Waldemar

... then there is a room for a suitable supplement so that the book could cover a wider spectrum than just warships... Sincere good luck!

So many prices here... And you Allan, do you have any business connections with the sale of the book you are advertising? Almost forgot... You have misinterpreted my words again. I wrote that the book you are advertising does not contain information on all merchant ships, not just those of the East India Company.

🙃 ... Now I'm just curious about the look of Hakai's model, regardless of his choices. Maybe it will be shown...

The full title of the table in the Steel work is: "Tables of the Principal Dimensions and Scantlings of Ships and Vessels of Each Class, both in the Royal Navy and in the Merchant Service; accompanied with such directions as are necessary to the practical explanation of them". All in all, 58 double-page folios. Merchant ships' scantlings and all other data as much detailed as for the Navy ships. Below a sample page with types of merchant vessels embodied in the table (referred to by Tons as opposed to Guns).

Nice warships. Anyway... I assume that most modellers want to build their models in as fun and painless way as possible, without the need to spend much money on obscure, often out-of-print books, waiting for inter-loans nor in-depth thematic studies, e.g. by delving into complicated, somewhat theoretical establishment tables. However, those wishing wishing to go further could start with hopefully easy-to-get, some modern studies on British merchant ships (beside Marquardt's monograph on the "Endeavour" itself) such as: – R. Gardiner (ed.), The Hayday of Sail. The Merchant Sailing Ship 1650–1830 (including a chapter: "Merchant Shipping of the British Empire", p. 10–33), – or even more technically oriented – D. MacGregor, Merchant Sailing Ships. Sovereignty of Sail 1775–1815 (many useful detailed data, and even a dedicated chapter on "The Earl of Pembroke" and shipbuilding at Whitby and on the North-East Coast). For those wishing to go even further, the "Table of the dimensions and scantlings of ships of each class" is a most useful source. It must be taken from the original Steel's "The Elements and Practice of Naval Architecture", 1805 (sorry, it is impractical to reproduce the whole large table here), and not from the modern re-compilation referenced before in this thread, as all data on merchant ships are omitted in this secondary work. From a number of remarks in the original table it is perfectly clear that there were differences between naval and merchant framing practices. One would only ask, to what extent (geographically, chronologically etc.) Hopes this would be of help.

Right. This is perhaps why Navy Board style models are so “sexy”…

Perhaps more convenient for the casual model builder would be a framing plan, which I have taken from Steel’s Shipwright’s Vademecum (1805). It is of merchant ship of similar size to “Endeavour”. Essentially double frame layout, with only small gaps for airing and easier repairs (individual timbers replacing). In fact, I suppose Marquardt actually used this draught and only slightly simplified this layout to ease the model construction, and – somewhat ironically – corrected some simplifications made by Steel himself. Still, a relevant archaeological find would be the best source...

Oh my... So many references, arguments and authoritative opinions, and here one actually a conclusive sketch....

This is all fine and useful, and the hopes are all the data on the frame layout given here in this topic could help Hakai with his 'Endeavour' cross-section model.

Many thanks, Jaager. From your description it appears that you build your Navy Board style models as shown in Fig. 5 below, except your models are solid-framed in the upper parts of the hull (this is a diagram from the book on Navy Board models by Franklin, perhaps the most enlightening work on the subject). And in general, I see that we all interpret (meaning: simplify) the actual construction, more or less. To make things easier, faster, more regular, better looking, less wasteful etc. For several reasons it is simply not possible to make a true copy of a real ship.

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