2nd rate London 1656 – the art of the shipwright

[Waldemar]

Following the example of Mr Endsor, I too will summarise my findings to date on this matter. Please consider these as my views only, with no intention of pushing them on anyone by „force”.

 

* * *

 

Floor sweeps of variable radii must have been known and used before 1765, otherwise Mungo Murray in the 1750s could not have known about them. The question is just how long before, and the drawing of London 1656 is evidence that as early as the mid-17th century.

 

* * *

 

The London 1656 body plan is by no means a copy of some other, e.g. builder's plans, as body plans on paper were not yet made at that time (not until around the turn of the 17th century).

They were content to draw side and top projections only, and the outlines of the frames were only traced on the mould loft, as is described in all English works on shipbuilding up to and including Bushnell 1664. Even Deane 1670 suggests a similar procedure, consistently applying in the text the formula of 'bend of timbers' co-ordinates taken from the drawing. 

 

In other words, ship design was still only partly graphic at the time, and historians may wish to revise their previous views, until they find at least one piece of evidence from the period that it was otherwise.

 

In conclusion, the body plan of the London 1656 is genuine piece of work which mimics the process that took place on the mould loft in the shipyard. It can render the shapes of the ship itself or just be the effect of a design method known to the creator of the drawing.

 

Thank you

 

 

[Richard Endsor]

The early NMM model mentioned by Martes could indeed be the 1651 Antelope. I will have a trawl through Van de Velde drawings in the hope or has anyone done that already. I am working on the end views (body plans) but for info the model measured 34' 0" outside the frames and 35' 6" outside the wales, the plank not being there to measure. Keel touch 119' 6", tread 130' 4", Gundeck outside the rabbets 147' 7". Very close to dear old John Franklin's measurements taken many years ago published in Navy Board Ship Models.   

[Richard Endsor]

No body plans until 1700? take a look at Anthony Deane 1670 p67. The London drawing itself is a body plan. Or have I missed something? There are body Plans in Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry. Below is our friend Mungo Murray's 1754 body plan of 100 years after the London. Just had a quick look but I couldn't find any mention of the sweep centre point method although he does have a chapter on whole moulding associated with using rising and narrowing lines.

[DonatasBruzas]

I wanted to find a less complex explanation of the drawing process and have made a crude attempt at the fore part plan without reconstructing the controlling rising lines, just by trying to use the least complex graphical means. The floor curve appears to have a 100 inch radius, then it stops to touch the frame.

[Mark P]

Good Evening All;

 

This is an interesting thread, from its beginnings, which has now somewhat departed, most regrettably, from the higher standard of interchange of ideas normally prevailing on this forum; which I believe, from many years reading others' postings, is mostly courteous and considerate of varying or contrary opinions. It is also important for all contributors to remember that their ideas, opinions and postings are often of their own formulation, and based on a personal interpretation of what is known; what can be extrapolated; and what is hypothesised. In the end, though, some of what is posted in the field of research is personal opinion; and one person's opinion is as valid to them as is that of others to their own selves. If varying interpretations of what is known result in a discussion in detail, this is a good process for all concerned, and having to justify one's opinion or interpretation is a worthwhile endeavour, as it is in this way that we acquire an even more thorough understanding of the particular subject under consideration.

 

I once exchanged views with Martes on the likely origin of a draught, purportedly of a 17th century first rate; but the draughting of which had obviously been carried out in the nineteenth century. For this reason, I saw it as a later invention, with no historical validity. However, the late and much-missed Frank Fox gave it as his opinion that the draught, although much later, was genuinely based on a no-longer extant draught which was indeed from the 17th century. I was rather mortified to be found in error, but at the same time, pleased that the sum total of knowledge of those involved, including my self, had been increased. 

 

Right or wrong will always contain some degree of subjectivity; and as Mr Endsor states, we are all colleagues. We all share a mutual interest, in acquiring and disseminating knowledge; and this has the obvious corollary that there is a responsibility upon us all to either be absolutely sure of what we say, because it is based on firm evidence; or to be prepared to change our opinions when our interpretation is questioned. This is not a process of opposition, and should not be interpreted as competition; this is a process, by means of which knowledge is distilled and purified. 

 

Stereotypes exist to be challenged; as do opinions; and it is important not to take umbrage at a perceived slight, where none is intended. A difference of opinion should be discussed with respect for the other party's opinions, and restraint needs to be exercised, lest the debate degenerates into a situation where responses become based around comments on the character of a contributor, rather than dealing with the validity of any hypotheses or interpretations being expressed.

 

An important factor to consider here is that early draughts do not include body plans as we understand them from later periods. The use of rising and narrowing lines is symptomatic of the system of whole moulding. In this system of design and construction, there is no need to draw the frames at individual stations; all that is needed are the rising and narrowing lines; the midship frame; and perhaps the stern view. From these, any capable shipwright of the era could construct a ship, using the system of hauling up and down with the same basic template, with the degree of difference indicated by surmarks for each frame. There is therefore no need to construct a body plan, and the production of such is only ever going to be an exercise in drawing and analysis skills, unless it is intended for use to make a model. 

 

I know for certain that Frank Fox considered these drawings of the London with considerable suspicion, and believed that they were made more for decorative purposes than for any other reason. There are certainly inconsistencies in the section with regard to the pointers, which are described in various documents as having their upper end fixed to the gun-deck beams, not protruding above it. To my mind this, and knowing that there are other reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of what it purports to represent, is sufficient to conclude that any work based on these drawings cannot be taken as incontrovertible proof of anything. I can admire the skills and knowledge displayed in the drawings which Waldemar has constructed, and certainly my total knowledge has increased by reading this thread; however, it is my personal opinion that to use this draught as the basis of an argument that floor sweeps varied, when all other sources contemporary to English practice in the mid seventeenth century state that the floor sweep was of a constant radius, is to invite contradictory opinions; which, when they are expressed, need to be accepted as part of an open debate, and not as evidence of 'competition'. That is best left to those involved in politics and business, neither of which encourage the development of the better aspects of human nature.

 

All the best,

 

Mark P

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

@Richard Endsor

 

1. The drawings in Deane 1670 are educational rather than practical. They teach how things should be done to actual scale when building a real ship.

 

2. The drawing of the London 1656 was made after the ship had been built, as is clearly evidenced by its various features, such as its decoration, and in this form it would not even do much to be used in a shipyard. So it is not a builder's drawing either.

 

3. There is not a single body plan in Fragments of Ancient Shipwrightry. There are only master frame outlines apart from sheer views.

 

4. There is not even a need to analyse Mungo Murray's drawings. His statement is sufficient: "It is usual for all the floor sweeps to be of one radius". Only floor sweeps of variable radii can be the opposite of those of one radius. There is no other possibility.

 

Sorry.

 

 

[shipman]

Time to whip the cloth off the table and leave the lunch in the fridge.

The dog has its bone and isn't going to let it go.

 

Tomorrow is another day,

so can we start over?

[Waldemar]

 

@Mark P

 

Mark, I will only comment on the controversial issue of variable radii. It is true that this is only one piece of evidence dating back to the 17th century, but against the total amount of other material available, even this one is a lot. Besides, the „whole” world has hitherto thought that 17th century construction plans were entirely graphic, without any evidence (or misinterpreted one).

 

The explanation of this phenomenon may be quite simple, because we really only have two manuals from this period (Bushnell and Deane), and both are generally very simplistic, in virtually every respect, just like today's school textbooks for the primary grades. So it is difficult to expect them to cover every aspect, especially the more complicated and also rarely used ones. Almost the same thing was done by Mungo Murray, involuntarily only mentioning variable radii, but no longer describing their use.

 

 

[Martes]

2 hours ago, Richard Endsor said:

The early NMM model mentioned by Martes could indeed be the 1651 Antelope. I will have a trawl through Van de Velde drawings in the hope or has anyone done that already. I am working on the end views (body plans) but for info the model measured 34' 0" outside the frames and 35' 6" outside the wales, the plank not being there to measure. Keel touch 119' 6", tread 130' 4", Gundeck outside the rabbets 147' 7". Very close to dear old John Franklin's measurements taken many years ago published in Navy Board Ship Models.   

 

I will put the table of those measurements here.

And, from Winfield.

 

Antelope Woolwich Dyd. [M/Shipwright Christopher Pett]
Dimensions & tons: 120ft 0in keel x 36ft 0in x 14ft 0in. 828 (by calc, 827
88/94) bm.

 

London Chatham Dyd. [M/Shipwright Capt. John Taylor]
As built: 123ft 6in keel x 40ft 0in x 16ft 6in. 1,050 bm.
As girdled: 123ft 6in keel x 41ft 0in x 16ft 6in. 1,103 (1,104 26/94 by calc.)
bm.

 

The ships are very close in length, but the Antelope is considerably narrower.

 

Leaving aside the question of floors for the moment, what can the measurements of Antelope tell us about the London?

 

How the timber and room would change if the length remains almost the same, but the ship is made wider?

The rake of the stem and the stern? I remember the arc of the stem could be usually dependent on the ship's breadth, so would the stem on London differ considerably from that of the Antelope?

Edited February 8, 2023 by Martes

[Waldemar]

 

@DonatasBruzas

 

Donatas, thanks for trying, I've had a look at your drawings, but let me be clear. The fit of your curves is not quite satisfactory as in this particular place could be better. Besides, a few geometrical figures in more or less random places are not enough. You also have to figure out how to arrange them regularly to get a complete geometrical system.

 

 

[Martes]

@Mark P, @Richard Endsor

 

I would also like to remind the initial premise of the reconstruction here was to extract as much data as possible from those plans, being a first-hand period document, and to verify whether it is possible to recreate a feasible hull on their basis.

 

@Waldemar in our correspondence told me, that it is much easier to rely on general procedures of the period, the general dimensions and possibly the midship section, and produce a typical period ship that would conform to the known dimensions, and that he could do it very quickly.

 

That potential reconstruction would probably have had fixed floor radii and most of other characteristic design features of the period, as we know them. Would it resemble the London? Only the wreck can tell, if any frames are excavated or at least measured.

 

However, that was not what he intended, because it would effectively discard the same first-hand document we are looking at. Somebody, somewhere around 1660's has put quite an effort into creating this plan. We already understand that there is no way a the hull was built exactly as it is depicted, there are too many bumps and inconsistencies, and yet, we would first want to catalogue them, filter through and understand what is a genuine feature that could have been done then and what is a graphical error or inaccuracy of the author.

 

After all, what do we know of Captain John Taylor? If he was a navy captain, does that mean he was rather an amateur and not a professional shipbuilder? Could he have used some non-mainstream techniques with little regard to the heresy he committed?

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Martes

[Waldemar]

 

Before I take a long-needed break, I would like to thank all those who have found my posts worth reading, or even for finding them important and interesting enough to appear on this forum at all.

 

But I make another rather important argument, which I think only those who have designed or evaluated hulls themselves are aware of. These variable, increasing floor sweep radii are very beneficial and even necessary in certain less favourable circumstances (such as a tight floor arcs in the midship mould) to achieve a smooth surface transition in this particular area of the hull.

 

Unlike today's usually more or less theoretical analysts with a synthetic approach, the experienced shipwrights of the time were certainly aware of this issue. Incidentally, this is one of the effects of the inherent limitations of this method in its classical form. In other words, these variable radii are not there for the whim of the designer, but for a valid, very specific reason.

 

Thank you,

Waldemar Gurgul

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by Waldemar

[Richard Endsor]

I must say I have enjoyed our conversations and indeed find Waldemars contribution important and interesting. He has stimulated us all into forming our own opinions. When I write about the London I think it best not to mention the drafting process that may have created the lines. Just mention they look genuine but have irregularities that are difficult to interpret. This thread continues as some of us think they didn't use body plans in the seventeenth century. As this point in time I think they did, but I won't be putting a tin hat on and jumping in a bunker to defend the position to the last.

Unfortunately, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. When the Admiralty wanted the shape of the new ships recorded in 1678 they took the body plans off the ships. Not only that but Deane and the 1620 period treatise (PRO ADM7/827) both describe drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would they have described body plans if they were not used? You could argue that no plan was necessary at all as the results of the calculated rising and narrowing lines are all you need together with a list of overall dimensions. This is all John Shish's paper(Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson MSS,A185,f325) has describing a fourth rate. But you have no idea what the ship looked like from that until its developed and drawn out on paper. Even if the side and top view were drawn then it's almost impossible to judge what the ships form looked like. It's very difficult without water lines, which are not mentioned in the treatise. Just about impossible without a body plan. The plans were approved by Kings, and King Charles was a know authority who studied the  ships draughts. Not only that but the body plans are necessary to know where the heads and heels of the frame timbers would go. You could argue body plans were only drawn in the mould loft, in spite of the treatise saying they are drawn plots, but by then it's a bit late to study the hull form.  In any case it would be the same as studying a 1/48 plan with your eye only 1 1/2 inches from it. Almost impossible. 

There we are Chaps, opinions welcome.

[druxey]

Interesting, entertaining and educational!

 

In my case, Richard, my viewpoint would only be 1¼" above a plan at 1:48 scale; an even more restricted and myopic view.

[Waldemar]

 

Mr Endsor, I will spell everything out more fully, but in my own time, because right now I have a project to do with an imminent deadline and I simply do not have the opportunity to engage in a time-consuming discussion.

 

I stand by everything I have written so far, I will only specify that I regard the last, say, two decades of the seventeenth century as a transitional period, the effect of which has already been the widespread use of fully developed plans since the beginning of the eighteenth century. But whatever the vagueness, this end of the century does not include London 1656.

 

Now I only ask you at least to read very, very carefully the relevant passages of the 1620 Treatise, which you refer to in particular for this period. In fact, you do not even need to interpret it and conjecture anything, as everything is clearly written there. I am sure you yourself will shout 'Eureka!'.

 

I cannot give a guarantee that I will return in time for the publication of your book on London 1656 (which I intend to buy, of course), because I do not even know when it will be published. But again, I beg you at least to read the 1620 Treatise without prejudice while there is still time to do so, as I really don't like to use the phrase "didn't I say so?".

 

Waldemar

[Richard Endsor]

I agree we need some time off to get some stuff done. I read the 1620 treatise a while ago but don't recall any amazing revelations and I don't feel like getting into it in a big way right now and reading the whole thing again. Please give us a page number as a clue. The London book was being written by a group of us including archaeologists and historians while Frank Fox was writing  a chapter about the guns. We were all doing our bit with proceeds going to the London Trust. Unfortunately poor Frank died rather suddenly and we are in bit of a hiatus at the moment. Waldemar, there is no need to call me "Mr Endsor", as a valued colleague please call me Richard.

[Richard Endsor]

Intrigued by the 1620 comments I had a quick browse over breakfast this morning. As suspected, the author not only includes the side and top views but also the body plans. In drawing the plot he mentions the 3 views and says the vertical plane of the depth and breadth is the plane of the bends (84v). Then "we must begin with the midship bend...out of which all the rest are drawn" (85v).  However, and I guess this is the cause of a Eureka moment, the design method should not be applied to the London's body plans as it relates to the earlier method of whole moulding where all three sweeps forming the bends are of fixed radius. The London having varying sweeps at the breadth. He then describes the rest of the plot and says the plot is finished, but then goes on to say "To draw therefore out of the midship bends all the rest according to the true draught of the plot" he then mentions using the arithmetic data from the rising and narrowing lines (93v). This could be interpreted as meaning the rest of the bends were marked out in a mould loft but I didn't notice or see if he says that in the text. Be that as it may, the ealy designers used a body plan although this method was not used to produce the London's body plan. So back in the real world I am just off with some mates for a walk in the Chiltern hills starting and ending at the Black Lion pub in Naphill, Buckinghamshire. I will be in there about 1.30 and if any of you are around I will buy you a drink.

[Waldemar]

 

Okay, please let me explain my perception of the Treatise 1620 (not to write defiantly anymore: „the correct perception”)...

 

* * *

 

After drawing the midship bend and the longitudinal guides, the author of the manuscript very clearly states: „These lines being all drawn the plot is finished”.

 

Then, before proceeding to plot all the other bends, the author warns not to take their co-ordinates from the longitudinal guides ('principal lines') drawn in the small drawings, but to calculate them mathematically, as huge errors are made upon performing huge up-scalings. But why draw the frames on paper at 1:1 scale? That would be obvious nonsense.

 

The confusion arises only from the fact that the author uses the term 'to plot' or 'to draw' both for the act of drawing on paper and for tracing (or whatever) on the mould loft.

 

But there is more to it than that. As an alternative to drawing, the author suggests using moulds. Truly, there could hardly be a more obvious indication that this is about actual scale.

 

Actually, I could end here, but nevertheless I see the need to clarify a few more things.

 

* * *

 

Drawing the frames contours on paper (apart from midship mould) was not necessary at all, because with this particular design method no correction of the frame contours was employed, at least at the design stage. Thus, looking at the resulting contours from a distance of 1 1/4 inches, 1 1/2 inches, or whatever, could at most satisfy the aesthetic sensibilities of the observer, but would serve no other purpose.

 

Under these circumstances, drawing twice (to scale and then in actual size) identical, uncorrected frames would obviously be unnecessary, unprofessional nonsense, since an experienced shipwright with a spatial imagination could easily predict the shape of the hull just from the shape of the longitudinal guides and the midship mould. That is why Newton manuscript originally contained, above all, the proposed shapes of longitudinal guides for various types of ships, which were incomparably more important in the conceptual process of ship design even than the shape of the midship mould itself, not to mention other derivative frames.

 

Making complete plans became necessary only in the methods where frame contours were corrected already at the design stage. This is naturally closely related to later diagonals and construction waterlines. In addition, they allowed for hydrostatic calculations, such as displacement or metacentric height. But that's another story too...

 

* * *

 

Richard, I hope you find these explanations useful. Perhaps they are not revolutionary in themselves, but somehow all these issues have so far escaped the attention of scholars.

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

In conclusion, up until the last decades of the 17th century, there is not a single piece of evidence for the use of complete plans. On the contrary, all sources indicate otherwise (Deane, although ambiguous on this point, does not mention frames correcting either).

 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Waldemar

[Richard Endsor]

Waldermare appears to agree with my note (I think) he even repeats what I said. I would point out that a mould is the same as a template and if you are drawing lots of equally sized radii then using such a device saves time over using compasses whether on paper or in the mould loft. We should ignore the 1620 method in this debate with 3 fixed radii sweeps as it was not the method used on the London, but even in 1620, body plans were drawn as the author described. As mentioned earlier, actual plans from the period are as rare as hens teeth. However, there is plenty of evidence to show they did use body plans. The Keltridge plans, Wilton House plan and London plan, among others, all show body plans that must have been developed from rising and narrowing lines somewhere. Not only that but Deane describes drawing on paper the rising and narrowing lines and the body plans. They are instructional indeed, to be used and follow the actual practice, brilliantly simplified in Deane's case. Why would he have described body plans if they were not used? Please explain to this poor unfortunate student how the body plans mentioned above were produced if not by Deane's method.

[Waldemar]

 

Thank you Richard for repeating yourself, but can you finally provide at least one piece of evidence other than a few drawings from the end of the century? Of course, the London 1656 plan, due to its obvious inaccuracies, does not even come into play here as a design drawing, as the best experts have already stated.

 

Anyway, thank you very much again for your contribution. I look forward to the evidence.

 

 

[mtaylor]

5 hours ago, Waldemar said:

Perhaps they are not revolutionary in themselves, but somehow all these issues have so far escaped the attention of scholars.

There's a big difference between a scholar and a researcher, IMHO.   Scholars generally seem to be living in their own world and need to justify their beliefs and writings.  A researcher generally follows the evidence and ideas.   I say this from having worked with both a long time ago. I say "generally" as there are exceptions to everything.

[Richard Endsor]

Dear Waldemar, I quote you "The London 1656 body plan is by no means a copy of some other, e.g. builder's plans, as body plans on paper were not yet made at that time".  Although not applicable to London, the 1620 treatise has a body plan on paper, it really does, as plain as the nose on your face, even if it is interpreted as showing only one. As Brian Lavery said, Deane's work gives us the earliest complete plan of an English ship so it is unlikely any other plans survive from before that to present to you as evidence for your judgment. However, the London was designed in the method described by Deane and the London drawing has body plans made in the same manner. I deferentially ask you again, how else was it made? As the acknowledged best expert around, you say its "obvious inaccuracies" mean it can't be a true body plan. If it's so inaccurate then pray tell us, how did you manage to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765?

 

Just remembered, I think one of the Keltridge draughts is of an early fourth rate, another which will undoubtedly satisfy your curiosity is the very clear and precise body plans of a 1677 ship complete with timber heads and sirmarks by Thomas Fagge and reproduced in Master Shipwright's Secrets, page 194. I really hope this helps answer your questions and eagerly look forward to your reply. Great debate init.

[Richard Endsor]

Thank God I ain't a scholar. Me bottom of the class at school in Maths and English. School reports "must try harder" "more work, less chatter" a naughty boy, still am I hope. Bit knackered at the moment, done about 10 miles over the hills and through the woods to end up getting stuffed with food and filled with well-earned drink. And so to bed, as my hero would say.

[Waldemar]

 

Richard, I'm sorry that you still don't distinguish between educational or decorative drawings of frames and those that were actually used to build ships. But I've wasted enough time on London without gaining anything helpful in return from you, and I certainly don't have it anymore to keep straightening out what you misrepresent.

 

If you don't mind, we'll come back to this in a few weeks or so. Right now I really have more important things on my mind. Please respect that. You can use this time to finally show something of value about London on this forum or find the evidence I asked for.

 

Thank you Richard

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

10 hours ago, Richard Endsor said:

Thank God I ain't a scholar. Me bottom of the class at school in Maths and English. School reports "must try harder" "more work, less chatter" a naughty boy, still am I hope. Bit knackered at the moment, done about 10 miles over the hills and through the woods to end up getting stuffed with food and filled with well-earned drink. And so to bed, as my hero would say.

 

A really excellent idea! In the meantime, you can also continue to entertain readers with stories from your childhood. Fell free to use this thread, pleasure on my side.

 

 

 

 

[Richard Endsor]

So, in view of Waldemar not finding any reason to the contrary, it is safe to say the London's body plan must have come from somewhere and that it was copied from an original draught that the draughtsman has added detail to make decorative. The body plan lines have minor discrepancies but are exactly what one would expect for the draughting method using fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth as described by Deane's treatise. I have mentioned many other plans in this thread of a similar nature.

I am sorry that Waldemar is too busy to continue and reconcile his statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765? With the deepest empathy, it appears Waldmar made a mistake and wishes not to address the problem. That is absolutely fine and I would not criticize him for that. As said earlier, I am only too ready to be a student and learn new things when persuaded by convincing argument. Live, learn and enjoy the pleasure of debate, I have.

[Waldemar]

 

1 hour ago, Richard Endsor said:

So, in view of Waldemar not finding any reason to the contrary, it is safe to say the London's body plan must have come from somewhere and that it was copied from an original draught that the draughtsman has added detail to make decorative.

 

On 2/7/2023 at 8:59 PM, Waldemar said:

In conclusion, the body plan of the London 1656 is genuine piece of work which mimics the process that took place on the mould loft in the shipyard.

 

* * *

 

16 hours ago, Richard Endsor said:

If it's so inaccurate then pray tell us, how did you manage to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765?

 

Magic. You can see it in my posts #5-39.

 

* * *

 

And to end the Treatise 1620 issue definitively already. Richard, you are a tease who can cheerfully ignore the following content in that document: "And if it [i.e. futtock timber mould] be too long to manage [it] must be cut asunder in the middle and have another sine mark there". Small paper template too long to manage? Another joke?

 

And also: "... draw two other straight lines and upon them set the narrowing both aloft and alow as they are calculated in the table'. As it is, the table contains the values for the actual size. There is no other table.

 

* * *

 

Unfortunately, you are unprepared for this discussion, it just consists of you extracting information from me. As you can see from the above, you are not well acquainted with the content of the sources you refer to. I have already had to explain a few things to you, even basic ones. For example, as it has become apparent, you do not distinguish between body plan and midship mould, or have thought until now that ships of this general period could not have a floor sweep of variable radius at all.

 

What else would you have liked to know before publishing your book on London?

 

 

[Richard Endsor]

Dear Waldemar, I am so glad you decided to remain in the debate and not find other things to do. As regards the 1620 treatise which you seem fixed on, we should disregard it as the fixed sweep radii method described does not apply to the London.  Again, the treatise says quite clearly "We may now proceed to the drawing of the plot... in 3 several planes" (84v)". The third plane is the end view or body plan. That is very clear and it appears you keep mention of it as a diversion from explaining how the London plan was derived if it was not copied from a draught using the method described by Deane with fixed radius sweeps at the floor and futtocks and with varying radii at the breadth. You also asked what else would I like to know. I wish you would be so kind as to answer the question previously put to you. Please reconcile your statement that the London plan has "obvious inaccuracies" which means it can't be a true body plan but then managed to analyze and interpret it as a body plan made to a method we know appeared in 1765. It sounds crazy and if it is a mistake then please say so. We will not fall over laughing at your embarrassment but have the deepest sympathy and understanding.

[Waldemar]

 

I see that not only do you not distinguish between midship mould and body plan, you also do not distinguish between body plan and plane. And look for the answer to your question in my previous posts of this thread. It's all there.

 

Sorry Richard, but this really doesn't make sense. Maybe it's better about how many miles you've run?