Arthur Goulart

That's awesome how it's possible to precise a date like that, thats more than a decade later from the adoption of paint by the British. Also, just the other day, I was wondering what they finished the wood with when it was left unpainted, and, there it is! I'd be curious to know if there are photos of oak finished by those methods, so to see how it actually looked back then. Thanks a lot, @TJM, you've taught me quite a lot these last interactions!

Interestingly, as well, on Fyen's model the black goes up the wales, which makes sense. On Fyen's case, if the black was restricted to under the wales, it would be a thin, odd looking, section. Now, analysing it with that in mind, Falster, unlike the one deckers on the image I posted above, does not show the black outlined upper wale strake edge, as to suggest Falster is represented with the same scheme we see on Fyen. So, to summarize the conclusions from these few evidences: for frigates and smaller vessels, as the wales were relatively higher to the waterline, the black ended just below the wales, while for ships of more decks, the lower wales would too be painted black. Makes sense to me. And, TJM, you can always say that the model represents Christiania later in her career, by then she would've been yellow. You've hooked my interest though, why did you come to the conclusion that the yellow came sometime in Gerner's period, not before?

TJM, You're right. I had overlooked the posts about the black starting under the wales, but there is substancial evidence it did, specially when comparing Søe Ridderen's painted depiction you showed a couple times already on the topic with the ship's sheer plan, as you've noted too. Furthermore, take a look at this illustration: Doqven, Chistiansborg, BlaacHejeren, and Falster, all show the outline of the step of the upper wale, and the black portion, which follows the contour of the outlined step. That shows both awareness of the naval painting pratices of his time and intention to reproduce them by the depiction's author. And on Friederich et Lovise and on Neptunes, on which the wales were seemingly not blended with the hull, the black starts even lower. Grant it, these are earlier examples than Christiania, but, that's some further evidence to think about. Best regards, Arthur.

TJM, the shape modifications definetely show! I have a suggestion for you, on the topic of planking. One important detail that differs Danish from English practice would be the wales. While they were blended with the hull planking downwards, the upper wale's edge should stick out, where it meets the thinner planks towards the gunports: That should be along the transition between the yellow cedar and pear on your model. Grant it, it would be extra work, but, besides being a historically relevant feature, the wale's step would make a good division between the different woods. Also, if you decide to attempt that modification, keep in mind that the wales should tuck in at the stem, meaning that the step would be no longer visible along where the hull planking meets the stem, if that makes sense. Cheers, Arthur.

It sure is looking neat though!

STEM, STERNPOST AND THE FASHION PIECE DIAGONAL Moving on, let's take a look at how Turesen drew the stem on these designs. The first important point of reference will be where the temporary curve that is drawn parallel to the gun deck to define the lower edge of the gunports ends at the inner stem perpendicular. I couldn't find for this point of reference (as is the case for the point where the deck ends at the same perpendicular) a precise proportion that defines its height, though it looks like Turesen aimed for something in between 0,18 and 0,19 of the ship's lenght for all three Hvide Ørne, Wildmanden, and for the A1246c brig, measured from the rabbet of the keel. From this point, a line is drawn aftward, parallel to the waterline, of same lenght as the ship's breadth, and its end will be the center of the upper radius that forms the stem. From the same center, a smaller radius is set, that measures 1/3rd of the breadth. Now, from the given distance for the stem's rake (forftevnen falder), a radius of 2/3rds of the breadth is drawn, and its intersection with the '1/3rd of the breadth radius' will be the center of the lower radius that forms the stem. The upper radius is the same lenght as the breadth, and the lower radius is 2/3rds of the breadth. In green, the upper and lower stem sweeps. This geometric process is done so the lower stem arc is tangent to the upper one. The sternpost also is set from a point of reference that relates to the lower edge of the gunports curve. Its inner rabbet line is set from two points: the given sternpost rake (afterftevnen falder); and, the midpoint between where the lower edge of the gunports curve ends at the inner sternpost perpendicular and where the gun deck ends at the same perpendicular. The outer rabbet line is drawn parallel to the inner one. The outer edge of the sternpost, however, is not simply parallel to the rabbet lines, it is narrower on top than it is down, so it is set by two points, one that is measured, on the rabbet of the keel (same as the given sternpost rake), and one that is measured up on the outer sternpost perpendicular. In Wildmanden's case, measured from the rabbet of the keel, that second reference point is the same height as the height where the stem ends its rake (aka, the height of the center of the upper stem radius). Now, what I think is the most valuable part of today's post, what I'll call the fashion piece diagonal, for a lack of nomenclature for it (not that I know of, at least), and so it's not confused with the transom. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it, but I don't think I've seen this type of construction from plans of other nations, not English, not French, not Swedish, nor Dutch. What is usually seen on body plans is a perpendicular cutout view on the position of the aftmost frame that is parallel to all other represented frames of the body plan. That is not the case with Danish drawings of this period, the aftmost cutout seen on them runs along this fashion piece diagonal, and thus is not perpendicular to the water level, like all others. Interestingly, all aft frames will be later formed by referencing the shape given to this oddly inclined cutout. So, how is it set? Again, by two points. The lower one will be the width given to the lowest transom beam, measured from the inner sternpost rabbet. In Hvide Ørne's case, a simple 3 feet, or 2 feet for the A1246c brig. The upper point will be where the rise of breadth ends, and is set similarly to what we saw for the sternpost inner rabbet: the midpoint between the lower edge of the gunports curve and the gun deck. That is described on the A1226e Wildmanden plan, under Speilets Construction: "Største Breeden reiser til Medium imellem underkanten af Forstævnen og Dækket" (The greatest breadth rises to the mid-point between the lower edge of the stem and the deck). The 'lower edge of the stem' being the lower edge of the gunports curve. Possibly @TJM can give us a better translation for it. Instead of that midpoint being taken at the inner sternpost perpendicular, as is the case for the inner sternpost rabbet, however, it is taken at a certain distance from it, as is represented by a perpendicular on the A1246c brig plan: In conclusion, this is what we have: For all similar Turesen designs (the two frigates, the brig and Fredericus Quintus), the resulting angle for this fashion piece diagonal is very close to 70º, relative to the waterline. The actual transom is parallel to this line. Happy new year! -Arthur.

I really appreciate it, @TJM! And thanks for the explanations regarding the drawings you gave me in private messages!

The sheer curves have been figured out, my dudes. To summarize it: the fore and aft curves are done differently. The gun deck and the wales aft, as we've seen it, are described as per a 1,2,3,4 progression. The sheer curve. meanwhile, is a rotation of the wales, centered in between the master frames, that hits a specific height at the transom. This latter solution is very clearly observed by analyzing Hvide Ørne's aft rails, which are set by the same method. The space between the fore end of each rail and the rail under it is 1'1"; and, from top to bottom, the vertical space between rails at the transom goes: 1'3", 1'4",1'5". They are all rotated copies of the wales curve. That's a simplification for the ease of understanding the logic behind the inclination given to the rails, but the actual measurements are taken from the top of one rail to another, so the width of each rail must be accounted for. What that means is that, in actuallity, that's how the different rails are set: Now, with regards to the fore curves, I feel pretty stupid 🤣. Remember I was trying to give some inclination to some progression to describe them? And that I explained you how giving those inclinations change the curve given as a result? Yeah... Scrap all of that. I mean, the explanation is still valid, but that is not what was done to get the fore curves. The Boudriot excerpt that @Waldemar sent here made me see it. Jean Boudriot - Méthode par les triangles équilatéraux.pdf The solution is pretty close to what is described for the "A" alternative for harmoniously dividing a lisse. And, again, it can be seen on the G1228 60 gun ship scaled up from Fyen plan, on yet another part of the plan that I had not shown you 😅. I mean, come on, had I shown you the entire plan from the start, I'm sure a more experienced member would've caught up to the solution at a glance and saved me A LOT of trial and error. The problem now is worked out, but just out of principle 😆, here it goes, the entire plan: That's the section we'll look at to understand the fore curves: An 45º arc (BC) is drawn from a radius AB, of any lenght. From the upper edge, C, of the arc, the perpendicular CD is drawn. CD is divided proportionally to the ship's frames, from midship to stem (1,2,3,4,5,6,7). The frame's spacing is projected onto the BC arc, and that results in the points 1b,2b,3b,4b,5b,6b,7b. These latter points are projected down, again, onto the DB line, and that will be the proportion applied to describe the fore gun deck and wales curves. It's a perfect match with the fore curves' proportion triangle: And, most importantly, it's also a great match with Hvide Ørne's and Wildmanden's curves. The fore sheer is also a rotation of the fore wales, the same as aft. WELCOME HVIDE ØRNE Also, I'll officially include Hvide Ørne in the topic's title. When I started the topic, I was already developing Hvide Ørne's lines too, but I was less advanced with them and I wasn't sure I would be able to work out some quirks of its design (among them, the sheer plan curves), but that have now mostly been mostly figued out. Hvide Ørne is Wildmanden's bigger sister, done by Turesen just a year earlier than Wildmanden, and shares many the same design rules with it. While Wildmanden is more of a sloop, or a corvette, Hvide Ørne, that carried 30 guns (the quarterdeck guns included), was a proper frigate by the broad understanding of the time. It also shares the good looking lines of it's smaller sister. That's a very subjective claim to make, but I don't think you will find a prettier "true frigate": And, of course, on this 24th of december, I wish you all a merry christmas, -Arthur.

TJM, thanks a lot!! Those are some very good photos, and references are never enough. I'm sure I'll put them to good use! Trying to understand these plans is a fun puzzle, a little mind cracking sometimes, and a lot of trial and error goes. A good CAD software is a must. Danish plans are pretty special, because they often explain and give measurements for much more than any other nation's. And well, being Danish yourself, you're in a great position to get into it. Cheers!

I'm happy to be able to help. Translating that was super interesting too so, it's a win win. 🙂 And, Waldemar, thanks a lot for the excerpt, it sure looks very helpful! I'll read it before I make more progress with my Wildmanden endeavour for sure. Appreciate it!

It's for sure one cool riddle to interpret those old texts though! Ohhh I see. It adds up! I didn't know the Danish eventually smoothed it all out. Druxey, I don't think it's a matter of age related or even scanning issues for these specific Wildmanden/Hvide Ørne plans. The reason being is that the straight lines are very straight on them and all the perpendiculars are very close to perfect 90º. Drafting those curves precisely by hand and eye, however, isn't easy. What that would entail is applying a 9 number progression to a space of, at most, 3'2" ÷ 48 (which, I take it, is probably the scale the plans are on). After getting the correct proportions for said lenght, the draftsman would, most likely, draw provisory line from where the curve starts amidships parallel to the waterline, and use this line as reference to set, lets say, the wale curve. For that, he would measure the space from the beggining of the progression to the first division. Then, he would take the measured distance and apply it from the reference line up on the C frame (the first frame that has a perpendicular on the sheer plan fore of the midship frame), and so on, as many times as there are perpendiculars to the stem. Maybe he simplifies it, and he doesn't apply the respective heights on every perpendicular. In conclusion, there are many opportunities for small errors to be introduced. Thing is, I was about to write a whole segment on why if my progressions were wrong, I'd expect to see the error on the wales of Hvide Ørne, not on its sheer, then I'd explain why it isn't possible to give more inclination to the sheer's progression to get it right with the plans. But, before all that, I decided to take one good shower. *Eureka moment*. The explanation is simple. The sheer does not get a progression of its own. Instead, Turesen, at least for Hvide Ørne, did that entire process to get the curvature of the wales, but, instead of doing it all again for the the sheer, he simply copied the wales' curvature and rotated it two inches down, and there you have it: the sheer line. It matches perfectly. Let's zoom in on the problem area again: In blue, the previous solution; in red, the new finding. Notice how my line is slightly above the plan's line for the wales. Notice how that very same slight difference is now seen on the sheer with the red line; and notice how the blue line is not that slightly above the sheer. I think it's a hit. It has be said that the rotation solution isn't random either, the same is observed when drawing Hvide Ørne's forecastle and quarterdeck rails. Now I have to test out what that means to the aft sheer line, and how that finding can be applied to Wildmanden too. This all also goes to show how careful Turesen was with his drawings, the man knew consistency, that much can be said. -Arthur

Trevor, this week I learned I don't even know my on portuguese language when translating Livro de Traças de Carpintaria for Waldemar 🤣 Makes perfect sense now, Waldemar! Thanks a lot for taking the time to figure it out and to explain it! That's interesting though, wouldn't they be already familiar with the Danish type fo wale from French ships? If the Boudriot monographs are to be believed, the french had the same blended wales as the Danish did since somewhat early on. That's not what the captured plans for Belle Poule, for instance, suggest (Belle Poule (1780) | Royal Museums Greenwich). But Boudriot's monograph do give Belle Poule blended wales: Fascinating stuff!

Since the last post I made, I've been dwelling with the wale/deck/sheer curvatures. I'm convinced Turesen applied an angle to the progression used to draw them fore. Lets first get back to the G1228 60 gun ship scaled up from Fyen (1749) that I showed you last time. The previous post I explained how a 1,2,3,4... progression was used to define these curvatures aft: What I didn't show you, however, is that the plan presents a different triangle for setting the same curvatures fore: At first, I thought this was another 1,2,3,4... progression, thus not different from what is seen for the deck aft. But, it is not. You see, what its spacing suggests is that it results from an angled line applied to a 1,2,3,4... progression. To make what I mean clearer: That's how it looks when both the 1,2,3,4... progression (in blue) and the 50º progression (in red) are scaled to the lenght of the base of the fore triangle: (in green, where there are both blue and red points) This is not the same as is shown for the wales (barckholtets) aft, it's actually the opposite. The 50º angle gives the wales aft a more uniform incline, it makes them more akeen to a straight line, if you will; while the curves fore start off gentler and get steeper towards the stem. An exaggerated representation: As for the G1228 60 gun ship, it is possible that we have more of a 48º angle to the progression instead of a flat 50º one, but that specific plan was not neatly drawn at all, so, hard to know. The important thing to be noted here though is that despite, in practice, the difference between a deck drawn by a 1,2,3,4... at 60º (so, parallel to the base of the triangle) and one drawn by a 1,2,3,4... at 50º being very slight, for some reason, that differentiation in methods for the fore and aft parts was done. Grant it, that still is just one plan, it would be quite the bit of anecdotical evidence to be considered for Wildmanden. Well, it would be, if the same wasn't observed not only on Wildmanden's plans, but on Hvide Ørne's (1753), and on Fredericus Quintus's (1753) too. They all have a curves that get steeper towards the stem fore and straighter ones aft, as to suggest the same idea present on G1228 is present on these Turesen designs. So, I got to more testing on Hvide Ørne and Wildmanden, I tested all kinds of progressions, and two other methods too: projecting the a section of a circle onto the frames and getting the heights of the wale/deck/sheer at each frame that way (a method I've seen by english shipwrights), and drawing the curves by a circle that has it's center 90º above where the curve starts amidships. Those alternative techniques yielded no better results than what I got from triangular progressions. My unorganized progression tests: What I landed on for Hvide Ørne (1753) was a 1,3,5,7... 60º progression for all aft curves, starting off on the fore midship perpendicular; and, a 1,3,5,7... 50º progression for all fore curves, starting off, again, on the fore midship perpendicular: Some close ups of how it is looking. I'm quite happy with all the aft curves, and all the fore curves with the exception of the sheer, where some deviation that I feel like could be something that I'm still missing is seen: I tried applying the same progressions for Wildmanden, again, with satisfactory results for the aft. But a similar problem presents itself fore, but the other way around for Wildmanden. While my sheer line agrees with the drawing, the deck/gunports and wale curves show a slight deviation. The recurring issue in both drawings being that the sheer doesn't seem coherent with the other fore curves. On Wildmanden: I could fix Wildmanden's curves that aren't the sheer by using 1,2,3,4... 50º instead of 1,3,5,7.... 50º, but if I were to apply the same to the sheer, it then would have a deviation from the plans. For Hvide Ørne (1753), however, the 1,3,5,7.... 50º is the best solution I found for all curves. It might be just a matter of imprecision of the hand drawn plans, I'm open to suggestions though. If I find something better, I'll let you know, if not, we'll move on to explaining the stem/sternpost and the location of the quarter frames and transom diagonal. And, by the way, Hvide Ørne has some pretty interesting differences for how it's body plan is done, should I make the topic a two in one package by exploring both Wildmanden's and Hvide Ørne's lines? Cheers! Arthur.

Looking good!

I missed answering your post previously, Martes. Apologies. But yeah, it makes perfect sense to that the paintings shouldn't really be trusted in the matter. And that 1807 passage is gold! I mean, I could never imagine that is the advantage behind one type of wale over another. I wonder what's the plus of not having the wales blended into the planking. Maybe easier construction? As the thinner planks would be easier to bend.