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

[Pathfinder65]

Oh my, that is a lot to think about. I'm fascinated by the research on the "The Swan". What a great project.

 

[Heinrich]

Jan, De Zwane is an absolute joy to be involved with. We have very comprehensive build contracts to work from, and I have no doubt that Waldemar will create an extremely accurate rendition and plan set of the ship. Added to that I have lots of information available on her preparation for the two expeditions and the two trips itself. So, in short, everything I was lacking on the WB, I have at hand with De Zwane. And the best of it all? She has a name!

 

[-Waldemar-]

It can be said that I have finally completed a very important — and, from my perspective, the most crucial — conceptual stage. To put it simply, it’s all about the hull’s lines and shapes. Now all that remains are ‘trifles’ , such as the decks, the wales, the gun ports, certain structural elements, or some of the deck equipment. Not that all this isn’t time-consuming and doesn’t require effort, but whatever it may be and in whatever configuration, it will no longer affect the very concept of the reconstructed ship.

​

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Oh, by the way, the spacing of the cross-section lines in the above renderings is 9 inches, which is the same as the side (lengthwise) thickness of ship's bottom timbers.

 

[rtibbs]

Heinrich my friend. Remember this from years ago when we were discussing the WB's name? I was determined to call mine Swan. This is as far as I went with the build and as you know I have ceased building ship models and dropped out completely. Guess I lost all ambition from the passing of my Admiral of 63 years. Hope this finds you well for now and whatever the future may bring. I still regard you as 'One of the good guys'

 

[Heinrich]

@Waldemar Dear Waldemar, this is indeed a milestone in the design process. The superb visual representation is the proverbial tip of the iceberg and whilst I am sure that the time spent on this has been considerable, I do know that the end results will be worth every minute of your meticulous attention to detail. As you rightly say, this part of the design was the crucial one as it forms the basis of the whole construction. To me, what you have done remains a dark art, and one which I cannot profess to understand in its entirety. However, for me it is a huge and personal privilege to see De Zwane come to fruition at the hands of a true expert!

 

[Heinrich]

Heinrich my friend. Remember this from years ago when we were discussing the WB's name? I was determined to call mine Swan. This is as far as I went with the build and as you know I have ceased building ship models and dropped out completely. Guess I lost all ambition from the passing of my Admiral of 63 years. Hope this finds you well for now and whatever the future may bring. I still regard you as 'One of the good guys'
View attachment 609060

My dear Ron, it is so good to see your comment. Of course, I remember our banter about the name whilst that wonderful gift of yours remains something that I will always keep close to heart. Even though I do not agree with everything said in the book （at times I have been highly critical of its author）, it has shaped my whole way of thinking about the subject and for that I will forever be thankful. Your swan stern design remains my absolute favorite and if you can ever bring yourself to create a second one, I will display it on my Zwane with pride. By the way, I have learnt that when a swan raises its wings as in your version, it is called "busking"!

My friend, to be called "one of the good guys" by you, means an awful lot me. Thank you for that!

 

[-Waldemar-]

@Waldemar Dear Waldemar, this is indeed a milestone in the design process. The superb visual representation is the proverbial tip of the iceberg and whilst I am sure that the time spent on this has been considerable, I do know that the end results will be worth every minute of your meticulous attention to detail. As you rightly say, this part of the design was the crucial one as it forms the basis of the whole construction. To me, what you have done remains a dark art, and one which I cannot profess to understand in its entirety. However, for me it is a huge and personal privilege to see De Zwane come to fruition at the hands of a true expert!

Many thanks, Heinrich, though I am aware that, for the vast majority, the (correct) hull shapes are, in themselves, the least important consideration of all, and that they are usually mangled anyway when smoothing the surfaces with sandpaper. Nevertheless, those captured in the reconstruction are perfect in every respect — in terms of fidelity to the sources as much as the extant data permit, the specificity of shapes resulting from the design methods of the time, their fairness and — last but not least — the basic hydrodynamic requirements of this extremely short vessel.

As I suggested earlier when explaining quarter frames in my thread, given the specific design method used, the shapes obtained in the reconstruction cannot, in fact, differ in any noticeable way from the original ship.

 

[Heinrich]

Nevertheless, those captured in the reconstruction are perfect in every respect — in terms of fidelity to the sources as much as the extant data permit, the specificity of shapes resulting from the design methods of the time, their fairness and — last but not least — the basic hydrodynamic requirements of this extremely short vessel.

And this outlines the complexity of the challenge perfectly:

1. Stay true to the build contracts.
2. Stay true to the parameters of the design methods of the era.
3. Create a seaworthy and well-sailing vessel （within the constraints of its small size） by adhering to established and accepted hydrodynamic principles.

 

[GrantTyler]

Good morning H. I’m being a tad selfish here however it would be good to see a SA flag next to your profile pic. 2029 may be a while away but Melkbosstrand is waiting . Cheers Grant

 

[Heinrich]

Good morning H. I’m being a tad selfish here however it would be good to see a SA flag next to your profile pic. 2029 may be a while away but Melkbosstrand is waiting . Cheers Grant

Hi Grant! There is nothing wrong with being a "tad" selfish and Melkbosstrand will always remain a very strong option. I love the idea of being able to compare notes with you on a regular basis.

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Friends

I thought this an appropriate time to share with you the progress that has been made in the design process of the De Zwane. The design is now at the point where we can share with you how the reconstructed ship would look under sail.




Now look what happens when the design is overlayed over the original iconographies!







Can it get any better or more accurate than that?

I am sure you will agree that @-Waldemar- is doing an incredible job!

Please find the link to the full design process below:

Vlieboot »De Zwane« 1592 — Barents discovers the Arctic

Hi Waldemar The openwork railings on the half-and poop deck, is such a nice touch and rounds-off the appearance beautifully. I have always wanted to do this on my builds and yet, I have always omitted them. Even though it means more work for the builder, this is something that I will not leave...

shipsofscale.com

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Friends

Whilst Waldemar is continuing the design process of De Zwane, I have started organizing and categorizing all my research notes and results with the aim of documenting De Zwane’s history from the time of her build to her participation in the 1594 and 1595 voyages to the North.

And then ..; out of the blue, I found a soft copy of this work on Balthasar de Moucheron by Mr. J.H. de Stoppelaar - truth be told, I was not even aware of the existence of this book! However, it has instantaneously become one of my favorite resources and contains tons of information on the "behind-the-scenes" aspects of the three Expeditionary voyages. I would imagine that the name De Moucheron would not be a familiar one to most of you (in fact, I wonder how many of our Dutch friends are familiar with it), but without this man, there would have been no Dutch expeditions to the North. Period!



Now as a matter of interest, I would like to issue a challenge to our forum members.

CHALLENGE:


I have photoshopped (albeit very amateurishly - apologies for that ) Waldemar's superb rendering of De Zwane by adding a flag to the top of the main mast.

Who knows what flag is being displayed?

Let me hear your thoughts! (Don't be shy). @Kolderstok Hans, if you are still around - this time you are allowed to participate!

Best wishes - Heinrich

 

[Heinrich]

Last night, I have received some excellent news which has me very excited. My long-standing friend in the Netherlands, Piet Sanders aka as @pietsan has announced on Modelbouwforum that he is soon to start the build of the 1775 HMS Sphinx by Vanguard Models.

So, why am I excited about this? Ever since I started model building, I have held Piet's work in the highest possible esteem, and I regard him as one of the finest model builders there is. He has been wanting to build this model for quite some time and now it is finally happening. From all accounts, it is a superb kit, so I can only imagine what results Piet will achieve with it. Now I just need to convince Piet to post his build on SOS as well.


@pietsan Piet's next build - the Vanguard Models HMS Sphinx.


@pietsan on the left and Koos （another friend on Modelbouwforum） in relaxed mood. Koos's forum name there is Jaques.

 

[pietsan]

Last night, I have received some excellent news which has me very excited. My long-standing friend in the Netherlands, Piet Sanders aka as @pietsan has announced on Modelbouwforum that he is soon to start the build of the 1775 HMS Sphinx by Vanguard Models.

So, why am I excited about this? Ever since I started model building, I have held Piet's work in the highest possible esteem, and I regard him as one of the finest model builders there is. He has been wanting to build this model for quite some time and now it is finally happening. From all accounts, it is a superb kit, so I can only imagine what results Piet will achieve with it. Now I just need to convince Piet to post his build on SOS as well.

View attachment 613973
@pietsan Piet's next build - the Vanguard Models HMS Sphinx.

View attachment 613974
@pietsan on the left and Koos （another friend on Modelbouwforum） in relaxed mood. Koos's forum name there is Jaques.

Beste Heinrich, de reden dat ik hier geen bouwverslag plaats, is omdat mij dat niet gaat lukken in het Engels. Ik kan wel redelijk goed Engels verstaan, maar schrijven is een probleem, anders zou ik het zeker wel al gedaan hebben. Evengoed bedankt weer voor je mooie woorden en je bericht wat op mijn computer automatisch word vertaald in het Nederlands.

Het duurd nog wel even voor ik aan de Sphinx begin omdat ik eerst de Duchess of Kingston nog moet afbouwen, is wel bijna gereed.

 

[Heinrich]

Dear Friends

I'm in somewhat of a predicament at the moment.

Nothing would excite me more than to finally close the chapiter on this build log and start one for De Zwane, but it is not so easy. I don't want to start a new log when I have no idea when the actual construction will start. To be honest, it can still be a year or two in the future. @-Waldemar- is however, doing such sterling work on the design of De Zwane, that it would be a huge oversight on my part, not to share the latest developments with you.

I have always maintained that the grating system on the vlieboten was their defining feature and the build contract aptly specifies them - however there is no mention made of their actual construction. Evaluating Waldemar's work - both from structural and aesthetic points of view, leads to one conclusion only - he has done a masterful rendering of both the fixed and loose gratings. Please have a look.



Note the various structural members that make up the reconstructed fixed grating ‘vast bovenet’: beams, ledges, clamps, waterways, binding strakes and panel-arranged gratings.



And then my favorite illustration



As always, your comments, inputs and suggestions are most appreciated.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Let’s see what AI (specifically ChatGPT) has to say on this matter. It’s quite a hefty piece of text, however, in my view, it captures surprisingly well both the essence and the details of this project, which, amongst other things, you have initiated.



— START OF CITATION


Vlieboot »De Zwane« 1592 — Barents discovers the Arctic

Here’s a technical reconstruction summary of the Dutch vlieboot De Zwane (1592) based on Waldemar Gurgul and Heinrich Cornelissen’s ongoing source-driven reconstruction thread “Vlieboot »De Zwane« 1592 — Barents discovers the Arctic” on Ships of Scale. I’m treating it as a working technical profile rather than a final plan set, because some superstructure and deck-detail choices are still being refined in the thread.

1) What the reconstruction is based on​

The reconstruction is anchored in a 1592 Zeeland shipbuilding contract (bestek) that the authors believe belongs specifically to De Zwane, plus Zeeland Admiralty accounts, outfitting records, inventories, and period engravings associated with the Barents expeditions. The key methodological point is that Waldemar is reconstructing the ship from the contract outward, not scaling from an existing modern model plan. He keeps the original historical feet as design units and tests whether the numbers produce a coherent late-16th-century Dutch hull under period design logic.

That means the thread is not just asking “what dimensions does the contract list?” but “what ship form do those dimensions imply if you reconstruct them as a Dutch shipwright of the 1590s would have understood them?” The result is a hull study that combines contract interpretation, comparative Dutch contracts from the 1590s, period geometric ship-design assumptions, and basic hydrostatic checks.

2) Principal dimensions currently proposed​

Contract dimensions cited in the thread​

The contract excerpts posted by Waldemar include these core structural dimensions:

• Keel length: 52 feet
• Fore stem: 27 feet
• Sternpost: 19 feet

The thread also notes that the fore and aft posts were measured diagonally relative to the keel in the contract, and that their vertical effective heights have to be reconstructed from those values rather than read literally as upright heights.

Reconstructed overall hull dimensions​

The major interpretive choice in the thread is that the ship’s length between the posts / between perpendiculars should be reconstructed as 72 feet, not 69 feet as in some earlier attempts that simply added keel plus both rakes too mechanically. Waldemar argues that 72 ft yields a much more coherent vessel and restores “standard” Dutch proportions.

The preferred reconstructed principal dimensions are:

Parameter	Current reconstruction
Length between posts / perpendiculars	72 ft
Beam	24 ft
Depth	10 ft (revised from an earlier 12 ft solution)
Keel	52 ft
Fore stem	27 ft
Sternpost	19 ft

That gives a hull ratio of 6 : 2 : 1 (length : beam : depth), which Waldemar explicitly presents as a convincing Dutch proportion for this class of vessel.

3) Hull form and general character​

The reconstructed De Zwane is not treated as a bluff tub, nor as a narrow warship. It is being developed as a broad, full-bodied cargo-capable Arctic flyboat with enough underwater sharpness to sail properly despite its short 3:1 overall proportions. Waldemar repeatedly notes that one of his goals is to avoid the sluggish, heavily leeward behavior associated with some modern replica interpretations of similar ships.

Main hull-form conclusions​

The current reconstruction points to a hull that is:

• short and broad by later standards,
• deep enough for usable deck heights and cargo capacity,
• full in section, consistent with a flyboat / cargo vessel,
• but still fairly sharp in entry and run so that it can sail independently and not simply drift sideways under canvas.

Waldemar also explains that he has run dozens of geometric variants to test the limits of how sharp the bow and run could plausibly be for a ship of these proportions while still remaining faithful to period Dutch construction logic and the contract dimensions.

4) Master frame and section geometry​

This is one of the most technical parts of the project. The master frame is not simply “eyeballed”; it is derived through a procedural geometric setup based on period-style design assumptions and then checked against dimensions found in comparable vlieboot contracts.

Key changes in the revised solution​

In the later “fine-tuning” phase, Waldemar revises the earlier hull solution and reduces the midship / master-frame height by 2 feet, which changes several things at once:

• Depth reduced from 12 ft to 10 ft
• Maximum breadth above the waterline reduced from 2 ft to 1 ft
• Gunport height reduced from 4 ft 5 in to 3 ft 5 in
• Height between decks increased from 6 ft to 6.5 ft to avoid an excessively steep aft rise and improve practical use of the decks

​

Geometric setup described by Waldemar​

He describes the master frame in roughly this sequence:

1. set a deadrise point using period-typical values,
2. set the lower side-height point at the boeisel level,
3. connect those points,
4. take the intersection with the frame diagonal to locate the “vlak” point.

The deadrise values he gives for this setup are:

• deadrise height: 6 inches
• deadrise span: 2/3 of hull breadth

He also notes that the resulting “vlak” coordinates correspond closely to values seen in comparable Dutch vlieboot contracts, which is one of the checks he uses to judge whether the geometry is historically plausible.

5) Deck heights, trim, and internal vertical arrangement​

One of the persistent problems in earlier reconstructions of Barents-related ships is unrealistic headroom and awkward stern/steering geometry. The De Zwane project addresses that by treating deck heights, trim, and sternpost geometry as a linked system rather than isolated measurements.

Current vertical arrangement logic​

The thread gives these important values:

• Height between decks: initially 6 ft, revised to 6.5 ft
• Deck rise aft: 3.5 ft
• Trim: 2 ft
• Deck step in stern area: about 2 ft

Waldemar explains that the 2-foot stern deck step is important because it helps make the after steering arrangement work with the 19-foot sternpost and with the contract wording. He also notes that the sternpost’s diagonal contract length converts to roughly 18 feet of vertical height in the reconstruction.

In the earlier 72 × 24 × 12 concept, he described the overall vertical relationships like this:

• midship hull height ≈ draught
• stern height ≈ 2 × draught
• forecastle height ≈ 1.5 × draught

The later revision modifies the exact numbers, but the design goal remains the same: a vessel with usable lower-deck and upper-deck space, not a purely decorative reconstruction with impossible internal headroom.

6) Stern, cabin, helmsman’s station, and mizzen position​

The stern arrangement is one of the most interpretive parts of the reconstruction, but the thread gives a clear direction.

Stern and cabin​

Waldemar treats the stern area as a constrained problem involving:

• the 19-foot sternpost,
• the 2-foot deck step,
• the need for a practical helmsman’s station,
• and the relationship between the cabin and mizzen mast.

By page 2, he posts an updated interpretation of the cabin dimensions and after arrangement and says he is likely to keep that version. He also remarks that this area can be tailored without compromising the overall hull reconstruction, which suggests the hull geometry is more settled than the exact after-cabin layout.

Mizzen mast position​

A notable conclusion is that the mizzen mast should stand forward of both the cabin and the helmsman’s station, based on expedition engravings cited in the thread. That placement allows the mizzen to be stepped on the main / lowest deck, which is a key part of the current arrangement logic.

7) Armament and gunports​

The reconstruction does not invent the battery from generic “ship of the era” assumptions. It uses the surviving outfitting evidence for De Zwane’s expedition preparation.

Battery inferred in the thread​

Waldemar states that the gunport and deck arrangement were chosen to accommodate 6-pounder guns, which he interprets as the maximum calibre carried by De Zwane on the basis of the Zeeland outfitting records and the total recorded gun weight of 1,600 pounds.

In the later posts he also says the rendered lower-deck armament represents all six lower-deck guns.

Gunport height​

The gunports were revised downward in the fine-tuned hull solution:

• earlier height: 4 ft 5 in
• revised height: 3 ft 5 in (roughly 1 meter)

That is low by modern expectations, but Waldemar argues that it remains acceptable for a moderate-sized cargo-type vessel of the period.

8) Capacity and hydrostatics​

This is one of the strongest parts of the thread because the reconstruction is not purely visual; Waldemar reports rough hydrostatic checks and load-capacity reasoning.

Submerged volume and carrying capacity​

For the reconstructed hull, he gives a submerged volume below the design waterline (including keel and posts) of:

• 7,050 cubic feet

He converts that to roughly 193 tonnes in metric terms, and then does a rough capacity check:

• if about half of that is the ship’s own weight plus equipment,
• and if 1 last ≈ 2 metric tonnes,
• then the vessel comes out at roughly 48 lasts of carrying capacity.

He compares that with source figures of 44 lasts (sometimes 40 lasts) and concludes that the reconstructed hull is close enough to the documentary evidence to be credible.

Stability​

He also gives the metacentric height above the design waterline as:

• 3 feet

His interpretation is that De Zwane would have been fairly stiff transversely when fully provisioned: not especially prone to heel, but likely to roll in a short, rather violent way rather than in slow deep arcs. That is exactly the sort of behavior you would expect from a relatively broad, cargo-oriented vessel with a low center of gravity.

9) Fairness and design checks​

Waldemar also reports that he ran:

• waterlines tests
• and a zebra test for surface fairness on the hull model.

His conclusion is that the hull is fair and hydrostatically convincing, and that the remaining unresolved work lies more in superstructure interpretation and detail design than in the core hull geometry.

10) Condensed technical profile of the current reconstruction​

If I compress the thread into a one-page ship profile, the current reconstructed De Zwane looks like this:

Category	Current working reconstruction
Type	Dutch vlieboot / flyboat
Date	1592 vessel, used in Barents-related Arctic expeditions
Length between posts / perpendiculars	72 ft
Beam	24 ft
Depth	10 ft in the preferred revised solution
Keel	52 ft
Fore stem	27 ft
Sternpost	19 ft
Hull ratio	6 : 2 : 1
Hull character	Broad, full cargo-capable hull with relatively sharp entry/run for a 3:1 ship
Deck spacing	Revised to 6.5 ft
Aft deck rise	3.5 ft
Trim	2 ft
Stern deck step	approx. 2 ft
Gunport height	revised to 3 ft 5 in
Armament logic	sized for 6-pdr maximum calibre based on outfitting evidence
Submerged volume	7,050 cu ft
Estimated capacity check	approx. 48 lasts vs documentary 40–44 lasts
Metacentric height	3 ft above design waterline
Mizzen position	forward of cabin and helmsman’s station

​

Bottom line​

The reconstruction currently presents De Zwane as a compact, broad, deep-ish, cargo-capable Arctic flyboat with a carefully sharpened underwater body, not as a bluff generic merchant hull. The main technical claims are that:

1. 72 ft × 24 ft × 10 ft is a more convincing interpretation of the contract than earlier reconstructions,
2. the ship’s master frame and underwater body can be derived coherently from period Dutch geometric logic,
3. the resulting vessel has credible capacity, stability, and internal deck heights,
4. and the stern / cabin / mizzen arrangement can be made to fit both the contract and the expedition engravings without forcing obviously impossible geometry.

If you want, I can do the next step and turn this into either:

• a naval-architecture style specification sheet with all known dimensions/ratios/hydrostatic values in one table, or
• a deck-by-deck layout reconstruction of De Zwane showing the likely arrangement of lower deck, half deck, forecastle, poop, cabin, steering, and gun positions.

— END OF CITATION

.​

 

[Heinrich]

Hi Waldemar. This is indeed a hefty document, but one which captures the design process very well. To me there are two significant aspects of this project. The first is the total lack of ambiguity in how we have read, interpreted and executed what was in the build contract. I suppose this is what is possible and what happens when the team responsible for the design is working with facts - not speculation or interpretation. Sure, there are certain things that are not mentioned in the bestekken and which thus lend themselves to interpretation （such as whether the loose grating was actually fitted to the ship at the time of the expeditions）, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that it is mentioned in the build contract and therefore it needs to be included. Whether the modeler chooses to depict this particular aspect, is up to him.

The second most significant aspect of the design is that the reconstruction convincingly answers the question whether the design would be capable of navigating the open seas on two Arctic expeditions. The fact that the design is hydrostatically convincing is the proverbial cherry on the cake.

If you want, I can do the next step and turn this into either:

• a naval-architecture style specification sheet with all known dimensions/ratios/hydrostatic values in one table, or
• a deck-by-deck layout reconstruction of De Zwane showing the likely arrangement of lower deck, half deck, forecastle, poop, cabin, steering, and gun positions.

This is a difficult one for me to call Waldemar. From my point of view, I would imagine that the deck-by-deck-layout reconstruction would be the most valuable.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

As you requested, I am including the rest of the AI’s assessment, specifically regarding the deck layout, but to be honest I have my doubts as to whether this continuation should be quoted, at least in full, as the AI has clearly got confused in several places this time, which could be misleading for many. In particular, it confuses the main deck (lower deck) with the second continuous deck above it. Apart from that, it fails to correctly identify where all the masts are stepped, along with a few other already minor issues . But I suppose it’s best if you see for yourself:



— START OF CITATION
a deck-by-deck layout reconstruction of De Zwane showing the likely arrangement of lower deck, half deck, forecastle, poop, cabin, steering, and gun positions.

Below is a deck-by-deck layout reconstruction of De Zwane as the current Ships of Scale research seems to imply. I’m treating it as a probable arrangement model, not a finalized plan, because Waldemar explicitly keeps adjusting the cabin/helmsman area, forecastle treatment, and some deck furniture. Where the thread is firm, I’ll state it directly; where it’s inferential, I’ll mark it as likely rather than certain.

Overall arrangement logic​

The reconstruction points to De Zwane as a small two-deck Dutch vlieboot with:

• a main / lower deck carrying the principal battery and the mast steps,
• an upper weather deck system split into forecastle forward and half deck aft rather than one continuous flush deck,
• a raised poop / cabin structure aft,
• and a stern steering position associated with the cabin roof/overhang, with the mizzen placed forward of the helmsman’s station in the preferred interpretation.

The most important consequence of the current reconstruction is that the guns are not in the forecastle. Waldemar states that all six main guns are one level lower, on the main deck, with only perhaps the lightest chambered anti-personnel pieces possibly above. That one point helps lock a lot of the layout into place.

---

​

1) Lower deck / main deck​

This is the working deck of the ship and, in the current reconstruction, the most important enclosed internal level.

Likely function​

The lower deck appears to combine four roles:

1. main battery deck
2. principal enclosed working deck
3. mast-step / structural deck
4. access route between fore and aft enclosed spaces

Likely arrangement from bow to stern​

A. Forward lower-deck space​

At the bow, under the forecastle, the lower deck likely formed a covered forward compartment rather than an open waist. The exact partitioning is not fully published in the thread, but based on Waldemar’s comments and Heinrich’s responses, this forward part of the ship was intended to remain low, enclosed, and protected, with the forecastle above it deliberately kept low for windage reasons. The forecastle deck itself is described as being set well below human height relative to the ship’s side, implying that the usable standing space was more likely on the lower deck beneath it than on the forecastle deck itself.

B. Main battery zone amidships​

This is the clearest part of the layout.

Waldemar says that the visible lower-deck armament in the renderings represents all six lower-deck guns:

• 1 × 6-pounder
• 2 × 3-pounders per side
  (all cast iron, based on inventory evidence).

The practical implication is that the main deck broadside battery was arranged symmetrically along the ship’s sides, probably with:

• three gunports per side, and
• the heavier 6-pounder likely occupying the most favorable position in the battery line, with the two 3-pounders distributed fore and aft of it.

Because Waldemar describes “a symmetrical half of all six guns” in the renderings, the most likely working reconstruction is:

Port side​

• forward lower-deck gun
• midships lower-deck gun
• aft lower-deck gun

Starboard side​

• forward lower-deck gun
• midships lower-deck gun
• aft lower-deck gun

That gives six broadside gun positions total on the main deck.

C. Central working space / capstan area​

The renderings discussed in the thread include a capstan, and Heinrich specifically comments that De Zwane appears to have had a capstan rather than the windlass arrangement debated on earlier Barents models. That strongly suggests a central main-deck capstan position, most likely in the open/accessible central zone where it could work the anchor cable or associated heavy handling tasks.

I would place it slightly forward of the aft half of the ship, but still near the center of the main deck, where it can serve both anchoring and heavy internal handling without interfering with the after cabin structure. The exact fore-aft position is not yet published as a dimensioned plan, but the capstan clearly belongs to the lower/main-deck working zone rather than the poop.

D. Mizzen mast step​

One of the firmer conclusions in the thread is that the mizzen mast is stepped on the main (lowest) deck, not on the after deck above. Waldemar explicitly argues this from expedition engravings, and Heinrich agrees that the mizzen should stand forward of the cabin and forward of the helmsman’s station.

So on the main deck, in the after part of the hull, there is likely:

• a mizzen mast step
• placed aft of the battery’s central zone
• but forward of the cabin/steering structure

In plan view, the mizzen seems to sit roughly at the transition between the aft end of the half-deck support structure and the beginning of the stern cabin zone.

E. After enclosed deck under the cabin / poop​

Aft of the mizzen step, the main deck would continue beneath the cabin / poop area. This is likely a compressed but usable enclosed after compartment, supporting:

• the cabin above,
• the helmsman’s overhang / roof structure above,
• and the stern framing and steering gear aft.

This is probably one of the tightest spaces in the ship, because the stern narrows sharply in the reconstructed “pijlstaart” / drawn-in form. Heinrich specifically praises the reconstruction for giving “proper standing space between decks and in the hold,” which implies that Waldemar has made this after main-deck space workable rather than purely symbolic.

---

​

2) Half deck (aft upper deck)​

The half deck is the main raised weather deck aft, sitting above the after part of the lower deck and ahead of the poop/cabin.

Likely role​

This seems to be the primary exposed upper working deck aft:

• above the lower-deck battery zone,
• below / forward of the poop,
• and structurally linked to the mizzen and steering/cabin arrangement.

Likely layout​

The half deck likely carried:

• the upper weather-deck traffic route aft
• the base area around the mizzen mast above
• access toward the poop / cabin / helmsman zone
• railings and possibly gratings depending on the final interpretive choice

Waldemar later says he has decided to recreate openwork railings on the half-deck and poop deck based on the less-simplified expedition engravings. That strongly implies the half deck is an open, railed platform deck, not a fully enclosed superstructure.

Gratings or planked deck?​

This is one of the unresolved points.

Waldemar suggests that the deck “should probably be of a grating construction” based on period imagery, but Heinrich argues that for a polar expedition refit it is more likely the decks were solidly planked and closed, especially after De Zwane’s refurbishment for the 1594/1595 voyages.

So for the half deck, the reconstruction currently allows two plausible states:

• iconography-driven version: partially grated/open construction
• expedition-refit version: more fully planked and enclosed weather deck surface

If I had to choose the most likely Arctic-expedition operational layout, I’d lean to planked half deck with openwork railings at the sides, rather than a large exposed grating.

---

​

3) Forecastle​

The forecastle in this reconstruction is not a gun deck and not a high castle in the later 17th-century sense. It is a low forward raised deck/platform over a covered lower-deck compartment.

What the thread says most clearly​

Waldemar says he significantly lowered the forecastle deck “to a level well below human height” relative to the hull side, because a lower forecastle reduces windage and matches many Barents-expedition depictions. He also says the low side height is compensated visually by a greater-than-standard camber of the deck beams, creating the high arched look of the forecastle bulkhead seen in period imagery.

Likely practical layout​

So the forecastle should probably be imagined as:

• a short raised fore platform
• lower than the half deck aft
• with little or no full standing room on the forecastle deck itself
• sitting over a covered forward lower-deck compartment

Likely features on/under the forecastle​

• Forecastle deck surface: probably planked in the expedition version, though Waldemar notes grating parallels from other imagery
• Aft bulkhead of forecastle: strongly arched/cambered in appearance
• Forward enclosed space below: likely used as sheltered working/storage space rather than artillery space
• No main battery here: Waldemar explicitly says the main guns were one level lower on the main deck, not housed in the forecastle.

Heinrich also explicitly argues for a fully closed forecastle with walls and doors for an Arctic expedition, rather than an open bovennet-style structure. That is not yet a final pronouncement from Waldemar, but it’s the clearest operational interpretation in the thread.

So my best reconstruction is:

Forecastle = low, enclosed, windage-conscious forward upper structure over a sheltered lower-deck compartment, with no heavy guns mounted on the forecastle deck itself.

---

​

4) Poop deck​

The poop is the small raised aftermost deck above/behind the half deck and over the cabin structure.

Role in the reconstruction​

The poop seems to function primarily as:

• the roofline / upper cover of the stern cabin zone
• the aftermost weather deck
• and the structural top of the helmsman/cabin complex

Waldemar later says the openwork railings on the poop deck are part of the intended reconstruction. That implies a relatively light, open-edged platform rather than a massive enclosed sterncastle.

Likely arrangement​

From the thread, the poop likely includes:

• openwork railings
• access from the half deck upward / aft
• the after roofline over the cabin
• the immediate vicinity of the steering position, depending on the exact final interpretation of the helmsman’s station

Because the stern is drawn in tightly, the poop is probably narrow and compact, more like a raised after platform than a large quarterdeck.

---

​

5) Cabin and after accommodation​

This is the most fluid part of the reconstruction, but also one of the most interesting.

What seems secure​

The thread makes two things pretty clear:

1. the cabin length is constrained by the contract, and
2. the helmsman’s station is contractually associated with the cabin, not treated as a separate arbitrary platform.

Waldemar shows multiple variants of the cabin arrangement, and at one stage says he may stick with a revised interpretation. Later he shows another possible cabin variant in which 3 feet of a 12-foot cabin length are sacrificed to create a dedicated helmsman’s station.

Most likely cabin layout​

The most plausible reconstruction from the thread is:

• Cabin located aft under the poop
• Overall cabin length around 12 ft in the working variant
• After end tightly constrained by stern narrowing
• Forward end interacting with mizzen placement and half-deck circulation
• Helmsman’s station incorporated into the cabin roof/overhang zone rather than completely detached

So the stern cabin is probably best imagined as a small after deckhouse / enclosed stern room under the poop, with its roof or aft overhang forming part of the steering arrangement.

Function of the cabin​

Likely roles:

• command / navigation shelter
• elite or officer accommodation
• protected after working space
• structural support for the helm area above/abaft it

---

​

6) Steering / helmsman’s station​

This is the key junction between the half deck, poop, mizzen, and cabin.

What the thread indicates​

There are two competing arrangement logics discussed in the thread:

Earlier / iconographic preference​

Waldemar says he had long preferred the helmsman’s station in front of the mizzen.

Contract-driven interpretation​

But he then says the build contract categorically places the helmsman’s position as part of the cabin, and Heinrich agrees that this needs to be respected even if it is less intuitive.

At the same time, Heinrich comments that the preferred revised arrangement has the mizzen and helmsman positions “switched around” compared with an earlier interpretation, with two benefits:

1. the mizzen can move slightly farther aft, and
2. the helmsman’s view is unobstructed by the mizzen.

Best synthesis of the current layout​

Putting those remarks together, the most likely current arrangement is:

• the helmsman stands at/over the after end of the cabin structure
• the station is integrated with the cabin roof / overhang
• the mizzen is still forward of the helmsman’s line of sight
• the helm is therefore very near the stern, but not completely detached from the cabin

So the steering position is not a separate open quarterdeck helm in the later naval sense. It is more like a stern steering niche/platform built into the after cabin complex.

---

7) Gun positions: likely full arrangement​

Based on the thread, the gun layout that best fits the current reconstruction is this:

Main battery: lower deck only​

Six main lower-deck broadside guns total

• Port side: 3 guns
• Starboard side: 3 guns
  with a mix of one 6-pdr and two 3-pdrs per side visible in the renderings as the symmetric battery set.

Forecastle / upper works​

Waldemar says the guns were not housed in the forecastle and that perhaps only the two lightest chambered hailshot pieces might have been elsewhere above.

So the likely weapon distribution is:

Lower deck​

• full six-gun battery

Upper works / anti-personnel weapons​

• perhaps one or two very light swivel or chambered pieces, but not a second heavy battery deck

---

​

8) A practical “walk-through” of the reconstructed ship​

If I turn the thread into a single coherent onboard walk-through, De Zwane probably looks like this:

From bow to stern​

Forecastle level​

A low forward raised deck, probably enclosed and weather-conscious for Arctic service, with little standing room on the deck itself and no main guns mounted there.

Below forecastle / forward lower deck​

A covered forward compartment leading into the ship’s main enclosed deck.

Main/lower deck amidships​

The ship’s real fighting and working deck:

• six broadside guns total
• central circulation
• capstan
• mast steps / heavy structural deck functions

After lower deck​

Still enclosed, narrowing toward the stern, passing beneath the half deck and into the stern cabin support zone.

Half deck aft​

The principal raised upper working deck aft, open at the sides with railings, serving as the approach to the stern cabin and poop and the area around the mizzen.

Mizzen zone​

The mizzen mast rises from a step on the main/lower deck, positioned forward of the helmsman’s station and close to the aft superstructure transition.

Cabin / helmsman zone​

A compact stern cabin under the poop, with the helmsman’s station integrated into the cabin’s roof/overhang area near the stern.

Poop​

A small raised after platform with openwork railings, topping the stern cabin and framing the steering area.

---

9) Condensed deck-by-deck reconstruction table​

Area	Likely arrangement in current reconstruction
Lower deck / main deck	Main enclosed working deck; full six-gun battery; capstan; mast steps; through access fore-to-aft
Forward lower deck	Covered compartment under forecastle; likely storage / sheltered working space
Amidships lower deck	Three gun positions per side across the broadside battery zone
After lower deck	Enclosed sternward deck under half deck/cabin, supporting mizzen and stern structure
Forecastle	Low raised forward deck, likely enclosed for expedition service; no main guns on this level
Half deck	Raised aft weather deck above after part of lower deck; openwork railings; circulation around mizzen/cabin
Poop	Small raised aftermost deck over stern cabin with openwork railings
Cabin	Compact stern cabin under poop; about 12 ft in one working variant; contract-driven dimensions
Helmsman’s station	Built into / associated with the cabin roof or overhang at the stern
Mizzen	Stepped on lower deck; placed forward of helmsman’s station and cabin aft edge
Main guns	6 total on lower deck
Possible light upper weapons	maybe a couple of light chambered hailshot pieces only

​

My bottom-line reconstruction​

If I had to summarize the ship’s deck plan in one sentence:

De Zwane looks like a compact two-deck Arctic flyboat with its fighting deck low in the hull, a deliberately low forecastle forward, an open-railed half deck and poop aft, and a stern cabin/helm complex carefully fitted around a mizzen stepped on the lower deck just forward of the steering station.

If you want, I can take this one step further and produce a text-only annotated plan view + side elevation of De Zwane—basically an ASCII-style reconstruction showing where each gun, mast, cabin wall, deck break, and helm position likely sits relative to the 72 ft hull.

— END OF CITATION

.​

 

[-Waldemar-]

The first is the total lack of ambiguity in how we have read, interpreted and executed what was in the build contract. I suppose this is what is possible and what happens when the team responsible for the design is working with facts - not speculation or interpretation. Sure, there are certain things that are not mentioned in the bestekken and which thus lend themselves to interpretation （such as whether the loose grating was actually fitted to the ship at the time of the expeditions）, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is that it is mentioned in the build contract and therefore it needs to be included. Whether the modeler chooses to depict this particular aspect, is up to him.

The second most significant aspect of the design is that the reconstruction convincingly answers the question whether the design would be capable of navigating the open seas on two Arctic expeditions. The fact that the design is hydrostatically convincing is the proverbial cherry on the cake.

For obvious reasons, I cannot be entirely objective in assessments of this kind (a so-called potential conflict of interest), but personally I wish to see — and do see — the above assessment as accurately highlighting, in most general terms, the most significant aims and features of this particular reconstruction .

.​