Waldemar

It was only relatively recently I learned that just such elements, in true scale, and both at the bow and stern (especially the wales and planking in the 'difficult' places), were cut from compass timber rather than bent to shape. Anyway, perfect job.

Still a small update. Aiming for standard solutions in this reconstruction, I have also slightly rearranged the layout of the gun deck (overloop) by replacing a number of carlings and ledges. Now carlings are beneath ledges as can be seen below.

These renderings just for fun, taking a rest from preparing 2D draughts. Mostly structural elements with the frames hidden.

Wow, thank you Tony. These are some of the most valuable compliments, especially coming from an already experienced digital model designer. It looks like we inspire each other, as it has long been a goal of mine to build a 3D ship model like your impressive Schooner Adventure or the pinas and later fluit-ship of the Ab Hoving/Rene Hendrickx duo. In this particular case, the original intention was ultimately to create two-dimensional plans that were precise and reliable in a geometrical sense, and in that sense my 3D model is merely a means to that end. But now you have made a clear suggestion, giving much food for thought. I am a little concerned about the rigging, as the digital model file of "St George" is already over 600 MB. And I am doing my best to reduce its size without compromising precision – defining the simplest possible shapes, rebuilding those unnecessarily complex, shrinking trimmed surfaces, reducing number of control points etc. I took a closer look at the rigging on your schooner looking for ideas on practical solutions. There is hope... 🙂

What a finely clean work! And sorry for being late. I am dreaming that my model would be built in such an attractive way and from the wood similar in appearance to your choice. "My" modellers suggest to use oak! Ghhrrffgth! 🙂

Once you get familiar with the above listed works, you will easily realise that the parameters adopted for this reconstruction, such as the most important length of the floors and the curvature of the frames, are in reality the standard values recommended for men-of-war. However, as soon as possible, I will try to show the method graphically in this log.

Jules, first and foremost in „lasts” cargo capacity was determined, and not the ship's displacement as you have stated. This is understandable, bearing in mind that usually ships' users were just interested in cargo capacity, while displacement was a useless value for them. Nevertheless, if you know of even one reverse case, please let me know. Let me also please explain the basics. Imagine a board floating horizontally in the water. This is the ship in your example. Even with little or no ballast, it is very stable, which is good for an artillery platform and bad for its sailing qualities, making the ship leewardly (unless very long) and liable to lose masts easily. The „Sankt Georg” is the opposite. For simplicity's sake, you can associate it with the same board, but held vertically by ballast. The ship is then softer, which is an advantage for masts durability and its crew well-being. Weatherliness gets better too. The ship's behaviour may be optimized by adding or taking off some ballast. The price to pay is to have more depth in hold and sailing in deeper waters only. And with deeper hulls you gain ballast capacity, still keeping the battery well out of the water level. If you really wish to know how the ship's hulls were shaped, you would better consult the historical sources, as I am now very busy preparing the working draughts for the model. For the first half of the 17th century I would recommend the following, which I consider of the most practical value: – Fernando Oliveira, Livro da fabrica das naos, ca. 1570–1580 – English so-called „Newton” manuscript of ca. 1600 – Manuel Fernandes, Livro das Traças de Carpintaria, 1616 – English anon. manuscript of ca. 1620 – Spanish government ordonances (dimension establishments) of 1607, 1613 and 1618 – Georges Fournier, Hydrographie, 1643 – Bushnell Edmund, The Compleat Ship-Wright, 1664 – Anthony Deane, Naval Architecture, 1670 Now, at the excellent at the time battery height of 5 1/2 feet, the „Sankt Georg” calculated displacement is about 460 tons, and for 5 feet it is 490 tons. It was also calculated that with the gravity centre not being above the level of the main battery barrels in the waist, the ship would get upright from „any” (practical) list. My guess is that the cargo capacity of 200 lasts given in the inventory was estimated (usually by eye) as if for a merchantman of similar dimensions and even rounded, as was often the case for administrative purposes. The best, Waldemar

Now that all parts are already trimmed (i.e. cut to the nearest boundary), the so-called "Pen" display mode in Rhino may be used to its full potential. All polysurfaces of the 3D model are closed, no exceptions here. This „Pen” mode would also serve for producing any desired number of perspective or 2D projections. In the process, the weather deck (koebrug) structure has been completely rearranged by replacing all carlings, ledges and deck planks.

Hello Jules, Thanks for asking. This reconstruction is made on the order of Muzeum Gdańska (Danzig Museum) and in practice I was given a free hand in historical research regarding the ship's characteristics and construction. My concept was seemingly accepted and now the intention is to build a model of wood to the scale of 1:15 (hull alone of about 2,6 m). Most probably the ship was built by shipwrights from Gdańsk (Danzig) and Kołobrzeg (Kolberg) and entered service in 1627. Shipwrights from Gdańsk were German speaking Polish citizens, as was most of the ships' complement, command and fleet administration. The ship's main dimensions were taken directly from the other ship in the fleet of similar complement and armament – the „King David” (König David). The inventory for this ship reads: Das Schiff ist von 200 Lasten, 120 Fuss lang, 26 Fuss breit, 14 Fuss tief ins Raum, 6½ Schuh hoch zwischen dem Uberlauff undt der Koybrucken (length – 120 feet, beam – 26 feet, depth in hold 14 feet, distance between decks – 6½ feet). These proportions, while quite extreme for a man of war (especially length/breadth ratio), may be also found in other ships of Dutch origin or later French light frigates. The „Vasa” herself would have the same proportions if not slightly broadened during actual construction, upon a change in plans for heavier artillery, also requiring in turn stronger and heavier upperworks. The crew and armament for this ship are known and these were already given in this log. As a reminder – 50 sailors as a permanent crew and 100 infantry temporarily embarked for an expected battle.

I am still not convinced about the transverse stability of such watercraft, but I would certainly place such an exotic-looking object with attractive lines in my living room. Simplicity of the construction does not matter here. By the way, for some reason it seems to me that actually only ship models are suitable for display in presentation interiors. With perhaps a few exceptions. Sorry tanks, jets and spaceships 🙂.

Thank you very much for your comment Nicolas. Yet, somewhat ironically, I really only use a tiny fraction of Rhino's capabilities, still getting the shapes I want with the perfect fit. Believe me or not, but only a few basic functions and commands are constantly used in this project and, very occasionally, the more advanced ones if in trouble or need. So I think you can handle it perfectly as well, although to be honest I don't know the specifics and capabilities of Fusion 360. I think the secret lies not so much in a thorough knowledge of the software, but in the right philosophy of constructing a 3D model, especially of this kind. Generally, first I define the master surfaces of the hull, decks, stern "flat", beakhead, bulkheads, etc. True, some are simpler and others more complex to define, but well worth of effort, as these master surfaces are later an indispensable basis for creating the actual parts of the ship by offsetting them (not just moving!) and then cutting to shape. Almost nothing else but offsetting, cutting and other Boolean operations. Well, I know, easy said, but despite of thousands of interrelated parts already generated I am still able to control this beast... 🙂 Best regards

Mast steps made (only the mizzen mast step is shown). Now trimming all the pieces to their final shape (mortises, rabbets) and preparing the 2D drawings of the hull. Good luck Waldemar!

Nolens volens, the überlauf (overloop) had to be done now. In the Dutch fashion, as many other parts of the structure.

Main capstan, pumps, popular at the time „Turks' heads” and some other outside ornaments (not shown here). In some places it gets really crowded.

Due to the only one possible place for the fish-davit and its aperture, the fore gun ports had to be rearranged. Many other rigging-related fixtures, although inconspicuous in the images, were also made: kevels, pinrails, fixed blocks. In this type of reconstruction, at least 90% of the drawing time is consumed by various changes, corrections and fine-tuning.

The not-so-obviously shaped rudder with its iron fittings.

Maybe so, but gold painting this nearly four-foot beast was a real horror show. Everything around became solar 🙂.

Hello Johnny, Many thanks for this log, as for some reason I also have a weakness for ancient Egyptian ships. I once made a simple block model of a solar barge myself, which I gave to my sister. If time permits, I will still try to build an Egyptian boat one day in the way you do.

One more...

Many thanks Peter for your kind words. I took a break from drawing for a while. So no new elements, just playing with the Navy Board style for this model. Perhaps you will like it too. On the 3D model everything is tidy, but in reality the look of the framing would be closer to a mess. Note the removable part of the waistcloth frame close to the main hatch in the waist, making it easier to board the vessel.

So the matter is finally solved, and even in the double way: archaeological and practical...

These two ships you mention are from two different worlds. Again, simplifying somewhat, but to start somewhere: almost exactly in the middle of the 17th century there was a radical change in tactical doctrine, with shifting from boarding and small arms distance fight to gunnery duels (the First Anglo-Dutch War), and this affected not only the ships' design, but also the crew proportions, with sailors and gunners gradually taking over the infantry numbers on board. While building „Papegojan” of 1627 make sure there is enough room on board to live and fight for a squad of 60 infantrymen, besides 48 sailors. And this is a very small ship of only about 270 tons and the length of 86 feet. In my reconstruction she would have overloop (principal deck) serving both as a platform for the main battery and living quarters for the crew, and unbroken upper/weather deck for handling the ship and fighting infantry (very light, mostly gratings; it is called bovenet in the ship's inventory). In other words, the large body of infantry must have a place to fight, otherwise it would be useless. And no forecastle, to not make the ship unnecessarily top-heavy and leewardly. In the 1627 campaign the "Papegojan" served as supply ship and according to the ordnance inventory carried only four light guns (bronze 3-pdrs) instead of the usual a dozen or so. The frigates of the second half of the century are somewhat different proposition, but I do not know the frigate "Berlin" to make any reasonable comments.

Simplifying somewhat, the forecastle was an asset on merchant ships, but could be a nuisance on men-of-war in wartime, especially during battle. Its bulkhead took up available space (for artillery) and blocked the free movement of the crew. Due to the heavy loads (guns) above the waterline, as opposed to the merchant cargo held below in the hold, it was also desired to lower the gravity centre of of the whole as much as possible by removing it, if a merchant ship was pressed into the naval service. It had some advantages though. It made the ship drier in rough seas and was useful while defending the ship against entering party.

We'll find out in the next photos of building this model 🙂

Sure there already are rich archives of ships' draughts of very good quality put on-line. Let's try: Dutch: https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/en/research/archive/4.MST Danish: https://www.sa.dk/ao-soegesider/en/billedviser?epid=17149179#207924,39521405