Waldemar

Thank you, too. Actually, in the broadest terms, all French sets of albums of this kind and from this period can probably be collectively called ‘de Colbert’, since they must have been made at the behest of this statesman. Nevertheless, it has apparently become accepted in French historiography to distinguish between these albums in one way or another for the sake of better precision of the message. I thought you might also like to take advantage of this opportunity. Anyway, I'll try not to bother again, only in a way the question about the rabbet arrangement somehow provoked this activity . And, well, I am quite curious, how will you ultimately decide on the issue of the limber holes?

Nice description, thanks, although a bit in the style of more puzzles or uncertainty than answers . If it's important, I'd suggest replacing the title of one of the works above, that is ‘album de Colbert’ (which is about the construction of a large warship) with ‘Dessins des différentes maniéres de vaisseaux que l'on voit dans les havres, ports et riviéres depuis Nantes jusqu'à Bayonne qui servent au commerce des sujets de Sa Majesté, 1679’, or briefly — ‘album de Jouve’ or ‘album du Ponant’ (it is assumed that the latter album is most likely the product of someone in Jean Jouve's workshop or just working for Jouve).

As the classic said: — check once, curse twice...

As I know life and its diversity, it could probably have been quite variable (for example, more or less fixed/loose planks in different arrangements), depending on the specific use of the boat, especially the type of cargo. In the monograph there is also an example of the same type of boat, although almost twice as big, sporting already a regular deck along the whole length of the boat.

Hi. Maybe a good idea, too. Anyway, I have looked up the description of the construction of this boat in the monograph and found only this brief, rather unambiguous entry (p. 8): Il n'existe pas de bordage intérieur ou vaigrage, uniquement une sorte de ceinture ou serre croisant les allonges à leur mi-hauteur. There is no inner planking or vaigrage, only a kind of belt or clamp crossing the futtocks at their half-height.

Both variants of rabbet arrangement you show are correct and have been seen on wrecks and plans of various vessels of the period. They are quite closely related to limber holes, which themselves are actually necessary for larger vessels equipped with bilge pumps. This is perhaps a longer story, however, if you consider that this small boat did not have limber holes, you can safely follow the plans in the monograph. Or, if you prefer to have some form of limber holes anyway, you can consider some of the following options for modifications to these plans (limber holes in red).

Thank you, Michael, for taking the time to check it out and show the solution here (actually I should have done it myself earlier ). It's quite convincing, especially the period model is very telling. I admit that I probably had in my mind the arrangement known from Vasa 1628 with a shorter and thus more manageable, as it seems, fish davit. With your permission I will recall this arrangement, hopefully it will also prove useful for other readers of your thread (from Landström's The Royal Warship Vasa, pp. 116–117):

Hi Michael, nice work as usual. Are you sure the fish davit had to be that long? It's probably for verification, but about the length from bulwark to bulwark would do. Then the fish davit could be pulled out one side and then the other. What do you think...?

No, no, no... I have meant the diameter of the wooden axletree arm/spindle (of the carriage), and not the the diameter of the barrel's trunnions. The latter is indeed okay in your gun, as you have just shown.

I can only reiterate that the effect you achieved is already sensational. However, if you'll allow me to hint at something, I'd say that, in practice, for the diameters of the trucks, there weren't any ‘standards’ that had to be strictly adhered to; these diameters were simply selected so that the barrel fell in the middle of the gunport. But already the diameter of the axletree arm (spindle) was typically equal to the calibre of the gun, as was the thickness of the trucks. I realise you may already know this, but perhaps such general guidelines may be useful to others. Below is a reproduction from a Swedish work on artillery from around 1700 (D. Grundell, Nödige underrättelse om Artilleriet till Lands och Siös..., Stockholm 1705, Plate X), where in the the lower right corner it is demonstrated how to select the diameter of the (front) truck to get the correct barrel height.

An extremely attractive cannon barrel indeed, Hans (and the carriage, too). Is it resin or metal cast? Or 3D print? What's the scale/dimensions? From the authentic looking details I estimate it to be based on a real specimen. All in all, fantastic effect. Congratulations .

Well, let's have that consensus . Thanks for the pleasantly correct general appearance already .

Judging visually, the original parts from the kit have quite the correct proportions. The usual culprit in such situations is an undrilled bore in the barrel, which shifts the centre of gravity forward a lot. So either you can drill that hole, or fix the gun to the deck with glue, mechanically or both (or some other similar way that will take care of the problem).

Oh my... Sorry Olli, but as a lover of old artillery my heart is heavily bleeding... Please bring back the original design of the carriage. That is, the barrel's trunnions just above the front axle, the barrel's base ring above the rear axle (should fall on it preferably in an arc, not vertically), and the trucks of wood only (no metal on the perimeter).

The extant remains of the hull, presented in an otherwise very comprehensive and detailed monograph of the shipwreck (probably missing only an attempt to reconstruct the original design concept of the San Juan), are indeed not overly conclusive. This ambiguity also makes it possible to propose a slightly different, alternative master frame transformation for the fore half of the hull, different from the aft half. The difference is that in this alternative way, while rotating the master frame template, the boca points are not aligned to a single common horizontal line, as shown earlier, but to the corresponding 1st deck height, different for each individual frame. This alternative method, firstly, seems to correspond even better to the archaeological material for the fore half of the hull; secondly, it makes it possible to pre-define (trace on the mould loft) practically all the frames up to the very extremity of the hull, while – importantly – maintaining the condition from the first point; thirdly and finally, it is compatible with written works of the period, such as Livro Primeiro de Arquitectura Naval, ca. 1610 by João Baptista Lavanha or Livro de Traças de Carpintaria, 1616 by Manoel Fernandes. The thing is that both of these works describe and show master frame templates featuring integrated lugs determining the height of the decks (beam heights for one, two or even three decks, depending on the size of the vessel being designed). These integrated protrusions could only determine the height (or rather, in sequence, the rise) of the decks correctly if the boca points were aligned during the rotation of the master frame template to the height of the 1st deck (boca) line, the latter being at different height for each individual frame. Diagram from a work by João Baptista Lavanha, Livro Primeiro de Arquitectura Naval, ca. 1610, showing the contours of the master frame template featuring integrated protrusions marking the height of the decks for all subsequent traced frames: Diagram, showing analogous protrusions, from the work Livro de Traças de Carpintaria, 1616 by Manoel Fernandes: Such a way of aligning the boca points, to the rising 1st deck (boca) line, could in practice be very easily implemented immediately on the mould loft by employing one of the variants of the mezzaluna, preferably the best approximating the geometrically correct arc of the circle (for example, the graminho de beesta, as it is called by Fernando Oliveira), or by successively measuring the individual heights of the 1st deck (boca) line for each frame on the drawing. Later in this presentation, when discussing perhaps the most interesting issue of hollowing/bottom curves, the lines of the hull body proper of the San Juan will follow both of these ways, that is, for the aft half of the hull the boca points will be aligned to the one common horizontal line, and for the fore half the boca points will be aligned to the rising 1st deck (boca) line, as shown in the diagram below.