Waldemar

Well, I think such a steadfast attitude of Ab Hoving is quite justified provided it concerns conceptual aspects of ship design (hull shape). Let me remind that Ab's main focus is on the shell (bottom-first) method described in Witsen's work, often referred to as the Dutch method (an obvious mental abbreviation, as different techniques were used in the south of the Netherlands - i.e. quasi skeleton methods; furthermore, shell methods could be also developed and used in other parts of the continent, notably in northern Germany – see, for example, cog's construction). But back to the point. The very nature of the shell method actually precludes the use of theoretical line plans. I would propose an experiment here (and experiments are inherent part of science) – an attempt to build a ship (or a model of a ship) using the shell method, conforming to the theoretical hull lines made beforehand and within acceptable accuracy. I would not believe it is possible until I see the opposite. Still in the second half of the 17th century, there was much consternation among shipwrights in the French service, including those of Dutch origin, when asked by the authorities the first time for design draughts. This is an example of what was then produced: Firstly, it may be connected with the frame-led method as described by van Yk, rather than with the shell method. Secondly, is this drawing strictly defining the whole hull shape? The answer is no, especially if considering that location of both tail frames could be adjusted along the keel during actual building. Thirdly, were such rudimentary sketches really necessary for experienced shipwrights? Don't think so. Waldemar

Philemon, Published works in the most major European languages on designing (or shaping) the hull bodies in the early modern era, be it graphical or non-graphical, are already abundant, and it is simply not possible to repeat their content here. It is neither practical to list all or even most of them. However, one of the best quite detailed modern summaries on this theme, which you may try, are provided by Jean Boudriot in the chapter “Méthodes de conception” in his book “Les vaisseaux de 50 et 64 canons” and in the paper “La conception des vaisseaux royaux sous l’Ancien Régime” (Neptunia 169, 1988). There are many, many other available sources, works and evidence, and there is no doubt that ships of all sizes, built to the skeleton method principle, could be created using non-graphical methods, i.e. without scale line plans made before the actual construction. And in the shell method of construction, as described by Witsen, even trying to work to any such prepared line plans would be no-go. In other words, shell method of construction and scale line plans are simply not compatible. Hence the importance of the shape of the rabbet, which governed the run of the planks. To some extent the shape of the rabbet was also important in the frame-led method described by van Yk, as there were too few pre-erected frames to govern the run of the garboard strakes properly. The most enlightening work on the actual building practices in the early modern era is perhaps the manual by Edmund Bushnell, “The Compleat Ship-Wright”, published in 1664. While partly graphical method for defining the hull body is presented in this manual (meaning the author applies only some elements of scale line plans), with some ingenuity and known at the time transformation tools/procedures, the described method of shaping the actual wooden moulds and frame parts can be also implemented to the non-graphical methods, directly on the shipyard ground. Best, Waldemar

Hello Philemon, Very interesting topic. Let me add to your remarks my three cents. By the time the Swedish subject Ake Rålamb wrote his illustrated booklet in 1691, various shipbuilding methods were used or known in Sweden, i.e. skeleton methods (frame-first and frame-led) and shell method (or perhaps more precisely: bottom-first). From about the middle of the 17th century, the Swedish king’s ships (men-of-war) were being increasingly designed and built using skeleton methods by English “imported” shipwrights (mainly Sheldon family). These English shipwrights certainly used scale-drawings in the construction process. Most importantly, such drawings strictly defined the body shape of the ship’s hull. My current understanding is that scale diagrams or sketches made with the only intention of just defining the layout of internal devices or structures could be made in all these methods, but such diagrams are of secondary importance, as they do not define the most important conceptual features of the ship (i.e. hull shape). In fact, it is hard to imagine the marriage of scale design/conceptual drawings with the bottom-first method as described by Witsen. Such drawings would be neither of much use in the frame-led method as described by van Yk. They could be even dispensed with in many of the known frame-first methods, as described in the Mediterranean or Atlantic sources, just full-scale tracing on the shipyard floor was clearly considered enough. Waldemar

Your fine model showing the internal structure of the ship, particularly at a large scale, is a pleasure to look at. And for me, it is equally true for those without more or less distracting details like all kinds of ornaments, colours etc. Artistry in pure structure...

Thank you for the information. I asked about the program you use to create 3D model/objects, as I am just using Rhino myself. Unfortunately, this program (which I like nevertheless) has a tendency to produce much rubbish when generating 2D sections and projections from 3D objects, and I will have to deal with this particular problem soon. Maybe you have some suggestions on this particular issue. In short – how to create (in Rhino) in both exact and hopefully easy way 2D sections and projections from 3D objects, while retaining its vector character (as opposed to bitmap graphic). And these are ultimately needed for "classical" modeller's draught.

Very attractive renderings. Just curious, what software did you actually use for both 3D modelling and for visualisations?

My pleasure. Boudriot's description of this detail is taken almost verbatim from "Encyclopédie methodique. Marine" (1783) and "Traité pratique du gréement des vaisseaux et autres batiments de mer" by M. Lescallier (1791), so it is unlikely to be his imagination. Besides, the fixed nature of this fitting on French ships' top yards is also confirmed by historic models in the Maritime Museum in Paris. So, I think you may be quite sure of it...

Hello, I can make some scans from 'Modeles historiques. Museé de la Marine", vol. I and II, but this is not really necessary. If you have the third volume of Boudriot's "The Seventy-Four Gun Ship", you will find all the information there. In addition to the drawings (in the French version, Fig. 296 and 297), find a detailed description of this detail (next to Fig. 295 in the French version). In short, the ends of the parrel-ropes are just wounded two or three times around the yard and permanently fixed in front of it, with no possibility of (quick) loosening or tightening. Cheers

Allan, No, no, no... First, because like you, I'm more a fan of warships than merchant ships. Besides, a number of other reasons: other projects, language skills, etc.

Good summary Jaager. In this context, it will perhaps not be out of place to mention a surprise I had recently when comparing two French works on shipbuilding. Both works from the late 17th century and both about warships. Both describing the same class (size) of ship built in government shipyards. But one in the Mediterranean tradition and the other in the Atlantic one. It turned out that many, even the most important parts of the hull skeleton have completely different scantlings. So what can be expected from practices in private shipyards?

True. Written works such as those by Bushnell, Sutherland or Chapman are more concerned with shaping the hull bodies rather than timber scantlings. Shipwrecks are too scanty and even somewhat unsuitable for systematic data to be obtained. And each private shipyard or shipbuilder could have its own idiosyncrasies. Possibly extant contracts could be explored here, but this could call a decade lasting research, and with no certainty of securing comprehensive data. One would say, a hopeless task... Actually we are left perhaps with Steel's works only, and I believe you could relatively easy integrate relevant data into your already fine work. To use just what is available. ???

... 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.