.
(Because then you get) less harmonious surface.
Please also note I have used the term "surface", as opposed to "curve".
.
Samuel 1650 – a Dutch mid-17th century trader
- Thread starter -Waldemar-
- Start date
- Watchers 17
(Because then you get) less harmonious surface.
Please also note I have used the term "surface", as opposed to "curve".
Often (in my opinion, very often) you see narrowing sweeps like the one above, which come from the dead wood with a slight curvature, gradually becoming more curved and stretching again towards the bilge arch.
So there are no circular arcs.
.
In my opinion, you have just shown a modern reconstruction, not a source plan. Can you demonstrate this with a period plan?.
.
In order to verify the soundness of the conceptual method found in terms of the correctness of the resulting shapes, a check in the form of waterlines and diagonal lines can and should be applied at the end of this (often iterative) process. To repeat – this step is for verification purposes only, and in no way can these lines be used to modify the shapes of the leading frames. Or, in other words, any modification of conceptual bends can only be done by historically appropriate methods, as shown above in this thread (and others).Apart from reverse engineering, the same applies to the design (meaning reconstruction) of ships of the period, i.e. from the era of the use of non-graphical or partly graphical methods.
.
The shape looks very familiar to me.
.
I am very happy that you (probably) like it. You are arguably the harshest critic/reviewer for me.I now have a great desire to tackle the Dutch 72-gun ship plan you kindly provided me with recently. Any news on its dating?
.
Haha, I had the impression that the clashes you had with other critics were much harsher than with me. 
I sent several letters to international contacts of which I hoped they could help me to some information about the drawing, but so far it has brought me nothing.
Sorry.
I sent several letters to international contacts of which I hoped they could help me to some information about the drawing, but so far it has brought me nothing.
Sorry.
.
I meant: in the category of substantive discussants . Returning for a moment to the placement of the master frame on the Samuel 1650, I forgot to specifically write at the proper time that it is primarily derived from the run of the wales as drawn on the documentation of that wreck. This is a rather easy element to measure on the wreck, so I assume no mistake was made in this. Besides, this particular placement of the master frame makes for a very harmonious structure with all the other pieces of this geometric puzzle, as can be seen in the diagrams.As for the Dutch 72-gun ship, I now provisionally date it to the period of the War of the League of Augsburg (1688–1697), in which ships of this particular class participated in a rather great numbers. Admittedly, 72-gun ships had already started to be built/used by the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672–1674), yet, still in much smaller numbers, and the concave shape of the fashion piece does not quite fit into this earlier period. The specifics of the design rather rule out the 18th century, except perhaps the first two decades at the most.
.
.
.
First, it is probably worth using an example of tracing the stempost taken from van Yk's 1697 work, which demonstrates that geometric design methods were indeed used.
In the description to the engraving above, on page 58, there is a thorough explanation of how to obtain the circular curve of a stempost, knowing in advance the height and rake of the stempost; the final shape of the arc of the stempost being obtained with a compass. This could have been a normal compass for drawings made to scale, or a string compass for real scale tracing.
Indeed, as you point out, in many cases it would have been inconvenient or even impossible to use a radius and a compass. Particularly in such cases, the designer could easily measure on the drawing (or calculate mathematically if he was proficient in calculations) the so-called deflection arrow. After scaling it to the actual scale, he could use this value when collecting timbers, for making a working templates or for giving instructions to carpenters. To give a simple example: we want to buy 52 timbers with a length of 9 feet and a deflection (in the middle) of 1 foot.
In this way, the two approaches, the geometric and the practical, combine and complement each other in a harmonious, even essential way.
It occurred to me later that I could have shown this graphically by drawing a sketch explaining the essence of this conversion, but I no longer need to, as Martes has just pointed out an incredibly valuable album of ship drawings from the very early 18th century (about which in subsequent threads) which shows such a conversion, i.e. from design convention to carpentry convention, and in an extremely didactic way.
Briefly, the designer/draughtsman used the engineering/design convention to define the arc (that is, using the radius) and then converted a section of that arc to the 'carpentry convention', for the purpose of purchasing materials and as a guide for the carpenters to work with (that is, using the length of the timber and its bend/deflection).
.
I have been looking for Martes's posts, but no luck so far. This is for me what it is all about, because of the 'carpentry convention' as you call it. What I would like to see is an example. Why not taking the 134 foot pinas as a test case. You showed the basics of the design, but how exactly did the shipbuilder do the math? For me that is the link between the theoretical approach with sweeps e.a. and the shopping list.
.
I have to admit that Martes, by pointing me to this album, has completely ruined my immediate plans. It is a magnificent collection of ship designs, drawn up personally and collected by none other than the Russian ruler Peter I in the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
It's 'all there', and everything in there has state-of-the art status: deep-water capital ships, coastal shallow draft warships, auxiliary units (even including camels). Designs à la anglaise, designs à la hollandaise, designs based on the diagonals as praticed already in France, even a copy of a Danish design by Ole Judichær and plans of galleys of presumably Mediterranean origin, etc. And almost all in engineering, design convention.
What may interest you, at the moment I'm taking 'inventory' of a plan of a Dutch yacht that was designed in a quite analogous way to Witsen's pinas, i.e. featuring hard chine (only slightly softened). But above all, it's further evidence of the engineering way Dutch ships were designed and built in this era.
.
.
The graphic below shows a hypothetical appearance of the Samuel 1650 once its upperworks have been recreated. The Samuel 1650 is actually already the smallest ship for which the two-deck configuration was used. The distance between decks was taken from Grebber's table, reproduced in both Witsen's 1671 and van Yk's 1697 works. This feature, taken together with the relatively small size of the ship, make Samuel's silhouette quite tall, and despite the smallest distance adopted between these decks (about 4½ feet).
The very full shape of the underwater part of the hull, suitable for a cargo ship, is also evident. Taken together with the high freeboard, this must have made the ship very leeward, which ultimately surely contributed to her disaster, but also preserved her to our times.
The position of the masts, or rather the foremast and mainmast, was taken from the shipwreck documentation, but it must be said that it is altogether quite typical: the mainmast at the middle of the keel and the foremast above the gripe, i.e. above the junction of the keel with the stem post.
.
Last edited:
ALL I CAN SAY WALDMAR IS WOW RIGHT NOW I AM REVIEWING ALL THE THREADSW FOR THE SAQMUEL IT TAKESW A COUPLE O9FR GO0M T5HRUS TO KNOW SOMEWHAT I AM DEOINGT THEN MORE STUDY ASKING SOME STUPID QUESTIONS. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE YOU AND YOURS DO0NJ
.
Thank you, Don. Since these plans will be primarily for you, I would like you to state your preferences for 2D projections. For example, overall size, metric or inch scaling, density of cross sections, all frames on one body plan or each separately, whether you need (dense) waterlines, etc. If you do not specify such things, I will do so at my own discretion.
Also below are some graphics showing ships of a similar nature. While from different periods, especially the last two, they still can be useful for various details, but also to get a better feel for the specifics of these vessels in general.
.
HI WALDAMAR, BOY YOU ARE SOMETHING JUST FABO0LOUS REALLY OUTSTANDING AS FAR AS SIZES ARE CONCERNED I WILL LEAVE MOST OF THYEM TO0 YOU THE LENGTHM FOR ME BETWEEN 15 INCHESW AND 22 INCHES YOU P-ICK IT AND YES DUE TO PHYSICALS I WOULD LIKE IFR POSSIBLE EACH FRAME. YOU MARE GREAT I HAVE BEEN WAQNTING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THISW FROR 20 YEARS. THANK YOU. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE YOU AND YOURS DON
.
Don, please take a look at the preliminary variant of the almost ready plates below and tell me if they are sufficient for you to make the Samuel 1650 model.
The scale adopted is 1:55, or one could say Dutch par excellence, as 1 inch is equal to 5 Amsterdam feet of 11 inches. The PDF files of the high-quality vector graphics you will receive later will be in Arch C format for this scale, i.e. 18" x 24", to be printed at some printing service company, and the model itself will be about 18.5 English inches long between posts. The aft overhang and possibly the length of the bowsprit still need to be added to the total length of the model. Anyway, you can always scale the print for a different size of the model.
I have a few other comments, but that's for later, for now, please judge whether this convention suits you.
.
Last edited:
OH WOW YOU BET IT DOES GREATLY. HOPE MEMBERSW KEEP COMENTING ON THESE THREAQDS SO THEY CONTINUE ON SOS VERY, VERY, VERY BORING WITHOUT THESE INTERESTING THREADS UWE, AB, OTHERS PLEASE, PLEASE HELP FOR THISW TO CDONTINUE. GOD BLESSW ALL STAY SAFE DONJ
.
Many thanks, Don. You will find the printable PDF files sporting vector graphics in your mailbox. If you possibly decide to use these plans to build your model, please consider the following.
As these are reconstruction plans, you do not need to take them too literally. You can, and should, play around with various details, if only to make your model individual. For example, you can add a 'perforated' railing in the stern part to make the silhouette of the ship more attractive. You can make the upper edge of the stern 'mirror' arched. Actually you should also add some wales with a smaller cross section above the three main ones drawn on the plan, etc. The sternpost should be shortened a little, roughly to the height of the wing transom, for free entry of the tiller into the hull.
Note the correct arrangement of the garboard strakes in Dutch convention, as in the documentation of the Samuel 1650 shipwreck attached below. It can be said that the garboard strakes are actually not in contact with the frame timbers in the central part of the hull at all. On the plans the garboard strakes are not drawn because these plans show the contours of the frames and not the planking. On the sheer view, however, both rabbet lines are plotted, just for this purpose.
On the other hand, the contours of the frames and their longitudinal placement must be maintained as carefully as possible in order to obtain perfectly faired hull surfaces in the model, as has already been tried and tested (as opposed to actually forming the shapes) with diagonals and waterlines.
.
OK MEMBERS OF SOS HERE4 IS SOMETHING YOU CAN LEARN ANDE ENJOY MAYBE NOT AS OTHER BUILDS, MOIDELING PLANS DONE BT WALDAMER IN LIKE WEEKS BUT AFTER YEARS AND YEARS OF RESEARCH. IT HAS BEEN A DREAM OF MINE FOR OVER 10 YEARS TO COMPARE HU8LL LINE4S AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS COUNTRIES LIKE THIS DUTCH SHIP, COMPARED TO A FRENCH, ENGLISH,, SPANISH ETC, ETC, ETC OF THE SAME TIME PERIOD NOW THAT WOULD BE A GROUP BUILD, HOW ABOUTAM -PUSH FROM ADMINISTRATORS AND MEMBERS SUCH AS AB, MARATEEN, BRIAN HEINRICH, UWE NOT ONLY IN THE BUILD ITSELF BUT IN THE PLAQNES ETC THIS COU8LD BE A REAL LEARNING DEBATE NOT PERSONALITIES COME ON GUYS LET US HERE FROM YOU AND SO MANY TALANTED MEMBERS HERE THIS IS MY GAUNTLET THROWN DOWN WHO HAS THE DESIRE AND COURAGE TO PICK IT UP. AND FRO0M MEM PERSWONALLY TO WALDAMERE A THANK YOU AND APPRECIATION OF YOUR WORK AND EFFORT. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE ALL DON
I will certainly see what can be done with this drawing Don. It might be a good project, but several adaptations will be necessary. For instance the location of the waterline as Waldemar has suggested: at ships with three wales the maximum depth is usually marked at the middle of the middle wale. I think more depth will add to the appearance of the vessel. Also the bulwarks are too low to be safe enough for the crew (or the upper deck should be lower). And aft I am inclined to choose for a higher stern, causing more sheer. But the shape below the waterline is certainly seductive and a nice basis for a trustworthy model. Unfortunately I am still working on a small fluit (which is as good as finished) and a 22-gun frigate (hull and sails are ready, all the rigging is yet to be done).
If time allows...
If time allows...