Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click on photo to order.
×
.jpg.6c90d67e7e9071af590f4d4a2a8bc908.jpg)
Waldemar
-
Posts
867 -
Joined
6 Followers
-
I see. Perhaps you have a friend who could be able to download these pages for you. It's only a few hours' effort. Alternatively, you can buy a hard-copy reprint, where the texts, including the tables, are already transcribed. No need to download and print anything.
-
Using the link provided, I accessed the library website, found the desired page, and downloaded it. This is rather pointless, as you can fortunately do all of this yourself, already without any additional help. Good luck.
-
-
Bill Jackson reacted to a post in a topic:
Spanish Galleon Rope Sizes
-
Take a look here (entry #3):
-
.thumb.jpg.c6343966b029e7941df5b987d129aac6.jpg)
Ah, yes, the Lomellina case… Fortunately, for an exhibition model, unlike a full-scale floating replica, stability issues are no longer of the utmost importance in the sense that any mistakes or misinterpretations will at least not lead to some kind of costly disaster. You wrote earlier that you have direct contact with people who are involved in researching the Lomellina wreck, and that you receive materials from them regarding this wreck. Are you perhaps aware of any other attempts to reconstruct the ship's shapes besides those presented or recalled in the 2023 paper attached below? Frankly, for certain reasons I'm not personally thrilled with these attempts and its results, but more importantly, I see that you also decided not to follow the published reconstruction and are creating your own interpretation. Guérout Max, Frabetti Beatrice, Castro Filipe, Revisiting Lomellina, 1516 – The Hull Shape, 2023: Guérout Max, Frabetti Beatrice, Castro Filipe - Revisiting Lomellina, 1516 - The Hull Shape - 2023.pdf -
Hi, If I may, I'll try to start (hopefully) jokingly. These and similar thoughts could indeed quite easily end up like this (most interesting from the 30th second): But more seriously, in addition to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different plans from the period, quite clear (written) indications on this matter can be found, for example, in the shipbuilding manuscript from around 1610 by Lavanha or the so-called Newton manuscript from the first or second quarter of the 17th century. But perhaps this is most spectacularly and instructively demonstrated by Robert Dudley in his work (manuscript) from around 1636. The descriptions of the individual levels in the diagrams below (transcribed in red) practically speak for themselves and probably don't even need any further commentary. Perhaps except that this specific material has almost certainly never been used or maybe even noticed by anyone before.
-
Mary Rose 1511 — the epitome of the Northern tradition
Waldemar replied to Waldemar's topic in Nautical/Naval History
Quite possibly the Northern European Late Middle Ages, with its Hanseatic cogs and other cog-like vessels, Scandinavian ships, earliest carracks, etc., and all their somewhat later derivatives, also needs attention, because this period is in fact as conceptually unexplored as the early modern era has been neglected so far. Funnily enough, various researchers are able to carry out really complicated hydrostatic and hydrodynamic calculations, as well as expensive experiments of various kinds, including real-scale sailing, except for the “ trifle” that it is still unknown how these ships were actually designed to satisfy the results of all those modern scientific tests and calculations . As a result, it is simply not possible in the present state of knowledge to draw some conclusions of a more general nature, for example to the extent you ask. -
Mary Rose 1511 — the epitome of the Northern tradition
Waldemar replied to Waldemar's topic in Nautical/Naval History
It occurred to me later that one could still show a geometrically rigorous way of determining the reconciling sweep tangent at both ends (that is, to bottom line on one side and to lower breadth sweep on the other). Although the method is extremely simple, it is highly doubtful that it has been used in practice, and especially at actual scale on the mould loft, as can be seen particularly well on sample number 3, where the auxiliary lines extend far beyond the contour area of the frame. The method using a flexible instrument, shown previously in the entry #40, is by far the preferred one, not only because it is hassle-free, but also gives excellent results in terms of the precision of the contours obtained, and this is true even allowing for the minor inaccuracies of handling such a flexible instrument. Be that as it may, below is a method employing formal geometry: 1. make a perpendicular to the line of the bottom at point A, 2. mark point c2 on this line at a distance R from point A, 3. connect points c1 and c2 with a line, 4. find the midpoint of the line c1–c2 and make a perpendicular at this point to line c1–c2, 5. the intersection of the two perpendicular lines (described in steps 1. and 4.) yields point c3, which is the centre of the reconciling sweep.
-
The fact that the joinery is anything but sloppy (or perhaps better: irregular) does not mean that the design itself was also careless. Let's take, for example, the buildings of the Incas, the pyramids of the Egyptians or Neolithic Stonehenge. Despite the considerable irregularity of the stone components used, astronomers still find remarkable precision in the assembly of these structures. The same is also perfectly true today — aesthetic aspects aside, it actually does not matter whether the floor in flats and offices is made of boards or tiles of varying dimensions, as long as it is level and sufficiently even. So why waste a good material? The oldest shipbuilding manuals very rarely mention the width of the planks, if at all, as opposed to their thickness and sometimes the minimum length required for more "strategic" components of the structure.
-
Waldemar reacted to a post in a topic:
USS Randolph 1776
-
Well, fine, now that it's “all” cleared up, I at least have a smooth excuse not to spend a perverse amount of money on the decent quality copies of source material needed to prepare free presentations after all. I'm off back to my favourite 16th and 17th century (and European archives ).
-
Waldemar reacted to a post in a topic:
USS Randolph 1776
-
Ah, you may have spoiled my surprise, but perhaps that's for the better, as the further fate of this very venture is quite unclear indeed. On the one hand, you might have had it easier, as we have discussed the issue privately before, yet, on the other hand, with your watchful eye for shapes you yourself must also have noticed the striking resemblance to French light craft of Louis XIV's time, such as the frigate l'Aurore 1697 (body plan shown in the thread on the Mary Rose 1511). Now, I would still like to say that people, while attempting similar analyses, usually focus on comparing dimensions, which is completely missing the point. After all, absolute dimensions, just like many of the proportions, are simply determined by a kind of circumstances which have little in common or being quite independent of design methods, as you pointed out above.
-
Waldemar reacted to a post in a topic:
USS Randolph 1776
-
Indeed an excellent article (and easy to find online) — many thanks, Chapman. In a convenient, compact way, it provides information that creates the necessary historical context for this issue. I have also refreshed myself with the content of the related section in The 32-gun Frigate Essex (1799) by Portia Takakjian, published 1990, however, it looks like, that in terms of today's state of knowledge regarding the design methods employed by early American designers, the statement just made by Brewington in his 1948 paper is in fact still relevant:
-
The document is available online for anyone interested (see link below), just only up to page 162 of the manuscript. In a malicious twist of fate, the page with the data for Randolph 1776 is already on the next, first page of the non-accessible part of the whole document, that is 163–164. And the archive wishes USD 37.50 for making one scan of this double page available. Funny. Historical Society of Pennsylvania: DAMS : Volume/Folder : Principal Dimensions [1719-1828] [10581] Under the circumstances, I won't even bother to approach the other archive (the navy) for a better copy of the original ship's plan anymore, and I think I'll give up on this project altogether. It's a pity, because the results and conclusions of this investigation could be really interesting, and actually unknown or unrealized until now. More precisely, I already have near certainty about the design methods applied in early American ships, nevertheless, adequate input material is obviously needed to present this adequately.
-
Waldemar reacted to a post in a topic:
rigging of the Santìsima Trinidad
-
Thank you, Tony. Yes, I have this publication in my home library, as well as probably all of Chapelle's other major works. Indeed, there is a wealth of interesting, important and useful information about this frigate (actually the whole frigate series) contained therein. Nevertheless, I intend to do something that even Chapelle himself did not do, which is to reverse-engineer the design of the Randolph, and to do this I need a copy of the original design in the best possible quality, as opposed to later redrawings which necessarily distort the original somewhat and, worse, somehow lose very important details found on the originals. By the same token, British-made plans of these early American ships are also unsuitable for my purposes. The point is that I have some observations about the presumed design method used (in a conceptual sense) and I would like to take a closer look at this for confirmation (or otherwise) of these presumptions. They may explain why the American designs were marked by such a specificity of shape rather than another.
-
Thanks, Wayne. Nonetheless, I'm already having some doubts as I've noticed in several places in the document that ‘foremast’ has been reworded to ‘foremost’ (and the other way round) and in addition, for Randolph itself, the distance between decks seems to not match the draught (5‘ 2" versus 5‘ 7"). And, almost forgot, the Randolph is listed in the title as a 23-gun frigate instead of 32-gun one.
Our Emblem ®
