Waldemar

😞

Admittedly, I'm not quite sure what the term ‘on top of the current hull form’ means , however, the issue of applying the hull planking thickness is so trivial that it doesn't even need an explanatory diagram. Simply increase the thickness of the existing surface (now zero thickness) to one and a half inches, towards the outside of the hull. This will result in two surfaces parallel to each other, one and a half inches apart, enclosing the volume of the planking. Notwithstanding, it may still be worth showing the suggested run of planking at the bow. In fact, due to its rather peculiar shape, it would not have been possible (or extremely hard) to plank this yacht in any particularly different fashion anyway. Or, at the least, in the shown manner of planking the hull surface, edge bending of the planking boards (in the real, full size construction) would be reduced to a minimum. Oh, and also perhaps that the transom flat (at the stern) is on the outside of the planking, opposite to the rest.

That's fine. It gives me some relief, particularly in view of future such conversions, that the matter has been cleared up. Then there is the issue that I did not write about in the private message. I have defined the hull surface inside planking, and for your convenience the width of the keel assembly follows the inner rabbet lines, which effectively have always a diminishing width, especially towards the stern end. In this way, in the provided 3D model, the keel and hull surface edges coincide. This is quite a suitable configuration for a variant where you will not be adding thickness of the planking — you can simply leave it as it is now, and you have ready-made 3D models of both elements. However, if you decide to add thickness of the planking, remember that you should then make a new keel assembly. I have contrived it in the way to make the job as easy as possible for you — it is enough to make new, replacement keel assembly of uniform width over its entire length. This width should be the same as the greatest width of the current keel. For the thickness of the planking, I have provided one and a half inches. The uncertainty of your decision in this matter is also the reason why I wrote that you will have to optionally redefine some extra elements in the 3D model provided. Good luck!

Indeed, the difficulty in understanding is not helpful probably in any venture. And it's nice that you also seek some help here .

Am I misunderstanding something? As, dos, tres doesn't sound like a long ship to me.

I was a little concerned about your comment regarding possible typological errors in the 3D model mesh I provided to you, which was obtained by preceding automatic conversion from NURBS-type geometry. Therefore, in order to avoid possible faults of this kind in the future, I asked an expert in mesh geometry modelling to find and point out to me any errors in this mesh. Here is his assessment: It definitely is an automatically generated mesh, but it appears as perfect as such mesh can be, I see nothing wrong with this model, nor any trace of manual corrections.

Thank you, @Doreltomin. Interesting and erudite posts are always welcome .

The general proportions (as, dos, tres) do indeed correspond to what is usually referred to as nao or carrack, but already the way the hull shapes are formed is more universal and was employed for a variety of vessel types of a very different proportions. In fact, it is most suitable for long galley-type vessels. As a curiosity I will also say that the length-to-width ratio of this ship at the height of the waterline is only about 2.8 : 1, and apparently these vessels were able to cross the ocean successfully and in both directions . Thanks precisely to these quite pointed hull lines. However, at the expense of payload capacity...

The transom timbers at the stern and the wales at the side are essentially pieces of wood independent of each other, but are usually put at the same height so that they can be firmly connected to each other using a knees inside the hull. This is quite important for the structural integrity of the whole vessel. Later it occurred to me that maybe others might also want to play with this 3D model of the yacht in some way. Without any restrictions. The model is in the form of a mesh and is saved in OBJ format, so that it can be imported into 3D programs that support just meshes (as opposed to NURBS type elements). Paviljoensjacht 1733.obj

Although the extremely important wreck of a mid-16th century seagoing ship built in the Basque region of Spain has already been studied in great detail and presented to the public in the comprehensive, multi-volume monograph The Underwater Archaeology Red Bay. Basque Shipbuilding and Whaling in the 16th Century, published by Parcs Canada in 2007, nevertheless, the following presentation will not be a repetition of the material contained therein, but rather to complement certain omissions or even a different interpretation of this archaeological find. In a nutshell, the aim of this exercise is to recreate and present the method of designing a ship in terms of its geometrical conception, an issue that is fundamental to naval architecture and yet so little understood today for the early modern period. Somewhat retrospectively, it can already be said that the Red Bay Vessel is an example of the then classic proportion as, dos, tres (breadth : keel length : total length = 1 : 2 : 3), recommended by authors of numerous works of the period, and applied in this particular case in a very literal, astonishingly precise manner. Apart from the main proportions of the ship, no less important from the point of view of the history of naval architecture is the method used to form the shape of the hull, and taking into account its specific details. In this ship, one of the widespread Mediterranean methods of hull forming was used, which, nota bene, was also adopted at about this time in England, and was still used there in its generic form in the first decades of the 17th century, before being creatively developed into the more sophisticated ways generally referred to today as English moulding. Archaeological model of the wreck of San Juan, the Basque whaling ship, scale 1:10 (Parcs Canada) Shapes of the ship's hull reproduced by applying the found method of designing the vessel: In addition to the monograph of the wreck itself, which may be not available to everyone, much interesting material regarding the hull structure of the shipwreck can also be found in the provided below publication by Robert Grenier, The Basque whaling ship from Red Bay, 2001 (public domain). Grenier Robert - The basque whaling ship from Red Bay - 2001.pdf

Eventually, out of curiosity, I had a look at the archaeological report myself. It turns out, quite logically, that the ordinary planking boards were of pine, while those of structural importance, where the individual timbers overlap (i.e. floor, bilge, futtock timbers) were of the more robust oak. The latter were also thicker than regular planking, in effect making them a sort of underwater wales. The report also points out that the use of coniferous wood in the Mediterranean for the planking of ship hulls was quite standard practice at the time.

Is there any regularity of application in this mix of two wood species or does it look more random? What is in the report about this? Because if it's a bit of a haphazard-looking mix, then repairs, necessarily done quite routinely and arguably at varying levels of cost and resulting quality, can probably also be added to these possibilities.

It depends on where the pine (coniferous wood) is used. If for the lower parts of the hull planking, then yes, it could have been a cheat. However, if for the upper parts of the hull (especially the planking of the upper decks, even the planking of the upper sides, or for the inner bulkheads, regardless of their location), then it is already a most correct and desirable practice, advised and described in the ship's handbooks of the period. It is particularly about the difference in weight of oak (or other heavy woods) from coniferous species. As a curiosity — at that time or so, in the north of the continent, there were in fact quite a few ships built entirely of coniferous wood. They were called fyrblasses (in Germanic languages fyr or similar, meaning precisely pine wood).

Correct — Veltman, not Veltmand. The alleged letter ‘d’ is just a fragment of a leaf. But it's best to see it for yourself. link: | Nationaal Archief ... and in its entirety:

To be honest, I hadn't really paid attention to this very detail. Congratulations on your perceptiveness! The designs of this Jan Veltmand are very recognisable from others, and cover a whole range of different vessels. Yet, his full name is found on only one of his draughts. And here, his initials, nice...

Voilà! The lines of your yacht are ready. Since you will be processing it further in the 3D program, I will not be doing 2D drawings as I did previously. Instead, I will send it to you right away via PM in OBJ format. just as you see it below, only without all those design lines which you don't need, just the surfaces themselves.

Almost finished...

Without going into considerations of an academic nature, I will only say that the design of the yacht under consideration is quite detailed for its era and certainly made it possible to build a vessel. For comparison, let me remind of a design from about the same period, according to which a whole series of three whaling ships were successfully built. Please note how ‘poor’ in detail this design is in its graphic form: And yet another design from a couple of decades earlier. Here, not even contours of the bends are defined, and yet this very design was again a base for successful building a whole series of ships: To make a long story short, the content of the book you mention focuses on the „modern” design methods, adopted in the Netherlands by some designers around the second quarter of the 18th century, which in essence are methods adapted from the so-called French methods, in the meaning of using numerous diagonals that were harmoniously divided geometrically or mathematically to obtain the contours of the frames, independently of the traditional design lines such as the line of the floor used up to then. This is already a completely different era in terms of naval architecture compared to the design techniques native to the 17th century and earlier. More on this fully diagonal methods, please see, for example, the excellent works of Jean Boudriot on the subject.

I am always assertive or honest. Unless the demands of courtesy and politeness sometimes get in the way 🙂. I keep hoping that someone will eventually start applying these presented design methods themselves. That is at least the general intention. But in this particular case of this yacht I was going to do it anyway, so I don't see it as a problem to take the extra time to do some additional drafting of simple 2D plans, as I have already done for Samuel 1650 at Don's request. Does this convention suit you more or less? Further on, you will already be on your own.

There is probably no need to guess. There are at least a dozen plans in the archives created obviously by one hand and this very plan is in that group. One of these plans is signed by its designer, a certain Jan Veltmand, and another plan, of a hooker, shows even the name of the ship – ‘Catharina Maria’. It would be enough to check this information to get more exact dating. I personally rely provisionally on the archivists' dating, which seems to me quite acceptable, given the specifics of these designs. Besides, they are kept together with other plans, with dates on them, for example 1728 and 1733. I wonder how one can be sure that they were not used to built actual vessels? In any case, these plans must have been drawn somehow, after all, and all indications are that they are not random scribbles. Here, too, there is no need to guess. I am familiar with the contents of this publication, which is why, among other things, I wrote that the method identified from this plan is so far unknown. Incidentally, other Dutch design methods from the first decades of the 18th century and earlier are also not described in this book. There are at most comments on the plans reproduced there from that very earlier period, of the kind that it is not known how they were designed. By the way, in this group of a dozen drawings by Jan Veltmand there is a plan with a rather similar general layout, that is, with a central cabin and a deep cockpit, itself before a very small cabin aft (National Archief NL-HaNA_4.MST_470) :

Hi, thanks, but it should actually read ‘Jan points in his post #11’ 🙂. Quoting and reproduction for non-commercial purposes is not prohibited, at least according to the law to which I am subject, so below is a copy of that plan whose existence you have reminded us of. Indeed, it's a great example, and even for several reasons, thanks. Meanwhile, I took an even closer look at the design concept of the yacht we are talking about. This method, already using design diagonals to produce variable radii, is simply brilliant in its simplicity and ingenuity at the same time. I think I'll make a separate thread describing this as yet unknown method, discovered thanks to this plan. For now, below, I am posting the almost finished body plan of this yacht. You can see quite well all the drawing inaccuracies committed in the original drawing, but it should be noted right away that more precision was not necessary to draw such a preparatory sketch, as precise tracing was only required on the mould loft. This is also another very good opportunity to show the potential of reverse engineering that takes into account old design methods. Not only does this approach not introduce new distortions when smoothing out hull shapes, but it also further corrects the designers' frequent drawing inaccuracies and later distortions of the original drawings.

There is quite a significant difference in the shaping of the hollowing/bottom curves in Steel's and Stalkartt's work. While the former uses a very traditional way, going at least back to the antiquity, by using a properly curved and scaled wooden template (related to non-graphical methods, i.e. without paper plans), the latter has a different way: simple straight lines for the central part of the hull, much more convenient to draw on paper plans, and the bends/frames at the extremities of the hull are even shaped in their entirety on the basis of previously drawn waterlines (such approach is strictly related to newer, graphical methods of designing). But it is already your job to recognise such specificities in the drawing you are examining 🙂.

Yes, on the one hand this is true. And there are many more such arbitrarily chosen design components in Stalkartt's description. And not without reason, as he describes things in a most valuable, universal way, that is, he lists all these design components, explains what they serve and how they are applied and in what order. Precisely consciously in the most universal way possible, independent of the specific parameters used by individual designers and for various types of boats. Today, without this background knowledge, it is not at all easy to reproduce the design process even with the original plans. It is therefore usual to redraw the lines from the extant plans and then smooth them out by various means. This present-day alternative method is also good for specific goals, but has its own peculiarities and limitations. Yes, plate I and pages 1–28 on whole-moulding.

Right, definitely 40 feet. Confirmed by direct application of the drawn linear scale. I also looked at the method of forming the hull shapes. In its essence, it is not overly complicated, but recreating the main design lines, which have been scrupulously erased from the finished draught, would already be an undertaking for at least a couple of days. This could be quite an interesting reverse-engineering project in itself, as I have not yet investigated such a variant of Dutch-style design. These old methods, correctly applied, actually guarantee perfectly faired shapes.