Waldemar

Interesting. Could you show your alternative interpretation of the “Endeavour” framing disposition in a graphic form, for the benefit of this ship model makers? As to the Navy Board framing. Right. When building a model in a such stylized way, it is unnecessary, and even impossible to keep with the last inch of timber scantling. Just showing the general disposition in a much simplified, yet at the same time attractive way was apparently deemed enough. This is what we do today too. And this also helps to explain why so many identified Navy Board models are exact on their breadth and depth dimensions, but quite different in length from the originals.

Allan, you are absolutely right, Navy Board style and the concept of "timber and room/room and space" are not the same thing in the literal sense. My statement was a mental abbreviation, just linking these two closely related concepts.

Johnny, wow! You are building my beautiful Vasa! If you need them, I would be happy to PM send you all the detailed drawings done by the Museum in 1970. They used to be sold, but are now being distributed privately for free by museum staff. The problem is that the 9 plates are as much as 240MB in total, unless I compress them with a possible loss of quality.

Hakai, Marquardt's reconstruction is very well referenced, and personally I have confidence in his competence. You can find below a relevant listing from his book (many original draughts!). I would not pay exaggerated attention to any inevitable differences in construction between the model and the original. A 100% compatible model has yet to be built and often aesthetics matter even more.

Allan, According to John Franklin, one of the best authority on the subject, the “timber and room” (“room and space”) has very much to do with the Navy Board style of framing. However, my intention is not to enter the lengthy discussion on this. Instead, may I point you to the following chapters in his book “Navy Board Ship Models 1650–1750”: “II. Hull framing”, p. 8–19 and “IV. Scales and Dimensions”, p. 45–52. Finely, exhaustively and clearly written, featuring equally clear illustrations and diagrams, and surely much more convincing than my input. And I suspect you have somehow misinterpreted my comment on the Navy Board style. I was not referring to the evidently double frame construction shown on the Marquardt drawing, but to what Hakai has said of his model. Hoping all is clear now. Cheers

Actually I like Navy Board styled (room and space) framing on the models much more than others.

For your reference I have made a few scans from the detailed monograph of “Endeavour” as interpreted by K.H. Marquardt. Hopefully you will find it useful when building your cross-section of the ship. Specifically, you will find the answer to your question in the mid-section drawing.

That's fine for me. If it is absolutely certain that solid or nearly solid wall of frames was up to the very top of the top timbers in the "Endeavour", then this effectively decides the issue. If not, unsolved guesses would only be left.

Right. I’m taking care to get all the polysurfaces closed and ready even for such undertaking as 3-D printing, although – to be honest – I would be much happier with a model of “noble” wood, which is actually planned. Also had the same idea of 3-D printing, but some parts, being long, thin and/or curved in all directions, could be very cumbersome to print, and even more so with filament flatbed printers.

Well, it is hard to oppose the true archaeological find, even if it seems a little unorthodox today. Please take a look at the drawings of the upper decks of the real ship (quarterdeck, poop, topgallant poop). In contrast to the lower decks, most beams here are inserted between the loosely spaced frames, and in this case it must have been done on purpose, as – exceptionally(?) – even the vertical branches of the hanging knees are hidden beneath internal planking, being placed between frames too, most probably to save available space. However, I do not know the actual dimensions and spacing of the "Endeavour" frames and beams at the quarterdeck level. Just pointing at such possibility (again – only at the highest, i.e. quarterdeck level). Good luck with your choices.

Certainly, and all the deck beams on all decks of the “Vasa” rested on longitudinal deck clamps, which were directly fastened to the frames. Internal planking was added later and – as the last – the hanging knees. My point is that the issue "deck beams between or against the frames" is rather a mix of 1) minimising the work, 2) possibilities and 3) discretion of the individual builder. IMO.

Maybe of help, maybe not: On the “Vasa” of 1628, the deck beams of the lower decks were against the frames, as the frames were too closely spaced to insert the beams between them. It was the other way on the level of the upper decks with much loser frames – there the deck beams were inserted between the frames.

Concerning the 17th century sailing navy (as opposed to the galleys) shipbuilding practices, may I propose some other French primary written sources? – G. Fournier, Hydrographie […], Paris 1643 – F. Dassié, L'architecture navale […], Paris 1677 – F. Coulomb, Livre de construction des vaisseaux […], Toulon 1683 – Anon., Construction des vaisseaux du Roy […], Havre de Grace 1691 – Anon., Construction et proportions de plusieurs vaisseaux, manuscript, ca. 1690–1701 These are as much useful works for early modern era ship’s reconstructions as any other, partially even for non-French constructions, provided they are correctly put in a wider context.

Thank you. That’s right, Kevin. Upon completing the 3-D model, it could later provide all the necessary 2-D projections of each single part, assemblies or intersections. I have put a few quickly made samples below. Please note some strange lines may still appear, as many parts are not already cut to their final shape, masts are still a simple dowels, gunports are not yet pierced etc.

The vessel “Święty Jerzy” (eng. “Saint George”) was an admiral ship of the Polish fleet in the 3rd decade of the 17th century, so it can be said she was an indirect opponent of the Swedish “Vasa” of 1628 in the struggle between the two then belligerent nations. She took a major part in the battle of Oliwa in 1627, capturing by boarding the opponent admiral ship “Tigern” (eng. “Tiger”). The following year, in a retaliatory land-borne attack on the fleet base, led personally by the Swedish king, she was smashed, set on fire and eventually sunk by heavy artillery – large calibre demi-cannons (24-pdrs). Perhaps rather short operational story, nevertheless quite intensive (detailed descriptions of both epic fights have survived). Ultimately, the intention is to build wooden scale model, and a 3-D reconstruction in Rhinoceros is currently underway. The starting point is the two extant fleet’s inventories and contemporary iconography of the battle, mainly a painting made only a few years after the battle. While many details are sourced – of necessity – from various depictions and written works, I have also tried to retain the general layout of the ship as depicted in the painting of the battle, such as the large counter with a bas-relief (or painting) associated with the ship’s name and the low-lying gunroom (entirely below the gun deck). Given the rather low sternpost, this implies that the rudder must have been operated from the level of the gun deck, and not (as usual?) in the steerage located one level higher. Swedish, Polish and Dutch ships at the Battle of Oliwa 1627; painting by Adolf Boy, contemporary resident of the fleet base Local documents of legal nature suggest that the ship was built using a skeleton technique (as opposed to the shell method), and I have made efforts to shape the underwater body of the hull so that it could be achieved by most of the known skeleton methods (as can be derived from contemporary Iberian, French and English works on shipbuilding). At the same time the assumption was made no scale drawings on paper in the construction process were made, only true-scale tracing on the shipyard platform/ground. On the other hand, it is believed that ships built in the southern Baltic area had many features in common (structural, decorative, rigging) with other ships built in the north of the continent, as exemplified by the Dutch built Swedish “Vasa”, Dutch manuscript (mainly on rigging) of around 1650 or the Dutch monumental work on shipbuilding by Witsen, so masterfully interpreted by Ab Hoving. As a result, in contrast to the conceptual features of the ship (hull shape), these are the main sources used for the reconstruction of structural and rigging elements, besides the Scandinavian early 17th century contracts for building men-of-war and the French works containing data on timber scantlings (largely Atlantic-oriented “Construction des Vaisseaux du Roy” of 1691). Some visualisations of the 3-D model in the present (unfinished) state: Cheers, Waldemar

Actually, I did an attempt of 3D reconstruction of this very plan some time ago too (with deliberate, slight modifications to the ship’s lines). Ultimately possible in many cases, but it is usually a pain to work with distorted drawings. Besides, distorted plans take considerably more time to interpret them and the accuracy is jeopardized. I wish I could use your program before, in this project and in some other as well. Your ship plan adjuster just do what was desperately needed. But now it is ready for the next projects, which makes me very optimistic... Many thanks again for sharing it. Warmest greetings, Waldemar

Hello Kris, I have been looking for such plan adjuster for years (rather unsuccessfully), and have given yours a try. The source bitmap drawing I have used is distorted in so many ways, that it was originally almost impossible to redraw it credibly, even manually, into the vector graphic. Original plan: Only basic transformations were applied so far (i.e. squaring and flattening), giving already outstanding results, simply impossible to achieve in common bitmap editors. As it was just an exercise, the drawing with all its views was adjusted as a whole (which should be not of course) by your program, taking as a reference half-breadth rectangle. Here’s the outcome: What graphic formats does your program support except PNG and JPG? Great job. Many thanks for this. Waldemar

This is one of the finest models I have seen. The bow gun is lovely made too, but it is a classical long gun, and not a 48-pdr modern carronade you are probably striving for. Perhaps the best course of action would be to scale the below British carronade drawing so that its bore diameter would be 180 mm (this calibre would be a 48-pounder for Hastings). This is not a British system calibre, but Russians were known to order large quantities of carronades from Scottish factories, perfectly conforming in its shape and proportions to the British pattern. Later made Russian specimens were also perfect copies of British specimens. Some of them could be re-sold or given away to anyone, and also lost to the Ottomans. Good luck!

... this is much better, surer method than calculations based on the crazy specific densities of substances like iron or stone used in the shot manufacture.

As evoked by Bruce, a simple formula can be used to calculate any bore (or roundshot) diameter, just knowing only one from a given calibre system. There were naturally some small individual variations for different reasons, but it usually works within production tolerances, at least for identification purposes. Diameter1³ Poundage1 ------------------------ = ----------------------- Diameter2³ Poundage2 For example, if you know that the bore diameter of a French 48 pounder is 19.4 cm, and you are looking for a diameter of a (theoretical) French 68 pounder gun, then: 19.4³ 48 (pdr) -------------- = -------------- x³ 68 (pdr) x³ = (19.4³ * 68) / 48 = 10343,63 =====> x = 21.8 cm (bore diameter of a theoretical French 68-pounder) For better results, avoid – if possible – mixing calibres of different systems used in specific countries.

Is it acceptable in this fine project to arm the ship („Terpsichore“) operating already in 1821 with the ordnance specifically designed in 1825 (and delivered in 1826) for „Karteria“? You decide, but if the current preferences are for a modern carronade (or carronade like gun) of exactly 48 pound caliber, you are perhaps left only with Russian or Ottoman ordnance, or maybe a British specimen aimed at the merchant market too. The inventory and weight marks cut on the baserings of bronze cannons in the two pictures above are not much helpful here.

Well, factories can be taken over (captured) too, like cities or fortresses. Never mind... The text reads (ou, already translated by Bruce): "This gun is formed like a carronade except that it is longer and has trunnions resembling those of a long gun". One may also add here: just like in carronades intended for merchant service (in contrast to naval/military service), which had normally trunnions as well. This quasi-carronade concept/project by Hastings could not be modelled after Paixhans system, as this system was not yet fully invented, or at least accepted by the French Navy. See Gerard's posts. It seems, that it is just an invention by Hastings. Maybe actually cast, maybe not. Don't be afraid of the apparently obsolete stone (chambered) guns, as they could be deadly efficient even against large warships. You perhaps know a famous accident, from just a few years before, when a large stone roundshot from an Ottoman gun smashed at the large British ship-of-the-line, making terrible damage and killing some of the crew on the spot. Only range was lacking, just as in carronades.

Just to be on the safe side: no armament factory (gunfoundry) in Greece then? Taking all this into account, and especially the available sources of artillery armament, I would turn into the Ottoman or Venetian ordnance. If Ottoman, it could be half-kantar gun, which may be regarded as an equivalent of the Western carronade of roughly the standard 48-pdr size. This half-kantar gun, in its shape, was not far from the obsolete, medieval stone guns (cannon-periers). And all of these chambered guns were still widely used on board Ottoman ships even in 19th century. Always cast in bronze. For example, in the Russo-Turkish war of 1787-1792, Ottoman 86-gun battleships had four half-kantar guns. Ottomans also cast copies of Venetian and Russian longer unicorns (cannon-howitzers), but these should be easily distinguished by a professional like Hastings from a carronade-like guns with shorter barrels. If not Ottoman, you can take into account Venetian ordnance, with hundreds, if not thousands of specimens lying all around. Many of them, in function and capabilities, were almost perfect equivalent of modern guns. Again, first take a look at what was used locally then...

Well, if you insist on something more modern, quite detailed data is available for the Russian carronades and the so-called unicorns, both naval service, and both also in 48-pdr size, and both in regular service in 18th and 19th centuries. As an aside, Russian unicorns are in practice nothing more than copies of Venetian guns of the New Invention from 1684. You just need to establish such possibility in your sources. And keep in mind that even "Karteria", built abroad few years later than the "Terpsichore", had to wait several months for her modern, state-of-the-art armament. Meanwhile, she got temporary, more or less random guns taken from a fortress.

May I ask you, what is the current state of this research except data you have already put in this thread? Thank you in advance.