Bob Legge

A lot of time passed since my last posting. Most of it was caused by people, family and friends, who start to die all over the place. In a very short period I lost six relatives and close friends. That takes away a lot of one's motivation and working power.
Anyway, the model approaches its finishing stage, after which I will come up with better pictures than these.  
There is a lot to say about some choices I made, but as a whole I think I am reasonably satisfied with the result. For a ship with a totally different background the result could have been worse (and better for that matter).
In a later stage I will give my remarks about the rigging, which on this model is mainly done after Dutch sources, quite different in details from the only rigged dockyard model I have found so far.
 
Back to flags, anchors, lanterns and sailors.

If I'm allowed I would like to share my own experience about modelling from blueprints/diagrams. Though I'm not versed in vessels, I did a lot of them (modelling) for trains, and some issues are absolutely the same.
 
In general, as stated in one previous post, the blueprints/diagrams tend to be distorted, for several reasons, one of them is that they were hand-drawn and is obvious that this method is prone to errors, second, the digitalisation of the documents can lead to distortions, photography instead scanning for example. So what I do?
 
In general I work the plan in Photoshop, I use a standard such as 1px = 1mm (it depends on the scale of the object), and using the general dimensions (length, wide, etc.) I work the plan to reach the dimensions, since there are also internal dimensions, through references I check if the plan is not distorted, if so, I correct it.
 
Once I have the plan corrected, I export to a png file and import to AutoCAD, is in AutoCAD where in scale 1:1 I redraw completely the document, there is where I find inconsistencies, errors, etc. that I correct so I have a three view plan absolutely redrawn and matching. From there is just export dwg format to Fusion where having the exact lines is really easy to model. Later I scale the drawing to the desired scale.
 
It takes time, yes, but when I'm modelling I'm pretty sure that I won't find inconsistencies in the design so I can just focus in modelling, not correcting not matching curves, weird curves, etc.
 
V

Oh, I should also add that the renders in the first post show the reconstructed geometric model in an earlier version, that is, with a slightly larger forward rake than in the later, final version. This of course has to do with the incomplete wreckage (no bow) and having to choose between several possibilities. I could, admittedly, replace these renders or add new ones quite easily, but essentially the intention is that the design method recreated for this case, and presented in such great detail, would enable interested individuals to create a plan or model of this ship themselves.

Strange as it may sound, the important and extremely interesting chapter Della Fabbrica di Vascelli (‘On Shipbuilding’) from Robert Dudley's larger work, Dell'Arcano del Mare (‘The Mysteries of the Sea’), has so far been largely overlooked by authors of modern works on this subject, and has probably not even been retranslated into the native language of the author of this work, or at least no such translation has been published so far to my knowledge. This can be considered a serious oversight, especially on the part of the academic community, as this very chapter, together with its unpublished part, is at least equal in terms of its substantive value to other works on shipbuilding from this period, such as Baker's Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry, an anonymous manuscript dated around 1620, or the so-called Newton manuscript from the second quarter of the 17th century.
 
What is more, Dudley's complete account, graphic par excellence (notably with its unpublished, handwritten part), perfectly complements the above-mentioned works and, in addition, greatly facilitates their proper understanding, especially since they have been misinterpreted by the academic community and various researchers through the unauthorised backward extrapolation of later English sources of this kind, such as the Anthony Deane's work from 1670 or William Sutherland's from 1711, which, together with other mistakes, inaccurate analyses and misinterpretations in this field, has had the unfortunate effect of creating modern concepts that dramatically distort the evolution of naval architecture during this period.
 
Although Dudley's work was published as late as 1646–1647, both his biography and the information contained in the publication itself indicate that Dudley uses and describes the method of ship design that was used in England around 1600, which he must have learned there before emigrating in 1605. This is the Mediterranean method, introduced in England around the middle of the 16th century, marked by a three-arch frame construction and the specific transformation of master frame mould, guided by the so-called “boca” line (instead of the maximum breadth line). Over time, around the middle decades of the 17th century, this system evolved into a more advanced form, which can already be described as genuine English design.
 
At least for now, I intend to present a full translation of the chapter ‘On Shipbuilding’ (without focusing on linguistic perfection, if only because of the archaic, crazy syntax of the original Italian text, but rather on a factually correct and comprehensible rendering of the meaning of the statements) along with reproductions of graphics taken from both the printed publication and some unpublished ones (many thanks to @DonatasBruzas for pointing out the latter), as well as supplementary comments, explanations and my own illustrations where necessary and possible.
 
In total, approximately 73,000 characters, or 40 standard A4 pages of text.
 
Let’s start…
 
 
 
 
THE MYSTERIES OF THE SEA,
OF THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND
BOOK FOUR
 
ON SHIPBUILDING
by Design in general, of the invention of the Author.
Chapter I.
 
The Naval Architecture discussed in this book was invented and put into practice by the author himself in seven different designs of warships. The figures and proportions of these are shown in Chapters VIII to XV, with individual lines, profiles and moulds, with explanations and other necessary details.
 
So that the author's aim does not prove vain and superfluous, having dealt in the preceding Third Book with the ordinance of forces, the power and strength of ‘rambargi’ (rowbarges), ‘galezabre’, frigates and other vessels, he will now demonstrate the true science of design, so that everything can be put into practical execution.
 
And because words do not fight, but what has been promised will be produced in effect, & in practical action; demonstrating how skilled masters (who also understand something of mathematics) can build by design the vessels referred to in the following chapter, without the inventor himself being present; considering further that the hope of a victory at sea, in winning the day, depends mainly (thanks God) on the strength and quality of vessels that are well constructed and well disciplined, according to the instructions in the preceding Chapter.
 
Otherwise, it would have been highly impertinent of the author to criticise the shortcomings and failings of other warships without offering any remedy to improve them.
 
However, he deemed it expedient, for the reputation of his maritime Mysteries, to show in the best possible way the naval architecture of the construction of the following vessels; and all the more so because in this way a great prince can be victorious against the common enemy of Christianity, not only at sea but also on land, by means of maritime assistance; and the reason and cause for this is sufficiently demonstrated by the examples given in Chapter XV of the preceding Book.
 
 

ON CERTAIN INVENTIONS OF THE AUTHOR
to be applied with his seven previous designs.
Chapter XVI.
 
The author has made use of some of his own inventions to perfect preceding designs, particularly square-rigged vessels, but also galeroni and galerate, for rowing; which inventions can be useful in many necessary occasions, and it certainly can't hurt to know them; provided they can be put into practice where and when expedient, and not otherwise out of necessity.
 
For the first invention, it should be noted that the designs already produced are for vessels that are longer than usual, in order (for their speed) to always fight from windward on the high seas, and with greater force, as well as to hold up well and to sail much better than others, thanks to their shallow draught and their length.
 
It commonly follows that these types of square-rigged vessels have a tendency to lean with the transverse wind when sailing close-hauled, somewhat more so than shorter vessels with a greater draught; in any case, the author has sought, through extensive experimentation, to compensate for this shortcoming by means of a keel of his own invention, which is deeper than usual and slightly concave; combined, however, with the false keel of the first preceding design; and by means of this, the aforementioned defect, although minor, will not only be remedied perfectly, but will also make them more stable when sailing close-hauled than all other vessels.
 
This invention was applied, with good success, to the galizabra S. Cosimo, & to the galeratina of the same name, of the third and sixth design, & to other vessels of the Author.
 
The second invention, also tried and tested by the author, is a passageway with two-and-a-half-inch thick caulked fir boards, which can be build around the inside of the ship's hold; and connected from under to the first deck, it will be four feet high and three feet wide at the top, and the passageway will be partitioned into six small rooms on each side, similarly caulked, with a small door for each one, above in the deck, so that during combat, if by chance any enemy cannonballs pass under the water, the hole can be immediately plugged, so that the vessel does not risk sinking due to the enemy's shots; and this invention can be better understood from the figure of the first design, letter G, to be applied to the four designs of the preceding square ships; & it is an invention tried and tested in two ships built for the Most Serene Grand Dukes Ferdinand I and Cosimo II, namely the S. Giovanni Battista, of the second design, and the San Cosimo, of the third.
 
However, it should be noted that this invention is suitable for warships on short voyages, otherwise on long voyages to India, the said passageway would prevent the ship's hold from carrying sufficient provisions for the voyage.
 
The third invention can be applied well, according to the test carried out, to the fourth design of frigate with a light deck (i.e. spardeck) above the first, which is gridded halfway across the width and woven in the form of double squares, so that one can walk freely on it; but by turning those squares along the sides of the said light deck, no one can stand on them, by virtue of certain long, sharp steel nails, thus preventing the enemy from boarding the ship when it is in port; since on the high seas there is no such danger against square-rigged vessels; this was done in the galizabra S. Cosimo made by the Author for the Most Serene Grand Duke Cosimo II.
 
The fourth invention is that the rudder of the vessel should be slightly concave on the side where it touches the water, because this will make it easier for long vessels to steer and navigate well, especially when sailing close-hauled, and down wind, as needed. This was also done on the rudder of the aforementioned galizabra San Cosimo.
 
The fifth invention can be seen in the figure of the mould of the fourth design of a frigate, with a low passageway in the middle of the deck, to strengthen the length of the vessel and ensure its safety at sea; this also yields other benefits that are very useful in combat; this was done in the galizabra S. Cosimo and in a pinnace made by the author in Livorno.
 
The sixth invention is that the pumps of the author's square-rigged vessels are fitted with iron chains, in the manner of the royal rowbarges of England, because they are more reliable and, when necessary, expel a much greater quantity of water which has entered the vessel.
 
The seventh is that the pillars supporting the decks in the preceding designs are sloped, according to the figures in the said designs, and not straight as usual; because these, being straight in the usual manner, are much weaker in supporting artillery and other heavy weights; and it is a very useful invention for warships, because in this way the weight of the artillery will rest on the keel of the ship and strengthen it, so that it will not be weakened so much by the fortunes of the sea; this was done in the galizabra S.Cosimo, of the third design.
 
The eighth invention is that the bulwarks of the author's ships for combat must be made of canvas sewn with old ropes on the inside, to be musket-proof; because if they were made of wood as usual, they would impede the movement of the ship too much, due to the dead weight, especially in rowing ships; besides, the cannonballs that pass through wooden bulwarks kill many more people by splinters and broken wood than they do with the ball itself; This is remedied by the aforementioned canvas bulwarks, in pieces that can be kept in the hold when not in combat; and therefore this invention is of great importance for combat at sea, especially for galleys and galleasses in the fleet; and so it was also done in the galerata of the sixth design.
 
The ninth invention is that the galerata must carry a net that does not impede rowing or sailing, and which can be raised like a tent, but not too high, to better defend the vessel in battle, so that it cannot be boarded by the enemy without great disadvantage; this net will be raised when fighting, and then can be stored in the hold.
 
There are other inventions, tried and tested by the author himself, which are of lesser importance and are omitted for the sake of brevity, especially since the best of them can still be seen in the preceding figures of warships. With this advice, the second volume of The Mysteries comes to an end.
 
 
 
translation: Waldemar Gurgul
 
 

Done that too! Delicious pizza! (Came from Detroit, though). We’d call in our order down bound on lake St. Clair. 
 
I sailed with one old timer, I swear he smuggled an entire automobile across the boarder, one part at a time. Took him a few seasons, but he managed.
 
Andy

Since existing publications, including academic ones, have actually been creating a Universe-sized research void in the field of period ship design, particularly in the North Continental/Dutch tradition, for several decades now, it is worth taking a look at the design of Dutch origin, which I personally date to the late 17th and early 18th centuries and, according to design criteria, from an era before the widespread adoption of design diagonals, at least in the Netherlands.
 
The design in question is that of a 114-foot-long heavy frigate, graphically designed for construction using the bottom-first method, as clearly evidenced by the two design lines characteristic of this method: the edge of the ‘flat’ and the ‘boeisel’ line, the latter separating the carpentry zones of bilges and sides of the ship's hull.
 
In the archival description, the drawing is dated 1780, which must be perceived as an obvious mistake. The square tuck stern, the short beakhead, the double wales, the double master frame (somewhat retrospectively here), as well as the (prediagonal) design method itself clearly point to the decades just around 1700, i.e. quite close to when van Yk's work on shipbuilding was published in 1697.
Link to archive and reproduction of the plan (Dutch archives):
 
https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100199384
 
 

 
 
The renders below show the hull shapes of the Dutch heavy frigate ca. 1700 by using diagonals, waterlines and cross sections. Despite some concerns even before investigating the design method of this project, the resulting form can be considered very good in terms of its smoothness. Of note are only moderately sharp entry at the bow and also the run at the stern, as for a warship of this period.
Most interesting, though, is the conceptual method, which has not been described before. It is actually quite simple and the design sequence quite standard, nevertheless the result of this specific method is, among other things, the curved cross sections of the ‘flat’, which are hardly anywhere along the length of the hull straight lines as in other known designs. This should be clearly visible in the attached graphics, as well as in the original plan itself.
 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Main dimensions / keel assembly / lengthwise division
 
The sequence of the initial design phase is largely the same as described for the French heavy frigate of 1686, with the major exception that in this design the double master frame was already applied, as in the project of Dutch 72-gun ship described in another thread:
 
– the length of the ship was determined by summing up the spacing between the gun ports, the width of the ports themselves (possibly 12-pounders), and their distances from both ends of the hull,
– the keel is realistically curved, which is later reflected in the process of forming the contours of the leading frames,
– the sum of the rakes of the two posts is 1/11 of the length of the ship, and their ratio to each other is 1:3, resulting in a very small rake of the stem,
– the length of the ship between perpendiculars has been divided into nine equal parts,
– the lengthwise placement of the double master frame has been set, respectively, at 3/9 and 4/9 of the hull length,
– the placement of the „virtual” single master frame, needed only for setting up the main longitudinal design lines (“flat”, max. breadth, top lines, decks), was set halfway between the fore and aft master frames, resulting in the greatest breadth of the ship at this single master frame; its longitudinal position falls very roughly at 1/3 of the keel length.
– the depth in hold value was set at a textbook 1/10th of the hull length,
– the level of the waterline at the (single) master frame was obtained by adding to the depth in hold the height of the gun port sills above the deck (here 2 feet) and then subtracting their intended distance from the water level (here 3 feet 7 inches). Finally, the design waterline was angled to a 3-foot trim.
 
 

 
 
Line/edge of the ‘flat’ (green)
 
This line is the basis for shaping the underwater part of the hull. Deadrise (at the master frame) is large and is as high as 1.5 feet, measured from the realistically curved keel. At the fore, the line of the „flat” terminates at the intersection of the perpendicular with the waterline, and at the stern post at the level of height of the tuck, which in turn has been also set at the height of the design waterline. For both halves of the hull, it is a logarithmic curve, in both projections, which translates into quite full, or maybe better round shapes.
 
Line of the greatest breadth (blue)
 
At the master frame, the distance of this line from the waterline has been set at a quite standard value of 2 feet. This distance is one of the most important factors affecting the lateral stability of the ship. In the sheer view, both arcs of this line are tangent to an auxiliary line parallel to the waterline (dashed line). It is perfectly parallel to the wales, or perhaps more correctly – the wales would be subsequently made perfectly parallel to this line.
 
* * *
 
Of note is the very extensive use of logarithmic curves in this project. Contrary to the popular belief, it is one of the easiest curves to obtain, and no knowledge of theory is needed at all for their employment, just a familiarity with a straightforward division operation. For the same reason, logarithmic curves are also very practical and easy to use in real scale, for example to trace the contours of the frames without first drawing up a paper plan.
 

 
* * *
 
It may be prefaced here that the use of the conceptual method found in this plan of Dutch origin and presented below is not necessary for less demanding applications such as recreational construction of display models. Instead, the suggestion by scholars and well-known authors to mechanically copy the contours found on the original plans and then to proceed to smooth the hull shapes by eye can be used. However, this alternative method adopted by even the best experts in the field is unlikely to give completely satisfactory results in this case due to the rather significant drawing inaccuracies and distortions of the original drawing, which will most probably lead to the generating of the proverbial ‘snowman’. In addition, this method does not explain the design methods of the ships of the period and will not always be quite suitable for vessels of other dimensions or proportions either.
 
 
Shaping the leading frames
 
The sequence and method of determining the contours of the leading frames is straightforward and is naturally based on the main design lines previously defined, i.e the line of the ‘flat’ and the line of the greatest breadth:
 
– the lines of the ‘flat’ (red colour) were plotted first. For the central frames these are horizontal straight lines, for the two outermost frames #1 and #7 they are also straight lines, but connecting the keel to the line of the ‘flat’, and for the last frame #8 a circle arc is employed for a smooth transformation of the hull shape towards the sternpost,
– the futtock sweeps are then plotted (blue colour). For the central frames these arcs are brought to half the half-breadth of the corresponding frames. For the outermost frames, they are defined differently (see attached diagram),
– finally, the two sets of previous elements are connected by bilge arcs (black colour) in such a way that they intersect the line of the ‘flat’, while maintaining tangency on both its ends. For the exceptions occurring on the extreme frames, see the attached diagram.
 
Actually, so much for obtaining perfectly smooth shapes in a remarkably simple way. However, it can also be added that the best radius of the curve for the ‘flat’ in last frame #8 could also have been obtained at the very end of the design process, already after the ‘boeisel’ line had been determined and thanks to the use of this line.
 

 
 
Finding the „boeisel” line
 
This line, except perhaps in the exceptional case of frame #8 mentioned above, was actually no longer of conceptual importance, although it could be practically useful to the carpenters directly building the ship, for the correct positioning of the frame elements and for dimensional control of the moulded hull shape. In this case, it was obtained by copying upwards the line of the ‘flat’ on the side projection (by about 3 feet 4 inches). Then, the coordinates of the points of its intersection with the already formed contours of the frames were transferred to the top projection and connected by a line. As can be seen in the diagram, this line does not separate the distinct geometric entities, but intersects both the futtock sweeps and the bilge sweeps.
 

 
 
As a general conclusion, I would also add that I personally do not see anything in this plan that could justify the claim of shipbuilding by eye. On the contrary, if one reads Witsen's and van Yk's work closely, as well as other documents from the period, such as business and legal agreements, it becomes clear that the information they contain must have had its origin in plans such as this (whether paper or mental). After all, even the customary formulae did not fall from the sky or were handed down by extraterrestrial beings.
 
That’s it. Thank you for your attention,
 
Waldemar Gurgul
 

Best quote of the day!!

Cutter; 12 Guns. Object ID SLR0704. 
The description provided on the NMM web site is: "Scale: probably 1:72. A contemporary (?) plank on frame full hull model of a 12-gun cutter. The fact that the hull is planked in carvel fashion, (edge to edge planking), and that a square topsail is rigged would suggest a date of about 1820. Also the decoration on the stern indicates the name ‘Pelican’ although a cutter of this name cannot be traced either as a man-of-war or a revenue cruiser".
 
The interesting thing here (for me, at least!) is that again the belaying rack at the bow is running fore-aft by the bowsprit.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Tony

For Gilberto Penzo's book
 
Google Type gilberto penzo select gilberto penzo shop from list
SELECT
Gilberto Penzo - Venetian Boats and Ships
 
Select Go Online
 
The book is still available and the plans can be perused.
 
Bob.

For Gilberto Penzo's book
 
Google Type gilberto penzo select gilberto penzo shop from list
SELECT
Gilberto Penzo - Venetian Boats and Ships
 
Select Go Online
 
The book is still available and the plans can be perused.
 
Bob.

Hello, I found this book, you might be interested in it, greetings.
Juan Carlos Mejías
Lectures on Naval Architecture, being the Substance of those delivered at the United Service Institution.pdf

For Gilberto Penzo's book
 
Google Type gilberto penzo select gilberto penzo shop from list
SELECT
Gilberto Penzo - Venetian Boats and Ships
 
Select Go Online
 
The book is still available and the plans can be perused.
 
Bob.

Attached is a dissertation written by marine archaeologist Daniel Pasco and titled ‘Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery from 1545- 1811’. It focuses on evidence from the wrecks of the London (blew up 1665), Hazardous (wrecked 1706), Invincible (wrecked 1758), Colossus (wrecked 1798), and the St George (wrecked 1811).

It has a lot of very interesting information; far too much to summarise here, and many of the findings deserve a topic of their own. If you have an interest in naval gunnery during this period, I recommend you read it.

The dissertation made me realize the importance of archaeology in filling the gaps in the historic record and appreciate that archaeology uncovers what was actually done rather than how it should be.

It’s disappointing that there’s such a lack of funding for maritime archaeology otherwise we’d see more papers like this. What’s worse, though, is that a lot of archaeologic evidence is being lost forever.
 
Here is the dissertation (note that it's 47MB):
 
Archaeological Evidence for the Development of RN Gunnery.pdf
 
Here’s a link to Daniel Pascoe’s website, which has more interesting information.
 
https://pascoe-archaeology.com/
 

Many thanks to you Eugen for posting this.
 
Bob.

You assume a distance of the stern post overhang using an estimated overall  85' 0", or a measured 6' 9". The ratio of 6' 9" to 18' 0" is very close to 1:2.5 which is what I suspect Baker used in his construction. That angle produced by that ratio is 22 degrees. See how that fits, Waldemar.

One consistent challenge in utilizing modern methods to reimagine old drawings is the urge to ignore the technological capabilities of the time.  A modern CAD program and basic calculator bring levels of precision and accuracy unattainable to the contemporary worker.
 
Using Baker as an example, a large part of his manuscript us concerned with finding the best proportions to allow the scaling of the midship mould from one tunnage vessel to another. The math was teduous - logarithms were not available until after Wells had assumed responsibility for the manuscript around 1600ish.
 
Interpreting this drawing as somehow flawed ignores the history of the item and the intended use. It is a scale representation, but not a construction drawing. It was most likely not intended to be 100% accurate but rather illustrative of the process.
 
I think the important question is whether using the modern tools, one can create the shape by replicating the radii of the arcs as described by Baker, then if these arcs can be adjusted using the rising and narrowing lines to derive other frames fore and aft.
 
Lastly, what where the proportions used in this specific drawing to establish the radii? As I recall, in some instances they were not mathematical but geometric points, unlike the 1620 MS where tge radii were a mathematical derivation of some dimension.
 
 

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

You may find that the angle 20.5 degrees is actually a slope with a ratio of x inches in y inches (or 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.
 
 

 
 

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...
 
 

In the contemporary records it is generally Mathew with one "t"