Jaager

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

Then there was the diet pills that contained live tape worm segments.  Well, they did work.
 

I have not checked any references so these are open targets for those with more data.
 
I think that some of the rules are:
maximum single plank width -  10"   with maybe 12" for exceptions like the garboard
minimum single plank width  - no less than 50% of the max.
Large ships can survive with 10" planks - small ships probably want ~6"
A gore of 6 to at most 10 strakes is about right.
At the stem rabbet and sternpost rabbet the run should be near horizontal
The overall run should be sweet.
 
It is about juggling all of these factors

As a gauge for how relentless this accumulation can be, do you have a serious shop vac pulling in the sawdust whenever the saw is running?

It is the circular stern that I am placing at the 1860 +/-  and dismissing as being outside my focus era.
I also kinda put circular in the merchant ship bucket.
From the beginning, I have found the thought of iron and steel hulls,  iron masts and yards , chain and steel cable rigging to be too intimidating to model.

As a gauge for how relentless this accumulation can be, do you have a serious shop vac pulling in the sawdust whenever the saw is running?

It is the circular stern that I am placing at the 1860 +/-  and dismissing as being outside my focus era.
I also kinda put circular in the merchant ship bucket.
From the beginning, I have found the thought of iron and steel hulls,  iron masts and yards , chain and steel cable rigging to be too intimidating to model.

I do not know how to write this so that it comes across in the way that I intend it. 
I mean this as one way to look at it.  It may well be incorrect.  But it is a vulnerable flank if you disagree
 
 
I do not place much value in using the survivors from 1765 1799 1800-on as sources of information for how these vessels looked when launched.  Especially "officers country" in the stern.
They were "improved" - remodeled - rebuilt - about every 20 years.  This was done by sequential generations who were hostile to the past and ashamed of and embarrassed by older practices.  They were aggressively "modern" in their outlook.  A new "modern" every 20 years at a time of profound tech change. 
Then, when GB or the US became wealthy enough to have surplus to preserve some of the past - it was done by strong personalities who were more driven by preconceived visions in their imaginations than what was left of actual past documentation.
 
For the most part absolutist historians have been left with hodgepodge  monsters too substantially altered to rescue back to their original iterations.  They are probably more valuable remaining as what they are.  But what that is - is far from representing their as launched versions.
 
Zealous PR people tend to exaggerate if not outright lie about what they are selling.
 
Almost everything in your examples are post 1860.  I have to draw a line for the sake of my sanity.  It is still far to broad, but 1860 is a hard limit for me.

You may have better luck if the English word is spelled correctly not david  but davit.
I think that a rough definition using "fish" as a verb   is:   
a fish davit would be  a line with a hook on the distant end attached to the outer end of a pole
 
to fish means hooking something in the water and pulling it up.
 a cathead crane can get a heavy anchor up and out of the water but it will hang like a bell
to tie it down means rotating it ~ 90 degrees and securing it to the side of the ship so that it is not a wrecking ball.
Given the weight of the anchor on a liner fishing and rotating the fluke end was probably a non-trivial chore.
I wonder if the tool used to do it - the fish davit - could not be loose -  a disposable item - not really a permanent part of the hull?

I do not know how to write this so that it comes across in the way that I intend it. 
I mean this as one way to look at it.  It may well be incorrect.  But it is a vulnerable flank if you disagree
 
 
I do not place much value in using the survivors from 1765 1799 1800-on as sources of information for how these vessels looked when launched.  Especially "officers country" in the stern.
They were "improved" - remodeled - rebuilt - about every 20 years.  This was done by sequential generations who were hostile to the past and ashamed of and embarrassed by older practices.  They were aggressively "modern" in their outlook.  A new "modern" every 20 years at a time of profound tech change. 
Then, when GB or the US became wealthy enough to have surplus to preserve some of the past - it was done by strong personalities who were more driven by preconceived visions in their imaginations than what was left of actual past documentation.
 
For the most part absolutist historians have been left with hodgepodge  monsters too substantially altered to rescue back to their original iterations.  They are probably more valuable remaining as what they are.  But what that is - is far from representing their as launched versions.
 
Zealous PR people tend to exaggerate if not outright lie about what they are selling.
 
Almost everything in your examples are post 1860.  I have to draw a line for the sake of my sanity.  It is still far to broad, but 1860 is a hard limit for me.

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:
 
I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 
I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 
 
There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  
 

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:
 
I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 
I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 
 
There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  
 

Here goes a stream of consciousness tangent:
 
I have the idea that an elliptical stern was considered as a significant improvement for frigates and corvettes starting early in the 19th century. 
I have been thinking that a circular stern happened around 1860 or later - and my focus ends at 1860. 
 
There was a famous - here - 1 to 1 frigate dual between HMS Shannon and Chesapeake.  ( I thought it was fought off the Virginia capes where I live.)  (Turns out it was off Boston.) (The Chesapeake captain was an amateur poseur idiot and got himself and a significant portion of his crew killed.  The Shannon captain was a gifted professional.)   I got Chesapeake plans from S.I.  I had to dig for Shannon.  HMS Shannon was a Leda class frigate.  There were a lot of frigates in that class.  They used the same plans: HMS Leda - probably traced - over and over - for every one of them.  They even drew the improved "ellipicical stern" in different colored ink on the original 18th century flat stern Leda plan (as well as a more "modern" forecastle).  The plan was so over used that there is a low contrast between the lines and the dark background.  The NMM offered different sized prints when I bought it.  I made the mistake of buying a reduced scale copy.  It was easier to place on my home scanner - which is why I chose it.  This was before I learned that commercial shops could scan a 4'x3' plan and give me a PDF copy on a USB stick.  It was touch and go for picking out the lines from the background.  
 

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I was not thinking about being too "old fashioned" - anachronism from the past - because I mostly consider anachronism as referring to adding things that had not been invented yet.  I am not sure if "anachronism" even fits as a definition for using outdated tech. 
 
If you want to include 17th century tech on an 18th century ship, you could always say that the captain was sentimental and it was there to honor his grandfather who was also a captain in his time.   This is silly, but it is also possible.  A 5 inch revolving gun is not possible.
 
To be contrary and controversial  - adding a 5 inch gun mount or wings from a DC3 to an 18th century warship was the sort of thing that "kit bashing" was originally meant to describe.   I do not see how "to bash" can ever fit with the process of improving or augmenting parts that come with a kit.  "semi-scratch" seems to be a more appropriated term - if you fabricate the additions yourself.

I did. and as I said, I have no answer. I just do not know.
 
I think some speculation around the subject could be fun though.
 
If there is no surviving data,  then whatever you decide should stand.
(as long as it does not involve something like an electric winch and a Honda generator 😉)
I apologize if absurdist humor and exaggeration does not translate.

All of this looks to me like something that a team of ship's carpenters could alter on their own in an afternoon or two.
I do not think that obsessing about there being a single "answer to it" would have a definitive solution.  I see it as a moving target.
Anything contemporary could be and probably is correct.  Just avoid anachronism. 
 
It may be an artifact from the photography, but the holes for the pins look to have about twice the probable diameter.

I did. and as I said, I have no answer. I just do not know.
 
I think some speculation around the subject could be fun though.
 
If there is no surviving data,  then whatever you decide should stand.
(as long as it does not involve something like an electric winch and a Honda generator 😉)
I apologize if absurdist humor and exaggeration does not translate.

Siggi,
 
I have no idea.  But if I was the noncom in charge of this operation,  I would think seriously about having a dolly or truck at the inboard end of the davit and using my team to move the beam in/out/arc/aft as needed.  I would also  have rope handles at file intervals along the beam.  A beam like that would be a bear to manhandle without some accessories. 
notches in the beam and hollow Mickey Mouse hat rope loops  with rope handles instead of ears.

As I was doing yet another of my denken experimenten  (slang from my German American major professor) about this
 
I am seeing that something more involved than just loosing the end of a rope was involved in setting an anchor.
I can see that the fluke could rip a chunk out the the channel or even the wale unless the anchor was swung out before letting gravity take control.  A fish davit could have a two way function.