HMS Sovereign of the Seas - Bashing DeAgostini Beyond Believable Boundaries

DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
The frames were glued to the false keel today, and reinforcement pieces made from 16mm basswood square dowel and some scrap oak were glued to the inside corners of the joints to ensure the frames stay perpendicular.

View attachment 194901

View attachment 194902

View attachment 194903

View attachment 194904

View attachment 194905
Click to expand...
Kurt, I appreciate the care you are taking to keep everything square and aligned. I played a little too fast and loose at this stage of my build and needed to go back and make some corrections. What I lacked in experience I needed to make up with persistence. It would have just as easy to be persistent in the first place. You are modelling some good modelling habits.
What's the over/under on when you will pass me up? ;)
 
dockattner said:
Kurt, I appreciate the care you are taking to keep everything square and aligned. I played a little too fast and loose at this stage of my build and needed to go back and make some corrections. What I lacked in experience I needed to make up with persistence. It would have just as easy to be persistent in the first place. You are modelling some good modelling habits.
What's the over/under on when you will pass me up? ;)
Click to expand...
Heh... Catching up to you is a LONG way off! I figure rigging will slow you down a bit. No worries. :)
 
CharlieT said:
About the camber of the decks......
You can calculate the camber for the Treatise. Skipping the arithmetic and getting to the results for the Sovereign:
Camber of lower gun deck: 18 inches
Camber of middle gun deck: 12 inches
Camber of upper gun deck: 8 inches
Nobody knows the camber of the upper decks, but 8 inches is a good guess.
Click to expand...
You would think that the camber would increase with the likelihood of having more water on the deck, not less. Interesting...
 
DARIVS ARCHITECTVS said:
You would think that the camber would increase with the likelihood of having more water on the deck, not less. Interesting...
Click to expand...
Agreed. They figured it out in later ships, so the camber in them did increase as you moved upwards. This change may have been because in England shipwrights actually drawing plans in the late 1500's. Once they started putting things on paper (actually velum), people could look at each other's work and make improvements. Of course, shipwrights still liked to keep a lot of secrets. In his letter to the King, for example, Pett says that only the King would see the rising and narrowing lines.

By the way, I'm really enjoying following your build. I can't wait to see what comes next!
 
You would also say the higher the camber the better the load carrying capabilities of the deck. As the lower decks carry the heaviest guns and at the widest point of the hull they would have the highest camber. Just a thought.
 
Maarten said:
You would also say the higher the camber the better the load carrying capabilities of the deck. As the lower decks carry the heaviest guns and at the widest point of the hull they would have the highest camber. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I think the frame support underneath would lend more strength than the geometry of such a shallow arch which is formed by the camber. Even at a maximum of 18", the camber on the model would be only 5.4mm. That's not a huge difference in shape. That's why DeAgostini simplified the mode with flat decks. Easily fixed, however.
 
Last edited:
NMBROOK said:
Hi Kurt

Good luck with your build,you will have fun with this one,I know I did when it comes to the geometry.It is seven years since i was working on mine and have forgotten a lot of the details but here is a synopsis of what I changed in short;
Deck sheer-too flat OOTB
Lowered the lower deck
Changed to proper round tuck
Changed the hull cross section starting around 8 inches from the stern working backwards to get the correct profile at the stern.Kit is too fat and not tall enough.
Changed to offset bowsprit.
I went for the stepped deck,I personally believe it was so.

Lastly there is no right or wrong with this one,until someone invents a time machine,there are only educated guesses.However,I do disagree with many of McKays conclusions.Sovereign was a one off,she didn't follow any standard practices of the time.There is a document in existence from the time that actually states the hull was DOUBLE planked!It is mentioned in James Septon's book.

Kind Regards

Nigel
Click to expand...

Hi Kurt

I will spend some time at the weekend and take some pictures of my model square on.I tweaked nearly everything including the angle of the transom when viewed side on.
I based my modifications on VdeVs artwork and the model does look right when viewed in the same perspective.This was not easy when working in side elevation and cross sections.I preferred VdeVs carvings to Payne so went that route.
A figure of 10mm comes to mind for lowering the deck midships but bow and stern remained nearly unchanged giving the greater sheer.There is insufficent room between gunports vertically on the Deag version to accommodate the strakes as in the artwork.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
NMBROOK said:
Hi Kurt

I will spend some time at the weekend and take some pictures of my model square on.I tweaked nearly everything including the angle of the transom when viewed side on.
I based my modifications on VdeVs artwork and the model does look right when viewed in the same perspective.This was not easy when working in side elevation and cross sections.I preferred VdeVs carvings to Payne so went that route.
A figure of 10mm comes to mind for lowering the deck midships but bow and stern remained nearly unchanged giving the greater sheer.There is insufficent room between gunports vertically on the Deag version to accommodate the strakes as in the artwork.

Kind Regards

Nigel
Click to expand...
Really looking forward to seeing your notes on modification. I am not relying on the VdeV drawing since it was supposed to depict the vessel after being rebuilt, and the internal decks were moved vertically. My model will try to be as the ship appeared in 1637 at launching. Some elements of the decoration in the VdeV drawing were retained from the Payne design. even though the decks in the stern castle were moved vertically, so there are conflicts between the exterior decorations and rearmost cannon positions and the newer deck heights.
 
Last edited:
Hi Kurt
As promised I took a few pics, apologies it is a dreary day in Yorkshire.I did take some measurements.Subtracting the height of my keel and planking as to give you heights from the bottom of the bulkheads, the following are heights to the bottom of the lower gunports below the lining.

Aft 106.5mm
Lowest ports 95mm (around 30% aft of the bow)
Bow 96.5mm

To be honest I can't remember whether I altered the deck height midships or moved the wale position.The hull planking is 4mm wide to help give you an idea of scale

Kind Regards

Nigel

IMG_1863.jpgIMG_1864.jpgIMG_1865.jpgIMG_1866.jpgIMG_1867.jpg
 
CharlieT said:
Nigel,
I've viewed your wonderful build before, and I've always wondered.....

How did you get those treenail lines on the hull so straight? Did you use some sort of template?
Click to expand...

Thanks Charlie

I used 6mm Tamiya tape to mark the lines vertically.The points were marked with an awl using the edge of the tape as a guide.I removed the tape then drilled the holes.

Kind Regards

Nigel
 
Thank you very much!!! Not sure I'd have either the courage or patience to put so many holes in the hull, but I might practice with it a bit.
 
NMBROOK said:
Hi Kurt
As promised I took a few pics, apologies it is a dreary day in Yorkshire.I did take some measurements.Subtracting the height of my keel and planking as to give you heights from the bottom of the bulkheads, the following are heights to the bottom of the lower gunports below the lining.

Aft 106.5mm
Lowest ports 95mm (around 30% aft of the bow)
Bow 96.5mm

To be honest I can't remember whether I altered the deck height midships or moved the wale position.The hull planking is 4mm wide to help give you an idea of scale

Kind Regards

Nigel

View attachment 195741View attachment 195742View attachment 195743View attachment 195744View attachment 195745
Click to expand...
Nigel! THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH for this critical information! I will carefully study your changes and apply them as well. I owe you one, buddy!
 
Hi Kurt,

I don't know if you know the article which was published a few years ago in the "Logbuch" from the German Arbeitskreis historischer Schiffsbau.
If I ever build a model of this ship I think I will follow these lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top