Vlieboot »De Zwane« 1592 — Barents discovers the Arctic

[Heinrich]

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 out again.

There is no need to include items such as the gratings, belaying racks and knechten - I have a very good idea where those should go, what they looked like and how they were constructed. Luckily, items such as the windlass and the mooring bitts - which have always been a bone of contention in my previous builds - have now been negated by the fact that De Zwane had a capstan!

The beakhead is an interesting one. I want to point out here @-Waldemar- rationale behind the beakhead as he explained it to me:

Over the last few days, I’ve been looking through dozens and hundreds of different period illustrations in search of technical details and the specific shapes of beakheads from that era. On top of that, the challenge lies in elegantly synchronising the lines of the beakhead with the hull’s shapes and its wales. This is a very eye-catching feature of the ship, and I want its design not only to convincingly reflect what is seen in the iconography, but also to look sufficiently attractive given its visually prominent position. I don’t want to settle for the oversimplified, rather makeshift solutions found in previous reconstructions.

This is actually the one item which in position and configuration is displayed fairly consistently in the iconography i.e. the top railing of the beakhead follows the line of the ship's "potdeksel"（upper railing）

The color-enhanced picture below may be of some help.



Also, the next two etchings which show the ship after deconstruction of the forecastle and beakhead （these materials were used to construct Het Behouden Huys）, may offer some assistance with regards to the exact position and angle of the beakhead.





The caveat, of course, is that these illustrations refer to Barentsz's ship and not to De Zwane.

What I do know though is that the final result that Waldemar comes up with will be convincing on all fronts. (No pressure! )

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Thanks, Heinrich, especially for pointing out these particular reproductions depicting remains of the beakhead, which I had indeed almost overlooked until now. Apart from the evidence and styling themselves, when reconstructing the beakhead and its surroundings, one has to take into account several quite serious structural issues. For example, the solution where the bowsprit pierces the hull side does not sit well with me, and to be honest, I am still searching for the right overall arrangement in that area.

What I do know though is that the final result that Waldemar comes up with will be convincing on all fronts.

I would comment on this by saying that previous reconstructors may not have been fortunate enough to have a helpful, albeit anonymous, assistant who would have warned them in time that ‘current-day US feet and inches’ should not be used, and perhaps that is precisely why so many things have gone wrong in past achievements .

.​

 

[Heinrich]

For example, the solution where the bowsprit pierces the hull side does not sit well with me,

Waldemar, upon reading this, I concur fully and I have to admit （to the detriment of my own interpretation） that this is the layout which I followed as well. Sometimes, it might be difficult for modelers of bigger models to appreciate just how little space there is to work with on this ship - and to make matters worse - you still have to contend with that pesky foremast and belaying rack which both have to be fitted in the "luizenplecht" area - the area between the forecastle and stem of the ship.


This is what Waldemar means when he says that the bowsprit "pierces" the hull of the ship. I have to plead guilty for doing the same on my two previous builds.


To his credit, De Weerdt has avoided this pitfall. Here the bowsprit almost appears to lie in a "cradle" of sorts on top of the stem - an interpretation of which I have no idea about its historical accuracy or feasibility.

My Russian friend, Vladimir Zhdan has followed a different approach for the bowsprit to clear the hull. The bowsprit is mounted further back （actually underneath the roof of the forecastle） which allowed the bowsprit to clear the railing without having too steep a rake. Again, as to its historical accuracy or feasibility I cannot comment.

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

I have to plead guilty for doing the same on my two previous builds.

You definitely shouldn’t , because it’s not an entirely unheard-of solution. It’s just poor engineering, which is why it’s so rare among better designs.

For example, as shown below on a Danish warship Norske Løve from 1634 (model built in 1654). Although in this case, indeed, it is not actually the side of the ship above the deck that is pierced, and the bowsprit can be secured from below and even from above by breast hooks.

​

.​