat of the floor (midship mould) - only once the floor sweep is drawn is there any rise.  This is most apparent in folio 35 of Baker's Fragments.
 
Also of note is the caveat (often overlooked) that the construction method was not frame built, but rather whole moulding or some variant there of, where the keel and posts were erected, then a few frames installed. The shape was found by ribbands and then initial strakes installed. (Well, paraphrasing greatly that's the process).  The importance is that the shipwright did not care too much about the other frames - they were just adjustments to the midship mould based on rising and narrowing lines and measurements of the build in progress!
 
Back to Adams for a moment, he used the proportions and ratios &c. from Fragments to recreate the hull of the wreck Sea Venture as a 3d model. Preliminary results indicate a very stable vessel. His book is well worth the read as one of the most recent syntheses of the topic.

I think it is Steele,  but even two hundred years later, the outer frames at both bow and stern were allowed to have a reduced sided dimension. This was under strict limits.  I imagine that at earlier times, things were more fluid. 
The length of the timbers probably had an irregular range, based on what was in the yard.  The frames themselves probably sported a large number of chocks in the spaces, rectangular,  irregular, and of a size to hold the frames as a unit, but small enough not to block air circulation.  At a certain point, there will be a clash of practical reality and economy with scale model esthetics and modeler's convention.  
 
The frame profile in Blom of the 7P - done at the time of the build - displays an irregular mess.
The Dutch used the three frame method to shape the hull on the ways.
The English used the three frame method to shape the hull on the drawing board. 
The cross section at each station was extracted from this shape.  This was the data used in the mold loft.
 
In England, I see something like this:
The plans that were from the architect were seen as optimistic suggestions by the mold loft and shipwright.
The molds and jigs from the loft were of the midline of the bends at each station.
The shipwright determined the shape of everything in between. 

Until I read the title I had not registered the significance of the 1570 date for Baker.  The broad outlines for his design methods are still in use 100 years later in Deane.
 
Were I from a naval architecture and an early modern period historian  and my ambition was to produce a temporarily definitive text for ship design of the period, I would explore the following assertions:   Unfortunately,  no matter how well it is done, such a text would only ever be unprovable supposition.
 
The first to develop this "new" design and construction method were the Dutch.
 
The Dutch were totally secretive within their own family clans as to what were the specifics of their methods.
 
The English imported Dutch shipbuilders to get their own industry started with these "modern" designs.
 
The Dutch had been using the three frame method to define the underwater body from the beginning.
 
What Baker is doing is trying to produce a systematic and reproducible explanation of what the Dutch were doing "on the back of an envelop that they carried in their shirt pocket".  The English wanted large ship plans - for the Royals - before any wood was committed to the ways.  A committee instead of a diva shipwright.
 
The Dutch had to deal with vast shallow water estuaries for hull forms.  This is a constraint that the English did not have.
Some of Baker may reflect general Dutch methods, but making changes to produce a deeper and more narrow hull.
Perhaps a synthesis of traditional Renaissance cross sections with "modern" design methods.

No random guesswork concerning the methods. The details are in the text. The elaborate draught is thought to illustrate for the Queen the general design concept rather than define the process. This wasn't a builders draught as such but in some ways analogous to the "Admiralty model" of s slightly later period.
 

Here is an interesting figure from Olaberria, Juan Pablo. 2018. “Ship Design-Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Royal Yachts and the Shared Knowledge of Ship-Designers and Common Shipwrights.” Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southampton. https://www.academia.edu/36363637/Ship_design-knowledge_in_early_modern_Europe_Royal_yachts_and_the_shared_knowledge_of_ship-designers_and_common_shipwrights
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of Barker's analyses can be found here - also extensive discussion of Sutherland.
 
Barker, Richard. 2001. “Whole-Moulding: A Preliminary Study of Early English and Other Sources.” In Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, edited by H Nowacki and Matteo Valleriani, Preprint 245, 33–65. [Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF.   Also see   Barker, Richard. 1988. “‘Many May Peruse Us’: Ribbands, Moulds and Models in the Dockyards.” Revista Da Universidade de Coimbra XXXIV: 539–59.  
Sergio Bellabarba offers an interesting theory concerning early ship design.
 
Bellabarba, Sergio. 1996. “The Origins of the Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls: A Hypothesis.” The Mariner’s Mirror 82 (3): 259–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1996.10656602.  
There are also works by Steffy, Hock, Reith, and Castro that you may find useful.
 
 

See Barker, Olabierra, Bellarba, Ferriero...

Take a look at some of the works by Richard Barker for some detailed analysis of Baker.  Also see the PhD thesis by Olabierra (spp?) for at least one geometric analysis of Baker.
 
 

Take a look at some of the works by Richard Barker for some detailed analysis of Baker.  Also see the PhD thesis by Olabierra (spp?) for at least one geometric analysis of Baker.
 
 

See Barker, Olabierra, Bellarba, Ferriero...

Here is an interesting figure from Olaberria, Juan Pablo. 2018. “Ship Design-Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Royal Yachts and the Shared Knowledge of Ship-Designers and Common Shipwrights.” Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southampton. https://www.academia.edu/36363637/Ship_design-knowledge_in_early_modern_Europe_Royal_yachts_and_the_shared_knowledge_of_ship-designers_and_common_shipwrights
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of Barker's analyses can be found here - also extensive discussion of Sutherland.
 
Barker, Richard. 2001. “Whole-Moulding: A Preliminary Study of Early English and Other Sources.” In Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, edited by H Nowacki and Matteo Valleriani, Preprint 245, 33–65. [Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF.   Also see   Barker, Richard. 1988. “‘Many May Peruse Us’: Ribbands, Moulds and Models in the Dockyards.” Revista Da Universidade de Coimbra XXXIV: 539–59.  
Sergio Bellabarba offers an interesting theory concerning early ship design.
 
Bellabarba, Sergio. 1996. “The Origins of the Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls: A Hypothesis.” The Mariner’s Mirror 82 (3): 259–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1996.10656602.  
There are also works by Steffy, Hock, Reith, and Castro that you may find useful.
 
 

Here is an interesting figure from Olaberria, Juan Pablo. 2018. “Ship Design-Knowledge in Early Modern Europe: Royal Yachts and the Shared Knowledge of Ship-Designers and Common Shipwrights.” Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southampton. https://www.academia.edu/36363637/Ship_design-knowledge_in_early_modern_Europe_Royal_yachts_and_the_shared_knowledge_of_ship-designers_and_common_shipwrights
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
One of Barker's analyses can be found here - also extensive discussion of Sutherland.
 
Barker, Richard. 2001. “Whole-Moulding: A Preliminary Study of Early English and Other Sources.” In Shipbuilding Practice and Ship Design Methods from the Renaissance to the 18th Century: A Workshop Report, edited by H Nowacki and Matteo Valleriani, Preprint 245, 33–65. [Berlin]: Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P245.PDF.   Also see   Barker, Richard. 1988. “‘Many May Peruse Us’: Ribbands, Moulds and Models in the Dockyards.” Revista Da Universidade de Coimbra XXXIV: 539–59.  
Sergio Bellabarba offers an interesting theory concerning early ship design.
 
Bellabarba, Sergio. 1996. “The Origins of the Ancient Methods of Designing Hulls: A Hypothesis.” The Mariner’s Mirror 82 (3): 259–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00253359.1996.10656602.  
There are also works by Steffy, Hock, Reith, and Castro that you may find useful.