Waldemar

One more technical detail: after creating the cutting surface (by lofting or by other means) it may be that it is shorter than required. Then simply you can make it longer by using the "extend surface" command.

Do you see? It's not space technology or brain surgery, just diligence is required.... 🙂

I'm sure you can do it the right way, as it is in the original, especially since you've already put so much good work into your project. Sometimes I sacrifice a number of days for a trivial issues too. And remember to keep the uncut elements as backups.

Well, you say "weird", I say "beautiful" 🙂

I should add that closed polysurfaces (solids) are needed for Boolean operations. If your parts are open, you need to use the simple "split" or "trim" commands.

You can make it straight, i.e. vertical in this case, or if you a pedant like me make another curve at the bottom at its correct place and then make cutting surface by lofting these two curves. There are other methods possible, however, depending on the specific needs and possibilities.

By following the advice of Mark and Terry, you can safely quote even very large parts of a cited work. Is that what you are asking? If so, divide larger pieces only as the last step in designing the entire model/vessel, if at all. Another strategy is to keep the uncut pieces as a safety copy.

Fine ships, fine workmanship, fine French monographs... and a happy choice of wood. Nothing left to be desired. 🙂

🙂 Out of sheer curiosity – please don't forget to show the result. And one more potentially useful advice: the whole-moulding method is both proven and universal in its field of application, nevertheless a slight, professional fairing touch at the hull ends is sometimes required, just as in the real shipbuilding practice.

That's right Kevin, just two moulds are used for shaping the whole hull. Or, this is how this boat of extremely simple, symmetrical shape was reverse-engineered by the most simple variant of the whole-moulding method (sufficient in most cases): – original plan was checked and the worst distortions corrected (it sports quite many other errors anyway, although unimportant already), – base lines were defined (keel, posts, stations etc.), – shape of the main frame was reconstructed by two tangential arcs and a vertical line (outside the planking; also shown in the sketch), – main frame "O" inside the planking was defined by offsetting the above curves by the planks' thickness (or so), – just two moulds were defined in the process: the main mould (red) and the hollow mould (green); their names differ depending on the sources; hollow mould is just an arc of constant radius, sufficient in this case, but often/sometimes other curves were used, like parabola, hyperbola etc., – the attached drawing is self-explanatory on how to derive the other station sections (frame "1" omitted for clarity), – normally, (narrowing and rising) floor curve should be employed for offsetting the main mould in order to get other station sections, but in this instance the sheer line (or greatest breadth) had to be used instead (the period craftsmen would had to do the same upon receiving this draught). Good luck with your designs

It should be added that the version shown here, being suitable for larger vessels, is slightly more complicated than its simpler version sufficient for small craft such as boats. "Top Timber Mold" and "Splaying-Out Staff" can be dispensed with.

Among the many modern works that explain in a visually appealing and clear (step-by-step) manner the principle of the essentially non-graphical whole-moulding method is the chapter of a larger work: Capturing the Curve. Underlying Concepts in the Design of the Hull by Taras Pevny. Please take a look at pages 187–190. The paper was found in the public domain and I suppose it can also be uploaded here. Pevny Taras - Capturing the Curve. Underlying Concepts in the Design of the Hull - 2017.pdf

I like these methods too. Simplifying a bit, you can always use just one method/procedure, but by playing around with different specific values/parameters you can get distinctly different shapes to suit different needs.

To possibly save time, you may simply go for the book Working Boats of Britain. Their Shape and Purpose by Eric McKee. Excellent study.

I would suggest the ancient method of whole-moulding, still being in widely use for small craft in 18/19/20th centuries. It is described in many works, such as the Steel's Naval Architecture, 1805 and also in many modern publications.

The ship models designed by kit manufacturers are perhaps too often too much stylized (to not say too much again 🙂), but miraculously your fine workmanship makes them all lovely works of art.

Yep, for now I assume it is destined to be a a small mystery for a long time or even forever...

If taken as "T V", what would it mean, except of course such obvious meanings as "Tele Vision" or "Terrible Voider"? More seriously – unfortunately, there's probably no chance of backing up this suggestion with sources anyway (in terms of specific names, functions, ranks, etc.).

To avoid drowning in an overabundance of short publications with repetitive information, I would simply recommend one comprehensive book by Niklas Eriksson, Urbanism under Sail. An archaeology of fluit ships in early modern everyday life, 2014. It can be downloaded from the links/sites provided above by Steven.

This is the only unrecognized stamp found on the recovered gun tubes of the Swedish origin and in desperation I even imagined the same 🙂. Perhaps someone reading this log has an idea? It is not the equivalent of the English "Broad Arrow" identifying royal property, as a similar mark was found on only one of the other gun barrels from the "Solen" (on a captured bronze Polish 3-pdr, and this stamp was almost certainly made by its Swedish users too; see the image below, side view). Anything can be envisaged, say – an anchor marking a gun intended for the navy use? Runic lettering? Or something of a more personal/individual character?

Indeed, and they did their job! For good or for bad, depending on the side 🙂.

As an alternative to the above Polish gun barrels, captured Swedish 48-pdr assault guns can be substituted. 15, 6 and 6 pieces were cast in 1621, 1622 and 1624, respectively, at the Stockholm foundry. They were used both by the land forces and the navy. Note its slightly conical bore. ... and the real thing from the „Solen”:

... To begin with, two assault guns (referred to in English as "cannon-periers," in Swedish as "stormstycken," and in German as "Feuerkatzen" – "fire cats" or simply as "Schrotstücke" – "hail-shot pieces"). They were most likely placed behind the mainmast, as on the "Solen". According to the 1565 inventory of one of the royal arsenals, six of these "small stone guns" in the weight range of 8.5–9.25 centners, belonged organizationally to the field army. They may also be of interest to the "Vasa" modellers, as three such trophy guns were issued to this Swedish ship in 1628.

Concluding on the issue of defective, irregularly cast cannons and their (in)accuracy: in some artillery manuals of the 16/17th centuries one can find corrective methods (by mathematical means) of aiming such cannons. These, however, are of doubtful practical value even in static warfare on stable land. And their use in dynamic naval fight was completely out of the question due to the constantly changing range, and the inevitable fact of firing from a moving, unleveled and swaying platform at an equally moving target in an unpredictable location/direction. Finally, due to the sheer illiteracy of most or many early modern period gunners. Experience (if any) and luck may have helped, but only to a certain extent. These are my assumptions for this project and this very period in general, regardless of what more or less scholarly 18/19/20th century works on artillery say. I will also prefer to keep in mind contemporary (meaning 16/17th century) tactical instructions and descriptions of actual encounters. Now preparing mentally to return to drawing work....