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

Jwallkc said:
Was the transitional curve of the bilges at the bow really that sharp?
Click to expand...
Most probably not, one reason to change it.
Actually we don't have a comparable fluyt wreck with it lower bow visible. I expect the bow shape could be blunt but with less curvature in the bilge plank, and this is possible as I will show you.
 
AnobiumPunctatum said:
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.


This answers a question, I had in the Pandora build log from @Heinrich . It looks that there happens nothing with the wood.
Click to expand...
Yes Acetone disolves PVA. It makes it soft and with some minor bending you remove the plank. It leaves no traces on the wood except for the pva of course.

We will certainly meet again in Amsterdam in September.
 
Heinrich said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi Heinrich,

My research on wrecks is based on the upper part of the hull and archeological interpretation of these finds. Rhe shape of the lower part of these hulls is not visible on these as these are covered by the sill at the sea bed. I do have a scan of the hull part above the sea bed on which I determined my center frame shape, again the lower part based on Witsen and van Yk as actual data is not available.
I started to build the shell first construction to see if the methode would lead to a viable lower part of the hull but with the help of Ab and the shape that was evolving I am convinced the alteration is necessary. This is part of the process as we are not experienced shipwrights in the 17th century perspective of that word.
For me this is the fun of this project, make mistakes, investigate and learn.
With my new lower hull design in Fusion 360 I am going for a second try.
 
Ab Hoving said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hi Ab,

As you know I am very thank full for the help you provide and learned a lot.
For my redesign I am now re-reading Van Yk and comparing his provided data on fluyt schepen to the wreck data of the Ghost ship. Maybe I even rebuild the stem post but still working on that.

I do have some contradicting data from the main frame scan compared to Van Yk ratios but will explain that as soon I have everything complete.
 
-Waldemar- said:
.​
:)

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.



.​
Click to expand...
Hi Waldemar,

Didn't know this drawing but will import it into fusion and compare it's lines. Curious to see how it fits the wreck and it s center frame scan.
 
Heinrich said:
www.modelbouwforum.nl

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 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.
Click to expand...
Hi Heinrich,

Yes I know Dirks model and actually he send me all his data. If I am right he used an excisting hull shape of a fluyt which he altered to the dimensions of the Ghost ship. He didn't do a reconstruction of the underwater hull shape based pn a shell first methode, his model is build POB.
He actually had the original 2,5 hour underwater film of the wreck which is unfortunately lost.
 
Hi Gents,

Thx for all your input and as said before very welcome and all input is evaluated and used. I just had the feeling I have respond briefly to the above.
@Waldemar your input is certainly valued and I am looking into to this. If you don't understand my sense of humor I am sorry for that, but I was under the impression the smily behind my post was clear, my bad :) .

As there is not too much data available about the fluyt all input is welcome and will add to a better reconstruction.

Joke alert!!: At least all these recent posts help to overtake Paul @dockattner in his ridiculous fast growing number of pages on his blog ROTF
 
After the demolition of last week I started with the reconstruction of the floor planking at the bow. To reduce the angle of the first bilge plank the floor planks needs to be longer running along the stem. To give you an idea of the task ahead see below picture.
20240326_202833.jpg

First I need to shorten the floor planks and create scarph joints to add the new planks. Drilling holes at the ends of the scarph joint followed by the japanese saw will do the trick.
20240326_205008.jpg

Then dilluting the glue again with acetone and the plank sections are easily removed. After cleaning with a needle file the planks are ready to receive their new ends.
20240326_211734.jpg
20240326_211047.jpg

I keep the added planks more then long enough so I can trim them when the first bilge plank is fitted.
20240402_201136.jpg

Hopefully this weekend I find some time to fit the remaining floor planks.
 
Maarten said:
After the demolition of last week I started with the reconstruction of the floor planking at the bow. To reduce the angle of the first bilge plank the floor planks needs to be longer running along the stem. To give you an idea of the task ahead see below picture.
View attachment 439727

First I need to shorten the floor planks and create scarph joints to add the new planks. Drilling holes at the ends of the scarph joint followed by the japanese saw will do the trick.
View attachment 439728

Then dilluting the glue again with acetone and the plank sections are easily removed. After cleaning with a needle file the planks are ready to receive their new ends.
View attachment 439730
View attachment 439729

I keep the added planks more then long enough so I can trim them when the first bilge plank is fitted.
View attachment 439731

Hopefully this weekend I find some time to fit the remaining floor planks.
Click to expand...
Waiting in anticipation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top