• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

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

Daniel20 said:
Hello Heinrich, maybe you could install horizontal knee braces on each side of the cross beam which could be glued to the bulwarks? I assume the bulkhead extensions will be cut off and you will build some sort of box to hold the canons that will be seen.
Click to expand...
Hi Daniel. Luckily the gunport where the bulkhead is cut into two is a closed one. Like I did on WB#1, they will receive an inner layer of planking onto which the closed gunport lid can be glued. The gunport is 12mm high so 2 x 1.5mm x 6mm oak strakes will be planked between the two separate sections of the bulkheads. Not only will they close up the gunport but also form a connection between the two sections of the bulkheads. I will not be building any boxes as the cannons will be mounted on their carriages.,
 
pingu57 said:
Heinrich my friend, your gunports are looking very good right now, but did you check the height of the ports with a kanon before cutting ??
Because maiby it is because of the foto ( or my eyes ) but it looks to me that the gunports don't follow the curvature of the dek??
Click to expand...
You have made a very good observation my friend! The gunports do not follow the deck line - especially at the bow and at the stern. The other issue is that the gunports sit too high in relation to the deck. I will have to add filler pieces to the bottoms of the carriages to lift them higher so that the cannons will be in the correct position (I won't even install wheels on the carriages, because they will be off the deck once the filler pieces are added to the undersides of the carriages. That is why I need to remind everyone that this kit was never intended to have cannons fitted - so everything I am doing now is scratch-building, together with all the headaches associated with it.
 
Pathfinder65 said:
:eek: That is exacting work. I think you are to hard on yourself because those gunport look great. I would think once the ports are covered the they will look even better.
Click to expand...
I hope you are right, Jan! Normally when I finish a section of work and post pictures, I am confident that it is right and look good. Tonight, there is just no way to tell if this was a good job or not. Also bear in mind that I intend to leave some gunports open for the installation of cannons, so they have to be accurate.
 
Hi Heinrich,

She really looks fantastic in oak. Love the colour and very clean work.
Your historical references you discuss are very enjoyable.

Regarding the template one remark. If you use the side view 2D drawing and use this as a template in a 3d plane, like the side of your hull, the positions of the gun ports will move due to the curvature of the hull.
This will mainly affect the bow chase port.

See attached a research paper on Scheurak 01, if you didn t had it yet :-).
 

Attachments

Thank you so much for your very kind comments, Maarten. I hold your opinion in very high esteem - so, thank you! The oak/CLOU combination (something I have you to thank for) looks really good and I try my utmost to work as clean as I can.

You are right about the hazard of using a 2D drawing in 3D conditions. What is a nice little aid on the sides of the hull, becomes evil personified around the bow. :mad:

Thank you very much for the Scheurrak S01 paper. That is one research I will look at in great detail! Thumbsup
 
Heinrich said:
What is a nice little aid on the sides of the hull, becomes evil personified around the bow
Click to expand...
You are building a Dutch ship. There are never accurate plans available how this ship was build. The plans of Dutch ships are al made of interpretation of archaeological findings, paintings and the imagination of professors and museums. So that makes building Dutch ships a great advantage for the builder. It doesn't have to be so perfect. On the other hand in de 2D drawing there is not to see if it is 3D because in that cage the gunport on the bow wouldn't have the same width like the other ports.

@Maarten great document to read.
 
Steef66 said:
You are building a Dutch ship. There are never accurate plans available how this ship was build. The plans of Dutch ships are al made of interpretation of archaeological findings, paintings and the imagination of professors and museums. So that makes building Dutch ships a great advantage for the builder. It doesn't have to be so perfect. On the other hand in de 2D drawing there is not to see if it is 3D because in that cage the gunport on the bow wouldn't have the same width like the other ports.

@Maarten great document to read.
Click to expand...
I know that only too well Stephan! ROTF A lot comes down to interpretation, but you will be amazed at the information you can find when you do proper research - and by that, I mean, not only relying on other peoples' interpretation, but by going back into the original archives. Unfortunately, not many people are willing to go to that much trouble. I used the 2D template more to determine the position of the ports, for the actual shape and size I did not follow any plan, I interpreted Gerrit De Veer's drawings.
 
Hello Dear Friends

After three days of painstakingly working on the Starboard side gunports, I have something to show. The three ports that will remain open and receive cannons, have received their inner frames which have been painted in "Karmozijn" red - a very dark, almost purplish red - and the closed ports have received their inner backing. Originally, I wanted to leave the gunport closest to the stern open, but that would have been incorrect. The two most rearward cannons did double duty: they were either placed in the position of the two most rearward ports, or, if the ship was being chased, they would be turned around and placed in the two stern ports. Seeing that I have already mounted the two cannons in the stern, placing a further two in the two most rearward gunports on the sides, would have been incorrect.

微信图片_20220827174829.jpg
微信图片_20220827174837.jpg
I am now in the process of assembling a cannon and carriage which I can use for determining final mounting heights and angles.
 
She's looking wonderful Heinrich. You know it is interesting that a canon muzzle being round doesn't really care if the opening is square to the waterline or square to the deck only that it be relatively close to the center of the opening. For that reason, I actually prefer the look of the openings to be normal or radial along with the deck or exterior whaler.
 
Daniel20 said:
She's looking wonderful Heinrich. You know it is interesting that a canon muzzle being round doesn't really care if the opening is square to the waterline or square to the deck only that it be relatively close to the center of the opening. For that reason, I actually prefer the look of the openings to be normal or radial along with the deck or exterior whaler.
Click to expand...
Daniel, that is such a valid point you are making about the gunports following the deck line or the wales and not necessarily sitting perpendicular to the water line. On all three the plans that I have of the WB, the gunports are perpendicular - it may be correct, but it "looks" wrong. If you have eaten, drank and slept a ship for as long as I have the WB, and if you have studied the De Veer drawings as extensively as I did, you start getting a feel for the lines of the ship and you realize, that those are the lines that the artist tried to portray in his drawings. And that is exactly what I am trying to do with this build. When I look at the model, I want to get the same impression as when I look at De Veer's original drawings.

1977_65.jpg
Alamy.png

Een though these two drawings are different, they are also remarkably the same. The way in which the gunports are portrayed, are vastly different from how they are drawn on the plans. I do not doubt the plans for a moment - I'm just saying that I prefer the look in these two drawings! OK, now I can be officially placed in one of those long, white jackets! ROTF
 
Heinrich said:
Daniel, that is such a valid point you are making about the gunports following the deck line or the wales and not necessarily sitting perpendicular to the water line. On all three the plans that I have of the WB, the gunports are perpendicular - it may be correct, but it "looks" wrong. If you have eaten, drank and slept a ship for as long as I have the WB, and if you have studied the De Veer drawings as extensively as I did, you start getting a feel for the lines of the ship and you realize, that those are the lines that the artist tried to portray in his drawings. And that is exactly what I am trying to do with this build. When I look at the model, I want to get the same impression as when I look at De Veer's original drawings.

View attachment 325602
View attachment 325604

Een though these two drawings are different, they are also remarkably the same. The way in which the gunports are portrayed, are vastly different from how they are drawn on the plans. I do not doubt the plans for a moment - I'm just saying that I prefer the look in these two drawings! OK, now I can be officially placed in one of those long, white jackets! ROTF
Click to expand...
Well, ROTFthere have certainly been times in my build that a white jacket would have been more comfortable than the seemingly impossible decisions one must make in order to keep moving ahead.
 
P8270287.JPG

Dear Heinrich!

According to Rolf Hoeckel, the distance between the gun ports was 25 times the bullet diameter. The length of the gun port was about 6 and the height 6,5 bullet diameter. Details of the frame plan with exact positions of the gun ports do not exit, of course. If the frames were exactly (?) vertical , the gun ports still look slightly slanted when viewed from the side due to the bending of the frames.
I like the model very much and it looks splendid.

Best regards
Thomas
 
Thomas Marocke said:
View attachment 325634

Dear Heinrich!

According to Rolf Hoeckel, the distance between the gun ports was 25 times the bullet diameter. The length of the gun port was about 6 and the height 6,5 bullet diameter. Details of the frame plan with exact positions of the gun ports do not exit, of course. If the frames were exactly (?) vertical , the gun ports still look slightly slanted when viewed from the side due to the bending of the frames.
I like the model very much and it looks splendid.

Best regards
Thomas
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for the very kind words, Thomas - I really appreciate it. I am a big fan of your work, so I am very happy that you like the WB. It is interesting that you mention the book "Modellbau von Schiffen des 16./17.Jahr Hunderts" compiled by Rolf Hoeckel - some people swear by it, others, like Ab Hoving, swear at it! I do, however, agree with the view that the gunports are slightly rectangular - in the end, I went for a 12mm high x 10mm wide configuration and just "eyeballed" the final shape! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top