Eendracht 1666 by moha81 - scale 1:38 - reconstruction

[moha81]

Hello Gyula,

 

Great to see you back on the forum and with a very beautiful ship too.

What you have been able to do so far is just outstanding.

I'm looking forward to more progress pics.

 

Cheers, 

Hello Piet, 

 

Thanks a lot and also good to see You again. Besides the crash of the former page other things also happened: we sold our flat in the capital and moved to another town close to Budapest. It was necessary because of the bank loan on the one hand, on the other hand the main reason was the birth of our second child. Now we rent a flat which is still smaller than 50 square meters and we're going to have the 3rd baby in a week! It is a little bit crowded now, but my family completely supports my hobby, and this is more important than anything else, I think. Anyway, I do not have too much time to work on the model, so I don't need the big workshop at the moment. Apparently it seems that I can move to the garage of the house where we rent the flat, and also my combo machines is under construction. The reason why I always write these down is simple: my general experience is that people usually refer to the lack of space as a main reason of not modeling. But it is not true, as You can see. Everything's can be solved. So modeling is far more than having several complex and expensive machines.

[moha81]

I like the way you are using different timbers on the model.  Hungarian ash looks like nice timber for your model.

Hello,

 

The hungarian ash is a really nice wood for furnitures. It's a hardwood, the texture is various, depending on the cutting direction, but it is not good for carving even in full size, since the cell structure is big and not homogeneous. In case of furnitures the surface has to be sanded, polished and varnished several times. I use this wood because I want to paint the model under the waterline, but I want to use only white lazure (I don't know the english name), which lightens the wood but the texture remains completely visible.

 

Cheers,

Gyula

[sonicmcdude]

Nice start you got there! just keep the pictures coming!

[moha81]

Hello guys,

 

I need help. I've checked my resources and I cannot find informations about the dimensions of the gunports. Only 2 examples are in the book of Yk, on page 61, but I hardly find anything else, just 2-3 sentences on page 65 (Vande Spiegels Poorten), which I absolutely don't understand. It is the 5-6th time I'm trying to figure out this thing, but it's completely hopeless. What are the rules for the dimensions (height, width) of the gunports on different decks?

 

Cheers,

Gyula
 

[amateur]

Rules, hmmmm, perhaps you're asking too much here....

 

Van Ijk pg 61 is not on the dimension of the gunports, it is on the dimension of the stern. He calulates the dimension of the length of the stern, as the sum of all separate parts.

 

pg 65 is on the dimension of the ports in the transom. Problem there: he just states that the ports are square, and about as far from the stern as they are wide. No dimensions at all.

On page 92 he is making a small remark on the gunport sils, not on the dimension

What you are looking for is on page 117, but that is as unclear as the remainder of the tekst on the gunports

 

I read it as: the gunports are high one third of the distance between the decks measured at  the main mast.

The distance between the deck and the lower sill is one third, and the distance between the (lower end of the) upper sill and the deck is one third.

When the distance between the decks is more or less (goning to the aft or to the front of the ship), this only has an effect of the distance between the upper sill and the deck above, otherwise not all guns would fit at all ports.

The width of the ports is one fourth more than the height of the port (btw this differs from Witsen, stating that gunports are higher than their width) Their position in the hull should be such that there is a even distance, but all structural parts can be placed to have maximum strength, and none of the knees have to be removed in order to place the gunports.

(gunports were only made into the hull after planking the outside and installing the deck beams)

NB: Van IJk states at page 61 the distance at the Verdek, as 6ft in the first, and 6ft9 in the second example, which gives him the port dimension of 2' and 2'3" in the two caluclations.

 

The gunports on the deck above, can be one fourth smaller than those of the main gundeck. Their distance should be roughly equal to those on the main gundeck (otherwise the hull may be weakened)

There is no remark on gunports at the other decks whatsoever in the book.

 

Hope this helps

 

Jan

[amateur]

cont.

 

I checked the foto's in the Winter book of the zweidecker: they do not follow the height/width rule by Van IJk,

they are slightly wider than high, but there is certainly not a quarter difference...

Also, the drawings suggest that there is no strict 1/3-1/3-1/3 division of the distance between the decks: the port dimension is roughly 1/3 of the distance, but is placed slightly lower than Van IJk suggests.

 

The ports in the zweidecker seem to follow (more or less), the 'rule' that gunports of higher decks are 25% smaller than those of the deck below.

 

Jan

[moha81]

Rules, hmmmm, perhaps you're asking too much here....

 

Van Ijk pg 61 is not on the dimension of the gunports, it is on the dimension of the stern. He calulates the dimension of the length of the stern, as the sum of all separate parts.

 

pg 65 is on the dimension of the ports in the transom. Problem there: he just states that the ports are square, and about as far from the stern as they are wide. No dimensions at all.

On page 92 he is making a small remark on the gunport sils, not on the dimension

What you are looking for is on page 117, but that is as unclear as the remainder of the tekst on the gunports

 

I read it as: the gunports are high one third of the distance between the decks measured at  the main mast.

The distance between the deck and the lower sill is one third, and the distance between the (lower end of the) upper sill and the deck is one third.

When the distance between the decks is more or less (goning to the aft or to the front of the ship), this only has an effect of the distance between the upper sill and the deck above, otherwise not all guns would fit at all ports.

The width of the ports is one fourth more than the height of the port (btw this differs from Witsen, stating that gunports are higher than their width) Their position in the hull should be such that there is a even distance, but all structural parts can be placed to have maximum strength, and none of the knees have to be removed in order to place the gunports.

(gunports were only made into the hull after planking the outside and installing the deck beams)

NB: Van IJk states at page 61 the distance at the Verdek, as 6ft in the first, and 6ft9 in the second example, which gives him the port dimension of 2' and 2'3" in the two caluclations.

 

The gunports on the deck above, can be one fourth smaller than those of the main gundeck. Their distance should be roughly equal to those on the main gundeck (otherwise the hull may be weakened)

There is no remark on gunports at the other decks whatsoever in the book.

 

Hope this helps

 

Jan

Thanks a lot, Jan, 

 

This definitely helps. What happened is that I totally forgot the location of these in van Yk's book. Moreover, I forgot that these informations were in Yk's book! I have the dimensions and some notes about the rules in the log file on my PC, but I could not remember the source of them. Yes, I translated these part of the book earlier, having the same result, and now I know that it is . Thanks again!

 

Cheers,

Gyula 

Edited April 7, 2013 by moha81

[een-dragt]

Hello all you boat lovin people

 

I grew up on Nantucket Island and also have a love of wood and boats.  Although I am not a builder of boats,  I do build houses.  I have just taken on the job of rebuilding a 1624 V.O.C. pak house on the Singel gracht in Amsterdam.  It is called EEN-DRAGT.  I can only assume the boat built in 1615 might be related to the spice storage house  on 516 singel gracht Amsterdam.  I am trying to get a sense of what the boat may have looked like unloading pepper and cinnamon to the house.  The knowledge i have read here seems to out shine everything I have been able to find via google.  I would like very much to see a drawing or a photo of your interpretation of the boat.  Thank you for keeping the history alive

 

 

een-dragt

[amateur]

Hi Een-dragt,

 

The ships of 1615 and 1666 were admirality commisioned and owned, so they were not fit for any kind of trading at all.

VOC (Verenigde Oostindische compagie - United East India Company, in English mostly refered to as Dutch east India Company) was a group of smaller local companies working together in their east india venture.

 

Therefore, the name Eendacht/Eendragt (which translates as Unity) was very popular: VOC had around 16 ships of the same name over their history.

The name Eendracht was popular everywhere: the young Dutch republic was rapidly gaining wealth and power, and attribuited this to the unity between the provinces. Google Eendracht, and you'll und up with far more than just a couple of ships or warehouses....

 

With respect to your warehouse: the larger VOC ships doid not enter the town: they were unloaded while outside the town, and theiur cargo was shipped into town unsing smaller crafts. So, there will never ever have been a ship of the size of Eendracht (1666) in front of your warehouse. (sorry to say...)

In this 1550 map of the town, you can get the more or less familair picture of the Amsterdam 'harbour': large ships still at see (Zuiderzee, to be precise), while smaller craft is sailing into town. IN later years the seegoing ships were even larger than the vessels depicted here, so no way to get into the canals and singels of the town (btw Singel is the outermost canal in this map, still functioning as a moat, and no warehouses around by that time)

 

 

Jan

Edited July 8, 2013 by amateur

[Piet]

Hello Een-dragt,

 

We are kinda highjacking Gyula's log and I hope he doesn't mind. Some added info on the name of his ship.

Ah, Amsterdam, my favorite town to visit when I lived in the Netherlands for a few years after WW II.  Both my parents were born and raised here.  We would visit aunts, uncles and of course our grandparents.

 

Jan is absolutely correct and a little research on your part would have come up with that and a lot more. Concerning one of the ships called Eendracht William van de Velde has a nice sketch of a 1663 ship.  There is also a nice painting of an Eendracht.

One of these days I want to do an oil or watercolor painting of my own model.

 

 

 

Cheers, 

[moha81]

Hello guys,

 

Here are some new pictures. Now You can see how the planks fit into the rabbets of the sternpost and the transom. The gun ports are still incomplete. I cannot decide whether I should leave the other side just as it is or not. It would be great to show the structure too, or? Any recommendations?

 

 

[amazone]

hi Gyula   dificeld question  i struggeld whit the same ting and  disided the do no planking at al on the ship just de beams visibel.

 

i think if you do put planks on you ship  do all .  i know iht is verry hard the covver al the hard work you putting in to iht .

you can do e left side full plankt and live the odder side open but than you have the build the whol ship like iht sepose the bee like i building the Utrecht now

the sternpost locks verry good

Edited September 26, 2013 by amazone

[rwiederrich]

Love the wood......sweet

 

Rob

[Hubac's Historian]

This is an intriguing project, and ai look forward to your progress when you have time for the model.