A Dutch Fluyt in shell first, reconstructing the "Ghost ship" scale 1:36

[Maarten]

Finally the work on the fluyt continues.
But before building first a dismanteling. During the build and after discussions I had with Ab the designed underwater part of the stern is too slim and would create insufficient bouyancy.
Based on Van Yk I am designing a new stern frame. I am also redrawing the design of the critical ship components in Fusion 360.

Secondly I had some issues with the planking of the bow and I found out that the zandstrook the first plank along the keel is not running far enough along the bow section. The result of this is that the first kim gang (bilge plank) is curved too much.
In the comming posts I will show you what the changes will be to solve this.

Below the first results of the hull demolition. With some Aceton you can easily disolve the PVA glue and remove the planks.

 

[The learner]

Demolition is not always the easiest and most desirable part of construction however you picked a good time to do it while you're still working on the main part of the hull, the part that will give you the rest of the hull design that will lead to a proper build. Also nice to have advice from the experts. This is not an easy build you have taken on, it looks good even though you have done a bit of backing up. This part I do not do well with and ask will it be seen if I dont?

 

[Steef66]

A deja-vu for me. Good luck with the changes.

 

[Jwallkc]

Was the transitional curve of the bilges at the bow really that sharp?

 

[AnobiumPunctatum]

I am really happy that you will continue with your build. I hope that I find time to see you in August in Amsterdam again.

With some Aceton you can easily disolve the PVA glue and remove the planks.

This answers a question, I had in the Pandora build log from @Heinrich . It looks that there happens nothing with the wood.

 

[shota70]

my dear friend, Good luck with the changes/Reconstruction

 

[Daniel20]

A whole new meaning to redo Maarten. This is such a great teachable moment for me though. It's good to see you back at it.

 

[Heinrich]

after discussions I had with Ab the designed underwater part of the stern is too slim and would create insufficient bouyancy.

Dear Maarten - obviously I am happy that the Fluyt is now taking her rightful place after the RR has invaded your time.

May I ask on what data the buoyancy was deemed to be insufficient. I find it strange that you would abandon all the meticulous research you have done (based on actual archeological finds) for a singular, theoretical opinion (which in turn is probably based on Witsen's ratios) - yet again. To me this just seems that you are abandoning factual findings for theory. In my opinion, a theory is nothing more than that and if actual archeological finds can prove them wrong, we should all be delighted at the clarity we have gleaned. Please don't second guess your own research and interpretation.

I do agree that your zandstrook probably did not extend far enough up to the stem which may well be the main cause for the extreme curvature of the planks. But then again, this is no fault of your research and findings - it is a simple build error, one which can be corrected without throwing the baby away with the bath water.

I am sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. If we keep on looking for answers in the same old places and regard that as gospel, then we will get the same old (and in many cases, irrelevant) answers.

A beautiful example of this - one which actually pertains to the Fluyt and Witsen - is the Sound Toll. Witsen has advocated that the motivation for the narrow deck of the Fluyt was to evade toll/taxes and for decades "scholars" like Karl-Frederich von Olechnowitz, Jules van Beylen, Richard W. Unger and A. Wegener Sleeswyk have upheld this belief. Now new and authoritative research has shown that this is nothing more than a fallacious misconception and was only relevant to the Noortsvaerders and only at a much later date than the conception of the original Fluyt.

 

[Peter Voogt]

Finally the work on the fluyt continues.
But before building first a dismanteling. During the build and after discussions I had with Ab the designed underwater part of the stern is too slim and would create insufficient bouyancy.
Based on Van Yk I am designing a new stern frame. I am also redrawing the design of the critical ship components in Fusion 360.

Secondly I had some issues with the planking of the bow and I found out that the zandstrook the first plank along the keel is not running far enough along the bow section. The result of this is that the first kim gang (bilge plank) is curved too much.
In the comming posts I will show you what the changes will be to solve this.

Below the first results of the hull demolition. With some Aceton you can easily disolve the PVA glue and remove the planks.
View attachment 436766View attachment 436767View attachment 436768View attachment 436769

Always good to do a re-do ‘just on time’, Maarten. Nice to see new activities!
Regards, Peter

 

[Ab Hoving]

May I ask on what data the buoyancy was deemed to be insufficient. I find it strange that you would abandon all the meticulous research you have done (based on actual archeological finds) for a singular, theoretical opinion (which in turn is probably based on Witsen's ratios) - yet again. To me this just seems that you are abandoning factual findings for theory. In my opinion, a theory is nothing more than that and if actual archeological finds can prove them wrong, we should all be delighted at the clarity we have gleaned. Please don't second guess your own research and interpretation.

I don't make a habit of reacting to pompous critics, but in this case I think I owe the readers an explication of the reason why I advised Maarten to change his beautifully performed experiment. Just as a quick test I produced a paper model after his own design to help him find the shape of his first bilge plank, which as anybody can see had a strange, maybe impossible curve. Trees don't grow like that and certainly not in numbers enough to answer to the needs of so many fluits that were built in the old days. So the hull was done and the shape of the plank was copied from it, producing a remarkable moderate curve:



At that moment I looked at the rest of the hull and it struck me that there was an obvious lack of volume in the aft part:


Van Yk gives a beautiful method to establish the amount of volume for the aft frame, transformed from the front frame in his set up. It's in my Witsen book and perhaps you know it:


It shows the shaping af the aft frame on the basis of the front frame, using both the shape of the master ribband and the amount of the ship lying deeper at the stern. Transformed into the sketch I made for Maarten the difference between his aft frame (the top drawn line) and Van Yk's suggestion (the dotted line) is clear:


So I built another model to show what difference it made:


Maarten took his own decision to change his model and I appreciate his choice. It will lead to a much better model that the former one.

What bothers me much is that people who should know better write comments like the quote here above, suggesting that I more or less pressed Maarten to change his view on the ship's shape at the cost of the value of his 'archaeological' experiment, only on the basis of some wild theories nobody ever has proven to be right. This is obviously nonsense and the suggestion that I only use theories that totally overlook what daily practice teaches us is simply preposterous. I am very much interested in Maarten's experiment, I did the same some decades ago when I hardly had the right material to make good pictures, in a time there were no forums to learn from and I love to see his efforts. I am just trying to lead him towards a reliable model and nothing else.

If Heinrich, who has so far not done much more than flooding the forum with his unrequested comments and who has on the building side only been busy bashing kits and doing 'research' (that is: collecting and repeating what others before him stated) feels the need to criticize me, I think he should be aware of his own status and obvious shortcomings.
Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion (even if it is based on stupid ideas and allegations), but I am too long in this line of work to be set aside in this way by someone who has hardly a track record in ship and model building.

 

[Hubac’s Historian]

Demolition is not always the easiest and most desirable part of construction however you picked a good time to do it while you're still working on the main part of the hull, the part that will give you the rest of the hull design that will lead to a proper build. Also nice to have advice from the experts. This is not an easy build you have taken on, it looks good even though you have done a bit of backing up. This part I do not do well with and ask will it be seen if I dont?

I agree with this 100%

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Admittedly, I was not supposed to hint anymore, limiting myself to a nodding applause, but since you have already decided to take this dramatic step, I remind you of the plan of the fluit Fortuyn 1740. This plan is complete meaning it has virtually everything you require for the construction of your model: the rectangular shape of the hull (in plan view), the contours of all leading frames, and on top of that the contours of the „flat” and the contours of the bilge (in all three projections), with the planking butting at 45 degrees to the stempost and the wale, just as you desire for your model. One simply cannot want more when it comes to the shape of the hull and the run of the planking. And it's all authentic and you don't have to guess at anything. For your consideration.

​

.​

 

[janos]

I don't make a habit of reacting to pompous critics, but in this case I think I owe the readers an explication of the reason why I advised Maarten to change his beautifully performed experiment. Just as a quick test I produced a paper model after his own design to help him find the shape of his first bilge plank, which as anybody can see had a strange, maybe impossible curve. Trees don't grow like that and certainly not in numbers enough to answer to the needs of so many fluits that were built in the old days. So the hull was done and the shape of the plank was copied from it, producing a remarkable moderate curve:

View attachment 437655

At that moment I looked at the rest of the hull and it struck me that there was an obvious lack of volume in the aft part:
View attachment 437656

Van Yk gives a beautiful method to establish the amount of volume for the aft frame, transformed from the front frame in his set up. It's in my Witsen book and perhaps you know it:
View attachment 437657

It shows the shaping af the aft frame on the basis of the front frame, using both the shape of the master ribband and the amount of the ship lying deeper at the stern. Transformed into the sketch I made for Maarten the difference between his aft frame (the top drawn line) and Van Yk's suggestion (the dotted line) is clear:

View attachment 437658
So I built another model to show what difference it made:

View attachment 437659
Maarten took his own decision to change his model and I appreciate his choice. It will lead to a much better model that the former one.

What bothers me much is that people who should know better write comments like the quote here above, suggesting that I more or less pressed Maarten to change his view on the ship's shape at the cost of the value of his 'archaeological' experiment, only on the basis of some wild theories nobody ever has proven to be right. This is obviously nonsense and the suggestion that I only use theories that totally overlook what daily practice teaches us is simply preposterous. I am very much interested in Maarten's experiment, I did the same some decades ago when I hardly had the right material to make good pictures, in a time there were no forums to learn from and I love to see his efforts. I am just trying to lead him towards a reliable model and nothing else.

If Heinrich, who has so far not done much more than flooding the forum with his unrequested comments and who has on the building side only been busy bashing kits and doing 'research' (that is: collecting and repeating what others before him stated) feels the need to criticize me, I think he should be aware of his own status and obvious shortcomings.
Everyone is entitled to have his own opinion (even if it is based on stupid ideas and allegations), but I am too long in this line of work to be set aside in this way by someone who has hardly a track record in ship and model building.

Harsh words! Was this really necessary?
János

 

[Heinrich]

Harsh words! Was this really necessary?
János

No worries my friend. I've had far worse directed at me before!

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

I am also tossing in some other plans from the first half of the 18th century (Dutch National Archives), which in this very aspect can also be considered very relevant to your project, at least as comparative material, boosting your confidence in decision-making. One can actually say that this is already a kind of over-abundance disaster.


Catharina Maria, hoeker, ca. 1733:

​

Kof, ca. 1733:

​

Another Kof, ca. 1733:

​

.​

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Maarten, I stand by my original statement - I agree 100% with the fact that you are revisiting your original zandstrook. I agree that it was probably incorrectly shaped and positioned. The reason why I told you to believe in the PRIMARY sources that you have available to you is the fact that our friend on Modelbouwforum, Dirk Wuyts (Amazone) used the exact same sources when he created his model of the "Ghost Ship".

The following pictures are courtesy of Dirk Wuyts - Modelbouwforum.



As is clear to see, there are no issues with regards to buoyancy on his model - neither was it necessary for the sources to be reworked to create yet another generic ship according to the Van Yk / Witsen formulae.

Like you pointedly remarked yourself: "An actual documented/measured wreck will prevail the written source. For the non-measured or -documented items, Witsen and Van Yk will come in. " - Perfectly understandable.

As to the smut that my posting created, I do apologize sincerely. That was certainly not my intention, but it seemed that the shoe fit too well in this instance.

​

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

The problem with Dirk's model, which you show here, is firstly that it is obviously not primary source in itself. Personally, I also do not believe, in terms of shape, that it was created on the basis of some reliable primary sources, because Dirk went to the opposite extreme, actually not leaving enough easy waterflow for the rudder to work properly. To put it another way, his fluit's stern in the underwater part of the hull is in turn too full. I have yet to see something similar in some reliable primary source.

This kind of rather naïve blunder happens quite often, by the way. For example, just for a square tuck stern, it was committed by John McKay in his published reconstruction of Sovereign of the Seas 1637, as well as by the makers of the model for the museum in my country tasked with reconstructing the historic ship (pictured below). Both are simply a horror to my eyes – the flat of the stern going right down to the keel! And there are more examples like this. Often such rather elementary flaws are the result of people simply failing to distinguish between the ability to cut a board precisely and wax it nicely and the ability to correctly reconstruct the shapes of period ships, because for them, after all, it generally involves the same field and period of modelling. However, this is just another misunderstanding.

​

.​

 

[Heinrich]

ghost ship schaal 1/28

mijn laatste model dat ik 3 jaar geleden maakte was het zelfde schip maar dan in schaal 1/48, ik heb daar veel uitgeleerd . het schip is gevonden in...

www.modelbouwforum.nl

According to Dirk he did use the primary sources - the exact same sources that Maarten employed. In fact, Maarten referenced Dirk's build on page 1 of his log.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Maybe, but clearly not for this one aspect.

.​

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

If it keeps going this way, Maarten will go elsewhere and leave us alone in his thread. And who will replace him then...?