Waldemar

I understand and thank you for your participation so far. Anyway, that's the end of it now. Maybe others will show their research inquisitiveness and make some interesting new discoveries or findings. Specifically, I would suggest here, for example, an examination of the 16th century wreck of the Basque whaler San Juan from Red Bay in terms of the conceptual method used, with particular reference to the Mediterranean method. Thank you, Waldemar Gurgul

Well, I have long since come to terms with the idea that people have different views, priorities and follow different authorities. It does not bother me. But if someone wants to forbid me from thinking for myself, strenuously imposes their point of view, and finally tries to undermine the very essence of my efforts without any concrete arguments but only through rhetoric, I find it difficult indeed to tolerate. On the other hand, I am happy to befriend anyone who respects my pluralistic principles. He does not even need to apologise anymore for such unfortunate attempts, reasonable statements in the future will suffice. Yes, you may be absolutely right that this is indeed the real source of these angles. But in doing the dimensioning, I decided to be consistent with the convention used in the early texts, i.e. using degrees. I guess it is important to maintain such uniformity not only for comparisons, but also because these angles were also defined in other ways. For example, in Fernando Oliveira's text from the second half of the 16th century, the sternpost rake is defined as 1/7 of 90 degrees, or about 13 degrees. In addition, there is a rule in engineering that you don't close dimensional chains, or in other words, that you don't dimension one object in two different ways, and I try not to break it without good reasons. Perhaps I should have written about all this on a regular basis, but then it would have created a text monster that is not inviting to read.

Comparisons of the more or less theoretical proportions of English ships of the period can be started with these two tables: source: F. Howard, Sailing Ships of War 1400–1860, 1979, p. 96 source: M. Bellamy, David Balfour and Early Modern Danish Ship Design, The Mariner's Mirror 2006, Vol. 92, No. 1, p.10 Enjoy

This was easy and quick to check, so below I still give the specific values of the sternpost rake as given in the early English texts, for comparison with Baker's drawing. Newton ms.: 18°–22.5° anon. 1620 (Salisbury) ms.: 18°–22° Harriot ms.: 22.5° In general, I have tried to dimension and find proportions in such a way that those interested can easily make their own comparisons. Quite a lot of work has been put into it so far, and in fact the results may be needed mostly by those very few who make reconstruction plans today. And I will say again that the greatest satisfaction for me was to discover the general method and some of its details that Baker used to construct this plan. If one considers that in the early days the English hauling down/pulling up method was also at best only partly graphic, the almost total lack of plans from this period becomes more understandable.

@Mark P It was only later that I noticed that on the back of the document with the Mer Honour (Merhonour) master frame, the date 1600 appears. This may mean that at this time English ships were still being designed and built using the Mediterranean (i.e. non-graphic) method as well, at least by Baker. Firstly, the contour of the master frame is built from the bottom up, precisely as in the Mediterranean methods, and secondly, its shape is not quite suitable for the hauling down/pulling up method known from the early English shipbuilding texts. Such an interpretation can also be associated with the scanty number of surviving plans from the first decades of the 17th century, but this is perhaps more the domain of general historians...

Rightly, this needs some clarification. I have given the total length (i.e. between posts) of ca. 85 only as an indication of the overall size of the ship, so that others do not have to calculate or measure it anymore. As for the stern, certainly both approaches were possible, though typically in early English texts the sternpost rake is given in degrees (in the range of 18–22.5 degrees). In this particular case, I'm pretty sure that the reading of 20.5 degrees is correct, but I've also included the graphic below for you to judge for yourself. As for the bow, the reason for the actual lengthening of the keel by 0.30 (or to 60.80), remains open to interpretation. For now, I think it has to do with the value of 0.35, which I have also marked in the graphic below. If the wale is drawn through the point at the stern and the quadrant point marked in the original drawing with a radius of 263 1/4, then its fit on the stempost is perfect, in contrast to the actual run of the line. This gives an idea of how draughts were then made in practice. Overall, having now a better copy with more visible notations, a numerical approach can be better applied where possible.

Wayne, just collecting bibliographic items may not be enough, but honestly good luck with your project. And I won't comment anymore on all the insinuations in your post. I'm simply wasting my time on it, aren't you? 🙂

Wayne, you clearly do not understand the essence of this project. To find the proportions, you first have to find the values that are not written in the drawing (also, read the last paragraph in my post #1). They have to be reproduced by graphical means in this case, and idle, demagogic talk doesn't help. If you want to do it by hand, be my guest, I prefer the computer as a working tool. I am fully aware of the drawing techniques used at the time. And I was the one who had to explain to you not so long ago that arcs with many feet radii were not drawn on plans with a compass, but with other devices. You are also contradicting yourself. First you suggest that the old drawings could not have been accurate, and then you smoothly accuse me of taking this circumstance into account while examining these drawings. Finally, for your information, sometimes the dimensions were the result of an intentional application of some proportions and rules, but sometimes as a result of arbitrary choices. Wayne, is there anything else I can explain to you?

That' s right. Tangent (20.5) = 0.3738. So the sternpost rake is 18 x 0.3738 = 6.73 feet

... and an updated drawing of the keel, stempost, sternpost assembly.

This is probably one of Baker's most confusing designs to guess at, further considering the inaccuracies of the original and copy and the absence of some working lines. So many traps here... Yet, I think I have finally found the correct geometric construction of the master frame, although the outline of its contour has hardly changed from the previous iteration. The change is that the height of the floor, rather than the length, has been used to establish the extreme points of the floor. It is also important to note the key role of the inner design grid, with an aspect ratio of 2:1.

One may conclude that even Matthew Baker himself forgot about deadrise for a while.

Another anomaly is shown below, which is difficult to interpret conclusively. Perhaps it is simply a Baker mistake? Normally, design grid should be above deadrise. However, in this case, it is placed very unusually on the keel line. But the frame contour falls almost perfectly 13 feet above deadrise! ... and it well may be that that this height was actually used to construct the shape of the master frame. But how can this kind of inconsistency be credibly resolved!? Most likely, it also has to do with the incorrect run of the rising line of the floor, which should certainly not touch the keel.

Thanks Mark for checking, that was much helpful. As another check (if of any value), I have also taken a look at the Mer Honour dimensions as given in the sources (beam 37, depth in hold 17). On the graphics below, her proportions are represented by the yellow rectangle. As it happens, the fit is much better with the design grid drawn according to the text. All of which suggests that one should go by the numbers Baker has provided rather than his all too often inaccurate lines.

@Mark P ... almost forgot. It is possible that this document contains an anomaly (or maybe a transcription error?) – in the text description the half-breadth is 90, but in the drawing it is apparently 93, so I had to choose. And there are plenty of such anomalies in the Baker's drawing I am scrutinizing...

Thank you very much, Mark. My guess is that this is an early document, as the form of master frame shown seems to be quite archaic. Especially the extreme tumblehome and the bulbous waist. On the other hand, the geometric construction is simple, indicating a later period. Anyway, I don't think there are any two master frames designed by Matthew Baker in the same way. Each has a different geometric construction. By the way, better Mathew or Matthew in this case?

This is perhaps an opportunity to clarify issues of size, scale and dimensions on this drawing. The actual size (scale) of a paper plan is irrelevant as long as there is a linear scale on it. And there are several linear scales in Baker's drawing. They are all the same length, but represent 24, 30, 40, 20 and 44 real feet. These give, respectively, a ship with a keel length of 60.75, 75.94, 101.25, 50.62 and 111.37 real feet. Incidentally, this means that the design of this ship was conceived as a reference model, i.e. by selecting or creating any particular linear scale, a ship of the desired size could be built. Now, all dimensions on this drawing are given in feet, which correspond to the linear scale of 24 feet. This includes the value of the wale radius, which of course is not 263 inches but 3159 inches (i.e. equal to 263 1/4 feet). Let us assume that the paper drawing was made at a scale of 1:48. In order to draw an arc with a radius of 3159 inches, it has to be reduced 48 times, which gives 65.81 inches. This is 5.48 feet, not 22 feet. But there's more to it than that. It is highly doubtful that such large arcs would be drawn with compasses in practice. In such situations, special instruments similar to bows, tensioned with a chord or screws, were used, preferably in combination with appropriate geometrical or mathematical methods for determining points on the arc. Thank you.

I estimate that drawing inaccuracies have a much greater impact, say, in a relationship like 70:30 or even 80:20 to paper distortion. And in some cases to the point where it is sometimes difficult to decide whether to correct or repeat them, because these inaccurately drawn lines have an impact on subsequent geometric constructions. Paper distortions alone would be fairly easy to overcome....

It actually reads 263 1/4, and it is the radius of the wale as written on the original plan. Please also take a look at the graphic in post #16. There is some confusion, however, because I initially worked with a rather poor copy of Baker's drawing and some of the figures in my first sketches are not quite accurate. These need to be updated. Yet still the value given by Baker is not accurate either as he has drawn the wale with an actual radius of about 247.6. To the left of the number is the quadrant marking. These are just samples taken from archaeological finds of the early modern period. From memory: variants A, B and C are quite typical for Dutch ships, D would be suitable for French ships, E for Iberian and English vessels and F as found in one of the Mediterranean wrecks. It should be taken of course only as a general outline. The main purpose was to show how the configuration of the limber channels would have varied at this time.

Hi Bill, Thanks for your post. If you have a specific idea or question, go ahead and post it here. It might even be a chance to clarify some previously unseen problem.

I agree with Richard Barker's conjecture that originally the greater ship's breadth from the master frame design grid was the result of the addition of another deck to single deck ships, without modifying the method (sequence) of construction. However, in this very case the difference in these dimensions is too small. Therefore, I believe that the moulded breadth of 24.3 feet is simply due to the selection of round values for the master frame sweeps radii. In other words, Baker was actually aiming to get the moulded breadth as close as possible to the width of design grid (24 feet), but at the same time he preferred to use round values for the master frame sweeps radii. Baker then measured and multiplied these 24.3 feet by 2.5 and thus obtained the keel length, which is 60.75 feet. This could be a sign of evolutionary changes in the way ships were proportioned and designed.

🙂 Druxey, please feel free to judge this for yourself in the attached drawing. I just added a blue line half a foot away from its original location. It may not make much conceptual difference, but the deck camber is most likely 1/30th of the ship breadth. I look forward to your comments, which may again have the chance to provoke some further discoveries.

This is hopefully my final interpretation of the master frame. It is essentially the same as the previous one, just supplemented with decks and some additional dimensions. Note the width of the main deck camber.

True. It is usually a mix of both, more or less. Now I should perhaps make an update of all drawings, at least where the keel length and its derivates are given, but that is much work and dimensional differences rather small, quite within working tolerances. Either way, I am satisfied that the conceptual idea of Baker's ship has been hopefully found and its components identified on his plan.

Bingo! A small update. moulded breadth: 24.3 feet 24.3 x 2.5 = 60.75 feet The calculated value of 60.75 feet may be the true length of the keel, which is quite elusive to measure very accurately on the drawing.