„Święty Jerzy” („Sankt Georg”) 1627 – reconstructing an opponent of „Vasa”

[Waldemar]

 

 

Nolens volens, the überlauf (overloop) had to be done now. In the Dutch fashion, as many other parts of the structure.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Mast steps made (only the mizzen mast step is shown). Now trimming all the pieces to their final shape (mortises, rabbets) and preparing the 2D drawings of the hull. Good luck Waldemar!

 

 

 

[Kranck]

This is beautiful.

i m currently building le cerf After modeling the Hull with fusion 360 and cutting 3 D frames with a CNC router, but I m nowhere near this level of accuracy !

I ve decided to learn fairing hulls and developping planking with rhino but resources are scarce...

A few very interesting topics on this forum but this kind of things requires a good deal of effort to learn properly.

Where or how did you learn how to do this kind of work ?

Best regards,

Nicolas 

[Waldemar]

 

Thank you very much for your comment Nicolas. Yet, somewhat ironically, I really only use a tiny fraction of Rhino's capabilities, still getting the shapes I want with the perfect fit. Believe me or not, but only a few basic functions and commands are constantly used in this project and, very occasionally, the more advanced ones if in trouble or need. So I think you can handle it perfectly as well, although to be honest I don't know the specifics and capabilities of Fusion 360.

 

I think the secret lies not so much in a thorough knowledge of the software, but in the right philosophy of constructing a 3D model, especially of this kind. Generally, first I define the master surfaces of the hull, decks, stern "flat", beakhead, bulkheads, etc. True, some are simpler and others more complex to define, but well worth of effort, as these master surfaces are later an indispensable basis for creating the actual parts of the ship by offsetting them (not just moving!) and then cutting to shape. Almost nothing else but offsetting, cutting and other Boolean operations.

 

Well, I know, easy said, but despite of thousands of interrelated parts already generated I am still able to control this beast... 🙂

 

Best regards

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Waldemar

[mtaylor]

6 hours ago, Kranck said:

This is beautiful.

i m currently building le cerf After modeling the Hull with fusion 360 and cutting 3 D frames with a CNC router, but I m nowhere near this level of accuracy !

I ve decided to learn fairing hulls and developping planking with rhino but resources are scarce...

A few very interesting topics on this forum but this kind of things requires a good deal of effort to learn properly.

Where or how did you learn how to do this kind of work ?

Best regards,

Nicolas 

There's at least one article (might be more) in the datanbase on "how to"......    https://thenrg.org/resource/articles

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Waldemar,

Thanks for presenting your very interesting project.

Would you care to share the main dimensions of the ship? Like length, width, depth and distance between decks? And it would be nice to know for me where the ship was built and by whom. Was it built by a Polish shipwright or was a foreigner hired to do the job? And, last but not least, which museum are you working for?

Thanks on forehand,

Jules

[Waldemar]

 

Hello Jules,

 

Thanks for asking. This reconstruction is made on the order of Muzeum Gdańska (Danzig Museum) and in practice I was given a free hand in historical research regarding the ship's characteristics and construction. My concept was seemingly accepted and now the intention is to build a model of wood to the scale of 1:15 (hull alone of about 2,6 m).

 

Most probably the ship was built by shipwrights from Gdańsk (Danzig) and Kołobrzeg (Kolberg) and entered service in 1627. Shipwrights from Gdańsk were German speaking Polish citizens, as was most of the ships' complement, command and fleet administration.

 

The ship's main dimensions were taken directly from the other ship in the fleet of similar complement and armament – the „King David” (König David). The inventory for this ship reads:

 

Das Schiff ist von 200 Lasten, 120 Fuss lang, 26 Fuss breit, 14 Fuss tief ins Raum, 6½ Schuh hoch zwischen dem Uberlauff undt der Koybrucken (length – 120 feet, beam – 26 feet, depth in hold 14 feet, distance between decks – 6½ feet).

 

These proportions, while quite extreme for a man of war (especially length/breadth ratio), may be also found in other ships of Dutch origin or later French light frigates. The „Vasa” herself would have the same proportions if not slightly broadened during actual construction, upon a change in plans for heavier artillery, also requiring in turn stronger and heavier upperworks.

 

The crew and armament for this ship are known and these were already given in this log. As a reminder – 50 sailors as a permanent crew and 100 infantry temporarily embarked for an expected battle.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Now that all parts are already trimmed (i.e. cut to the nearest boundary), the so-called "Pen" display mode in Rhino may be used to its full potential. All polysurfaces of the 3D model are closed, no exceptions here. This „Pen” mode would also serve for producing any desired number of perspective or 2D projections.

In the process, the weather deck (koebrug) structure has been completely rearranged by replacing all carlings, ledges and deck planks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Complex and amazing!

[Gaetan Bordeleau]

On 8/15/2022 at 12:34 PM, Waldemar said:

I think the secret lies not so much in a thorough knowledge of the software, but in the right philosophy of constructing a 3D model, especially of this kind. Generally, first I define the master surfaces of the hull, decks, stern "flat", beakhead, bulkheads, etc. True, some are simpler and others more complex to define, but well worth of effort, as these master surfaces are later an indispensable basis for creating the actual parts of the ship by offsetting them (not just moving!) and then cutting to shape. Almost nothing else but offsetting, cutting and other Boolean operations.

In addition, you have an artistic eye to show your drawing at angles which are simply incredible!

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Waldemar,

Thank you very much for your elaborate reply.

Before I ask you the following question I would like to emphasize that I am vaguely familiar with Dutch shipbuilding and know absolutely nothing about Polish shipbuilding; I am only here to learn, not to criticize.

In your reply you state that the proportions of your Sankt Georg are quite extreme for a warship, and I think I have to agree. The 'normal' Dutch proportions, the only ones I know, are: width is a quarter of the length (ratio 4), depth is one tenth of the length.

The most extreme example I could find for this period was a contract for a Dutch warship of 1626 which was 100 foot long and had a width of 22 feet. And this of course results in a ratio of 4,55; very close to your 4,62. But this Dutch ship had a depth of only 9 feet, and, what's more important, this ship had a flat bottom. In the contract it was given as 14 foot wide, and it had a width of 20 feet at a depth of 4 feet. As far as I can tell I do not see any of that in your Sankt Georg.

Would you care to explain how you decided on the shape of the main frame of your Sankt Georg? I can imagine you made a calculation of the displacement of your ship, which is given as '200 last', and came to the conclusion that this had to be it. But for me, as a Dutchman, it looks as if there is not enough volume below the waterline.

Kind regards,

Jules

 

[Waldemar]

 

Jules, first and foremost in „lasts” cargo capacity was determined, and not the ship's displacement as you have stated. This is understandable, bearing in mind that usually ships' users were just interested in cargo capacity, while displacement was a useless value for them. Nevertheless, if you know of even one reverse case, please let me know.

 

Let me also please explain the basics. Imagine a board floating horizontally in the water. This is the ship in your example. Even with little or no ballast, it is very stable, which is good for an artillery platform and bad for its sailing qualities, making the ship leewardly (unless very long) and liable to lose masts easily. The „Sankt Georg” is the opposite. For simplicity's sake, you can associate it with the same board, but held vertically by ballast. The ship is then softer, which is an advantage for masts durability and its crew well-being. Weatherliness gets better too. The ship's behaviour may be optimized by adding or taking off some ballast. The price to pay is to have more depth in hold and sailing in deeper waters only. And with deeper hulls you gain ballast capacity, still keeping the battery well out of the water level.

 

If you really wish to know how the ship's hulls were shaped, you would better consult the historical sources, as I am now very busy preparing the working draughts for the model. For the first half of the 17th century I would recommend the following, which I consider of the most practical value:

 

– Fernando Oliveira, Livro da fabrica das naos, ca. 1570–1580
– English so-called „Newton” manuscript of ca. 1600
– Manuel Fernandes, Livro das Traças de Carpintaria, 1616
– English anon. manuscript of ca. 1620
– Spanish government ordonances (dimension establishments) of 1607, 1613 and 1618
– Georges Fournier, Hydrographie, 1643
– Bushnell Edmund, The Compleat Ship-Wright, 1664
– Anthony Deane, Naval Architecture, 1670

 

Now, at the excellent at the time battery height of 5 1/2 feet, the „Sankt Georg” calculated displacement is about 460 tons, and for 5 feet it is 490 tons. It was also calculated that with the gravity centre not being above the level of the main battery barrels in the waist, the ship would get upright from „any” (practical) list.

 

My guess is that the cargo capacity of 200 lasts given in the inventory was estimated (usually by eye) as if for a merchantman of similar dimensions and even rounded, as was often the case for administrative purposes. 

 

The best,
Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

Once you get familiar with the above listed works, you will easily realise that the parameters adopted for this reconstruction, such as the most important length of the floors and the curvature of the frames, are in reality the standard values recommended for men-of-war. However, as soon as possible, I will try to show the method graphically in this log.

 

[TonyM]

Waldemar, your work is very inspirational.

 

The way your model is presented as illustrations with cutaways is very effective and perspective gives that sense of depth.

The combination of nautical research and digital modeling is particularly interesting and I wonder if you have thought of a digital representation such as Sketchfab.

 

I have done a simple CAD model "Schooner Adventure" with a build log on MSW and a viewable 3D rendering on SketchFab Schooner Adventure 

In the meantime I am working on the next model in Fusion 360 with CAD timber components and your work gives me a lot to think about.

[Waldemar]

 

Wow, thank you Tony. These are some of the most valuable compliments, especially coming from an already experienced digital model designer. It looks like we inspire each other, as it has long been a goal of mine to build a 3D ship model like your impressive Schooner Adventure or the pinas and later fluit-ship of the Ab Hoving/Rene Hendrickx duo.

 

In this particular case, the original intention was ultimately to create two-dimensional plans that were precise and reliable in a geometrical sense, and in that sense my 3D model is merely a means to that end. But now you have made a clear suggestion, giving much food for thought. I am a little concerned about the rigging, as the digital model file of "St George" is already over 600 MB. And I am doing my best to reduce its size without compromising precision – defining the simplest possible shapes, rebuilding those unnecessarily complex, shrinking trimmed surfaces, reducing number of control points etc.

 

I took a closer look at the rigging on your schooner looking for ideas on practical solutions. There is hope... 🙂

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

These renderings just for fun, taking a rest from preparing 2D draughts. Mostly structural elements with the frames hidden.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2022 by Waldemar

[dvm27]

I love whatever rendering process you are using. Looks very Van de Velde like.

[Waldemar]

 

Still a small update. Aiming for standard solutions in this reconstruction, I have also slightly rearranged the layout of the gun deck (overloop) by replacing a number of carlings and ledges. Now carlings are beneath ledges as can be seen below.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Waldemar

[Jules van Beek]

Hello Waldemar,

Thank you very much for your second answer to my question in your post #103. Looking forward to your explanation of how you found the 'standard values recommended for men-of-war.

 

I hope you agree with me that your first answer to my question in your post #102 can not be the answer to my simple question: 'would you care to explain how you decided on the shape of the main frame of your Sankt Georg?'  I hope you agree with me that the answer to that question can not be: read these seven books and these Spanish government ordnances and you will find the exact same shape of the main frame as I have found.

I have already read these seven books, and more, and for me it would be nice to see how you combined information spanning 100 years or so into one set of 'standard values recommended for men-of-war' in 1627.

I never managed to do so, and, what's more important, and please correct me if I'm wrong, nobody else seems to have managed to do so. That's why I'm asking ...

 

One more question. Could you explain why you did not include Dutch sources in your reading list? Where is Witsen's work of 1671? Where are the contracts for Dutch warships of this period? To me it would be more obvious to include sources from the north of Europe then sources from the south of Europe and England, especially when you seem to be using Dutch sources for the reconstruction of almost every other part of the ship.

 

As said, I'm looking forward to your explanation of how you decided on the shape of the main frame for your Sankt Georg. Take your time!

 

All the best,

 

Jules

 

P.S. Great drawing skills.

 

[Waldemar]

 

1 hour ago, Jules van Beek said:

One more question. Could you explain why you did not include Dutch sources in your reading list? Where is Witsen's work of 1671? Where are the contracts for Dutch warships of this period? To me it would be more obvious to include sources from the north of Europe then sources from the south of Europe and England, especially when you seem to be using Dutch sources for the reconstruction of almost every other part of the ship.

Jules, you are simply wrong again. Read or re-read my post #1 and #77.

 

1 hour ago, Jules van Beek said:

I have already read these seven books

I don't believe you Jules, sorry.

 

1 hour ago, Jules van Beek said:

read these seven books and these Spanish government ordnances and you will find the exact same shape of the main frame as I have found.

I have never stated that. Read or re-read my post #1 without manipulating its content.

 

 

And why do you expect me to do something, and even more so a hard work, especially for you just for free? You kidding, right? Is this your way of doing business? Don't answer.

 

Last but not least, I detest manipulation. Please don't try it again. Thank you in advance, Jules.

 

 

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Just a note to let you know that today my project has been formally accepted by the investor and the two-dimensional drawings handed over to him. The construction of the model in 1:15 scale has also been confirmed. However, this is not the end of this log. Au contraire. Now comes the second stage - designing the 'loose' elements of the ship such as artillery, masting, rigging, etc.

 

Intentions have also been put forward to prepare the ship's drawings for sale and other applications. Still a lot of work to be done, but for the time being I need a little rest from the intense efforts...

 

🙂

[mtaylor]

Excellent news on the project.  I daresay you are ready for some rest and recreation.

[scrubbyj427]

Excellent news! I will be building this at some point. Just love this project!

[Waldemar]

 

Many thanks Scrubby! It gives power to go on...

 

Mark, you are absolutely right. Just to start the new topic:

 

As requested by modellers, the ship's armament is treated next. One of the most valuable source materials for this reconstruction are the cannons and carriages from the Swedish warship "Solen" ("Sun"), which fought bravely against the Polish fleet in the battle of 1627, although not against the "St George" herself, and I was able to subject her salvaged armament to detailed analysis many years ago.

 

Out of the ship complete armament of 20 guns, not even two barrels are identical (of Swedish, Ruthenian and Polish origin). As well, not even two carriages are similar in size, shape, decoration and construction, each being individually built to a specific barrel. The general carriage construction is shown below and it is closely based on one of these preserved carriages (English names of its parts are in gray). It was perhaps the same on the "St George", although such wild diversity will be reduced for practical reasons in this reconstruction.

 

 

 

 

[druxey]

Interesting to see the similarities and variations from other carriages of the era. Congratulations on completing one stage of your project, Waldemar.

[Ab Hoving]

Beautiful image of this gun. Were the wheels not built up in two layers of wood?

[Waldemar]

Many thanks Ab. 

 

Thanks to the good advice of Fred Hocker I was able to make hopefully reliable graphic reconstructions of all the "Solen" carriages, which I published in 2011 together with their descriptions.

Here you have such sample reconstruction of another carriage from the "Solen", shown with its preserved wooden components. Exceptionally, it has only single hook attached to its cheek (and not double one as in all others). Instead, it has a hole at the rear of the bed. Some iron fittings are the same as in other carriages, and some are unique in its arrangement.

 

All parts of all carriages are made of single piece of oak. The same for the trucks (wheels), which were also found in quite large number in spare parts storeroom. The fibres of the larger front trucks are always parallel to the carriage cheeks, while those of the smaller rear trucks are always perpendicular to it. Front trucks could have chamfered edges, as shown in the picture above. I think double layer trucks are only later development, as they are single in many other preserved carriages from this period too.

 

 

 

[druxey]

Were there any means of elevating the piece? From your reconstruction, it appears not.

[Waldemar]

 

No Druxey, it was no needed. Artillery fire was usually opened at the point blank range or even less, otherwise it was waste of ammunition or missing the only chance to effectively bombard the opponent.

 

Look at the muzzles of guns from the "Solen". In many of the pieces the bores are so much out of centre, that even at the musket range on land they could easily miss the target. Ironically, a number of these pieces are cast with foresights, equally out of place. Therefore, the small notches were cut by the gunners for attaching the aiming reeds (visible on the left barrel). There are much more geometrical faults in these guns, rendering them suitable only for the closest range fire.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by Waldemar

[Lieste]

I'd note that 'even the shortest range fire' may be incorrect. Especially since some effort to mark a line of pointing is evident.

The importance of fire in ricochet was seen in the capability for a shot to carry below the height of the battery to several thousand yards in the siting of coastal batteries close to the water (but above the height of the naval guns they would fight), and the firing with little to no elevation would produce ricochet under suitable conditions to extended ranges beyond the random range of artillery with only errors in direction being significant.

Fire in ricochet is more important for larger shot, as some portion of the retained velocity with range will be lost on each rebound, and the amount lost increases with the steepness of the angle of fall (increased range to first graze, reducing size of the shot).