Wildmanden 1755 by Arthur Goulart

[Waldemar]

 

9 hours ago, Arthur Goulart said:

The one thing I didn't understand is how you came up with the position of the thick auxiliary construction lines. Could you elucidate it? Thanks a lot!!

 

I will start from the beginning, as it may be useful to others as well.

 

To generate hollowing/bottom curves, Turesen constructed a separate progressive scale, specifically using a mathematical progression (in this case +2). Based on this, he built triangle ‘A’ (on the right of the below reproduction), which triangle was particularly useful in manual drawing for quickly scaling this linear scale.

Fortunately, in a separate diagram (on the left of the below reproduction), Turesen has also shown how he used this progressive scale to generate the hollowing/bottom curve for the fashion piece. All that is needed is to adjust the progressive scale to both defining arms of the curve by scaling and rotating it appropriately, then, starting from the points on both scales, draw two sets of lines parallel to both arms, and finally connect the points where these lines intersect. And, voilà, the hollowing/bottom curve is ready .

 

 

In order to maintain geometric consistency and, consequently, to obtain harmonious, smooth shapes, the same procedure and the same progressive scale should be applied to all other frames. In addition, the vertices and terminating ends of both arms of the hollowing/bottom curves for all frames must necessarily lie on a curve with a harmoniously smooth course, preferably on a straight line in the ‘body plan’ projection.
 

— The location of point ‘B’ is the spot where the curve of the fashion piece changes from convex to concave (which may be also said of the start of the hollowing/bottom curves for all other frames), and it is even marked by Turesen himself on his diagram as point ‘L’ (see above).

— Point ‘C’ is the apex of both arms defining the hollowing/bottom curve of the fashion piece.

— Points ‘A’ and ‘D’ (the latter is the apex of both arms defining the hollowing/bottom curve) were found in such a way that they meet the following conditions: the course of the hollowing/ bottom curve for the master frame is consistent with the course of this curve on the original plan, and, the resulting lines ‘AB’ and ‘DC’ must generate the correct shape (i.e. consistent with the original drawing) of the hollowing/bottom curves for all other frames. Finding these points “A” and ‘D’ is a fairly typical iterative operation based on trial and error fitting.

— Point ‘E’ is the spot where the first bend connects to the keel assembly. In a sense, the geometric nature of this point is similar to point ‘C’.

— Point ‘F’ is again an empirically found spot where the frame contour switches from convex (or straight) to concave form. As with the aft part of the hull, the resulting lines ‘DE’ and ‘AF’ must meet the conditions described above for lines “AB” and ‘DC’, i.e. they must correctly define the coordinates for the arms of the hollowing/bottom curves of all frames.  

 

 

 

[Martes]

9 hours ago, Arthur Goulart said:

I wonder what's the plus of not having the wales blended into the planking. Maybe easier construction? As the thinner planks would be easier to bend.

 

2 hours ago, Kenchington said:

I suspect psychology or perhaps I should say the thought patterns of shipwrights, prolonged by tradition and conservatism.

 

A bit of both, I suppose. But it is definitely more expensive and requires more time, effort and quality control to produce, install and post-process uneven planks, thinner at one side and thicker at the other, that form the blended wale and have to be precisely touching one another. The British adopted this practice only in the wake of the captured Danish fleet, as they were really impressed by the Danish workmanship.

 

11 hours ago, Arthur Goulart said:

That plan is for 60 gun ships built based on Fyen (1749), that TJM taught us about.

 

16 hours ago, Martes said:

And it is this form that reached Denmark and was studied, and unless I am much mistaken, it does bear some relation to the design of the Wildmanden.

Note that in itself this is a case of reverse-engineering of a French design that passed through British hands.

[Arthur Goulart]

Since the last post I made, I've been dwelling with the wale/deck/sheer curvatures. I'm convinced Turesen applied an angle to the progression used to draw them fore.

 

Lets first get back to the G1228 60 gun ship scaled up from Fyen (1749) that I showed you last time. The previous post I explained how a 1,2,3,4... progression was used to define these curvatures aft:

What I didn't show you, however, is that the plan presents a different triangle for setting the same curvatures fore:

At first, I thought this was another 1,2,3,4... progression, thus not different from what is seen for the deck aft. But, it is not. You see, what its spacing suggests is that it results from an angled line applied to a 1,2,3,4... progression. To make what I mean clearer:

That's how it looks when both the 1,2,3,4... progression (in blue) and the 50º progression (in red) are scaled to the lenght of the base of the fore triangle:

(in green, where there are both blue and red points)

 

This is not the same as is shown for the wales (barckholtets) aft, it's actually the opposite. The 50º angle gives the wales aft a more uniform incline, it makes them more akeen to a straight line, if you will; while the curves fore start off gentler and get steeper towards the stem. An exaggerated representation:

As for the G1228 60 gun ship, it is possible that we have more of a 48º angle to the progression instead of a flat 50º one, but that specific plan was not neatly drawn at all, so, hard to know. The important thing to be noted here though is that despite, in practice, the difference between a deck drawn by a 1,2,3,4... at 60º (so, parallel to the base of the triangle) and one drawn by a 1,2,3,4... at 50º being very slight, for some reason, that differentiation in methods for the fore and aft parts was done.

 

Grant it, that still is just one plan, it would be quite the bit of anecdotical evidence to be considered for Wildmanden. Well, it would be, if the same wasn't observed not only on Wildmanden's plans, but on Hvide Ørne's (1753), and on Fredericus Quintus's (1753) too. They all have a curves that get steeper towards the stem fore and straighter ones aft, as to suggest the same idea present on G1228 is present on these Turesen designs.

 

So, I got to more testing on Hvide Ørne and Wildmanden, I tested all kinds of progressions, and two other methods too: projecting the a section of a circle onto the frames and getting the heights of the wale/deck/sheer at each frame that way (a method I've seen by english shipwrights), and drawing the curves by a circle that has it's center 90º above where the curve starts amidships. Those alternative techniques yielded no better results than what I got from triangular progressions. My unorganized progression tests:

What I landed on for Hvide Ørne (1753) was a 1,3,5,7... 60º progression for all aft curves, starting off on the fore midship perpendicular; and, a 1,3,5,7... 50º progression for all fore curves, starting off, again, on the fore midship perpendicular:

 

Some close ups of how it is looking. I'm quite happy with all the aft curves, and all the fore curves with the exception of the sheer, where some deviation that I feel like could be something that I'm still missing is seen:

I tried applying the same progressions for Wildmanden, again, with satisfactory results for the aft. But a similar problem presents itself fore, but the other way around for Wildmanden. While my sheer line agrees with the drawing, the deck/gunports and wale curves show a slight deviation. The recurring issue in both drawings being that the sheer doesn't seem coherent with the other fore curves. On Wildmanden:

I could fix Wildmanden's curves that aren't the sheer by using 1,2,3,4... 50º instead of 1,3,5,7.... 50º, but if I were to apply the same to the sheer, it then would have a deviation from the plans. For Hvide Ørne (1753), however, the 1,3,5,7.... 50º is the best solution I found for all curves.

 

It might be just a matter of imprecision of the hand drawn plans, I'm open to suggestions though. If I find something better, I'll let you know, if not, we'll move on to explaining the stem/sternpost and the location of the quarter frames and transom diagonal.

 

And, by the way, Hvide Ørne has some pretty interesting differences for how it's body plan is done, should I make the topic a two in one package by exploring both Wildmanden's and Hvide Ørne's lines?

Cheers!

Arthur.

Edited Tuesday at 07:26 PM by Arthur Goulart

[Arthur Goulart]

On 11/25/2025 at 12:20 AM, Kenchington said:

I used to think that I understood pre-modern ship-design methods.

 

And now you show me how wrong I was!

 

Time to go back to the elementary class and start over.

 

Trevor

Trevor, this week I learned I don't even know my on portuguese language when translating Livro de Traças de Carpintaria for Waldemar 🤣

 

On 11/25/2025 at 8:31 AM, Waldemar said:

 

 

I will start from the beginning, as it may be useful to others as well.

 

To generate hollowing/bottom curves, Turesen constructed a separate progressive scale, specifically using a mathematical progression (in this case +2). Based on this, he built triangle ‘A’ (on the right of the below reproduction), which triangle was particularly useful in manual drawing for quickly scaling this linear scale.

Fortunately, in a separate diagram (on the left of the below reproduction), Turesen has also shown how he used this progressive scale to generate the hollowing/bottom curve for the fashion piece. All that is needed is to adjust the progressive scale to both defining arms of the curve by scaling and rotating it appropriately, then, starting from the points on both scales, draw two sets of lines parallel to both arms, and finally connect the points where these lines intersect. And, voilà, the hollowing/bottom curve is ready .

 

 

In order to maintain geometric consistency and, consequently, to obtain harmonious, smooth shapes, the same procedure and the same progressive scale should be applied to all other frames. In addition, the vertices and terminating ends of both arms of the hollowing/bottom curves for all frames must necessarily lie on a curve with a harmoniously smooth course, preferably on a straight line in the ‘body plan’ projection.
 

— The location of point ‘B’ is the spot where the curve of the fashion piece changes from convex to concave (which may be also said of the start of the hollowing/bottom curves for all other frames), and it is even marked by Turesen himself on his diagram as point ‘L’ (see above).

— Point ‘C’ is the apex of both arms defining the hollowing/bottom curve of the fashion piece.

— Points ‘A’ and ‘D’ (the latter is the apex of both arms defining the hollowing/bottom curve) were found in such a way that they meet the following conditions: the course of the hollowing/ bottom curve for the master frame is consistent with the course of this curve on the original plan, and, the resulting lines ‘AB’ and ‘DC’ must generate the correct shape (i.e. consistent with the original drawing) of the hollowing/bottom curves for all other frames. Finding these points “A” and ‘D’ is a fairly typical iterative operation based on trial and error fitting.

— Point ‘E’ is the spot where the first bend connects to the keel assembly. In a sense, the geometric nature of this point is similar to point ‘C’.

— Point ‘F’ is again an empirically found spot where the frame contour switches from convex (or straight) to concave form. As with the aft part of the hull, the resulting lines ‘DE’ and ‘AF’ must meet the conditions described above for lines “AB” and ‘DC’, i.e. they must correctly define the coordinates for the arms of the hollowing/bottom curves of all frames.  

 

 

 

Makes perfect sense now, Waldemar! Thanks a lot for taking the time to figure it out and to explain it!

 

On 11/25/2025 at 10:25 AM, Martes said:

A bit of both, I suppose. But it is definitely more expensive and requires more time, effort and quality control to produce, install and post-process uneven planks, thinner at one side and thicker at the other, that form the blended wale and have to be precisely touching one another. The British adopted this practice only in the wake of the captured Danish fleet, as they were really impressed by the Danish workmanship.

That's interesting though, wouldn't they be already familiar with the Danish type fo wale from French ships? If the Boudriot monographs are to be believed, the french had the same blended wales as the Danish did since somewhat early on. That's not what the captured plans for Belle Poule, for instance, suggest (Belle Poule (1780) | Royal Museums Greenwich). But Boudriot's monograph do give Belle Poule blended wales:

On 11/25/2025 at 10:25 AM, Martes said:

Note that in itself this is a case of reverse-engineering of a French design that passed through British hands.

Fascinating stuff!

Edited Tuesday at 09:13 PM by Arthur Goulart

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, Arthur Goulart said:

Trevor, this week I learned I don't even know my on portuguese language

Don't feel bad! English and Nautical English can feel like different languages sometimes. Then there's the English of Shakespeare and the King James bible (neither much older than the Livro) which would be misunderstood today, were it not that so many of us were exposed to those as children.  I doubt that Portuguese is any simpler!

 

Trevor

[Martes]

4 hours ago, Arthur Goulart said:

But Boudriot's monograph do give Belle Poule blended wales

There is a contemporary plan for the frigate La Licorne

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-82907

 

but you'd note that both her and Belle-Poule's reconstructed wales include a step above the wale, on the gundeck level, just like on the model and plans for Wildmanden. A that's what the Danish got rid of towards the end of the century, making the ships' sides totally smooth.

 

 

[druxey]

Is part of the deviation issues that you illustrate due to distortion of the original plan due to paper expansion/contraction or in the reproduction process?

[Waldemar]

 

Arthur, many thanks again for your help in translating this excerpt from Fernandes' work. As I already wrote in the private message, it is now really clear and finally ready for further work. Well done .

 

As for your “Wildmanden” project, I won't bother you with source material anymore, but instead I highly recommend Jean Boudriot's particularly clear explanations of this particular design method (attached). I would even say that reading this excerpt, taken from his larger publication Les vaisseaux de 50 & 64 canons, is an absolute must.

 

Jean Boudriot - Méthode par les triangles équilatéraux.pdf

 

[Arthur Goulart]

7 hours ago, Kenchington said:

Don't feel bad! English and Nautical English can feel like different languages sometimes. Then there's the English of Shakespeare and the King James bible (neither much older than the Livro) which would be misunderstood today, were it not that so many of us were exposed to those as children.  I doubt that Portuguese is any simpler!

 

Trevor

It's for sure one cool riddle to interpret those old texts though!

 

4 hours ago, Martes said:

There is a contemporary plan for the frigate La Licorne

 

https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-82907

 

but you'd note that both her and Belle-Poule's reconstructed wales include a step above the wale, on the gundeck level, just like on the model and plans for Wildmanden. A that's what the Danish got rid of towards the end of the century, making the ships' sides totally smooth.

 

 

Ohhh I see. It adds up! I didn't know the Danish eventually smoothed it all out.

 

3 hours ago, druxey said:

Is part of the deviation issues that you illustrate due to distortion of the original plan due to paper expansion/contraction or in the reproduction process?

Druxey, I don't think it's a matter of age related or even scanning issues for these specific Wildmanden/Hvide Ørne plans. The reason being is that the straight lines are very straight on them and all the perpendiculars are very close to perfect 90º.

 

Drafting those curves precisely by hand and eye, however, isn't easy. What that would entail is applying a 9 number progression to a space of, at most, 3'2" ÷ 48 (which, I take it, is probably the scale the plans are on). After getting the correct proportions for said lenght, the draftsman would, most likely, draw provisory line from where the curve starts amidships parallel to the waterline, and use this line as reference to set, lets say, the wale curve. For that, he would measure the space from the beggining of the progression to the first division. Then, he would take the measured distance and apply it from the reference line up on the C frame (the first frame that has a perpendicular on the sheer plan fore of the midship frame), and so on, as many times as there are perpendiculars to the stem. Maybe he simplifies it, and he doesn't apply the respective heights on every perpendicular. In conclusion, there are many opportunities for small errors to be introduced. 

 

Thing is, I was about to write a whole segment on why if my progressions were wrong, I'd expect to see the error on the wales of Hvide Ørne, not on its sheer, then I'd explain why it isn't possible to give more inclination to the sheer's progression to get it right with the plans. But, before all that, I decided to take one good shower. *Eureka moment*. The explanation is simple. The sheer does not get a progression of its own. Instead, Turesen, at least for Hvide Ørne, did that entire process to get the curvature of the wales, but, instead of doing it all again for the the sheer, he simply copied the wales' curvature and rotated it two inches down, and there you have it: the sheer line. It matches perfectly. Let's zoom in on the problem area again:

 

In blue, the previous solution; in red, the new finding.

Notice how my line is slightly above the plan's line for the wales. Notice how that very same slight difference is now seen on the sheer with the red line; and notice how the blue line is not that slightly above the sheer. I think it's a hit.

 

It has be said that the rotation solution isn't random either, the same is observed when drawing Hvide Ørne's forecastle and quarterdeck rails.

 

Now I have to test out what that means to the aft sheer line, and how that finding can be applied to Wildmanden too.

 

This all also goes to show how careful Turesen was with his drawings, the man knew consistency, that much can be said.

 

-Arthur

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:42 AM by Arthur Goulart

[Arthur Goulart]

1 hour ago, Waldemar said:

 

Arthur, many thanks again for your help in translating this excerpt from Fernandes' work. As I already wrote in the private message, it is now really clear and finally ready for further work. Well done .

 

As for your “Wildmanden” project, I won't bother you with source material anymore, but instead I highly recommend Jean Boudriot's particularly clear explanations of this particular design method (attached). I would even say that reading this excerpt, taken from his larger publication Les vaisseaux de 50 & 64 canons, is an absolute must.

 

Jean Boudriot - Méthode par les triangles équilatéraux.pdf 8.98 MB · 1 download

 

I'm happy to be able to help. Translating that was super interesting too so, it's a win win. 🙂

And, Waldemar, thanks a lot for the excerpt, it sure looks very helpful! I'll read it before I make more progress with my Wildmanden endeavour for sure. Appreciate it!

[druxey]

Glad you cracked the problem and it all works now!