Paviljoensjacht 1733 | Blender

[Robska]

Spurred on by the outstanding work of @Kurtis on the beautiful 74-gun ship of the line model, @3DShipWright tutorial and my backlog of old and mostly unfinished 3D models I decided to start a new 3D ship model. I am most familiar with Blender so that is why I am going to use that.

 

My 3D skill are very rusty and my knowledge of ships and their construction is limited that’s why I am hoping to get help from all the amazing folks on this forum. In case you wondered what my skill level is. This is a model I made 7 years back, when I was at my 3D model peak  I am still very proud of this, But nowadays I am nowhere near this good.

 

In the past I started a couple of ship modelling projects, but all of them never progressed passed a general hull shape. The reason for this is that used to be unreasonably optimistic and picked big and obscure ships but I also lacked the support to learn modelling techniques and understand ship plans and designs.

 

This time I want to model something small, something that will teach me a lot about ship modelling and also about ships in general.

So what did I choose? A Dutch Paviljoensjacht(1733): https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzoeken/archief/4.MST/invnr/490/file/NL-HaNA_4.MST_490?eadID=4.MST&unitID=490&query=

The plan lacks drawings of anything but the hull and some details. I don’t think that is an issue. When I get to the masts and rigging I think I can take inspiration from a fully restored ship model of a similar type called ‘Utrecht’:

 

Why post this on here? I want to share the process of researching ship construction, ship plans and 3D modelling.

I do want to humbly ask more experienced ship modellers to help me out, are you interested in this project or are you able to help/guide/teach me stuff? Then please stick around.

 

I intend to do weekly updates on this topic and not drag it our over months or years of at all possible.

 

Thank you all for reading this far. Next time I will discuss the plans and preparations of them.

Edited November 27 by Robska
Added links to forum profiles

[amateur]

This statenjacht is considetably larger than your paviljoenjacht. But the rig on all those jacht-types are more or less the same, although most pictures I know show the paviljoenjacht with a ‘tjalk’-like rig: large mainsail wth a boom often extrnding outboard, and a curved gaff, no square sails.

 

More interesting the question: where are the deck-levels in the drawing?

 

Jan

[CDR_Ret]

Hi Robska,

 

I am not familiar with 18th century northern European ship plans and drafting conventions, but the first questions that occurred to me after examining the drawing were:

1. Are the station lines drawn at the outside or inside of the hull planks?
2. What are the units used in the dimensions shown on the drawing?

Before getting too far into drafting in Blender, you may want to validate the shape of your ship's hull based on the plans you have by using DELFTship Free. Unlike other 3D drafting programs, it is first and foremost a naval architectural program that includes a number of tools for displaying station, buttock, diagonal, and waterlines, and for checking hull fairness. Its learning curve is fairly steep, but nowhere near as steep as Blender's. And when you have a hull you are satisfied with, you can import it into Blender to do the detailed structures and texturing (which are really hard to do in DELFTship). A number of us here on MSW are familiar with DELFTship and can help you if you get stuck.

 

Will be looking forward to your progress on this vessel!

 

Terry

[amateur]

Drawings exist ahowingboth outsideand inside. My guess is that here inside planks is used (the station-lines show whales and decorative parts without thickness. Also:station lines are shown at the top of the keel. N the other hand: no rabbet is shown.

Problem is: these ‘condensed drawings’ are meant to give a reasonable impression of theshipto be build. Details - also including precise measurements - depend on the wood and quality of the builders.

 

measurement I guess Amsterdamse voet, 28.4 cm, divided into 11 duim.

regional variations did exist, but are relatively small, so I wouldn’t care too much. Relative dimensions tend to be more importsnt than absolute measurements.

Jan

[Robska]

These first few replies already taught me a lot.

 

@CDR_Ret I have installed DELFTship and read the manual. Still a bit confused about how one adds the shape and validates the hull form. But I will take some more time.

 

@amateur Thanks for the info on the possible rig and the measurement. Can you explain how one would read that 'measuring stick' in the middle of the drawings? Is the length of a duim the distance between two of those diagonal points? And the length of a voet the distance between two horizontal points?

 

If the station lines are drawn on the inside of the planking, how thick would the planking be? What is a normal thickness?

 

Unanswered questions:

• Where are the deck-levels in the drawings?

[amateur]

The scale measure is the normal way of giving the scale in these kind of drawings: the vertical lines are at feet distance. The triangle divides the feet into inches: reading from bottom to top, and from right to left: the horizontal distance between the vertical and the diagonal is 1 inch, at the second horizontal it is 2 inch. As there are 11 duimen in a voet, the top row is only half as high as the other rows, and gisves both 5 duim (right leg of the triangle), and 6 duim (left leg of the triangle). the first horizontal gives 10 duim (distance between vertical and diagonaal).

 

Plank thickness did vary a bit, regarding size of the ship, demands of the owner, availability of the wood, and position of the wood in the hull (Bottom planks typically thicker than side-boards, outside planking thicker than inside etc. Hard to give exact measures without a building contract. I would say, somewhere between 1.5 and 2 duim, but I can be way off. And that is were it touches the question on inside or outside planking of the station-lines: adding 2 duim to the outside profile, does not fit nicely at all positions of your drawing. ON the other hand, leaving them out, doesn't fit either.

 

Deck levels: I really don't know: your guess is at good as mine..... There are various configurations within these type of ships, so, without a longitudinal cross section ,or a builders contract, you can't really tell.....

 

Jan

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

 

[Robska]

1 hour ago, Waldemar said:

 

 

I thought that was the connection point of the leeboard. If it is a scupper then that would indicate the (upper) deck is on that level, right?

[Waldemar]

 

Of the two, however, I like the leeboard mount variant better. Yes, if it were a scupper, it would set the level of the deck.

 

However, this iron pin may be attached directly to the deck; in the close-up you can see three dots presumably marking the heads of the attaching nails.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28 by Waldemar

[Waldemar]

 

As a result, you would get a more or less similar deck configuration:

 

 

[amateur]

It is definitely the connection point of the leeboard.

 

What is uncelar is where the front of the cabin is: probably where waldemar indicates. That detremines the level of the deck in that section.

The level of the front deck is also clear: more or less at the level of the small wale.

The interesting part is the in between: There is a model of a  'Spiegeljacht' restored by Cor Emke, that shows a second cabin aft of the main-mast, with a roof-top aroudn the level of the railing, with a rather deep cockpit between the forward and the aft cabin. (Picture from Scheepshistorie, Vol11).. 

 

 

Taking that as point of reference, it might be as follows:

 

Again, that leaeves room for interpretation: were is the helm, how deep is the cockpit between both cabins, and: does the roof of the forward cockpit run up to the sides, or is tehre some way of 'deck' around the cabin, as is the case in the model?

 

Jan

 

 

[Robska]

@Waldemar Now that is interesting, I would have never placed the upper and lower deck towards the aft of the ship at those positions. But this makes total sense because of the space of the cabin at the back. The main deck feels likes it's placed a bit too high, because the connection point of the leeboard is now nearly at the same height as the deck. Looking at pictures from the 'Utrecht', the connection point seems to be placed at about half the height of the bulwark. Is that a correct assumption on my part, you think?

[amateur]

PIcture from around 1900, so the small sailingship in the middle is a bit newer than in your drawing, but it matches your drawing almost perfectly:

flat deck up front, and above the aft cabin, helm on top of the roof of the cabin, to the cockpit in front of it, and a second cabin just aft the mast, with some space between the sides of the roof and the railing. 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Such a configuration as below? Yes, this is a very convincing arrangement.

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

@Robska

 

From an engineering point of view, fixing the leeboard as on this plan, i.e. to the deck, is preferable (more robust) to fixing only to the side of the ship.

[amateur]

Need not be: deck planks are non-structual parts, the sode of the ship is. All ships I know of have some pretty sturdy frames at the location where the leenoards are attached. Only if there is a deckbeam at the ondicated location the connection is stronger. Althoug I very much doubt whether such a heavy connection is really necessary. 
 

Jan

[Waldemar]

 

Ordinary deck planks are indeed not structural elements, like the planks of the side, but the waterway, i.e. the outermost, hefty deck plank at the very side of the ship already is. And on this plan, the plank to which the leeboard axle is attached is even twice as wide as the others, one can assume not without reason.

 

As well as robustness, it is equally about the simplicity of the solution, durability, ease of implementation and eventual repairs etc. One thing can be sacrificed for another.

 

 

 

Edited November 28 by Waldemar

[Lieste]

I read the deck height as being at the bottom of the timber square in which the leeboards are mounted. The double plank in that area may be a gangway 'boxed in' above the level of the deck generally and to which the leeboard mounting is affixed. The height of the wale seems insufficient depth to the bulwark, unless I am vastly underestimating the size of the vessel, and by comparison to the model of the similar type.

[iMustBeCrazy]

This might help, ca 1791

 

 

[CDR_Ret]

10 hours ago, Robska said:

@CDR_Ret I have installed DELFTship and read the manual. Still a bit confused about how one adds the shape and validates the hull form. But I will take some more time.

One of the more difficult aspects of getting started in DELFTship for the novice user is inserting the background reference images.

 

May I suggest that you download the tutorial I created several years ago (attached). I haven't updated these files for the current version of DELFTship Free, so the manual references and illustrations showing program controls will not reflect the latest version. You should be able to sort things out, since the background image insertion feature hasn't changed much, if at all.

 

I recommend reading all five parts of the tutorial before starting a model. Please message me if you run into issues getting started. The tutorial is quite wordy, I'm afraid, but it does the job the Manual does not. Just take your time working through it. If you find any mistakes, please let me know so I can correct them. No one has reported any issues in the past two years!

 

This is how a complete hull appears displaying the Gaussian surface ("Gauss") tool. I used my 1891 brigantine Galilee model for this example. Surfaces that are either flat or curve in only one direction (like a cylinder) are green. Surfaces that curve in more than direction shade toward yellow, orange, and red, depending on the rate of curvature. This tool takes some practice to interpret the fairness of the hull shape—and how to make corrections. The image also shows the station, waterline, and buttock "intersections" with the outer hull surface. You can add as many intersections as you like to help define the hull shape. Just remember that you are trying to match the intersection lines to the corresponding lines in the plans, not the control net nodes!

The "Zebra" and "Environmental map" surface reflections shown on the tool bar are more helpful in surfaces that are geometrically smooth, like fiberglass (think: racing yacht). The Gaussian tool is fine for wooden hulls. Don't be surprised if you find that the as-drawn plans aren't smooth and fair in this program. The plans reflect their age, drafting methods, and provenance. You will have to decide how great a departure from the plans you will accept to obtain a smooth hull! DELFTship is a mathematical program. Wooden ships are handcrafted.

 

Terry

 

Part 1-DELFTship_Bkgrd_Images.pdf Part 2-DELFTship_Bkgrd_Images.pdf Part 3-DELFTship_Bkgrd_Images.pdf Part 4-DELFTship_Bkgrd_Images.pdf Part 5-DELFTship_Bkgrd_Images.pdf

[amateur]

In reply to @Lieste. In larger ships the deck is at the level of the wale, but in smaller yachts and inland vessels there is hardly any bulwark around the foredeck. Hence the level of my blue line. The point were the leaboards are attached is quite often a rather heavy doubling, so there need not be a relation to the decklevel (but it can be) As said before the drawing leaves some space for interpretation.

and with respect to size, the overall length of the hull is somewere around 40ft, wich is around 11 meters. The Statenjacht Utrecht measures 24 meters lenght at the waterline, which is around 85ft. This yacht is a small vessel, comparable in size to the smaller wooden yachts that are still around and have almost no bulwark, except around the cockpit.

(Boeierjacht Sperwer, Enkhuizen)

Jan

Edited November 28 by amateur

[Lieste]

A revised interpretation.

The midships plan shows a narrow 'floor' to the cockpit, at about the height of the second diagonal, and the interior plank of the hull. The deck fore and aft at the width of either the main wale or the sheer wale, cabin aft flush to the topline, from the aftmost break in the deck to the counter.

Edited November 29 by Lieste

[Lieste]

A detail from some models - the transom and rear windows may be in line with the rear of the side gallery, and the extended decoration and deck over are not part of the cabin per-se.

[Robska]

2 hours ago, Lieste said:

A revised interpretation.

The midships plan shows a narrow 'floor' to the cockpit, at about the height of the second diagonal, and the interior plank of the hull. The deck fore and aft at the width of either the main wale or the sheer wale, cabin aft flush to the topline, from the aftmost break in the deck to the counter.

Would you be able to draw this out on the plan? I have a hard time understanding what you mean. The terminology is new for me, especially in English.

 

2 hours ago, Lieste said:

A detail from some models - the transom and rear windows may be in line with the rear of the side gallery, and the extended decoration and deck over are not part of the cabin per-se.

Very intersting take, I already made a first model shape of the hull. This area was troublesome to model in 3D. But if the transom is basically inset into the stern/cabin then that solves the issue, I think.

[Robska]

23 hours ago, Waldemar said:

 

Such a configuration as below? Yes, this is a very convincing arrangement.

 

 

Although convincing to some, not to me. I don't see anything on this plan that indicates towards a forward cabin.

 

And about the cockpit, the depth is about 2,8m. That is quite deep, right? I would say, much too deep. I don't think the deck is lower then the main whale, about 1,4m. What do you think?

[Waldemar]

 

1 hour ago, Robska said:

Although convincing to some, not to me. I don't see anything on this plan that indicates towards a forward cabin.

 

Well, yes and no. On the side view, the contours of the front cabin are indeed not drawn, nevertheless, on the other hand, there are two beams on the top view which would correspond very neatly to both bulkheads of this very cabin. Coincidentally, they also limit in a very convenient way the length of this special doble plank for fixing the leeboard axle. Please note also the lack of continuation of the plank seams on the top projection, which may be intentional.

 

1 hour ago, Robska said:

And about the cockpit, the depth is about 2,8m. That is quite deep, right? I would say, much too deep. I don't think the deck is lower then the main whale, about 1,4m. What do you think?

 

Please do not take my diagram in too literal a manner. It is simply a quick sketch not quite to scale, the intention of which was to show the essence of the configuration, not the exact dimensions. And indeed, this is particularly true of the floor height as well as the height of the roof of the front cabin, which would both obviously need to be corrected or optimised at a later stage. But since you are dismissing this particular concept sporting a deep cockpit, incidentally quite attractive or convincing, it would already be a rather unnecessary exercise anyway...

 

 

[Robska]

30 minutes ago, Waldemar said:

Well, yes and no. On the side view, the contours of the front cabin are indeed not drawn, nevertheless, on the other hand, there are two beams on the top view which would correspond very neatly to both bulkheads of this very cabin. Coincidentally, they also limit in a very convenient way the length of this special doble plank for fixing the leeboard axle. Please note also the lack of continuation of the plank seams on the top projection, which may be intentional.

 

Now that you explained it further I find myself agreeing with you. It may be hard to find the exact dimension, but I do not mind taking some creative liberties. Since this plan already is not 'complete'. Can anyone provide me with images/sources of a cockpit view/situation similar to this?

 

What purpose would the forward cabin have on a ship type like this? I understand the general concept of a cabin, but why have two separated cabins?

 

Ps. Please do keep in mind that I am an amateur compared to most of the forum users when it comes to ships.

[Lieste]

TBH, what you mark as  forward cabin I am reading as a well or hold, with a potential ledge for a removable plank fore and aft where the deck is shown as full width - the near the sheer wale fore and aft of this midship well (signified by the narrower floor). The aft cabin terminating at the stern in a straight line from the top of the perpendicular to the roundhouse deck along the rear edge of the gallery frame, the side plank and roundhouse continuing in a pleasing 'large ship' form to the rear, purely decoratively.

 

[Lieste]

Looking at the diagrams - I read the hawse holes at just above fore-deck height. Following the associated wale back to the first 'break' in the deck plan.
At this bulkwark the deck is broken, and is represented as a floor in the bottom of a cockpit/well/small hold, with a second section of full-width deck behind the second 'break' in the plan.. This aft deck is relatively short with a long enclosed cabin below the roundhouse deck - the side hull and roundhouse are longer 'aft' than the enclosed cabin volume, which may just be in line with the stern post.

[amateur]

Yes, that would also be an interpretation. You can find drawings of both layouts: with and without a well, with/without forward cabin.

That is why it is a pity that there are no deck-lines in the drawing.

 

Jan