NAZGÛL

I think picture 'A' is probably more likely.  Check out port locations on Mayflower II.  The guns are not on the open weather deck.
The decks would probably not be continuous at this time.  There might well be a step down aft, especially into any cabin area, and there might be a leveling off aft on a gun-bearing deck so any guns could be more easily moved into aft ports.

Duyfken's guns are on the open main deck as below is only a hold. There aren't anymore decks below, apart from a step down to the tiller flat which then opens up to the hold itself. Though if you're building a ship of larger tonnage there would possibly be gun's on a lower deck. Though remember for a Dutch ship - if it was for trade the guns were on the weather deck as all possible space was kept for cargo. Only when you get to the larger pinnaces and larger like Batavia, are there dedicated gun decks. Try not to compare with English ships as Dutch ships were very different. The main decks would actually run straight through again to keep as much space possible for cargo. The Dutch ships were also much more shallow draft than English ships, so having an extra deck for guns below wouldn't of been an advantage to their design.
 
Below a sketch of a pinnace similar to your design the guns are high up and on the weather deck. So I like your 'a' sketch but without that deck covered - need to see a scale reference as just a profile can be misleading as to what you're intending

First two images are warships - a little later than your period yes but shows lower ports and different design to the earlier pinnace (last photo) showing higher ports and more hold space so possibly a multi role vessel rather than a warship as such.

The lower wale would be at about the level of the lower deck inside as it and the deck clamp would be fastened through each other.  All four of the latest pics have a row of guns in the section just above the lower wale's upper rail.
The lower wale is also at about water level.

We have not considered Portugese, Spanish, any of several Italian cities, etc., etc. for their tonnage ratings.  They probably are all different and all relate to cargo not displacement of water.

I like the looks of that, Matti.
 
Here is something to mull over when looking at tonnage figures from modern writers.
 
The size of the Hanseatic and Dutch ships which plied the Baltic was also for a long time expressed by estimates of how much grain they could carry. The Hanseatic grain measure, the last, was a volumetric unit which had an equivalent in pounds, like the early English ton. Last meant at first the load of a four-wheeled wagon. When it was somewhat more precisely defined, the standards set varied from port to port and within the same port for different commodities. In Danzig, for example, 3 lasts of herring equaled 4 lasts of rye, and the last of rye, equal to 3.105 cu. m. or 2,257 kg. (4,975 lbs.), was used to rate ships. At Hamburg in the seventeenth century the grain last was 3.159 cu. m. (111.5 cu. ft.), but for rating ships there was a special Schiffslast equal to 2,000 Hamburg pounds (1,935 kg. 4,266.9 lbs. Eng.). At Amsterdam, grain was measured using the Kornlast of Danzig of 3.105 cu. m. or 109.6 cu. ft. but ships were rated according to the weight they could carry in a Schiffslasten of 2,000 Amsterdam pounds (1,976kg. or 4,356.3 lbs.). This situation seems to be the result of a shift away from an ambivalent measure, which expressed a rough equivalence of volume with weight, towards two distinct measures: the Kornlast which measured volume and the Schiffslast which told how much a vessel could carry without submerging its loadline excessively.
 
Generalizing roughly, we can say that the Hanseatic and Dutch Schififslast equalled about 4,480 lbs. (2,032 kg.) and that the Kornlast became by the seventeenth century a measure of volume equal to about 112 cu.. ft. (3.2 cu.. M.). A ship's capacity in the two lasts was the same when the specific gravity of the cargo was roughly .63.
 
SOURCE:
Lane, F. C., 1964: Tonnages, Medieval and Modern. The Economic History Review, 17, 213–233, doi:10.2307/2593003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2593003(Accessed January 25, 2015).
 
 

Thanks for the input guys! The Duyfken looks pretty close to how I would have guessed the ships looked like. I made a drawing of what I'd like to build. Just to get the proportions and the level of details. The drawing is not very detailed, but just to get the lines set before the next stage.
 

 
What do you think? Could it pass for a small swedish (dutch style) warship made in 1591?
 
 
/Matti
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Thanks you very much for the comments and ideas!
 
About the lower gun ports, I raised them from the first version as they to me seemed to sit dangerously low for a ship the size. I will consider reworking them again.
 
The small low port on Vasa is described by Fred Hocker as a message port. It was used for going in and out and when delivering things to the ship (I suppose that could have been ballast as well). If I remember correctly he said they had no cannons in them. I don't know if that was something used on the bigger ships because on some old drawings of smallar sized ships I've seen there was a cannon in the port positioned at the same place. 
 
 
Here is the latest sketch. I moved the "message port" higher. The lines are really close to version II, but I reworked the stern. I wanted the balcony/gallery to be more integrated in the ship lines, the last ones where inspired by the Kalmare Nyckel replica, and when looking at it I decided I didn't like how it goes outside the ships lines.
 

 
Looking at it now I feel the curve going above the balcony is perhaps to big. But making the curve smaller would leave little room for a person standing on the balcony. This is what I get for trying to scale down a big ship design to a smaller vessel... Thinking about it  I'm not even sure a more simple ship of this size would have galleries at all, but I really like the personality they give the ship.
 
 
/Matti
 
 

Thanks you very much for the comments and ideas!
 
About the lower gun ports, I raised them from the first version as they to me seemed to sit dangerously low for a ship the size. I will consider reworking them again.
 
The small low port on Vasa is described by Fred Hocker as a message port. It was used for going in and out and when delivering things to the ship (I suppose that could have been ballast as well). If I remember correctly he said they had no cannons in them. I don't know if that was something used on the bigger ships because on some old drawings of smallar sized ships I've seen there was a cannon in the port positioned at the same place. 
 
 
Here is the latest sketch. I moved the "message port" higher. The lines are really close to version II, but I reworked the stern. I wanted the balcony/gallery to be more integrated in the ship lines, the last ones where inspired by the Kalmare Nyckel replica, and when looking at it I decided I didn't like how it goes outside the ships lines.
 

 
Looking at it now I feel the curve going above the balcony is perhaps to big. But making the curve smaller would leave little room for a person standing on the balcony. This is what I get for trying to scale down a big ship design to a smaller vessel... Thinking about it  I'm not even sure a more simple ship of this size would have galleries at all, but I really like the personality they give the ship.
 
 
/Matti
 
 

Thanks you very much for the comments and ideas!
 
About the lower gun ports, I raised them from the first version as they to me seemed to sit dangerously low for a ship the size. I will consider reworking them again.
 
The small low port on Vasa is described by Fred Hocker as a message port. It was used for going in and out and when delivering things to the ship (I suppose that could have been ballast as well). If I remember correctly he said they had no cannons in them. I don't know if that was something used on the bigger ships because on some old drawings of smallar sized ships I've seen there was a cannon in the port positioned at the same place. 
 
 
Here is the latest sketch. I moved the "message port" higher. The lines are really close to version II, but I reworked the stern. I wanted the balcony/gallery to be more integrated in the ship lines, the last ones where inspired by the Kalmare Nyckel replica, and when looking at it I decided I didn't like how it goes outside the ships lines.
 

 
Looking at it now I feel the curve going above the balcony is perhaps to big. But making the curve smaller would leave little room for a person standing on the balcony. This is what I get for trying to scale down a big ship design to a smaller vessel... Thinking about it  I'm not even sure a more simple ship of this size would have galleries at all, but I really like the personality they give the ship.
 
 
/Matti
 
 

Nice drawing
The one thing that strikes me is that the heavy guns of a warship would be located a bit lower, and the channels should probably be above the ports. I think it helps to consider the internal deck placement when deciding the exact position of the guns. I agree that about 7 guns per side on the main battery deck seems reasonable for the size of Gripen.

In re tonnage:
Before the middle of the 1800s a ship's tonnage was either a calculated amount or an actual measurement.  In both cases it was a measurement or approximation of the cargo a hull could carry, it was not displacement.  The number of 'tuns' of wine a ship could carry, with a new ship perhaps actual stowing of barrels, would determine her tax liability, and the size of a warship followed the same principles.  The calculations for British ships resulted in a number ending in /94 of a tun, i.e. 397 52/94 tuns.  American usage resulted in /95 of a tun.  Since the 'tonnage' was based on breadth, length of assorted parts, etc., two ships could have identical tonnages and be quite different if they had merely the same breadth and length.  No accommodation was made for the fullness or sharpness of the hull.
Don't be too quick to eliminate that lower aft port.  It might be a ballast port; the lower deck or platform would be near there, it is near the waterline for shoveling ballast out of a boat and it can be caulked and nailed shut for the voyage.

So, I started the first planking this week. Garboards are on as well as the first 5 rows starting from the deck level on each side. Progress is a bit slow as each plank has to be sanded and chamfered individually as the planking how-to's warned! It is taking me about an hour to fit each plank right now so it's a good thing I am not in a hurry! I did need a drop strake on the bow to move from five to four rows and I expect I will need at least one more drop strake before the bow is done.
  To get the drop strake to fit smoothly, I had to put in a joint between 3rd and 4th frames on both sides as otherwise the planks tended to split. The hull shape seems to be running smoothly, but I am wondering if I made a fairing error or possibly should have put the drop strake on row 3 rather than 4. Inputs would be welcome so I understand this properly. Fortunately, by shaping the planks, I’ve been able to avoid using any steelers at the stern so far.    Hull will need a fair amount of sanding to fully smooth things out, but I'm pretty happy with the results so far.   Thumbnails below.   Thanks for reading.   Nigel.

Cheers for the info guys! Lot's of new things to get into my thick head...
 
I have worked more on sketches. I really really like Duyfkens lines and this one has lots of her lines in it but scaled up. Since Gripen probably was a more simple ship compaired to the more exclusive ships ornaments will be sparse and focus will be on the painting. I think that is more correct for the time she was built in also.
 

 
Any feedback, advice or comment is appreciated!
 
 
/Matti

Hi! If you decide to go for a wooden kit you could perhaps use the Berlin kit as I think it's fairly close to the Kalmar Nyckel in shape, at least with some reworking.
 
Don't fear the wood kits. I don't think it's harder, just different and with more stages. On the other hand it leaves lots of room for tweaking and making the model the way you want. A big plus for an idea like yours
 
The carving would be some work, but if I did this, I wouldn't make as many sculptures like the Kalmar Nyckel replica has. My guess is that thee are far to many for a basic ship like Kalmar Nyckel. The odds of her being blue is probably slim also as it was expencive to make blue paint. Just my opinion though.
 
 
/Matti

Looks great. Though that lower port aft, would it not be too low for where the tiller flat would be?

Cheers for the info guys! Lot's of new things to get into my thick head...
 
I have worked more on sketches. I really really like Duyfkens lines and this one has lots of her lines in it but scaled up. Since Gripen probably was a more simple ship compaired to the more exclusive ships ornaments will be sparse and focus will be on the painting. I think that is more correct for the time she was built in also.
 

 
Any feedback, advice or comment is appreciated!
 
 
/Matti

Cheers for the info guys! Lot's of new things to get into my thick head...
 
I have worked more on sketches. I really really like Duyfkens lines and this one has lots of her lines in it but scaled up. Since Gripen probably was a more simple ship compaired to the more exclusive ships ornaments will be sparse and focus will be on the painting. I think that is more correct for the time she was built in also.
 

 
Any feedback, advice or comment is appreciated!
 
 
/Matti

Remember though displacement is the measurement of the water displaced and not the actual tonnage of a vessel. Batavia doesn't have engines, which is why she's not allowed to make open ocean passages - she came to Australia and back to holland on a lift ship - vasa and Batavia could have the same displacement with vasa fully armed and manned and Batavia's hold full of cargo. As for the historical use of displacement I can't help you there, though VOC ships were listed as what the vessel displaced rather than actual size. Obviously this would give an idea of what these ships could carry as cargo capacity.

Gripen had a complement of 30 sailors according to the crew list of 1599 - from that it should be possible to guess her size to roughly 300 tonnes (in Glete's way of calculating).

For ships of the 16th century, it was not a common practice to determine the displacement before the vessel was launched.  Indeed, it was not common to determine displacement after launch.  The common system of measurement used provided an estimate of the burthen or capacity based on volume - tuns (volumetric) was the general unit of measure. 
 
The Dutch and Swedes were somewhat ahead of others in utilizing science to determine the displacement (tons or tonnes - a weight based on volume of water displaced), and in the late 16th century Mathew Baker was apparently using similar methods for his designs, but the calculation of displacement did not come into common practice in most countries until the 18th century.
 
For a very thorough discussion, see
 
Ferreiro, L., 2007: Ships and science the birth of naval architecture in the scientific revolution, 1600-1800. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=173439(Accessed February 8, 2015).  
If you do not have the book, his thesis that the book is based upon can be found at
 
Ferreiro, L., 2004: Down from the mountain : the birth of naval architecture in the scientific revolution, 1600-1800. University of London, 550 pp. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.411610(Accessed March 2, 2015).  
If you can read it, there is a Dutch treatise that may be worth accessing from 1671 -
 
Witsen, N., 1671: Aeloude en hedendaegsche scheeps-bouw en bestier. t’ Amsterdam : By Casparus Commelijn, Broer en Jan Appelaer, Boeck-verkoopers, 813 pp. http://archive.org/details/gri_33125008247716(Accessed March 9, 2015).      

Hi! If you decide to go for a wooden kit you could perhaps use the Berlin kit as I think it's fairly close to the Kalmar Nyckel in shape, at least with some reworking.
 
Don't fear the wood kits. I don't think it's harder, just different and with more stages. On the other hand it leaves lots of room for tweaking and making the model the way you want. A big plus for an idea like yours
 
The carving would be some work, but if I did this, I wouldn't make as many sculptures like the Kalmar Nyckel replica has. My guess is that thee are far to many for a basic ship like Kalmar Nyckel. The odds of her being blue is probably slim also as it was expencive to make blue paint. Just my opinion though.
 
 
/Matti

My fellow model shipwrights,
 
I want to build a model of the Kalmar Nyckel (http://www.kalmarnyckel.org/), but apparently none exists.  I lack the skill to build a wooden one from scratch.  However, since I am going to crew her this year, I am absolutely champing at the bit to have a model of her.
 
The Kalmar Nyckel (a pinnace) looks a lot like a galleon and is of that era, so I thought maybe a galleon could be modified to look like her.  The Revell Spanish Galleon was out, since its aftercastle is too high and the stern itself has two balconies.
 
The Golden Hind, however, looks pretty close.  The plans of both are attached for comparison (My thanks to KeithW for the Kalmar Nyckel plans).
 
The Kalmar Nyckel has a shallower draught, especially toward the stern.  The wales up above the weather deck are entirely different, and the gratings are in different locations.  The quarterdeck/poop (whatever you call those on a older vessel like this) is in a bit of a different location.  The balcony on the stern is different, as well.
 
It seems to me that all of this (except the draught, might have to live with that, I don't know) could be overcome with some sanding, cutting, and kitbashing.
 
TL;DR: Can I use kitbashing, sanding, and cutting to make the Golden Hind into a presentable (though certainly not perfect) approximation of the Kalmar Nyckel?
 
What do you folks think?  Is this feasible?  Do you all know of another kit that would work better?

The replica has its own site (in dutch)
Www.dewillembarentsz.nl
 
Jan

Marcus shows foure ships
Dunken pictures of the model by hoving,
hovings reconstruction of the barentsship, without the frames
A side view of a 85ft pinas, and finally geralt de weerts reconstruction of the same ship.
The reconstructionof De Weert is being build at full scale in Harlingen.
 
Jan