Jan I am so sorry that I missed your posting! Apologies! Yes, no one knows how it was done, therefore logic dictates this part of the build now. It could not have been that crowded at the stern of the ship - even in scale there is physically no room for anyone to move, let alone operate anything. Therefore logic dictates that it has to be changed.
That layout makes more sense Johan - how doable it will be on my specific model remains to be seen though. As far as the storage of the boats go - that was exactly what I was thinking - go off-center. In any case, if both boats were stored on deck, they would have been most certainly off-center.
Thank you Daniel. I hate many options, but if the chosen route is clearly not practical then we have to change it. I don't want someone to look at the model one day and comment om on the impossibility of operating the windlass and me not really having any means to counter the argument.
Personally - and this is just me (I will probably get shot for this) - I don't subscribe to AL-FI. I work with facts and when the facts are not available, the next best thing is logic. No easy way out on this ship for me, only the "right" way.
Thank you for the input Dean. The smaller boat would certainly be the logical choice. The only reason why I wanted the larger boat on the deck, is because I should a lot more detail. So far the practice boat (the larger one) is coming together very nicely - touch wood!I think the small boat is the obvious choice, if you put a boat on the ship at all. You could opt to have the larger boat being pulled behind the ship, thus freeing up deck space for the winch. Just a few options to consider.
I the galleon looks beautiful HeinrichHello Dear Friends
Last night I mentioned that I want to share something interesting with you - well, in actual fact there are two pieces of interesting news I have found. So let's start with the non-controversial one!
Maybe you have wondered, why the Willem Barentsz does not feature permanent decking on the structures midships and at the bow, but instead a net-like cover of lengthwise and crosswise wooden beams (see below as indicated by the yellow arrows).
View attachment 302809
In my continuing research, I came upon this very interesting piece of information. As you know, I recently completed the Willem Barentsz’s front canopy (“overkapping” in Dutch). Reading about the overkapping and its history revealed that it was originally called a “vinkennet” (finch netting).
Now firstly we have to look at terminology. Both names for these structures contain the word "opbouw" - meaning a built-up structure. The one midships was simply called as "opbouw" and the one at the stem a "vooropbouw" or "overkapping". "Vooropbouw" simply means a raised structure at the front of the ship. Now originally, these structures were called a "vinkennet" or finch net.
View attachment 302810
This image clearly shows the finch net. Originally, it was net of sturdy rope or chains that stretched between the forecastle and the deck behind it. - Source: Jan Zwart (Modelbouwforum)
View attachment 302811
Source: Jan Zwart - Modelbouwforum
The term finch-net gradually evolved into “boevennet” (crooks’ net), before it was corrupted into “bovenet” / bovennet” meaning (top net). This part is important as all terminology to the Willem Barentsz relates to boevenet (top net) as used by Ab Hoving.
Het Schip van Willem Barents - Ab Hoving
In his book, De vlootbouw in Nederland 1596-1655 weergeeft, (Shipbuilding in the Netherlands 1596-1655), Elias writes that at the beginning of the Eighty-Year War numerous Vlieboten and jachten were utilized by the Netherlands. In order to offer these vessels better protection against the much higher, built-up Spanish ships, they were equipped with a lattice- and chain framework that stretched between the forecastle and the deck behind it. The logic behind this was to offer protection to the crew during boarding raids from the enemy. During those days, victory at sea relied heavily on a successful boarding of the enemy; it was only much later that long-range cannon-fire became the decisive factor.
In the painting below by Aert Antonisz of “De Slag by Sluis” (The Battle at Sluis) a ship with boevenet is depicted.
View attachment 302812
The following drawing though, offers a much better visual example (if somewhat grained).
View attachment 302813
Nicolaes Witsen discusses the boevenet extensively, devoting a whole chapter to it, the drawing of the rafters and an explanation how it was built. Interestingly, he mentioned that the boevenet could be removed, resulting in an open canopy. This, however does raise the question why the vooropbouw then has front and rear “walls”.
So why is this important? If we examine the early jachten (of which the WB was one), and take into account that De Veer spoke of boevenetten it becomes clear that the WB was equipped with two in actual fact – one in the form of a half-deck midships and one in the form of the vooronder at the stem. These structures were not permanently closed with decking, but featured the wooden “netting” as seen on the WB as permanent replacements for the earlier finch nets..
And that is how we know why the Willem Barentsz looks the way she does!
Hopefully, I will be back a little later with a galleon update! the galleon looks very nice Heinrich
Jack I love your comment - thank you! I am very blessed with the wonderful participation I get from all my friends on this log. In many ways I see this as a think tank and a group build. The amazing thing is that every opinion is valuable and counts towards adding information to the total research data of the ship - such is the caliber of the comments.
. While the larger boat might have been brought on the ship when things got dicey it was not normal and would have been viewed as an inconvenience to the sailors. My solution: make a better small boat and display it proudly!
. Brilliant read tho and beautiful WB Heinrich- I also know the answer will be found. Cheers Grant
You're right, you just painted a nice beautiful target...
Dear Paul. I need all the opinions I can get get.Not that you need another opinion… but looking at the last painting it appears the forward covered area and the foremast are quite close to one another. That is, no room for much of anything unless it can be tucked slightly under the canopy.
And in a rare moment - I think I agree with Dean
I just taught a class on Big Data and the value of that lies in the very fact that it is a lot of data. The more opinions I get, the clearer the picture becomes. Your observation about the area between the canopy and foremast being extremely limited is spot on and that is precisely why the windlass there just does not sound right to me. As it stands now, I already have to fit a belaying rack, knight's head, the foremast and bowsprit in that area. About these four items there can be no doubt as to their location and whilst I have proven that I can FIT the windlass there, it is impossible to be operational in any way that it would have been.
Grant I am so privileged to have such a debate and as I mentioned earlier to Jack, the quality of the contributions is simply outstanding. And for sure I listen to the opinion of others and value it greatly - my latest demolition a case in point. A solution will be found - until such a time I will not rest.Good morning Heinrich- wow super debate and tons of opinions and ideas- no wonder sleep did not find you. I remember my first FS board meeting where discussion flowed a plenty- being wet behind the ears I decided to keep quiet and listen to the guys who know....same here
Another great posting Johan in which you raise so many good points. When you type things while stripping parts at five in the morning, even an English teacher's language can become muddled.You're right, you just painted a nice beautiful target...
Whether you like it or not, we all fall victim to at least the FI bit of AL-FI; free interpretation. It's semantics, I know, but still. Like you now encounter with your build of the WB/WS, too may variables, too many unknowns, you're falling back to your logic. Your logic is build up from building experience, research, discussions with others, personal experience with, in this case, sailing, just to name a few. I even dare argue that written accounts of eye witnesses show only one perspective and one perspective only; the focal point of one's accounts depend heavily on whether you are the ship's doctor, the common sailor or the captian. That also applies to the paintings we often rely on, they are at best snapshots with, depending on the knowledgeability of the artist, show us a more or less reliable picture
What I meant by AL-FI is when it is used for the sake of aesthetic purposes only. Even though here are unknowns, there are only two possibilities about the windlass - forward of the front canopy or underneath it. Whilst both have their advocates, I have now proven that on my model, one option is no longer an option. If that part of the process forms the FI in AL-FI, then I subscribe to that.
I agree wholeheartedly and I am guilty of that. I am guilty of only consulting the perspective of one of the authors of the book "Het Schip van Barents" and I have too long not given the other one his due.
I am really curious about the critical factors, used to determine the dimensions of the WB/WS. Looking forward to that posting.
I have made a note of that and I promise I will post about it. The book "Het Schip van Barents", covers that part extensively.
Thank you for the kind comments Vic. Your solution would have been a super one, but I have to stick to the Dutch layout on this one. The raised scaffolding was something that was not typical of a Dutch ship, so I will have to make another plan.
