Paviljoensjacht 1733 | Blender

[amateur]

https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100146019

 

model from the collection in Rotterdam, datimg around 1780. Two cabins, like many of the posh yachts from that period.

 

I dont see how you arrive at a depth of 3 meters for the cockpit. It is smaller. You need that depth anyway, as the door of the aft cabin is at that level. The depth is the distance beteen the two dotted lined in Waldemars sketch. My guess: only half of your estimation.

This one is also intresting. Drawing of around 1750 of a jacht:

https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=100196711

 

This one shows another possibility: deck level in aft cabin lower than in the cockpit. Also here: no open space forward, but a deck that is raised till ‘standing height’ below deck.

 

Jan

 

 

 

Edited November 29 by amateur

[amateur]

And another. I’m inclined to believe that this two-cabin was for one readon or the other a common layout

 

https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=101005505

 

It is a pity thst these ics can’t be doenloaded at high resolution….😟

 

Jan

[Lieste]

15 minutes ago, amateur said:

And another. I’m inclined to believe that this two-cabin was for one readon or the other a common layout

 

https://www.maritiemdigitaal.nl/index.cfm?event=search.getdetail&id=101005505

 

It is a pity thst these ics can’t be doenloaded at high resolution….😟

 

Jan

That one has the near vertical rear cabin wall  inside the stern post, and decorative canopy over and behind.

Edited November 29 by Lieste

[amateur]

Which is consistent with the drawing we started with: the sternview shows the rudderpost from keel to the upper deck. 
I checked: all three models I posted have this setup/layout of the stern. Low res, but stull visible

Jan

Edited November 29 by amateur

[Robska]

Thanks all for the lively discussion, I am learning a lot. I made the first preliminary drawings of the decks and measurements.

Explanation

• I agree with @Lieste on the position of the fore-deck. I think this deck continues at this height up to the cockpit well. Though there is still the possibility of a forward cabin in that area just forward of the cockpit.
• Based on one of the plans provided by @amateur I positioned the bottom of the cockpit well on the drawing. This gives a depth up to the top of the bulwark of 1,80m. That is a fair depth imo.
• Based on the same plans I positioned the lower deck of the cabin at about the waterline. This gives a height of 3,11m of the cabin. Quite roomy.
• The depth in hold I measured just aft of the mast, 2,26m. Is that the best position?
• With a length of 18,22m and a breath of 5,48m this model is maybe bigger then some expected?

How did I do on the measurement and terminology?

 

Questions

• At number 1: is that possibly a windlass?
• At number 2: I don't know what to call that, but is that something for 'belaying' rigging/lines?
• At number 3: The top of the whipstaff?
• At number 4: No clue, what do you think?
• At number 5: I have no clue about this either, let me know.
• At number 6: Quite certain these are the hawseholes.

[Lieste]

5 is where the foot of the mast goes when unstepped - this looks to be suitable to take under bridges and on inland waterways, with rigging arrangements to facilitate.

4 is the head of the rudder post/tiller. It is outside the cabin, and the tiller runs on top of the roundhouse.

[amateur]

With respect to size, can you explain how you end up at 18 meter. I made a print of the drawing om a A4, the length of the scale in my print is around 4.3 centimeters, the length of the hull between perpendiculars around 19 centimeters.

Dividing implies: 19/4.3*9 feet = 40feet. (Which is a nice round measure for a design drawing ). 40 feet equals 40 * 28.5 centimeters = 11 meters. That in turn is a relatively common measure for an inland sailing craft as this one presumably is.

 

With respect to your questions: 

1: belaying point. See picture below, heavy, slightly curved piece of wood, with a iron spike

 

2. difficult to say, but most probably a hole to feed the running part of a backstay, or of some lines to handle the gaff. Other option: iron ring used to fix the lower block of the tackle of the backdstay (or some line to the gaff). See below, Statenjacht Utrecht has both at this location: attachment of the tackle blocks, as well as the place for the running parts to feed through to the belaying points at the inside of the bulwark.

 

3: definitely not a whipstaff or tiller. Tillers were fixed at the top of the rudder, and sat ‘on top’ of the cabin. Tiller is not shown in this drawing. It micht be the ‘luiwagen’ for the mainsheet. However, I would have expeted it in the topview also.

 

4. and 5 already explained. You can see the arrangement in pne of the drawings I linked to: the mast can pivot backeards, and 5 is a hatch that can be removed to let the mast pivot backwards. The wider part up front is needed to accomodate for the counterweight. Bit difficult to see in this pic, but the sustem is a bit outdayed nowadays, so not many pics around in the net…

 

with respect to your decklayout: I still prefer the two-cabin option over the one cabin/ open deck version.

You may discover that your floor in the aft cabin sits too low: due to the form of the hull (and the thickness oh the frames), you may end up with a rather small floor in the cabin when laid to deep. Raising it will give more square feet. Second: in most drawings I know, there is a bench below the windows, in such a way that the windowsill is at ‘bench level’. I think in your layout this distance is a bit large.

 

Jan

Edited November 30 by amateur

[Waldemar]

 

Right, definitely 40 feet. Confirmed by direct application of the drawn linear scale.

 

I also looked at the method of forming the hull shapes. In its essence, it is not overly complicated, but recreating the main design lines, which have been scrupulously erased from the finished draught, would already be an undertaking for at least a couple of days.

 

This could be quite an interesting reverse-engineering project in itself, as I have not yet investigated such a variant of Dutch-style design. These old methods, correctly applied, actually guarantee perfectly faired shapes.

 

 

 

Edited November 30 by Waldemar

[CDR_Ret]

Robska,

 

You may have already noticed this, but there are some glaring errors between the various views in these plans:

At the bow in the halfbreadth view, there appears to be a very wide rail wrapping around the bow of the vessel. But if you look at the profile elevation view, the planking of the bow wraps up and back toward the stern, forming a very cheeky profile. The upper railing is well aft of the forward edge shown in the  lower view. The two views simply don't match (unless the railing details were omitted for some reason in the lower view).

 

At the stern, referring to  profile elevation, the intersection of the poop deck's side railing and the molding around the stern windows corresponds to the extent of the deck planking in the lower view. So, unless the deck planking is flush with the railing (unlikely), there is a problem with the drawing in this area.

 

What is the provenance of this drawing? How old is it and from what was it taken?

 

Terry 

Edited November 30 by CDR_Ret

[Lieste]

In the plan view, the outer line is the 'breadth line'. The inner line is the line of the top timber.

At the stern, the roundhouse deck is more or less flush with the rail, and is fully occupied by the tiller, which is operated by a cable run over a frame above the leading edge of the roundhouse, or potentially the position just forward of the roundhouse rail break.

The roundhouse form is largely decorative - the cabin is short and 'upright' with an overhanging deck and decorative canopy extended purely for aesthetic reasons, to mimic the appearance feasible with a 'working' form in a larger vessel.

As is usual with hullforms, the sides of the upper works are not included within the plan view - only the breadth line and the width of the topline. Just fair the top-timbers a needed to provide the tumblehome shown.

Edited November 30 by Lieste

[amateur]

It is also possible that the deckplan shows the deck-layout. In that case the line of the caprail falls even inside the line drawn, as the railing falls slightly inward.

 

so: no errors, perhaps some slight imprecisions.

 

I do not know of dutch inland craft that had a cable-run rudder. It was - as far as my knowledge goes - whipstaff or tiller.

 

Jan

Edited December 1 by amateur

[Lieste]

What I saw on some of the models and paintings was a frame just forward of the roundhouse 'over' the end of the tiller bar, which is over and flush/low to the roundhouse. The cables run to the outsides of the frame and to the tiller - presumably then down to a wheel or a similar contrivance in the cockpit. These are moderate vessels designed to appear much larger/grander than they are, and with the tiller 'overhead' and behind the working space. Not large enough to pass the tiller inside the cabin, or to have the helmsman on the roundhouse - so some method of working the tiller from afore the cabin and lower than the tiller position is needed.

[amateur]

Never seen that on Dutch ships. Would be interesting to see what type of ship that is. Do you have a link?

 

Jan

Edited December 1 by amateur

[Doreltomin]

Hi, just my two cents so far as there's a long story here and it's still in development: these small yachts had indeed two cabins, one fore cabin and one aft cabin just as the plan shows and as our friend Waldemar points in his post #14 here. But between them there's not a deep hole, but instead a cockpit with two benches to the sides, put to the normal height as a person sitting on the bench would normally look outside (after all, there's where the helmsman would stay, sitting on the port bench and steering the big helm above the aft cabin with some ropes). And then in the middle deck between the benches there would be two narrow flights of stairs, one to the fore cabin and another to the aft cabin.

 

There's another plan of a similar "spiegelyacht" of 1751, inventarisnummer A.0149(063) titled "Zeil Plezier Jaght" (Sail pleasure yacht) from the collections of the Maritime Museum, Amsterdam, plan II C (26) which I have downloaded from the Maritiem Digitaal some time ago and which shows all these details, but unfortunately I can't get that link anymore so I am not sure if I am allowed to post that picture here. Can any of our Dutch friends find that file either on the Maritiem Digitaal or on the Maritime Museum Amsterdam site?

[Waldemar]

 

2 hours ago, Doreltomin said:

Waldemar points in his post #14

 

Hi, thanks, but it should actually read ‘Jan points in his post #11’ 🙂.

 

 

2 hours ago, Doreltomin said:

"spiegelyacht" of 1751, inventarisnummer A.0149(063) titled "Zeil Plezier Jaght" (Sail pleasure yacht) from the collections of the Maritime Museum, Amsterdam, plan II C (26) [...]. I am not sure if I am allowed to post that picture here

 

Quoting and reproduction for non-commercial purposes is not prohibited, at least according to the law to which I am subject, so below is a copy of that plan whose existence you have reminded us of. Indeed, it's a great example, and even for several reasons, thanks.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, I took an even closer look at the design concept of the yacht we are talking about. This method, already using design diagonals to produce variable radii, is simply brilliant in its simplicity and ingenuity at the same time. I think I'll make a separate thread describing this as yet unknown method, discovered thanks to this plan.

 

For now, below, I am posting the almost finished body plan of this yacht. You can see quite well all the drawing inaccuracies committed in the original drawing, but it should be noted right away that more precision was not necessary to draw such a preparatory sketch, as precise tracing was only required on the mould loft.

 

This is also another very good opportunity to show the potential of reverse engineering that takes into account old design methods. Not only does this approach not introduce new distortions when smoothing out hull shapes, but it also further corrects the designers' frequent drawing inaccuracies and later distortions of the original drawings.

 

 

 

 

 

[amateur]

Hi,

 

I was about to make a ‘final’ remark on the drawing from the national archive: I don’t know why the drawing is dated 1733, but my guess is that it newer. Also: it had never been used to buuld an actual ship.

Doreltomins drawing certainly is contemporeneous. When in doubt, follow that one.

By the way: I don’t think these construction methods are unknown. Couple of years ago there was a Dutch book titled ‘ In tekening gebracht’ authors:Lemmers/Hoving, describing these construction methods.

 

Jan

[Waldemar]

 

4 hours ago, amateur said:

I don’t know why the drawing is dated 1733, but my guess is that it newer. Also: it had never been used to buuld an actual ship.

 

There is probably no need to guess. There are at least a dozen plans in the archives created obviously by one hand and this very plan is in that group. One of these plans is signed by its designer, a certain Jan Veltmand, and another plan, of a hooker, shows even the name of the ship – ‘Catharina Maria’. It would be enough to check this information to get more exact dating. I personally rely provisionally on the archivists' dating, which seems to me quite acceptable, given the specifics of these designs. Besides, they are kept together with other plans, with dates on them, for example 1728 and 1733. I wonder how one can be sure that they were not used to built actual vessels? In any case, these plans must have been drawn somehow, after all, and all indications are that they are not random scribbles.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, amateur said:

I don’t think these construction methods are unknown. Couple of years ago there was a Dutch book titled ‘ In tekening gebracht’ authors:Lemmers/Hoving, describing these construction methods.

 

Here, too, there is no need to guess. I am familiar with the contents of this publication, which is why, among other things, I wrote that the method identified from this plan is so far unknown. Incidentally, other Dutch design methods from the first decades of the 18th century and earlier are also not described in this book. There are at most comments on the plans reproduced there from that very earlier period, of the kind that it is not known how they were designed.

 

 

By the way, in this group of a dozen drawings by Jan Veltmand there is a plan with a rather similar general layout, that is, with a central cabin and a deep cockpit, itself before a very small cabin aft (National Archief NL-HaNA_4.MST_470) :

 

 

 

Edited December 2 by Waldemar

[Robska]

On 11/30/2024 at 2:16 PM, amateur said:

With respect to size, can you explain how you end up at 18 meter. I made a print of the drawing om a A4, the length of the scale in my print is around 4.3 centimeters, the length of the hull between perpendiculars around 19 centimeters.

Dividing implies: 19/4.3*9 feet = 40feet. (Which is a nice round measure for a design drawing ). 40 feet equals 40 * 28.5 centimeters = 11 meters. That in turn is a relatively common measure for an inland sailing craft as this one presumably is.

I think I made a mistake when interpreting the explanation on how to use the scale by @amateur. Since Waldemar also pointed out that it is 40 feet.

On 11/30/2024 at 2:16 PM, amateur said:

3: definitely not a whipstaff or tiller. Tillers were fixed at the top of the rudder, and sat ‘on top’ of the cabin. Tiller is not shown in this drawing. It micht be the ‘luiwagen’ for the mainsheet. However, I would have expeted it in the topview also.

Several people have pointed out that the tiller was fixed to the top of the cabin. I found lots of models that show this. So I will assume that is what that is. Later on, when it comes to modeling the tiller I will look into how exactly this should be modeled. What is a 'luiwagen'? I couldn't find anything other then a mop 🤣

 

On 11/30/2024 at 2:16 PM, amateur said:

4. and 5 already explained. You can see the arrangement in pne of the drawings I linked to: the mast can pivot backeards, and 5 is a hatch that can be removed to let the mast pivot backwards. The wider part up front is needed to accomodate for the counterweight. Bit difficult to see in this pic, but the sustem is a bit outdayed nowadays, so not many pics around in the net…

Interesting, makes total sense. So the lower part, on which the 'upper' mast pivots, is fixed to the floor on the inside of the hull?

 

@Waldemar I might be asking too much of you. Please just be frank. But I love your work, I love what you are able to do with those plans. I have already checked out all your topics on this forum on recreating ship plans using this or other similar methods. Would you be able to recreate the plan of the ship so that I can use that for the model? 🙏🙈

 

@Doreltomin and also Waldemar, thanks for the plan of the "Zeil Plezier Jaght" and also the other plan with the central cabin. That is going to be immensely helpful for recreating a possible central cabin setup and the cockpit. With this setup and the right measurements the cabins are both about 1.7m in height 👌

[Waldemar]

 

1 hour ago, Robska said:

Please just be frank.

 

I am always assertive or honest. Unless the demands of courtesy and politeness sometimes get in the way 🙂.

 

 

1 hour ago, Robska said:

Would you be able to recreate the plan of the ship so that I can use that for the model?

 

I keep hoping that someone will eventually start applying these presented design methods themselves. That is at least the general intention. But in this particular case of this yacht I was going to do it anyway, so I don't see it as a problem to take the extra time to do some additional drafting of simple 2D plans, as I have already done for Samuel 1650 at Don's request. Does this convention suit you more or less? Further on, you will already be on your own.

 

[Robska]

1 hour ago, Waldemar said:

Does this convention suit you more or less?

Yes, it does!

 

Simple drafting plans of the hull lines including the upperworks which correct for any issue with the original are greatly appreciated. For the side, top and also the bow and stern view.

 

Thank you very much. Will you make a new topic on this?

[amateur]

@Waldemar By writing that there was no shi built to this drawing, I meant that this drawing is not a detailed construction drawing. Niot that it is notbased onsn actual ship/construction drawing. 
 

With respect to the book pf Lemmers: I did not at fist glance see the dofferenced between this drawing and thosein thr book. Can you enlighten me abit more by indicating whete the major differences ate?

 

Jan

[Waldemar]

 

2 hours ago, amateur said:

By writing that there was no shi built to this drawing, I meant that this drawing is not a detailed construction drawing. Niot that it is notbased onsn actual ship/construction drawing. 

 

Without going into considerations of an academic nature, I will only say that the design of the yacht under consideration is quite detailed for its era and certainly made it possible to build a vessel. For comparison, let me remind of a design from about the same period, according to which a whole series of three whaling ships were successfully built. Please note how ‘poor’ in detail this design is in its graphic form:

 

 

 

And yet another design from a couple of decades earlier. Here, not even contours of the bends are defined, and yet this very design was again a base for successful building a whole series of ships:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, amateur said:

With respect to the book pf Lemmers: I did not at fist glance see the dofferenced between this drawing and thosein thr book. Can you enlighten me abit more by indicating whete the major differences ate?

 

To make a long story short, the content of the book you mention focuses on the „modern” design methods, adopted in the Netherlands by some designers around the second quarter of the 18th century, which in essence are methods adapted from the so-called French methods, in the meaning of using numerous diagonals that were harmoniously divided geometrically or mathematically to obtain the contours of the frames, independently of the traditional design lines such as the line of the floor used up to then.

 

This is already a completely different era in terms of naval architecture compared to the design techniques native to the 17th century and earlier. More on this fully diagonal methods, please see, for example, the excellent works of Jean Boudriot on the subject.

 

 

 

Edited December 2 by Waldemar

[Doreltomin]

Just to turn back to our sheep a bit:

 

Waldemar, thanks for posting the yacht plan I was talking about! Yes it is very useful in terms of details in section even if it lacks details on the deck, but it can be complementary with the plan discussed here. As usual when coming to ships, unless someone has the full portfolio with original plans from the designer/builder (which can never be the case with earlier than 20th century plans) there's still place for some more or less educate guess. My favourite details on this yacht plan are the "wells" of the two toilets, one which is set on the starboard bench just facing the helmsman and goes straight through the ship to her bottom, the other on the aft bench of the rear cabin is slightly curved to go outside the ship's body just under the waterline.   

 

Also you are right, the credit for first debunking the internal layout of this little yacht goes to Jan (Amateur) so thank you too for all your very valuable inputs to this discussion!

 

Now, Waldemar, regarding the true or not-so-true verticals of the plan, we must think how developed were the drafting skills and especially the drawing instruments available to 18th century people. I started my training as an architect in the early 80's of the previous century and then we still relied on simple technical instruments which could deviate from the vertical, so the first thing you had to do was to check if your instrument is square - so to my eyes, relative to the instruments they may have had in the 18th century the plan is quite well done. Also we may consider these plans were made by people which really knew their ships so didn't need to add some of the details, which were quite "standard" to them. For instance the author drew the deck plan but did not bother to draw in also the external contour of the ship, which would have needed considerable drafting effort with too little an outcome. That he already knew how it would be! He simply considered drawing the boards of the deck, probably to calculate the length and size of the planks needed. As you say, these drawings were made on some purpose which we may never know until we know more on the author. These may have been either a ship building proposal to discuss with a prospective customer or even a draft for building a model, but one thing is sure, the author knew precisely how these ships were built!

 

As for the thing (number 2) in your numbered quiz plan, my guess is that it's the point where the rope which raises the leeboard goes. Notice the position of the leeboard drawn just above, that point goes directly where the attaching point on the leeboard would have been. Also the element you called "mast" would probably be called properly "tabernacle" in Dutch - it's a fixed three sides box on the deck on which the mast rotates, coming out from vertical to horizontal through the open "well" (number 5) drawn on the deck, which is a typical arrangement on small Dutch ships.

 

One last comment is regarding the identity of the author of these plans. You advanced the name Jan Veltmand for the collection of these drawings. But have you noticed the scale is decorated with a garland which goes over a central roundel on which the initials JV are set? So this drawing is even signed by him in some way!   

[Robska]

14 hours ago, Doreltomin said:

Also the element you called "mast" would probably be called properly "tabernacle" in Dutch - it's a fixed three sides box on the deck on which the mast rotates, coming out from vertical to horizontal through the open "well" (number 5) drawn on the deck, which is a typical arrangement on small Dutch ships.

Something like this? Would this be how a tabernacle looked back then?

 

14 hours ago, Doreltomin said:

As for the thing (number 2) in your numbered quiz plan, my guess is that it's the point where the rope which raises the leeboard goes. Notice the position of the leeboard drawn just above, that point goes directly where the attaching point on the leeboard would have been.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. After some research I can confirm that the little hole at the bottom right of the leeboard is indeed for the rope for handling the leeboard at number 2.

 

Still unsure about number 3 though...

[Lieste]

I think #3 is the rail end for the arrangement seen in the image of post #13, where the tiller is handled by a line and lies between the roundhouse deck and the transverse rail.

[Waldemar]

 

Almost finished...

 

 

 

[Waldemar]

 

Voilà! The lines of your yacht are ready. Since you will be processing it further in the 3D program, I will not be doing 2D drawings as I did previously. Instead, I will send it to you right away via PM in OBJ format. just as you see it below, only without all those design lines which you don't need, just the surfaces themselves.

 

 

 

 

[amateur]

That traverse rail in #13 is the rail on which the lower block of the main sheet is attached. It goes over the tiller, but has noconnectionto it.

 

and that is why I am not sure about 3referring to this part: it is above the cockpit, while it can  (need?) be placed further aft: above the deck where it is not sitting in the way of people getting in or out…

 

jan

Edited December 4 by amateur

[amateur]

@Robska: you show a steel tabernacle, made for a mast that is placed on the deck. The construction with masts with a counterweight is stepped on the keel, as you can see in the drawing in #44, this part  tend to be relatively heavy in all dimensions.

 

Jan

Edited December 4 by amateur

[Waldemar]

 

23 hours ago, Doreltomin said:

One last comment is regarding the identity of the author of these plans. You advanced the name Jan Veltmand for the collection of these drawings. But have you noticed the scale is decorated with a garland which goes over a central roundel on which the initials JV are set? So this drawing is even signed by him in some way!

 

 

To be honest, I hadn't really paid attention to this very detail. Congratulations on your perceptiveness! The designs of this Jan Veltmand are very recognisable from others, and cover a whole range of different vessels. Yet, his full name is found on only one of his draughts. And here, his initials, nice...