Round house (poop) height

[allanyed]

Looking at original drawing of two ships that were to be built about 1678 following the Charles Galley, the poop looks to be very short.  It is about 12" shorter than that of other ships of the era found in Richard Endsor's books and other sources I have checked.  This includes his scaled painting of the Charles Galley which has the top of the poop at about 54".   The following shows the QD and poop lines in red.  When scaled the height of the poop bulkhead about 42-43" high.  The rounding of the top of  poop is not shown so if this is the outboard height and rounding is added, the height would still be only about 50" at the center line as the rounding of the top of the poop for this size vessel was about 8" to 9".   Has anyone seen such a short poop or have I missed something?     (Note: the red lines on the drawing did not show up well when I loaded it here so I traced over them in red so they would show better.)   

TIA

Allan

[bruce d]

Allan, is there a clue in the window height and position? In other words, does the cabin below the poop have 'normal' dimensions?

[bruce d]

Sorry, hit SUBMIT before I meant to. The proportions of the room created by the bulkhead and decks in your highlighted drawing seem more like the pens & coops for livestock.

[allanyed]

Excellent point Bruce and this could very well be the case.   Drawings by Van de Velde do not show a poop and photos of similar vessels show a mix, some with, some without.

 

The clearance from the decks to the overheads are all about 5 feet or a bit more elsewhere.

 

Thanks!!!

[bruce d]

Glad to help. To quote Old Lodge Skins, 'Sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't.'

[druxey]

It probably was not a poop deck at this time period. The 'cabin' under was a hutch for the 'trumpeter'.

[allanyed]

I did find what looks like a small poop on the St. Albans, 1687 and what looks definitely like a poop on the contemporary model of Mourdant 1671 in Endsor's Master Shipwright's Secrets, but all the others he shows are as you describe Druxey, a small hutch-like unit or with nothing at all.  Endsor does point out that the model of the Mourdant is not without mistakes.  As an example he compares the location of the forward channel wales, which is not normal on the model, and three separate drawings by Van De Velde showing them positioned as was normal at that time.  He mentions that it is highly unlikely that VdV would have made the same mistake  three times even given the caveat that VdV was not always perfect in his depictions.   

Allan