Waldemar

Yes, indeed. Old sailing ships are perhaps the most beautifully functional man-made objects. Now that the concept behind the design of London 1656 is better understood, one may be tempted to make a handful of concluding remarks. As stated earlier, the design is clearly more advanced than the methods as described in early English works on naval architecture from the first decades of the 17th century, and this is expressed primarily in the very extensive use of variable radius arches. This in turn translated into greater flexibility in forming the desired hull shape. Of course, this came at a price – now each frame (or at most a group of just a few frames) had to have its own separate templates, which certainly complicated shipyard work. The line of the floor is used in forming the shape of the frames in practice only in the midship part. At both ends of the hull, on the other hand, its role is taken over by hollowing templates. In general, the architect flexibly uses a variety of geometric transformations, freely selecting them as he deems most appropriate for a particular application and place. This seems to be the most advanced variant of the 'hauling down/pulling up futtock' method in its classic form. The next stage could be the reconstruction of the entire hull including all projections, but this requires an equally large amount of work...

The way the toptimbers aft were originally drawn can not be reproduced, as it was done apparently wrong. Instead, it is proposed the similar method as employed for the fore half of the hull, except that the upper breadth sweeps have a fixed radius of 15 feet, and there are only two arcs for a toptimber. Rather than logarithmic scales, it is even more proper to use (for both halves) guides similar to the line of greatest breadth, as described, for example, in Bushnell's 1664 work on shipbuilding. Naturally, they would first have to be defined on other projections. Again, thanks for watching, Waldemar Gurgul

It has to be said that for its time it is a geometric masterpiece. It is as if the shipwright wanted to show off his drawing skills. Either way, it shows the capabilities of the designers of the time, which was not so obvious until now. Even Deane is not so advanced or maybe better: so open with his professional secrets. Note, of course, that just drawing skills does not necessarily translate into a successful design. The topsides of the frames for the fore part are made up of three arcs, and they are all arcs with variable radii! Their construction can be seen in the attached diagrams. One important update has also been made: the rising line of the breadth fore is a simple arc now. This removes the kink in the area of the main frame, is more 'in line' with known English practices and reproduces the lines of the original plans even better. I rate this reconstruction as quite difficult.

However, it is still worth mentioning here that this is the area where the designer employed variable, increasing radii for the floor sweeps (only for the fore part of the hull; thin red arcs on the above diagram). They increase from 10 feet (for the master frame) to roughly 13.3 feet for the „L” frame. Also, look at how the length of this floor sweep vanishes, going towards the bow. These were the methods used then and there to achieve as smooth hull surfaces as possible, as opposed to the diagonals and waterlines only used later in ship design. And the physical ribbands could at most be used to help position the pre-designed frame elements that had already been cut out before actual assembly.

Martes vigilant as ever 🙂. Thanks for asking. While there are quite a few small kinks in other places (one of which I've shown before), right here is perfect. I've prepared an additional sketch where you can see how the transition of the shapes in this area takes place. It is, I hope, so clear that I will no longer describe it verbally.

Thanks Martes for additional pictures. With all this data, an attempt can already be made to reconstruct London 1656. The hull lines, according to the surviving plans, look as in the diagram below (no corrections have been made). It is quite certain that a few extra ribs (in the shape of the main frame) need to be added in the midship area. This is a fairly typical feature in ship design, both today and then.

Well, don't really know how to answer this question, but if I understand it correctly, not very much. Over time, once you become more proficient, it's more a matter of getting a feel for the shapes/curves and where they can be applied, and the range of possible proportions. Other than that, it's very much a matter of using templates and geometric (graphical) transformations, where you don't really need to use many numbers, hardly at all. Simply put, it's the geometry rather than the numbers that count. It may be added that it was not only possible to reproduce the way these plans were drawn, but it is now also possible to try to reproduce the actual shape of the London 1656 hull in a feasible way, and maybe some other ships from this period too. This would only require slight modifications to the curves at the very ends of the hull. For example, using exactly the same methods/transformations discovered here. Overall, this method is very typical of English 17th century practices, only details were, and are still somewhat blurred. It was very advanced for its time, but by about this time, elsewhere in Europe and among leading designers, other concepts were already being born. But that's another story... Below, the finished frame contours for the fore part. Thank you for watching so far, Waldemar Gurgul

The application of the hollowing curves in the aft section of the hull is the same as for the fore half. Up to the frame '15' these are straight sections, and later templates consisting of a straight section and a 14ft radius curve.

First, the parameters of the rising line of the floor have been modified slightly, by reducing its height fore from 12 to 10.5 feet. This is precisely half the height of this line aft (a typical value for the period). The hollowing curves were applied to the fore body. From the frame '0' to the frame 'M' they take the form of straight sections tangent to the floor sweeps. The next ones are templates consisting of a straight section and an arc with a radius of 30 feet, which is the same as the radius of the futtock sweep. I have already described how to apply the hollowing templates here: Looking at the changes in the position of the futtock sweeps in the individual ribs (thick red lines) it becomes clear why the name 'hauling down/pulling up futtock' has been attached to this method.

This stage proved to be quite a killer, probably the most difficult in the whole reconstruction. The surprise is total, because the floor sweeps turned out to be arcs of variable radius. What a tremendous advance has been made in just a few sparse decades over the methods known from the English early modern written works of about 1600–1625 on naval architecture! The first dimensional values are beginning to appear (still to be verified): stempost radius: 40 feet (equal to the ship's width) height of the rising line of the floor at the stem: 12 feet distance between ribs: 3 feet Actually, the underwater shape of all the frames is ready, it only remains to apply hollowing curves to them.

Consistently following the designer's paradigm, the rising line of the floor aft has been reconstructed (green line). At this point, it is now possible to apply a futtock sweep of a fixed radius tangentially to both arcs – the lower breadth sweep and the floor sweep (thick red lines). And this is the reconstructed shape of this guide line as seen in the sheer projection:

Jaager, what you have written is utterly misleading. You are confusing Deane with van Yk. You are confusing the English with the Dutch, and their practices. At least read Deane's work, it is in English. Apart from that, you can also read the numerous English works on shipbuilding that were written before Deane, both printed and unprinted. But if you intend to create an alternative history of shipbuilding, no problem, you can always do that, best in your separate thread.

Typically, designers used proprietary methods in a fairly uniform way, so the shape of the breadth line fore was already somewhat easier to reproduce. The logarithmic curve was a perfect fit here, however, a curve composed of two circles of different radii, which approximates the logarithmic curve quite well and commonly used by English designers up to this time, could also be chosen with almost equally good results. I have also updated the master frame diagram. Here the only difference is the correction of the lower breadth sweep from 13' 10" to a round 14 feet.

The bend is not very dramatic, you can see it in my post here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/32948-bow-shape-of-le-françois-1683-and-la-néréïde-1722/#comment-935696 ... and this was most likely smoothed out during actual construction.

From the initial chaos, something is beginning to emerge, and although these plans are not a demon of precision by today's standards, it is already clear that they have been drawn according to the rules of the art by a professional. One of the main goal of this reconstruction is to find the correct types of curves used by this shipwright, or in other words, to find the specific geometric or mathematical methods employed to profile these crucial to the conception longitudinal guides. This is considered far more both important and interesting than the comparatively secondary, case-to-case variable proportions. Below just reverse-engineered line of the breadth aft is shown. The found method is identical to that presented, for example, by Dassié in his L'Architecture Navale published in 1695. The application of this particular transformation means that the hull had a slight transverse kink at the main frame. The scattered points close to the blue arc in the top diagram correspond to the original contours of the uncorrected frames.

Oh...! Almost forgot... This should be perhaps clear to everyone, but to lead you out of this strange misconception I will also add that these very plans of London 1656 are extant sources themselves, and one might even say – extant sources par excellence. Together, of course, with the values of the specific radii they contain. I am also pleased to inform you that the graphics in period works of technical nature are as important as the text they contain, exactly as they are in modern technical documentation. Wayne, is there anything else I can do to help you?

Right, good question. If you mean the radii of the main frame, they were read by me from the original drawing by fitting circles of different diameters to the original curves. In contrast, the early modern shipbuilder chose these radii arbitrarily, within the limits imposed by past experience, the geometrical constraints of the designed ship's hull, the properties of the available material and the result he wanted to achieve (e.g. greater capacity or better seaworthiness of the ship, etc.).

Martes, thanks for posting the rest of the graphics. Admittedly they will not be needed for the reconstruction itself, so I did not post them, but they indeed may be of interest to others. Allan, thanks for the calculations. I am still wondering if and how such data can be effectively used in this case, and in particular room & space. The problem is that evenly distributing the ribs as drawn on the original plan along the hull, according to any regular room & space, would result in a wavy hull. One can ignore this circumstance and start building the model according to the original contours, but such an attempt will only end up with a hopelessly wavy as well as generally spoiled hull, because the original plans are also deformed in other ways. Anyway, this thread is not so much about woodworking, but it is rather on the underlaying concept employed by the creator of these 17th century plans. * * * Relatively the easiest part of the job is recreating the ship's master frame. It's hard to imagine a more classic shape than this one. As it happens, the proportions of the design grid perfectly match the ship's known dimensions.

Persuaded by a clever ruse by Martes, one might say - a specialist in finding both important and interesting material on the history of shipbuilding in the on-line archives, I became more interested in the plans of the 2nd rate ship London of 1656 (built by John Taylor), which were apparently made during the ship's years of service. Be that as it may, the drawings of this ship deserve the utmost attention, as they come from a period from which hardly any shipbuilding plans have survived, so it is not entirely clear how exactly the conceptual methods known more or less theoretically from the textbooks were actually applied at this particular time. Ship dimensions (taken from British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603-1714 by Rif Winfield): as built: 123 1/2 (keel) x 40 x 16 1/2 as girdled: 123 1/2 x 41 x 16 1/2 The plans are promising, however already a preliminary graphical analysis of the plans has shown that the contours of the frames have been drawn in a very irregular way, as if the room and space value was randomly varying along the length of the hull, which clearly cannot be the case. This is a fatal circumstance, as it makes the reconstruction of the conceptually extremely important longitudinal guides (rising and narrowing lines of the floor and breadth) very difficult, if not possible at all, on this basis. In other words, it is difficult to establish whether and which guides were fragments of circles, ellipses or logarithmic curves. Certainly, one can refer to written works, but the point is, after all, to read it from the drawing, not to arbitrarily select their shape from other sources. But there is perhaps no other way... And here are those drawings:

@Blas de Lezo Blas, your question is a very good one, as it will allow me to clarify the general mechanism of my reconstruction. This reconstruction is not based on any plans, because such plans are non-existent. I am also not basing it on any modern interpretations or today's reconstruction/modelling plans of other ships (unless for results comparisons), but solely on the primary sources from the period. In fact, I am creating this 3D model from geometrical-visual scratch in order to later produce 2D documentation for modellers on this basis. The example of the main mast illustrates this reconstruction process very well: From the notarial fleet inventory of 1629 (Inventarium uber Ihre Königl. Maytt. zu Polen undt Schweden etc. Erlogs Schiffe, so den 8 February A[nn]o etc. 1629 zu Wismar glücklich einkommen, undt daselbst besichtiget worden. Wismar den 3/13 February 1629) it is known that the larger ships of the fleet had a main mast of four parts, as it lists three sails for this mast, and flags: main course (ein Schon Vor Segel mit seim Bonnett), topsail (ein gross Marss Segel) and topgallant sail (ein gross Bramm Segel). Then, the dimensions, shape, position, rake, accessories and arrangement of the masts are taken from the two 17th century Dutch manuals I mentioned earlier in this thread: Evenredige... (c. 1650) and Witsen (1670), and in addition from iconography, shipwrecks and period models such as Peller-model (1603), Tyresö-model (early 17th century), Vasa (1628), Norske Løve (1634/1654), all of which are Baltic ships models. Now, back to your question: Generally, masts taper at the top between 2/3 and 3/4 of their largest diameter (at the partners), and the length of their tops (i.e. above the circular fighting top) is 1/10 the length of the mast (taken from the works above). Masts are shaped like a fragment of a circle rotated around the mast axis. But that's not all, the cross-sections of the mast change along its length. They can be circular, elliptical, quadrangular, octagonal, be it regular or irregular. Below is the appearance of my mast at the fighting top height (please note its variable cross-section and the side cheeks supporting the trestletrees). I personally have no need in this particular case to convert NURBS geometry to a mesh (i.e. to STL or OBJ format), but Rhino does a good job at such an export. You can also convert NURBS geometry to a meshes and then edit them inside Rhino, as Rhino has advanced tools for such mesh editing. I love this program, it only has one drawback, acutely important to me: it doesn't always do a good job of converting 3D shapes to 2D projections, and as a result, it often has to be done manually. But this actually may not apply to you... Feel free to ask any other questions, preferably ones that I can answer. 🙂

@Martes Martes, I saw in your thread that you were creating attractive images of 3D models of ships from this era, but you have now just made me aware of your diligent approach to this project. Few, maybe even no designer for movie, animation or video game purposes except you, would care about such details, especially after encountering any difficulties. The secret of the appeal of your models is also explained – they are not sloppily based on the designer's imagination, but on real, historical data. It is something like this that distinguishes a reliable professional/researcher from others and creates his authority. Respect is due.

Thanks a lot Martes! But wait a minute! After all, these are two different photographs and we can even play the popular game "find 10 differences in two pictures". In one there is no rudder chain, in the other there is no boom support, they are at a slightly different angle, maybe something else....

@Martes Ah, it's as much your space as mine. And you in particular are always welcome, as after all I am still in your debt especially for pointing out good copies of the originals of early 17th century ship plans in the Russian Hermitage (those presumably by David Balfour or his contemporary). Anyway, now you have no choice but to make the inevitable detective visit to Europe, specifically Copenhagen next summer 🙂. That's how I've had to go to Stockholm and a few other places on more difficult cases in the past, too. Until then... however, I decided to scan the one photo shown above, which may not be in the Danish online archives. Indeed some bending can be seen there... Compressed JPG file (6804x5037 pixels): model of the Christian VII's stern.zip

@Martes You have probably already found something on the web about the model of Christian VII. If not, and if the matter is still relevant, I can offer you to make scans of the below illustrations from the Danske Orlogsskibe 1690-1860. Here only photos, because of the large format. Anyway, when asking for help of this kind, it is essential to show your work. This is always effective, and the Scandinavians are particularly kind and helpful, as I have personally experienced many times.

Thanks to the extraordinary kindness of Danish museum curator Peter Kristiansen, I can now also exploit the full potential of an extremely important model of the Danish ship Norske Løve (ship built 1634, model built 1654), especially for reconstructing the masting and rigging. The masts themselves are almost complete. To give an idea of the appearance of this unique model, I include below a photo taken from the website of The Royal Danish Collection in Rosenborg Castle: