Bob Legge

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"
 

Good Morning Waldemar;
 
You may find the following description of the construction of a mid-ship mould, by Matthew Baker, to be of use. This is from a contemporary document in the British Library, which I transcribed several years ago.
 
All the best,
 
Mark P
 
 
Matthew Baker How to draw Mid section MSW.pdf
 

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 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.
 
 

As far as I know, this hasn't been posted on MSW before, apologies if it has.
 
It covers a lot of ground. Here is the description given by the Wellcome Collection:
 
The seaman's vade-mecum and defensive war by sea: containing a maritime dictionary; the proportions of rigging, masts and yards; Weight of Anchors; Sizes and Weight of Cables and Cordage; List of the Navy. The Words of Command in exercising the small Arms, Bayonet, Granadoes, and great Guns, Duty of Officers, &c. Also shewing how to prepare a merchant-ship for a close fight, through the Bulk-Heads, Coamings, Loop-Holes, &c. with the Advantages to be taking in Chacing, considered, under all Positions in respect to Wind and Tide. Defensive Fighting; Shewing how Merchant - Ships are to act, in Fleets, when Canonaded or Boarded by the Enemy. Naval Fortification; The Advantages of Mooring considered, in respect to Wind and Tide; and how to lay Booms in Rivers, and raise Redoubts to defend them. An Essay on Naval Book - Keeping; Or a regular Method for the Purser, Clerk, Steward, and other Officers to keep an Account of Stores, &c. The Method of forming Signals for sailing in Company, under a Commodore in Time of War; with many other Particulars relating to the Navy, East-India, and Merchant Service. By William Mountaine, Mathematical Examiner to the Honourable Corporation of Trinity-House of Deptlord-Strond, and F.R.S. With additions by John Adams, Teacher of the Mathematics.
 
The_Seaman_s_Vade_mecum_and_Defensive_Wa.pdf

There is a plan in the NMM.
 
Belle Poule fl.1780 (French, captured) ZAZ3117 J6627
 
An image can be seen here:
https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/82908.html

Sister Ships DÉDAIGNEUSE 1776, AMPHITRITE 1768, TOURTERELLE 1770


 
Also:
Catalogue des Plans - Les Archives de la Marine


 
2030 Page 176 Frégate << La Belle Poule >>. << Construite à Bordeaux en 17.. par M GUIGNACE. L'Enphitrite & La Tourterelle ont pareillement été faites à Baux par le même ingénier .. Non signé ni daté [vers 1764].

Tracé des formes de la coque : pl. vertical. Encre noire. Dim. 0.53 x 0.40.

2G4.3, no 65


Regards,
 
Bob.
 

Challenge well mastered !

Daniel,
 
I miss your updates and hope you are doing fine and staying healthy.
 
Yves

https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2021/03/2700-year-old-phoenician-shipwreck-to.html?fbclid=IwAR0pj1HhLWQTGfJ3X8QnFmbG0teMmdZzVmnyt1p7wdUJChEW3ti7yIka9_8

A hint on serving:
 
"Worm and parcel with the lay,
Turn and serve the other way."
 
From Longridge page 209 - SERVING AND WORMING.
 
Bob.