Sovereign of the Seas, a reconstruction based on Sheldon O3 design

[DonatasBruzas]

I wonder how much the Sovereign differs from the Sheldon's ship in the fore side. Here are two views - of the Prince and the Sheldon's ship. The curve shown by the harpins helps to understand how sharp the bow of a ship is - the Princes's bow is round and the Sheldon's ship's - triangular in plan. So, the Sovereign would fall somewhere in between, may be more similar to the Prince (if compared to the frontal image in the post #139)

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

I wonder how much the Sovereign differs from the Sheldon's ship in the fore side. Here are two views - of the Prince and the Sheldon's ship. The curve shown by the harpins helps to understand how sharp the bow of a ship is - the Princes's bow is round and the Sheldon's ship's - triangular in plan. So, the Sovereign would fall somewhere in between, may be more similar to the Prince (if compared to the frontal image in the post #139)

Why would Sovereign of the Seas (1637) fall between Sheldon's ship (1655–1663) and the Prince (1670)?

.​

 

[DonatasBruzas]

.​

Why would Sovereign of the Seas (1637) fall between Sheldon's ship (1655–1663) and the Prince (1670)?

.​

Not chronologically, but comparing visually with the image in the post #139. It depicts the Sovereign after a rebuild, I understand.
On the other hand the Sovereign in the 1637 had a much different keel / breadth ratio than the Sheldon's ship and this could mean different design considerations.
I assume the Sheldon's ship to be influenced more by the parliamentarian frigates than the Sovereign.

 

[Martes]

If we believe the Van de Velde depiction here:

​

The line of greatest breadth (which is visible by the inclination of the forwardmost gunports) does not rise on the Sovereign as sharply as on the Sheldon's ship model (and I remember I noted this difference between the O 3 model and the known images of the Naseby).

But it's important to remember that this is indeed after a couple of rebuilds, in 1685, and the gunports here are higher than their original positions.

For comparison, here are Britannia (no masts) and Prince (with lower masts) from the same picture:

​

While it is rather difficult to derive the fullness of the bows from this image (and note the irregularity of the gunports on Britannia, so VDV is not infallible), I concur with @DonatasBruzas , that at least the model of the Prince shows an extremely full bow, and the O 3 model depicts a very sharp variant.

​

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Especially from a buoyancy point of view, for large, heavy and/or not very rigid structures like ships of the line, there must be compensation. That is, for a moderately sharp entry at the gripe level, the hull at the harpings level can be relatively sharp. Conversely, if the gun deck is to be wide at the bow, if only for tactical reasons, the gripe must be sharpened accordingly. This phenomenon can be seen very well on period plans and models. Thus, if a very blunt bow on van de Velde's drawings is seen, one can be almost certain that the ship in turn has a very sharp entrance in the underwater section. Otherwise it would be a floating barn like 'typical' cargo ships.

Naturally, we do not now have the practice, like 17th-century shipwrights, to select such features entirely consciously on the basis of their experience. Rather, we are left, in the reconstructions undertaken, to make arbitrary guesses about such parameters, based on the observation of surviving plans and models. There are quite many of them.

.​

 

[DonatasBruzas]

Another comparison. Here I tried to keep the scale by keeping the distance between the decks similar. The Sheldon's ship is in an orthographic projection, simulating a long observer's distance to the ship.

 

[Maarten]

I have been thinking about this myself also, but we have to keep in mind that the Morgan drawing of the original Sovereign by Van de velde was most probably not drawn from reality as Van de Velde most probably had never seen the original Sovereign. Some mention that the below Morgan drawing shows the original look and feel on the later hull design.


Buschmann mentions in his book that the shape of the lower bow of the Sovereign most probably hadn't been touched until it's last rebuild in 1685 which was just before the last drawing of Van de Velde of the Sovereign front. At this last rebuild additional volume in the bow and stern was created which also changed the tonnage of the ship.


This means we can't compare the front drawing of the Sovereign with the full bow with it's original bow design.

There are three additional drawings of Van de Velde before the rebuild of 1685 still with it's old side galleries.

Looking at the different positions of the gun ports we can at least conclude that Van de velde was struggling with the gun ports.
They do however give the idea of a somehow fuller bow then the O3 model.

First I will finish the O3 model based hull shape and see if we need to tweak something to get closer to the shape as indicated by Van de Velde.

At least we know Sheldon proposed this design for his 3 decker and he was partly educated by the Pett family.

We will see it is a fun trip to do.

 

[Martes]

They do however give the idea of a somehow fuller bow then the O3 model.

First I will finish the O3 model based hull shape and see if we need to tweak something to get closer to the shape as indicated by Van de Velde.

I tend to think that if Sheldon used the Naseby dataset for the Riksapplet (O3), it is possible that the change in the shape of the bow, with very high "cheeks" of the hull could have been a local, Swedish request, because I struggle to find any depiction of English ship with such a shape forward. They seem to have the line of greatest breadth (and probably the shape of the stem) somewhat lower, so that this line would follow the top wale or be very close to it, unlike what we see on O3, where it sharply rises around the location of the second gunport.

 

[DonatasBruzas]

One more.

 

[donfarr]

OK WOW WAY TO GO GUYS GREAT RESEAQRCH AND TRANSMITTING TO US ILLETERATES TO UNDERSTAND. GOD BLESS STAY SAFE ALL DON

 

[Maarten]

One more.

View attachment 457279

See below the angle

 

[WilliamM]

Hi Uwe,

I am sure this will lead to a lot of discussion which is more than welcome.

The NMM drawings will be interesting to compare.

I will follow your progress on this important ship! Unfortunately, given that nobody really seems to know, any real effort will be of a ship that morphologically resembles the Sovereign of the Seas. That said, enjoy it and we will do the same!

Bill

 

[Martes]

The real question that should be asked concerning the position of the line of greatest breadth is how much the fore part of the ship was changed during all three rebuilds prior to 1685 from the original configuration, including the shape of the stem post.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Below is a reproduction of a very important ship plan of English origin from the Hermitage collection in St Petersburg, Russia. I once carried out an analysis of the second plan (of a smaller ship) from this set, but I have yet to return to this. Anyway, these plans are undated, however, most of the longitudinal design lines were geometrically constructed according to an algorithm given in an also anonymous manuscript dated 1620–25, the so-called Salisbury manuscript (reproduced, for example, in Peter Kirsch's extremely useful work, The Galleon. The Great Ships of the Armada Era).

Personally, I date these plans precisely to roughly the decades just during or immediately prior the construction of Sovereign of the Seas 1637.

The plan depicts a three-decked ship and it is important to note the shape of the line of maximum breadth at the bow in the top view. The aptly conceived shape of this line at the bow must also have been important to the designers of the time since it was so meticulously corrected in the drawing, as indicated by the double line – before correction and after correction, and exactly in the way described in the Salisbury manuscript.

Note also that in the sheer view, the somewhat geometrically fictitious design line of maximum breadth still runs in the old manner, i.e. following the wales or decks till the very end at the stem post, and is not terminating at the forwardmost point of the stem post, as it should according to the inexorable geometry. This has certain implications, but perhaps not at the moment so as not to prolong the post.

​

Below is still a diagram with an extract from my old analysis of a smaller ship from this Hermitage set of plans.

​

.​

 

[Maarten]

.​

Below is a reproduction of a very important ship plan of English origin from the Hermitage collection in St Petersburg, Russia. I once carried out an analysis of the second plan (of a smaller ship) from this set, but I have yet to return to this. Anyway, these plans are undated, however, most of the longitudinal design lines were geometrically constructed according to an algorithm given in an also anonymous manuscript dated 1620–25, the so-called Salisbury manuscript (reproduced, for example, in Peter Kirsch's extremely useful work, The Galleon. The Great Ships of the Armada Era).

Personally, I date these plans precisely to roughly the decades just during or immediately prior the construction of Sovereign of the Seas 1637.

The plan depicts a three-decked ship and it is important to note the shape of the line of maximum breadth at the bow in the top view. The aptly conceived shape of this line at the bow must also have been important to the designers of the time since it was so meticulously corrected in the drawing, as indicated by the double line – before correction and after correction, and exactly in the way described in the Salisbury manuscript.

Note also that in the sheer view, the somewhat geometrically fictitious design line of maximum breadth still runs in the old manner, i.e. following the wales or decks till the very end at the stem post, and is not terminating at the forwardmost point of the stem post, as it should according to the inexorable geometry. This has certain implications, but perhaps not at the moment so as not to prolong the post.

View attachment 457449​

Below is still a diagram with an extract from my old analysis of a smaller ship from this Hermitage set of plans.

View attachment 457450​

.​

Hi Waldemar,

I will have a look at this one also when the O3 design is finished. Good material for a comparison.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

I will have a look at this one also when the O3 design is finished. Good material for a comparison.

So do you intend to continue the English "adventure" even after the Sovereign project is finalised? In addition to the plans from Hermitage, there is a whole series of plans by David Balfour in the Danish archives. I suspect that they all show designs in a still Mediterranean manner (or at most in a transitional form), as I have shown in the example of the circa 1600 ship and the galley-frigate of the third decade of the 17th century, both of English origin. But this still needs to be more formally checked and demonstrated.

.​

 

[Maarten]

.​

So do you intend to continue the English "adventure" even after the Sovereign project is finalised? In addition to the plans from Hermitage, there is a whole series of plans by David Balfour in the Danish archives. I suspect that they all show designs in a still Mediterranean manner (or at most in a transitional form), as I have shown in the example of the circa 1600 ship and the galley-frigate of the third decade of the 17th century, both of English origin. But this still needs to be more formally checked and demonstrated.

.​

Hi Waldemar,

Currently trying to find the best possible hull shape for the SotS.
I will see where the O3 design brings me and if it needs fine tuning for the SotS hull.
My idea is to start building a model of it using the 17th century whole moulding methode and experiment with building it by using 17th century methodes.
Comparable to my current shell first build.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Thanks, Maarten, for the clarification. Have you already made a final decision on the nature of the model? I mean, will it be complete, with masts, rigging, decoration, armament etc.? Or will you stop at just the hull, like most Navy Board style models?

 

[Maarten]

.​

Thanks, Maarten, for the clarification. Have you already made a final decision on the nature of the model? I mean, will it be complete, with masts, rigging, decoration, armament etc.? Or will you stop at just the hull, like most Navy Board style models?

I was thinking about a model with on PS side the layout as according Van de Velde drawing and SB side the Boston drawing.

Full carvings, navy board style decks.

I don't want to build navy board style frames but build according early 17th century style with every 3rd bend build in full and the rest filler timbers.
I still have to sort that out.

For the rest all guns on the decks.

Rigging is still under consideration.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Fine. At any rate, with this grandeur of the ship, pretty much any realistic convention for making the model will probably provide work for decades.
It is good that you are cautious about investigating the correct configuration of the frames as it was variable over time. This is almost a separate, quite extensive area of knowledge.

Of the several works on the subject, a very enlightening and valuable study by John Franklin, Navy Board Ship Models 1650–1750, can be offered here. It also has the added benefit of presenting the issue in the context of the models. A must for consultation. For me personally, this is the single best monograph on Navy Board models.

.​