Ab Hoving

Sorry, I have not been paying attention for a long time. Actually, I did nothing, but I asked my friend Rene Hendrickx to work van de Velde's sketch out in 3D with Delftship and he came out with this: For anyone interested to build the model, here is the Delftship file: VANDEVELDE 008.fbm Be my (our) guest. Ab

A beautiful job! Chapeau.

Beautiful!

Nice project GrandpaPhil. Impressive. I see it for the first time. I should visit this site more often. Best, Ab

I really like your research. Ab

No, thank you Heredia Bill. Your reaction is exactly why I wrote this tutorial. Have fun. Ab

Hi Meriadoc, Making pins is something you can do in detail, but you can also think it enough to cut pieces of wire and glue them in a strip of card. Once the rope is belayed on the pin, any detail is hidden, so why bothering making detailed pins? Except of course if you like making these details. In my experience the eye forgives a lot of shortcuts, as long as the overall look and the lines of the model are OK. If using card for the pinrail, the best to do is soak it with CA glue once all the pins are in. They can be filed or cut at even lengths after glueing. A support strip, invisbly glued underneath the rail will prevent the whole thing to be ripped off if the tense of all the lines becomes too much. I never experienced that actually, but better safe than sorry.

That would at least be a lot cheaper, but alas, the fabric of my shirts is a lot cruder than Navarra Fine Lawn White. I'm just a simple man....

In itself the idea of picking a sort-like ship as the one you are trying to replicate is not a bad idea. But according to my sources the Mayflower was an English ship and was built on a shipyard belonging to 'the legendary Darley family' (source: Wikipedia). That means the ship was definitely not a fluit. It must have been a simple English freighter. Perhaps you can find an example of such a vessel somewhere? As jaager suggested Mayflower kits have very little to do with the actual ship. They just (educated) guesses. If you consider building a fluit, there are better ways to get draughts. Kits are only seldom the starting point for a good model... Ab

Hello Petr, Good to hear you are still active. I almost started to believe you gave up on this one, which would be a pity, because it's a beautiful ship. I don't remember if I mentioned it here, but seven of my paper models were adopted by and exhibited in the archaeological museum 'Huis van Hilde' in Castricum, Holland. Amongst those seven models were three fluit-models and my pinas model. Of course I was proud of the beautiful location for showing my work, but at the same time I also missed the sight of my fluits and my pinas in the interior of my house. So I started working on a few new models for my own use: a small fluit and a new pinas (Why do you call it 'pinasa'? Is that plural in your country?) Sorry for the bad picture of the latter, better ones will follow once my son has time to do a better job. I did a report of the build of the pinas (which took only two months in total) on another forum, which seems to be not very popular here, so I will skip the rest. Now for your questions: 1. Colors are up to a degree a matter of personal taste, together with the available pigments at the time. Yellow was used a lot, but only in earth colors. A good method is to use an ochre and cover it after drying with a light brown varnish to dim the brightness. 2. You must realize that the 3D representation of the pinas was done in a program (Delftship), which was originally not meant to make such complicated shapes with. It's the talent of my companion Rene Hendrickx that led to the decorations as can be studied in the 3D model. For making a model it seems a good idea to also study pictures of contemporary paintings and drawings, to get a more realistic result. As to details, like scroll work or other options like you show, you must know that the only rule here was that the upper work of the stern was 'doorluchtig', which in translation literally means 'episcopal'. That does not really clear the sight, but In fact it just means that there were openings in it, so the wind did not have too much effect. It makes no difference wether you use scroll work or small bars, as long as there are sufficient openings there. You could even use both options together. 3. Good question. There were several types of guns aboard for various reasons. There were three types of 'metal' (bronze) guns, of which two types (both 12-pounders) were installed in the gunroom: the normal type and a short version, which was placed behind the most afterward gun ports. If necessary this gun was easier to turn to the gun ports in the square tuck in case the ship was being chased. The reason that they used bronze guns here was because iron guns could influence the working of the close-by compasses in the steering compartment. The third type of bronze gun was a 6-pounder 'draeck' (dragon) of considerable length to be used for chasing and was placed behind the most forward gunport in the forecastle. The rest are cast iron guns, which were heavier, but also much less costly. The big ones, the 12-pounders were placed behind gun port 2 and 3 of the lower deck, reckoned from the bow, the rest of the gun ports were used for the 8-pounders in the list. The four 4-pounders were used in the forecastle. 4. The lower planking stretching up to the aft side of the stern is a typical Dutch solution to make sure that the stern was supported as much as possible. Other traditional building methods, like in England, did not apply this method, probably because the sterns there were supported by a huge piece of dead wood. I cannot think of any Dutch vessel that did not show this extended planking at the stern. I hope you find these remarks useful and wish you succes with the build. Don't hesitate to ask if you are in doubt about anything. Best, Ab

Good project Backer! Ab

jealous making perfect

Hi Kevin, I really don't know anything about any model from the Science Museum. Sorry. Ab

One solid advice: Buy Seamanship in the Age of Sail by John Harland. Everything you wanted to (and should) know about sailing period ships.

I know Waldemar, I too think it's an iconic model and I would not dare to deny anyone's right to duplicate it. I simply wanted to point out that if you want to draw conclusions or solve mysterious issues coming with it, it might be a better idea to work from a model with more authentic dimensions. No more. I recognize the joy of creating a model with an obvious character, keeping in mind the limits of its technical value. I wish you a lot of joy building. No better way to spend your available hours (and more).

Nobody said that the model should be excluded Waldemar. Only its dimensions, which are apparently the product of someone’s fantasy. 🙂

Not that I want to discourage any of you, in your queeste for the truth, but seeing the Mataro model again I could not help remembering the study that was done in 2004 by the late professor Gerritsma, a famous shipbuilding scolar I had the honor to know. HIs aim was (amongst other purposes) to see how the Mataro model must have sailed and his conclusion was, that it could not sail at all. If the model had been a true depiction of a ship of its days this must have been the difference between it and the nearest possible shape that could sail: I don't say this because I want to look like someone who thinks he knows things better than others, but the calculations of the professor seemed sound to me and once again I was confronted with the way we should look at ship models, especially old ones. The Mataro model seems to be a charicature of ships of the period. Having said that, you can ask yourself: if the real ships was as deformed as it is in the model, what truth can there be in its details? How can we try to give belaying points and deck furniture a place in the ship if all its dimensions are deformed. That is the only answer I can give to all the questions Waldemar asked. The age of the Mataro model is one big question mark to me. It took me half a life-time to understand a slice of 17th century Dutch shipbuilding and still I think I only scratched the surface. A real good project would be to build the Mataro ship with the dimensions professor Gerritsma suggested and have a new look at all the items that are so hard to locate in a replica of the deformed model. But who am I?

As to the discussion about knightheads on post #19: Instead of a knighthead for the main yard, it seems to me that on the picture of the Mataro model there is a heavy block attached to a deck beam in the middle of the quarter deck, which could have served as a knighthead. As to the discussion about the capstan: there are several examples of small capstans of which the foot rests in a clamp underneath the deckbeams, which leaves enough space for a tiller to pass. But maybe I am intervering into a discussion I do not completely understand?

You are doing great.

A breathtaking model, a joy to watch. Is there anything you cannot do?

Willem van de Velde (father) was born in 1611 and died in 1693. The son was born in 1633 and died in 1707. Peter van de Velde was born in Flanders and lived from 1634 till 1723/4.

Impressive! Really well done and good research. Hat off. Ab

I like this thread very much. Only just discovered it. I especially like the way you do your research. In my opinion it does not pay off often to try to build a model of a specific ship, even more so if the data are unsure and controverse. Much better to depict a type, even if you put a name on it later. You found a nice way in between by connecting with archaeological finds and manuscripts. So much better than simply using a plan made by someone who did not know what is right or not either. My compliments Sir. Ab

This is a wonderful tutorial David. Almost a pity that I don’t work in wood any more. 🙂 Ab