HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50

GrantTyler said:
Good morning Heinrich. Boy the difference between the two is significant in particular frames 1,2 and 3. The RU version is definitely has a way rounded shaped hull particularly at the bow. I think back to that cramp windlass which would now have plenty more space. Cheers Grant
Click to expand...
Hi Grant. It is so funny that you should mention the windlass - that was the very same thought that crossed my mind! ROTF
 
RDN1954 said:
Thanks Heinrich and Hans (@Kolderstok) for the time devoted to this project.
This project is so interesting, especially so, because with every turn you takes, a new challenge emerge.

PS Pictures are clearly visible.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the kind words, Johan. @Kolderstok Hans is monumental - I really enjoy working with him and thrashing out ideas between the two of us. I think of Hans as the voice of reason who sometimes has to curb my wild (and I will be the first person to admit it), random thoughts. I am really glad that you find the project interesting (to me it's sometimes like a thriller with all the twists and turns) and thanks for the heads up on the pictures!
 
In my reply to Hans, I wrote the following:

Dear Hans. Thank you so much for this. I am fully aware of the fact that this is a LOT of work. You mentioned an hour of drawing, but I believe the thinking that went into this, took even longer. I am so thankful for this, as for the first time we do have the actual and VISUAL difference between the ships that we can compare.

The difference between the two hull outlines is indeed a lot - especially when it comes to the first three bulkheads. What I find interesting is that the hull shape at the stern is actually very close to that of the Kolderstok model. As you say the hull shape is much rounder and bulkier. And yet this hull shape (in my mind's eye) would be very close to this drawing of De Veer from this drawing in his 1596 diary. Very round at the front, wider even midships, but tapering sharply to a really narrow stern.

DEM.png

P4.JPG
To me, Zhdan has captured the essence of the above drawing almost perfectly in his model (below).

I have asked Hans another question - the answer of which we can use as a test to evaluate the accuracy of the rounded hull. I have asked Hans to convert the actual measurement at the widest frame to a full scale 1:1 measurement. If I have that answer, I can check it against a Dutch Certer to see whether it measures up to a 30- or 50-lasten ship which is my main bone of contention with Hoving and De Weerdt who both based their research on a 30 lasten ship.

As soon as I have Hans's answer, I will be able to tell whether I have been correct about this or whether I have been barking up a wrong tree.

1693034900703.jpeg
 
RogerD said:
Fascinating, intriguing and continuously informative. I’m not a betting man but I’ve placed a 100 treenail bet on your excellent research Heinrich :D.
Click to expand...
Dear Roger. I feel I am getting closer, but I need Hans's input with regards to my interpretation. He is often the voice of sanity when madness prevails. ROTF Is the 100-treenail bet planned for your build or someone else's?ROTF
 
Heinrich said:
Dear Roger. I feel I am getting closer, but I need Hans's input with regards to my interpretation. He is often the voice of sanity when madness prevails. ROTF Is the 100-treenail bet planned for your build or someone else's?ROTF
Click to expand...

Good catch ROTF. I’ll need some for “selective treenailing” but if the odds are really good I reckon Paul (@dockattner) could use a few more ROTF.
 
Dear Friends

I have received Hans's input on my calculations and seeing that he did not see the need to have me certified ROTF , here I go with my idea:

Below you will find a “certer” or building guideline for Dutch ships from the late 16th Century (such as the WB) up to the middle of the 17th Century. The Y-Axis represents the displacement in lasten while the X-Axis represents the length (from stem to stern) in meters.

Certer.png

The Blue guidelines are representative of a ship of 30 lasten as per Hoving and De Weerdt while the red lines indicate a ship of 50 lasten as per my theory.

Following the above certer we see that a ship with 30 lasten will have an estimated hull length of approximately 19 meters. This equates perfectly to Hoving’s plans which indicate a hull length of 19,13 meters. De Weerdt has his hull length at 18.6m which is slightly shorter. The Kolderstok kit has a stem to stern length of 17.5 meters. In total, there is only a variance of 1.5m in length so it would be fair to say that all three are in the ballpark of the guidelines.

If we now focus our attention on a ship of 50 lasten we will see that it equates to a stern length of 23 meters (measured on the inner curvature of the hull) and 25 meters when measured on the outer curvature of the hull.

Looking at Hoving’s drawings, we see that the ship (at the widest point) has a width of 6.088m which gives us a length/width ratio of 3.14. (19.13 meters hull length divided by 6.08 meters in width = 3.14).

De Weerdt’s plans show a ratio of 3.7 (18.6 meters in length divided by 4.95 meters in width = 3.7).

The Kolderstok kit has a ratio of 3.18 (17.5 meters in length divided by 5.50 meters in width = 3.18)

Proportionally, the Hoving drawings thus show the widest ship, followed by the Kolderstok model while De Weerdt's interpretation is the narrowest.

The million-dollar question is which ratio to follow? Despite my differences with Hoving, I tend to favor his ratio seeing that it was developed by the late Theo van Harpen - a hydrodynamic specialist. Thus, we know for a fact that Hoving's ratio is a plausible one in real life and would have resulted in a very good sailing ship - which the WB was by all accounts. The Kolderstok kit is very close to that of Hoving so it's very much a case of six of the one and half a dozen of the other.
'
According to Hans the calculated width of the widest frame according to Zhdan's drawings is 7.8 meters (1:1). If I now apply Hoving’s ratio of 3.14 multiplied by 7.8 we arrive at a hull length of 24.492 meters - exactly that of a 50-lasten ship.

If I apply the Kolderstok ratio of 3.18, the hull would have a length of 24.8 meters - also perfect!

This would suggest to me that the frames that the Russians found at Nova Zemlaya and on which the Zdhan's drawings were reportedly based were those from a 50 lasten ship and NOT a 30 lasten one!

Whilst the frame widths of Zdhan are thus perfectly plausible, the hull/keel length will have to be increased to a 1:1 length of either 24.5m or 24,8 meters (1:1) while in 1:50 scale, it would result in a hull length of 490 cm (Hoving) or 496cm (Kolderstok).
 
RogerD said:
Your extensive investigation and analysis is heading more and more towards a conclusion that you have suspected for some time now. I admire your persistent research my friend.
Click to expand...
It's a difficult one, Roger. If I am brutally honest, I would far have preferred for my research to reach the same conclusion as Hoving, as there is a certain amount of re-assurance having your findings corroborated by a recognized naval historian. Going against him though, means that I am always second-guessing myself. BUT everything I have done so far points to Barentsz's ship being the 50 lasten one.

There is no doubt in my mind that the frames that were discovered by the Russians were those of Barentsz's ship and if they have a widest point of 7.8 meters, then it would strongly suggest a 50 lasten ship. Added to that I have simply discovered too many inaccuracies in the research of Hoving and De Weerdt to trust those anymore. Not easy to say, but there - I have said it!
 
I believe that for too long researchers have regarded De Veer's drawings as generic and have not actually looked at them with the proverbial toothcomb. If we look at this drawing of the start of the 1596 expedition, there are clear and obvious differences between the ships which De Veer highlights. The stern sections have completely different layouts and there is a marked difference in size as well.

Sizes.png
Ab Hoving will argue that one must never trust a picture as it is ultimately the artist's impression. That is true, but if that is all you have to work with, what then?
 
Heinrich said:
Dear Friends

I have received Hans's input on my calculations and seeing that he did not see the need to have me certified ROTF , here I go with my idea:

Below you will find a “certer” or building guideline for Dutch ships from the late 16th Century (such as the WB) up to the middle of the 17th Century. The Y-Axis represents the displacement in lasten while the X-Axis represents the length (from stem to stern) in meters.

View attachment 391545

The Blue guidelines are representative of a ship of 30 lasten as per Hoving and De Weerdt while the red lines indicate a ship of 50 lasten as per my theory.

Following the above certer we see that a ship with 30 lasten will have an estimated hull length of approximately 19 meters. This equates perfectly to Hoving’s plans which indicate a hull length of 19,13 meters. De Weerdt has his hull length at 18.6m which is slightly shorter. The Kolderstok kit has a stem to stern length of 17.5 meters. In total, there is only a variance of 1.5m in length so it would be fair to say that all three are in the ballpark of the guidelines.

If we now focus our attention on a ship of 50 lasten we will see that it equates to a stern length of 23 meters (measured on the inner curvature of the hull) and 25 meters when measured on the outer curvature of the hull.

Looking at Hoving’s drawings, we see that the ship (at the widest point) has a width of 6.088m which gives us a length/width ratio of 3.14. (19.13 meters hull length divided by 6.08 meters in width = 3.14).

De Weerdt’s plans show a ratio of 3.7 (18.6 meters in length divided by 4.95 meters in width = 3.7).

The Kolderstok kit has a ratio of 3.18 (17.5 meters in length divided by 5.50 meters in width = 3.18)

Proportionally, the Hoving drawings thus show the widest ship, followed by the Kolderstok model while De Weerdt's interpretation is the narrowest.

The million-dollar question is which ratio to follow? Despite my differences with Hoving, I tend to favor his ratio seeing that it was developed by the late Theo van Harpen - a hydrodynamic specialist. Thus, we know for a fact that Hoving's ratio is a plausible one in real life and would have resulted in a very good sailing ship - which the WB was by all accounts. The Kolderstok kit is very close to that of Hoving so it's very much a case of six of the one and half a dozen of the other.
'
According to Hans the calculated width of the widest frame according to Zhdan's drawings is 7.8 meters (1:1). If I now apply Hoving’s ratio of 3.14 multiplied by 7.8 we arrive at a hull length of 24.492 meters - exactly that of a 50-lasten ship.

If I apply the Kolderstok ratio of 3.18, the hull would have a length of 24.8 meters - also perfect!

This would suggest to me that the frames that the Russians found at Nova Zemlaya and on which the Zdhan's drawings were reportedly based were those from a 50 lasten ship and NOT a 30 lasten one!

Whilst the frame widths of Zdhan are thus perfectly plausible, the hull/keel length will have to be increased to a 1:1 length of either 24.5m or 24,8 meters (1:1) while in 1:50 scale, it would result in a hull length of 490 cm (Hoving) or 496cm (Kolderstok).
Click to expand...

You surely processed a lot of data, Heinrich, impressive!

The graph you shared shows a standard ratio of 20:5:2. Assuming this is correct and assuming the 50 lasten for WB's ship to be correct results in a length of 25m, 6,25m beam and 2,5m "holte". Applying the same for a 30 lasten ship one gets to a keel length of 19m, 4,75m beam and the "holte" would be 1,9m.
To scale 1:50: length 500, width 125mm (50 lasten) or length 380mm, width 95mm (30 lasten).
The ratio given in the graph implies a length to width ratio of 1:4, not 1:3,14 or 1:3,18.
I'm slightly lost...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top