rybakov

The 1740-1790 period was very interesting because this is when certain “modern” scientific principles took hold. Once again, the period texts give no rule, regulation, instruction, for a consistent, determinable, placement of the “load waterline”.  Once again, I believe this is a significant omission. The period extends from Pierre Morineau to Vial du Clairbois and includes Spain’s Romero Landa. Interestingly, at various times during the period, Spain was leading-edge in certain aspects of Naval Architecture and ship design.
 
Morineau followed the earlier paradigm and often put the load line coincident with height of breadth for his corvettes. In fregate and vaisseau designs, the ligne en charge was set at his “height of sill” definitions and the height of breadth fell where it may. Actually, it was the other way around, but “chicken or egg”. Ligne en charge “shall be no lower than a twelfth part (pouce par pied) of breadth below ligne du fort”. So again, LwL was subjective and depended on designer’s choice of section curvature. But LwL was not determinative.
 
The Spanish system, as late as 1790 (and maybe longer), was to use well known principles for buoyancy to do their designs. They launched the ship and made careful records of her “lightship” draught, fore and aft. They loaded her out (with moveable ballast) and made iterative sea trials to determine her best sailing trim. They made careful recordings of draft fore and aft under “best” conditions, and poof, a Load-Waterline.
 
Romero Landa, Reglamento de Maderas Necesarias para la Fábrica de los Baxeles del Rey,
Madrid, 1784 [Prof. Francisco Fernández-González, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Navales, Madrid]
 
Even today, Lwl is a dynamic quantity. Every racing sailor knows that some boats like to go “butt-up” and some like “butt down”, and it all depends on aspect to the breeze. I would only ever give something a design “lightship” float mark for any of my designs, because the practical reality is so completely different.
 
John

The messenger still moves backwards and changes direction on those solid stanchions ...     ... towards the capstan ...       ... and the strain of the pulling already worked the messenger up the drum.   Behind the capstan 3 gents are pulling the rope clear ...       ... in that area I placed two more stanchions as they are out of the way and on the rest of the track ...     ... some other gents make sure that the messenger is moving swiftly forwards again.    
Cheers, Daniel

I read that the French intellectual investigations into ship design didn't actually make it into the ships themselves and remained a mostly theoretical endeavor.  The British had the same experience and shortly cancelled the academics.

I have been following this thread with interest and enjoying the level of knowledge of old shipwrightry far superior to mine.
Nevertheless I would like to put up for consideration my thougts on the matter.
 
First, I think the load waterline marked on the plan marks the desirable immersion of the ship.
To have the ship float at that immersion (draft) is not overly complicated, although the actions taken to attain it would have 
some effect on the ship's qualities.
If upon launching the draft is noted and then after loading a few tons of ballast the new draft is read we have TPI (tons per inch
immersion).
Knowing the distance to the load waterline we know how many tons we may load.
(of course the TPI increases as the draft increases, but we may consider it as an allowance for the timbers soaking up water.) 
The weights of masts riggin and so on are known, crew weight is approximately known so we are left with provisions and ballast
to play around to get the ship to the load waterline.
If we put on board water and food for 60 days instead of 80, or 100 rounds per gun instead of 120 for example, or reduce some ballast, we eventually
will get it floating at the desired draft.
Of course it will have quite different nautical properties than if things were spot on - less ballast to move around to trim properly, less sail carrying capacity in a breeze, if we err in the other direction and have to add ballast we will have a stiffer ship wich, at the limit, could endanger the masts.
 
Well, this is how I think they would go about getting the ship to the load waterline, and it really doesn't need much mathematics.
I try to keep in mind they were practical people.
 
 
Al the best
 
Zeh

I have it too   .....edition in spanish.....  love it and refer to it quite often.
very worthwhile specially the section on the early 20th century steel hulled sailing ships.
Very detailed drawings.
 
 
All the best 
zeh

I have it too   .....edition in spanish.....  love it and refer to it quite often.
very worthwhile specially the section on the early 20th century steel hulled sailing ships.
Very detailed drawings.
 
 
All the best 
zeh

I have it too   .....edition in spanish.....  love it and refer to it quite often.
very worthwhile specially the section on the early 20th century steel hulled sailing ships.
Very detailed drawings.
 
 
All the best 
zeh

So then I took out the canvas for some artistry, just to please Jan ;-)
 

 
Those officer´s cods kept me busy for almost 2 months ...
 
... first busy at work and then lot of wrong trials. First tried to pimp the cardboard pieces I used to determine the size of the cabins. Looked crap ...
 
Then thinner cardboard - looked crap too ...
 
Then i forgot how I did the canvas for the bulkheads - lot of crappy trials with crappy results ...
 
Then the canvas alone - too sloppy ...
 
Then inserted the bottom frame but the sides - too sloppy ... 
 
Only when I introduced the top lathes like in the original, then it works - result, keep as close to the original as possible :-)
 
 
 
And then the same game with the hangers. First tricked myself by trying to trick ...
 
Then the next try with the rope looped through with the wrong result of the rope coming out just one side.
 

 
Looked again at the original and knotted the 6 ropes each of them single.
 

 
Looked already better but the top knot looked too messy still. So used a comb to organise the ropes ...
 

 
... and it already looked better :-)
 

 
Fitted together ...
 

 
... put the laundry ...
 

 
... and dry fitted.
 

 
Cheers, Daniel

Indeed, pigment was a varied beast - some powdered, some already in oil. Look at the ship's stores orders and you can get a feel for the relative colors applied. I believe it was the Goodwin article which pointed out that almost no red is shown being recieved, implication that it is over represented on models today. The ship's carpenter and his mates then mixed it to whatever ratio (2 parts A to 3 parts B or whatever). All by estimate, mind you, not precision scales or containers.
 
It was a very well designed process to obtain cores for paint analysis - intent was to get into some "original" wood via multiple samples. The twchnical committee which oversees these things (NOT the Royal Navy, by the way - they are tenants on the Victory) is very much aware of the importance of scientific rigour and historic accuracy. Among other changes, I suspect you shall see a great reduction in the amount of varnished wood in favor of "white wash" - see Goodwin for some analysis.

Just to start this entry I would like to express that I appreciate very much the new results of the research, as every new input is always welcome. Of course, this "Hello-Kitty-meets-Happy-Pony"-version is quite outrageous for plenty model makers - but why? Simply because many of us are quite stubborn and fat headed and do not like changes, especially on iconic things like this. And that includes me too ;-)
 
Those were the correct colors in about 2003, samples I was given during the modelers tour on the ship ...
 

 
... I even do not remember what the green was used for :-)
 
The thing changing most is the ochre. So have a closer look.
 

 
But it is not that outrageous if looked closer. Jan Marten in our german forum posted the picture showing 50 shades of ochre ;-)
 

 
If you take the medium reddish tone and mix in more white than it was used before, you will get the "new" color, as suggested by the latest research.
I think the red one on the "summit" would create an even more exalted reddish tone.
 
But now some very personal thoughts about the latest research and why I am not rushing into repainting my model.
 
First of all: We are talking about a time of Pre-RAL, Pre-Pantone and Pre-other-Color-Charts.
My personal belief is, that the ships usually looked much more like patchwork color wise.
 
Just some reasons for my thoughts:
The ochre paint came as a barrel, how much did the paint match the other barrels of the delivery, not speaking of other charges from different provenances? If you look at the picture of the ochre, you really have 50 shades in there if not even more! What shade was meant to be painted, if yellow or red ochre was meant to be used?
 
Second the paint was mixed by hand by adding white - how much was in the eye of the master painter. Did he have the experience to match the existing paint, as wet paint looks different than the dry one? Also what were the differences if some pigments were stuck on the bottom of the barrel?
 
It is great that the research used old paint samples to determinate the original color, but where was it taken from? What is known, when it was exactly painted? As most of the outer hull was exchanged already multiple times, where was exact spot of the sample, was it outboards or inboards, was it the original 1803 main paint - with all its variations, when possibly every barrel was mixed by hand - or was it some 1804 repairs or late 1805 post Trafalgar patches? How close was the research to determine the exact timing?
 
Also how much were the studies taking care the possible changing of the color by time, saltwater, sun and interaction with newer paints?
 
On the Vic in P. there is a interesting exhibit in the middle deck: it is said to be part ot the original foremast. If the color would be also original, it shows itself today as a nice Nato-drab ;-)
 

 
Also if one looks at the contemporary paintings - as seen in the entries before - the english ships show commonly a more warm yellow ochre, while the french and spanish show all different shades from yellow ochre to pink and even red. But of course, this could be only an artists convention to pinpoint the english ships. However also Turner used the more yellowish tone, and I know his deficiencies in perspective and technical details, but he was master in the use of colors and he saw the ship in real life after returning from Trafalgar.
 

 
Too there are the carpenter expenses to have a closer look at. Goodwin had an interesting article in the Mariner`s Mirror about it, just to round up the discussion (thanks to Achilles for pointing it out in our german forum):
http://seaphoenix.com/index.php/publicat...-victory-yellow
 
So I will leave you in the mess of your thoughts, to me it still is worth some nice discussions and that is the really interesting bit, as I like the idea to stir up the model makers minds and keep them flexible :-)
 
And if I say patchwork for the paint job, I really mean it, not as neat as usually shown, just another hint - would ever somebody have dared to build the real existing planking scheme of the Vasa on his model without having seen the original ? ;-)
 
So do not be upset about the new color, do see it as an opportunity to discuss this issue even further, who knows what even later "latest research" will show!
 
As a resumee:
I am skeptical in how far this examined color samples are applicable for the whole of the hull including trucks.
So find your own answers or tastes :-)
 
Cheers, DAniel

Well Dafi, thanks for the link, a good book.
 
My German is nonexistent, but I got the impression that it would be a sort of clamp to be put over the
gun axle and nailed to the deck to secure the guns,  I'm I right???
 
On a non related matter: why would a german book have so many portuguese fishing and river boats???
 
 
Cheers
Zeh

No, it is a temporary replacement of a wheel. (To be nailed over the gun ale, in case the wheel iis damaged through enemy fire)
 
Your. 1:100 version has no way to nail it as shown in the book the only thing I wonder: assume a wheel is shot away during battle, how on earth do you nail such a thing under a gun truck, while a heated 3tons heavy gun is on that truck, and enemy fire is all around?
 
And the bok is very nice (its a pity that google does not scan the fold-out pages properly...) reading those books you can not but conclude that re-using pictures of other people was very common in earlier days. Quite a lit of pictures from this book are very familiar fromother books....
 
Jan

Well Dafi, thanks for the link, a good book.
 
My German is nonexistent, but I got the impression that it would be a sort of clamp to be put over the
gun axle and nailed to the deck to secure the guns,  I'm I right???
 
On a non related matter: why would a german book have so many portuguese fishing and river boats???
 
 
Cheers
Zeh

Found something....Encyclopedia Britannica, a Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, 1902, has this entry..vol. 21 pg. 602 in a very long entry on Seamanship, subsection rudders
 
Before a rudder is taken off to be hung, two long guys are rove through holes for the purpose at the fore part of the heel, one end of each being hitched to the band of the rudder chains, while the other is in readiness to hand into the ship well forward and low down. On the rudder head being suspended by the luff tackles a little higher than its position when shipped, the guys will haul haul it to the exact line with the stern post; it is then lowered onto the gudgeons, the guys unrove by means of the short ends, and the woodlock replaced.
 
So, we have an answer.  The holes are for lines being passed through to ship the rudder.

Thank you Sirs, very appreciated!
 
  And just to round off the topic a small overview :-)         Just compare the side with the crews handling the guns with the fire lee.        If the pictures are merged, one gets a nice impression of the crowded decks while battle.     Also nice is the view more from deck height :-)         XXXDAn

Hello Jan,
 
yes they were usually strictly separated :-)
 
But the battle was different. As long as the Marines were not needed on deck, they were used as auxiliaries to handle the guns. There are some contemporary pictures and drawings showing it, also the Trafalgar Companion shows up to two marines per gun.
 
The pictures show the full gun compliment of over a thirteen per two guns. But half the gun crew was assigned for second duties and had to leave if necessairy. Standard duties were cases of fire, water/leak/pumps, handling of sails and repel boarders or boarding the enemy.
 
So in the height of the battle it could happen that some 6 men had to deal with two big guns. This is not even counting the casualties. So fire rate could drop dramatically at this stage.
 
Cheers, Daniel

EXERCISE of the great guns.
 
1st. Silence.
2d. Cast loose your guns.
3d. Level your guns.
4th.Take out your tompions.
5th. Run out your guns.
6th. Prime.
7th. Point your guns.
8th. Fire.
 
" The man who takes care of the powder is to place himself on the opposite side of the deck from that where we engage, except when fighting both sides at once, when he is to be amid-ships. He is not to suffer any other man to take a cartridge from him, but he who is appointed to serve the gun with that article, either in time of a real engagement, or at exercise.
" Lanthorns are not to be brought to quarters in the night, until the midshipman gives his orders for so doing to the person he charges with that article. Every thing being in it's place, and not the least lumber in the way of the guns, the exercise begins with,
 
1st. Silence.
At this word every one is to observe a silent attention to the officers.
 
2d. Cast loose your guns.
" The muzzle lashing is to be taken off from the guns, and (being coiled up in a small compass) is to be made fast to the eye-bolt above the port. The lashing-tackles at the same time to be cast loose, and the middle of the breeching seized to the thimble of the pomillion. The spunge to be taken down, and, with the crow, handspec, &c. laid upon the deck by the gun.
"N.B. When prepared for engaging an enemy, the seizing within the clinch of the breeching is to be cut, that the gun may come sufficiently within-board for loading, and that the force of the recoil may be more spent before it acts upon the breeching.
 
3d. Level your guns.
" The breech of your metal is to be raised so as to admit the foot of the bed's being placed upon the axle-tree of the carriage, with the quoin upon the bed, both their ends being even one with the other.
" N. B. When levelled for firing, the bed is to be lashed to the bolt which supports the inner end of it, that it may not be thrown out of it's place by the violence of the gun's motion, when hot with frequent discharges. See fig. 17, plate VII.
 
4th. Take out your tompions.
"The tompion is to be taken out of the gun's mouth, and left hanging by it's laniard.
 
5th. Run out your guns.
" With the tackles hooked to the upper-bolts of the carriage, the gun is to be bowsed out as close as possible, without the assistance of crows or handspecs; taking care at the same time to keep the breeching clear of the trucks, by hawling it through the rings; it is then to be bent so as to run clear when the gun is fired. When the gun is out, the tackle-falls are to be laid along-side the carriages in neat fakes, that when the gun, by recoiling, overhauls them, they may not be subject to get foul, as they would if in a common coil.
 
6th. Prime.
"If the cartridge is to be pierced with the priming wire, and the vent filled with powder, the pan also is to be filled; and the flat space, having a score through it at the end of the pan, is to be covered, and this part of the priming is to be bruised with the round part of the horn. The apron is to be laid over, and the horn hung up out of danger from the flash of the priming.
 
7th. Point your guns.
At this command the gun is, in the first place, to be elevated to the heighth of the object, by means of the side-sights; and then the person pointing is to direct his fire by the upper-sight, having a crow on one side and a handspec on the other, to heave the gun by his direction till he catches the object.
" N. B. The men who heave the gun for pointing are to stand between the ship's side and their crows or handspecs, to escape the injury they might otherwise receive from their being struck against them, or splintered by a shot; and the man who attends the captain with a match is to bring it at the word, " Point your guns," and kneeling upon one knee opposite the train-truck of the carriage, and at such a distance as to be able to touch the priming, is to turn his head from the gun, and keep blowing gently upon the lighted match to keep it clear from ashes. And as the missing of an enemy in action, by neglect or want of coolness, is most inexcusable, it is particularly recommended to have the people thoroughly instructed in pointing well, and taught to know the ill consequences of not taking proper means to hit their mark; wherefore they should be made to elevate their guns to the utmost nicety, and then to point with the same exactness and having caught the object through the upper-sight, at the word,
 
8th. Fire.
" The match is instantly to be put to the bruised part of the priming; and when the gun is discharged the vent is to be closed, in order to smother any spark of fire that may remain in the chamber of the gun; and the man who spunges is immediately to place himself by the muzzle of the gun in readiness, when, at the next word,
 
9th. Spunge your gun.
"The spunge is to be rammed down to the bottom of the chamber, and then twisted round, to extinguish effectually any remains of fire; and when drawn out, to be struck against the out-side of the muzzle, to shake off any sparks or scraps of the cartridge that may have come out with it; and next it's end is to be shifted ready for loading; and while this is doing, the man appointed to provide a cartridge is to go to the box, and by the time the spunge is out of the gun, he is to have it ready; and at the word,
 
10th. Load with cartridge.
The cartridge (with the bottom end first, seam-downwards, and a wad after it) is to be put into the gun, and thrust a little way within the mouth, when the rammer is to be entered; the cartridge is then to be forcibly rammed down, and the captain at the same time is to keep his priming-wire in the vent, and, feeling the cartridge, is to give the word home, when the rammer is to be drawn, and not before. While this is doing, the man appointed to provide a shot is to provide one (or two, according to the order at that time) ready at the muzzle, with a wad like-wise, and when the rammer is drawn, at the word,
 
11th. Shot your guns.
"The shot and wad upon it are to be put into the gun, and thrust a little way down, when the rammer is to be entered as before. The shot and wad are to be rammed down to the cartridge, and there have a couple of forcible strokes, when the rammer is to be drawn, and laid out of the way of the guns and tackles, if the exercise or action is continued; but if it is over, the spunge is to be secured in the place it is at all times kept in.
 
13th. Put in your tompions.
"The tompions to be put into the muzzle of the cannon.
 
14th. House your guns.
"The seizing is to be put on again upon the clinched end of the breeching, leaving it no slacker than to admit of the guns being housed with ease. The quoin is to be taken from under the breech of the gun, and the bed, still resting upon the bolt, within the carriage, thrust under, till the foot of it falls off the axle-tree, leaving it to rest upon the end which projects out from the foot. The metal is to be set down upon this. The gun is to be placed exactly square, and the muzzle is to be close to the wood, in it's proper place for passing the muzzle lashings. See CANNON, and fig. 19, plate VII.
 
14th. Secure your guns.
"The muzzle lashings must first be made secure, and then with one tackle (having all it's parts equally taught with the breeching) the gun is to be lashed. The other tackle is to be bowsed taught, and by itself made fast, that it may be ready to cast off for lashing a second breeching.
"N.B. Care must be taken to hook the first tackle to the upper bolt of the carriage, that it may not otherwise obstruct the reeving of the second breeching, and to give the greater length to the end part of the fall.
No pains must be spared in bowsing the lashing very taught, that the gun may have the least play that is possible, as their being loose may be productive of very dangerous consequences.
 
 
EXERCISE to EYES of a ship
 
"The quoin, crow, and handspec, are to be put under the gun, the powder-horn hung up in it's place, &c.
"Being engaged at any time when there is a large swell, a rough sea, or in squally weather, &c. as the ship may be liable to be suddenly much heeled, the port-tackle fall is ro be kept clear, and (whenever the working of the gun will admit of it) the man charged with that office is to keep it in his hand; at the same time the muzzle lashing is to be kept fast to the ring of the port, and being hauled taught, is to be fastened to the eye-bolt over the port-hole, so as to be out of the gun's way in firing, in order to haul it in at any time of danger.
"This precaution is not to be omitted, when engaging to the windward, any more than when to the leeward, those situations being very subject to alter at too short a warning.
"A train-tackle is always to be made use of with the lee-guns, and the man stationed to attend it is to be very careful in preventing the gun's running out at an improper time."
EXERCISE may also be applied with propriety to the forming our fleets into orders of sailing, lines of battle, &c. an art which the French have termed evolutions, or tactiques. In this sense exercise may be defined, the execution of the movements which the different orders and dispositions of fleets occasionally require, and which the several ships are directed to perform by means of signals.
 
It is interesting that about 1800 there was no official standardised instruction for the gun handling, this was just to be introduced years later. This usual sequence was described by Falconer.
 
To get a feeling what happens in this moments, I made a small display, which shows three different stages.
 

 
On the left the gun is aiming, the middle one loading and the right one just prior the shot before the tackles are put in flakes onto the deck.
 
7th. Point your guns.
Here we see the adjustment of the height of the gun by the handspikes. Here we can easily see the sense of the steps on the side of the carriage, it serves the handspikes as a stable support. The gun captain is giving the instructions, while the second gun captain with the blue head is ready to reposition the coin. Falconer mentions that first the height is adjusted, then the direction. The other men are busy to keep the gun steady.
 

 
8th. Fire.
Here the moment before the shot. The crew are still steadying the gun with on the tackles, these tackles are to be laid in flakes onto the deck prior the shot and then the men to retreat to a more safe area amidships. Nice detail to be seen on the Master and Commander Bonus DVD: The two men with the handspikes on the hull at both sides of the gun, ready to jump and to jam the wheels after the shot for the gun not to run back out immediately after the recoil, as the tackles are not manned jet again. 
 

 
9th. Spunge your gun.
Here the loader is sponging the barrel. One nicely to be seen the exposed position and how far the sponge points outwards. Left is the cartride ready, right the wad. Also left the shot and right the second wad. The gun captain is closing the vent with his thump as described by Falconer.
 

 
See also the tools right on the deck, the sponge, rammer, worm and the pot with water for the sponge.
 
XXXDAn

wq3296 wrote:
Properly designed fireplaces and stoves incorporate exhaust gas velocity enhancement features.
 
And if your stovepipe or chimney flue is the wrong size for the fire box you'll have a quick lesson in venturi effects.

Questioning is good, Jay - how else do we learn? 
 
Apparently the next big improvement came about in 1810, when the monopoly was toppled with the Lamb and Nicholson stove. This stove came with a much improved still that was capable of producing at least four gallons of fresh water a day. In addition, the new Lamb and Nicholson stove was advertised to use less fuel and the stove was constructed with three boilers.
 
I will, when time allows, see what I can find about that stove as well.

This cold weather has kept me inside so lots of small projects being done. The Rabelo is progressing nicely and the following show where it is at now.
 
The next task was to fit the bottom braces and side frames.

 
You will notice that the frames extend above the previous planking. This is because they have both internal and external beams attatched to them and then some side trim. The following three photos are of the beams and trim being attached. Don't you just love those little pegs. Very hand for a model that is only 230mm long.
 

 

 

 
Now it is time to install the front and rear decking and the central walkway.
 

 
There is a framework that holds the port barrels. The first pieces are the supports that run along the inside of the hull above the previously installed beams.
 

 
At this point, I thought it would be best to start painting the inside before fitting the barrel framework. Some of the Rabelos have intricate paint jobs and I will be attempting to copy the paint work on an original Ferreira Port House Barco Rabelo.
 

 

 
As the paint dries, I am off to continue work on my next Diddley Bow.
 

And now something different - the difference ...
 

 
... the small irregularities in the bow do not bother me to much. From there do come the remains from the first picture, I replaced them by bigger plates.
 

 
Still refined the corners ...
 

 
... and fixed missing nails.
 

 
The false keel, first try with flattened 0,3 mm copper wire ...
 

 
... but this proved to complicated to assmble.
 

 
Then better simple copper foil :-)
 

 

 

 
Then still enjoyed some unusual views ...
 

 
... and brought back my small one into her normal position ...
 

 
... and had a deep breath as no bigger casualties had happened.
 
Only the school table looks like was not glued ;-)
 

 
XXXDAn

Continuation.
 
 
 
Complex, not glued.
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
The beginning of the relation is available at this address:
 
 
http://5500.forumact...ndre-1-24#66516
 
 
 
Regards, Paul

Those little Pi's don't look like much but they have a lot of processing power for their size.  I'm seeing more and more hobby projects using them and it's not computer projects, per se.   One project I'm familiar with is using one to control a plane to be launched into the lower reaches of space via balloon and then a rocket motor.  The Pi will provide full avionics control including data comms back to earth.  For a ship, the possibilities are endless.

Background History.
 
The Barco Rabelo (Rabelo boat) is a flat bottom boat first built in the 9th century to navigate the rapids of the Douro River in Portugal, carrying up to 100 barrels of port from the Port Houses to the coast as the river was then the only means of accessing the wineries. It had a crew of 12 men and was noted for its long steering oar which was managed from a raised platform above the port barrels.
 
In 1887, a railway line was built along the banks of the Duoro and this started the demise of the Rabelo. Eventually roads were also built and the last official trip of a Rabelo is thought to have taken place in 1964.
 
To celebrate the history of the Rabelo, a race is held annually on St John's day (24th June) where each Port House enters its own Rabelo.
 
My build.
 
Thanks to Ryan Opaz from Vrazon, I was fortunate to obtain a copy of plans drawn up for a Rabelo in May 1989 for the A.A.Ferreira, S.A. Port House in Vila Nova de Gaia. The plans were held in the Sogrape Vinhos S.A. archives and I am very grateful to them for providing me with the plans. These are the only official plans of a Rabelo that I have been able to find and they do differ in some areas as to how a Rabelo was originally built.

I think a big concern should be consistency of detail rather than level of detail. If you are depicting the hinges on the gunport lids on one part of the model, something eight inches wide on the actual ship, you are now obliged to represent every other object on the ship that is eight inches or greater. In other words don't depict those gunport hinges if you don't intend to include the ironwork on the pumps. My trouble in my own models is in trying to adhere to the level of detail I decide to aim for when I begin the project, I always find myself adding detail later in the project that winds up being at a higher fidelity than details I had built earlier. In some cases this forces me to go back and tear out earlier parts of the build in order to match the new standard as I had raised the bar during the process.
Following this urge to depict great and greater detail leads inevitably to frustration, you will never be able to include every detail. Nor will 99% of us ever be able to achieve levels of detail as small or as precise as can be found on some superlative models built by craftsmen who's talents and abilities outstrip our own.
Also here is a conjectural rule of thumb I just invented: If it takes 100 hours to build something which includes all details which on the real ship would be 12" wide, multiply those 100 hours by 1.5 if one now wishes to depict all 6" wide components. If one wishes to include all components that are 3" wide, double the time you must allot for the project. I picked those numbers out of the air and they may be debated, but the point I am making is the time added to the overall project grows exponentially as you increase the detail. If one persists in more and more infinitesimal detail, the amount of time expands past any reasonable amount.
An argument for less detail is that most models will be viewed from across the room most often. Those hinges on the gunport lids will not be visible if the model is high up on a shelf. An educated eye scanning the model from up close will look to see if such hinges are included, but only one half of one percent of the people viewing the model will have that educated eye. But YOU are one of those one half of one percent and YOU have to decide if you can live without the hinges. The words " I could have included the gunport hinges but it would have taken too much time" are never going to taste good in your mouth.