Jump to content
NRG Photographic Model Ship Competition - All eligible to enter - Reduced memberhsip fee - JULY 31 ENTRY DEADLINE ×

Waldemar

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    842

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Waldemar

  1. Waldemar
    Hi Bill, Thanks for your post. If you have a specific idea or question, go ahead and post it here. It might even be a chance to clarify some previously unseen problem.
  2. Waldemar
    I agree with Richard Barker's conjecture that originally the greater ship's breadth from the master frame design grid was the result of the addition of another deck to single deck ships, without modifying the method (sequence) of construction. However, in this very case the difference in these dimensions is too small. Therefore, I believe that the moulded breadth of 24.3 feet is simply due to the selection of round values for the master frame sweeps radii. In other words, Baker was actually aiming to get the moulded breadth as close as possible to the width of design grid (24 feet), but at the same time he preferred to use round values for the master frame sweeps radii. Baker then measured and multiplied these 24.3 feet by 2.5 and thus obtained the keel length, which is 60.75 feet. This could be a sign of evolutionary changes in the way ships were proportioned and designed.
  3. Waldemar
    🙂 Druxey, please feel free to judge this for yourself in the attached drawing. I just added a blue line half a foot away from its original location. It may not make much conceptual difference, but the deck camber is most likely 1/30th of the ship breadth. I look forward to your comments, which may again have the chance to provoke some further discoveries.
  4. Waldemar
    This is hopefully my final interpretation of the master frame. It is essentially the same as the previous one, just supplemented with decks and some additional dimensions. Note the width of the main deck camber.
  5. Waldemar
    True. It is usually a mix of both, more or less. Now I should perhaps make an update of all drawings, at least where the keel length and its derivates are given, but that is much work and dimensional differences rather small, quite within working tolerances. Either way, I am satisfied that the conceptual idea of Baker's ship has been hopefully found and its components identified on his plan.
  6. Waldemar
    Bingo! A small update. moulded breadth: 24.3 feet 24.3 x 2.5 = 60.75 feet The calculated value of 60.75 feet may be the true length of the keel, which is quite elusive to measure very accurately on the drawing.
  7. Waldemar
    Thank you very much Druxey! You have drawn my attention to the fact that, unlike many other examples, here the moulded breadth (taken as the width of the master frame design grid) equals the breadth at the main deck level. And Baker is known to have experimented with different proportions or configurations, so perhaps that was his intention in this case. Either way, here are the desired dimensions: keel length: 60.7 (~60) feet breadth at the 1st deck: 21.567 feet breadth at the 2nd (main) deck: 24 feet The only round ratio I have been able to spot is that of the breadth at the 2nd deck to the keel length (and even this only after rounding the keel length to 60 feet), which is 1 : 2.5.
  8. Waldemar
    And to conclude this thread, below is a reproduction of a ship plan drawn by Venetian shipwright Stefano Conti (original in the Archivio di Stato, Venice), to be built according to the Mediterranean method. Just one comment here: in its place of origin, the Mediterranean method of frame moulding (i.e. non-graphical!) was apparently still in use even for large ships as late as around 1700.
  9. Waldemar
    It is possible that one more element of the utmost conceptual importance can be better explained (I am trying to understand this drawing as I go along), and that is the exact location of the geometric device used to limit the rotation of the futtock template. This is shown on Baker's draught as a short horizontal line, which I interpret as being placed on the level of the first, undrawn deck. The measured distance between this first deck and the (drawn) main deck above is 5.5 feet. And perhaps more importantly, the height of the first deck above the base line is exactly 8 feet. It would be another hallmark of the Mediterranean methods, which were originally developed for the single-decked vessels like galleys and other low board craft. In this very case, however, it is a rather confusing application, as the narrowing line of the greatest breath (visible on the plan view) is roughly on the level of the main deck, and not on the level of the first deck. No wonder it was soon replaced in graphical methods by a more lucid means, and at the same time more adapted for larger vessels. This is illustrated in the graphic below.
  10. Waldemar
    A graphic example below of a master frame from the mid-16th century Italian manuscript Arte de far Vasselli by Todaro de Nicolò (http://echo.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/MPIWG:7KTSNYA6). The scale for sliding (rotating) the futtock template is clearly visible on the bilge arc.
  11. Waldemar
    Jaager, that's great. Why don't you try to clear it all up for the people who do this professionally? Or have you already done so? What was their reaction?
  12. Waldemar
    Jaager, you have already truncated my statements twice in such a way that their meaning has been altered, and your comments refer to these truncated statements. Please reread my statement in post #12 and you will realise that your comments actually bear little relation to the original meaning.
  13. Waldemar
    Interesting. Could you give at least one such example based on contemporary evidence?
  14. Waldemar
    Jaager, are you aware that Ab Hoving was reconstructing the shape of hulls precisely by building scale models? By making such a statements, you have just annihilated much of the efforts made so far by Ab Hoving, as well as by many scientists and archaeologists who reconstruct the shape of ships precisely by building models. At different scales, e.g. 1:5, 1:10 and so on. Or is it perhaps an unintentional contradiction?
  15. Waldemar
    Moderators? Anyone can make a blunder sometimes, but after all, this is already an obvious personal attack rather than a seemingly stated desire for a substantive discussion....
  16. Waldemar
    Specifically for this issue I have also consulted early English texts on shipbuilding as well as ship plans. Somewhat promisingly, I found that some of them suggest the use of round sterns as early as about 1600. But this is a subject for a rather long commentary requiring proper preparation...
  17. Waldemar
    Okay, maybe it's easier to bid with my head because I have a spare... 🙂
  18. Waldemar
    I will give my head that these drawings of ships were created for exactly the same reasons that we build models of them today – for their beauty, for sales, for display, for satisfaction.... 🙂
  19. Waldemar
    So fast!? And professional work at the level of museum models. It makes you want to help...
  20. Waldemar
    A newer version of the belaying plan was posted on the Vasa forum some time ago by Fred Hocker. Not of the highest resolution, but still quite readable. Here you are.
  21. Waldemar
    There is probably direct evidence that Sovereign of the Seas had a round stern from the outset. In McKay's book, on pages 20–21, there is a table of the ship's projected dimensions from 1635 ('Detailed Schedule of Dimensions for the proposed Sovereign of the Seas'). In this table I found, among other things, these two dimensions: Height of the tuck at the fashion piece: 16' 0" Height of the tuck: 17' 0" 'Height of the tuck' is nothing more than the height of the rising line of the floor aft (i.e. at the sternpost). In short, for ships with a square stern the first given dimension is not necessary at all, and even meaningless (at least I personally do not know of such a case). It would now be sufficient to check the reliability of these figures given in McKay's book (incidentally largely ignored by the author himself in making his drawings) and whether they all refer to the ship as first build or to her later rebuilds. I think Mark would be best placed to do this. I would also add that it would be difficult to dream up more complete data for reconstructing the hull shape of a ship of this era. No or almost no guessing, just the implementation of ready-made data...
  22. Waldemar
    To illustrate another unorthodox case, below is a somewhat surprising example of a ship's stern from a presumed transitional period. The portrait was made by van de Velde in 1658 and depicts the famous Danish admiral ship Trefoldighed (the equivalent of Nelson's Victory for the Danes). The ship was rebuilt by English shipwright James Robbins in the 1640s at the behest of Christian IV and was then given a round stern. Note the run of the lowest wale and the position of the stern gun ports. The transitional sterns of some French ships in the second half of the 17th century had a similar layout. The picture was taken from the study by Niels Probst, Christian 4.s flåde, 1996.
  23. Waldemar
    This is, of course, an absolute condition for our assistance
  24. Waldemar
    Photographs of Spanish ship models featuring original rigging from a slightly later period. While possibly different when it comes to the detailed configuration of catharpins, yet perhaps they will help to better interpret the above drawings from the Álbum (serving, worming, colours). In compressed files, the same photographs in higher resolution (both from the Modelos de Arsenal del Museo Naval, 2004). Santa Ana 1784-1816: Santísima Trinidad 1769-1805: Santa Ana 1784-1816.zip Santisima Trinidad 1769-1805.zip
  25. Waldemar
    Plate 69: Plate 124:

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...