I agree, That would be quite hard. Interesting to watch but perhaps not to do.. I think for most model builders (since most do POB), the interior timber arrangement is mainly interesting for creating the appropriate pattern of fasteners on the hull? I think that is the purpose of the OP too?
I saw an interesting model building method that might help in replicating complicated framing. Similar to how you typically model ship's boats. A plug is made, representing the hollow interior of the ship (minus riders, knees etc) Interior planking is applied to the plug (only attached in a few selected points) Then the framing is attached to the interior planking, which makes it easier to replicate the desired framing pattern. It can be adjusted and shaped and makes it a lot easier to achieve the correct hull shape. Once the outside of the frames are shaped to the correct hull shape, the hull is planked and the plug can be removed. Riders, beams, knees and the rest of the interior can then follow...
Sort of the original dutch method in reverse; Interior planking - framing - exterior planking. Instead of exterior planking - framing - interior...
I would perhaps consider doing a small hull section, as a 'technique display' piece.
I don't think it would be possible to build a model of a Dutch hull showings the frames only. The individual pieces of each frame weren't even attached to each other, only to the outer and the inner skins. Pictures of the Batavia wreck piece even show that there could be slight gaps between these pieces.
Just the framing by itself is not structurally stable. Admiralty style would not be possible. Framing by itself has no way of holding together.
They need to be attached to planking to enough extent for stability. (As can be seen in the Eva-Marie Stolt reconstruction in earlier post, -you can see here that there's definitely gaps between pieces)
Also, the framing would not look very nice, so displaying any of them would be purely informational, -hardly aesthetic.
I'm thinking a smaller section of the side with only a few planks left off in suitable places.
so Clayton noticed it too. Even the most die-hard opposition of this phenomenon must realise by now that at least regarding the Vasa, there is some truth behind it. I'm not saying that it was the ONLY method - I guess each yard had its own approach. However, what I do believe is that it was very widespread, perhaps not on smaller vessels but on almost all large warships and East-India-Men. Why? Because it is the only most convenient and efficient way of shipbuilding in the dutch style. Any other approach simply doesn't make sense! But was the same technique used in the 1660s and 70s? As far as I'm concerned: yes! If you check out these two images in which I have highlighted the angle of the Stutzen on both ships you will see that their lean is perfectly similar:
You can also use the vertical mizzen-mast in the background as a guide-line to see that the angle of the frames is totally different than the line of the vertical mast.
For me at least this is convincing evidence that the same phenomenan of the tilted frames also applies to the Dutch Two-Decker of 1660-1670. However, the angle of the tilted Frames on the HZ might not have been as accute as on the Vasa but it was still there.
The obvious question now is: why?
The answer is: you have a perfect 90° angle to each deck-beam on the balkweger between two Frames. Now this image here leads me to suggest that deckbeams were placed between two frames:
kostenlose bilder The Ends of the deck-beams did not butt-join against the frames, they were placed between them. You can see in the blue circle that there is a cut-out for a deckbeam in the balkweger, but the deckbeam itself is missing. This cutout is placed exactly between two frames. In the yellow circle should be the same but here it is difficult to make it out because the shadow of a deckbeam above is cast on it. The green circle Shows a deckbeam in place and this also seems to be between two frames. Thus, due to the tilted Frames each deckbeam can be placed at an exact 90° angle to the frames.
In this plan the beams are vertical. Each and every deckbeam needs to have its top surface chiselled off to fit to the slope of the deckplanks.
This is an inacceptably laborious process! By tilting the frames and placing the square deckbeams between them this whole process can be omitted. They could do it! They were clever enough, and believe me, they did it that way!
I will bow to Jules's verdict on E81, since he has looked at it more recently; my impressions are from 1986, when it was being documented by a team in Ketelhaven. My impression was different, but he has looked at the wreck with this question in mind.
Svärdet was built under a Dutch master shipwright in 1662, and is preserved up to the middle deck at the bow, so it should offer some evidence from the 1660s. We will be visiting this site later in the summer for some documentation, so I will report back once we have some data.
On Vasa, the deck beams do not consistently fall between frames. The pictures which Peter D-G provides are a little misleading in this regard. The beam in the first image has been displaced from its normal position (the same beam is visible in the second image, where it can be seen well above the level of the rest of the beams). Some beams do fall between frames, but in only one case does the beam end pass between the frames. This is the upper gundeck beam which acts as the dale for the main pump, which projects completely through the side. Otherwise, the beam ends are cut off at the inboard face of the frames. On the lower gundeck, the framing is more or less solid at the level of the beams, so the beam ends have to butt against the framing. On the upper gundeck, if the beam end falls between two ordinary frames, a filling futtock was added between the frames; see the attached images, which show how these beams meet the sides near amidships as an example. There does not seem to be any consistent relationship in the spacing between the framing, deck beams and gunports, which leads to all sorts of ad hoc solutions in the structure. Gunports do fall between beams rather than over beams, but they are rarely exactly in the middle of the room, and the ports on the two sides of the ship do not always line up.
Peter's point about the beams being square to the deck is well taken. The upper surfaces are not beveled to accommodate the sheer of the deck, rather the beams are angled to match the sheer. This is more or less square to the upper edge of the clamps, not necessarily square to the frames (since there is no actual joinery between the beams and frames, this is not a problem). In Vasa's case, the upper surfaces of the beams were faired not by dubbing them down to a fair line, as one would typically do in an English yard, but were built up with a wide assortment of fillers and shims to adjust the crown and sheer.
This image shows the replica we built in 2014 as a target for the cannon trials. It is a faithful copy of a specific area of the ship, rather than generic, and shows the extra framing timbers at the beam ends.
This image is a perspective view of the same area from the inside, with the ceiling and clamps removed. Note that the beams all end against the inner face of teh framing, in each case with about half of the beam end on an ordinary futtock. A filler has been added against the other half of the beam end.
In Vasa, the planking is fastened to the framing almost exclusively by treenails, with a few nails used at butts and in specific areas of stress. The bolts fasten the deck structure and its reinforcing riders to the completed sandwich of planking, framing and ceiling, so they do not reflect the angle of the frames, only the angle of the deck structure. This happens to be close to the angle of the frames in most of the areas of the ship, but this is because the decks parallel the wales and clamps, which are related to the planking. In a ship with flatter decks and the ports at the ends cut down into the wales, I would expect the bolts to make much more vertical and parallel patterns, regardless of the arrangement of the framing. In a model at scale 1:75, a typical treenail (32-35 mm in diameter) would be only 0.5 mm in diameter and barely visible. Vasa's treenails are barely visible at full scale, and the bolt heads, which were originally hemispherical (and would be nearly 1 mm in diameter at scale), make a much stronger impression.
What I would expect as a chronological development is for frames inserted into a previously constructed bottom shell of planks to lean in at the ends, since this minimizes bevelling, but frames developed as the result of a geometric drafting or lofting process to be parallel, since lofting them otherwise is problematical. One might even argue that parallel frames could be a diagnostic characteristic of a ship built on frames developed by lofting. When this change occurred could be expected to vary with region and specific builders. The introduction of geometric methods and frame lofting in Dutch yards is a problemmatical issue, since there are a number of different construction methods in use in the Low Countries by the early 17th century, and the first good documentary evidence is from the second half of the century. Lofting methods might also have been introduced piecemeal. For example, in Vasa, we have good archaeological evidence that the hull was built in a bottom-first method characterized as "northern Dutch" or "Dutch flush" (spijkerpennen in both inner and outer faces of the bottom planks in closely-spaced rows across the seams), but that there may have been up to seven guide or moulding frames or floor timbers to control the deadrise. The futtocks appear to have been shaped using tangent arcs of circles, although this is a tricky area, since the process of fairing tends to remove a lot of the evidence, and we are not allowed to take the ship apart to check all the faces of the frames. Darn.
Thank you very much for your inspired and elaborate answer. A great sum up of all the issues discussed in the other threads that deal with the framing topic.
I would like to return to an interesting question raised in this thread: are the vertical sills of the gun ports formed by the sides of the frame parts? Only I would like to put a time frame to this question: let's restrict this question to Dutch built ships from the 1660s and 70s. As already stated in this thread, Witsen shows it in the drawings in his work from 1671, and Sturckenburg shows it in one of his drawings. I would like to add that Van Yk (1697) hints at it when he discusses the relation between the gunports and the 'stutten' (page 79), and that he tells a story about a ship builder that did not take in account the position of the gun ports when he placed the framing. That ship builder hacked the gun ports out later. Van Yk gives it as an example of bad ship building practice.
The 'reconstructionalists' of later date seem to agree on this point. Vos, Dik, Blom and Hoving all show, in their drawings and/or models, that they think the vertical sills of the gun ports were formed by the frame parts. May it be by the 'oplangen' or by the 'stutten'.
What do you, and the other forum members of course, think of this?
Good question on later port framing. Not sure of the Dutch evidence here, but the English tradition continued to use the frames to form the sides of the gunports throughout the 18th century. If one did not use the frames, what would be a workable alternative? The timbers either side of the gunports not only box in the opening, but usually carry the ringbolts for the breechings and breech tackles, so are subjected to heavy shock loads; a 24-pounder with carriage weighs close to two tonnes, and with a service load recoils at about 3-3.5 m/s (10.8-12.6 kph) and does not slow down appreciably until it is brought up short by the breeching. That is the energy of a Mercedes S-class hitting a wall at over 10 kph. The best way to distribute this load as broadly as possible is to have the bolts fixed in long timbers which reach well above and below the ports, which is one reason frames are a good option. One could use short blocks instead, which distribute the shock load to the planking in the immediate area (this is how Vasa's upper deck ports are framed), but this seems a poor solution for heavy guns.
It might be the case in some ships that the frames carry the ringbolts, but that a thin lining plank was added to form the port opening, more of a protection against wear than a structural solution, but I do not know of any examples of this.
Thank you for sharing your insights on the required strength of ship parts. You give an example of the shock loads on the frame parts next to the gun ports when a 24-pounder is used. Imagine the shock loads that come about when using 36-or 48-pounders. (And, before anyone asks: yes, in the 1660s the Dutch used 48-pounders).
When we dare to come to the conclusion that the vertical sills of the gun ports were formed by the frames, this opens up the use of a considerable amount of new sources on frame positioning in Dutch ships. Since the gun ports actually show the frames, we can now turn to sources that show the gun ports. Luckily we have a lot of sources that show the gun ports. We can now turn to contemporary works of art like drawings, paintings, and ship models. And what do these sources show? Do they actually show gun ports that are tilted, or gun ports that are vertical?
But, let's first return to the Sturckenburg drawing that Peter presented as a support for his tilted frame theory in his first post of the 25th of June. Peter uses a copy of this drawing as printed in a book and placed a couple of, in my view, arbitrary yellow lines to indicate the direction of some frames. I took out my copy of the original drawing I bought back in 1995 from the Scheepvaartmuseum in Amsterdam. What do we see on that 'original' copy? We see that Sturckenburg draws the ship under the sloping angle caused by the 'stuurlast'. So the two water lines that he draws ('Wasser stroock' and 'Last stroock') are not parallel to the keel. Then St. drew dotted vertical station lines that are perpendicular to these water lines, and therefore not perpendicular to the keel. He drew a station line every 10 foto, and being all perpendicular to the water lines, all station lines are parallel to each other. Now we finally come to the frames themselves. This may come as a shock to Peter, but all the frames are drawn parallel tot the station lines. This means that all the frames are parallel and not tilted. And all the frames are perpendicular to the water lines, not to the keel. This in itself is prove enough of what St. means to draw but, what Peter forgets to mention, is that St. made two construction drawings of this 136 foot ship, not only one. The first one being the framing drawing Peter showed, and the second one being a vertical sectional drawing Peter hasn't show. In this second drawing we can only see the tops of the frames (which are not tilted either), not the whole frames, but we can of course see the gun ports. And, the gun ports are all drawn parallel to the vertical station lines. Making, for the second time, perfectly clear what Sturckenburgh is trying to tell us: the frames are parallel, not tilted, and are perpendicular to the water lines.
Reconstructionalists that used Sturckenburghs drawing(s), like Vos, Dik, Thomesen, Hoving, Emke and Blom, came to the same conclusion: frames parallel to each other, not tilted, and perpendicular to the water line.
At Peter. I will get back on the other stuff, like the Nooms drawing, later on. Promise...
I too came across the conclusion that the Sturckenburgh drawing does not support my observations at all a few weeks ago. I contacted the Museum in Amsterdam enquiring if I could purchase a copy of the original drawing. Digital copies are available but their service is on holiday and won't be back before August 25th. Anyway, in the meantime I found a good copy in one of my books which shows, like you said, that the frames are parallel in that drawing. But this will nonetheless not stop me from believing that the tilted frame theory is correct, we've seen it on the Vasa and I'm certain it also applies to ships that were built at a later date. I certainly don't believe that an artist's Impression will help to answer questions. I'm not sure if artists like the van de Velde's were actually aware of the tilted Frames and, if they were, did they even care? Nearly every portrait of a Dutch Two-Decker shows a distinctive step in the maindeck near the Konstapelkammer. The Hohenzollermodell didn't have that step. Does this mean that the Hohenzollernmodel is wrong here? I'd much rather rely upon the real thing in this debate- the Vasa - and photos of the near real thing - the Hohenzollernmodell - than on an artists impression who used a single offset for a number of different hulls. I've said it before that compared with the Vasa the tilt of the Frames of the HZM is not as noticable but it is there. Construction-wise anythingh else wouldn't make sense. Though it might have involved some pre-thinking, the advantages are clear. In this Picture you can see that the Stutzen have the same angle as the rear-most mizzenmast shroud. gratis bilder hochladen
If you believe the Stutzen are perfectly vertical then please explain why the angle is the same as the shroud.
It would have been nice if you would have come forward with your new insights on the Sturckenburgh drawings in this thread. Would have saved me a lot of work and time. Especially since I already explained you already more than a year ago, in personal mail, when we were discussing your theory, that your interpretation of these drawings is wrong. But still you chose to publish your theory here, including, as evidence, the Sturckenburgh drawing. That's a bit like misleading the judge and jury, isn't it? You knew you were wrong, you published it anyway, this is what you get. Now you have to come clean with egg on your face. Oh, and please, don't blame the Scheepvaartmuseum for this. And now? The Sturckenburgh drawing does not count as prove anymore because it shows prove of the oppositie of what you claim? Strange, you first called it a 'famous' drawing. I still believe it has incredible value (as all the others I mentioned before, do). We have other contemporary ship drawings that show that the gun ports are parallel to the vertical station lines, but not in this detail. So I would like to claim the Sturckenburgh drawing(s) as prove that you are wrong. But let's move on. Is there anything more you would like to retract from the posts you made here? Since you now seem to discard all reference work made by artists, should I, for example, still go into the Nooms drawing you posted here this morning?
Vasa framing does not, for as far as I know (still waiting for Kroums paper), represent the later date framing methods of the 1660s. Fred and I discussed the very irregular framing of Vasa in another thread already. And others have been looking into that in much more detail than I. Please have a look there. The 'normal' framing of the ships of the 1660s is thoroughly described by Witsen, Van Yk and their contemporary followers. We can also find detailed descriptions of the framing in contemporary manuscripts and contracts ('certers'). All these descriptions are, partly, confirmed by the E81 wreck. The picture of the RCE below, from the E81 model, gives an idea of the framing.
But, what we find in the descriptions and in the E81 wreck, is not what we find in Vasa. If you want me to elaborate on the 'normal' framing of the 1660s, please let me know. More than willing to oblige.
So, in my view, we have reduced the prove of your theory down to one argument only: you see tilted frames in the pictures that still exist of the destructed Hohenzollern model. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Could you also please indicate if you accept that the vertical sills of the gun ports are formed by the frames? Because, what I'm trying to get away from is that I have to explain the location of every nail or treenail on a model that no longer exists. But, no worry, I'll come to your beloved model in due time. I just need some time to prepare my posts, unlike some.
We posted at the same time, perhaps you missed my question. You have seen the gent-model at close distance. Does that model have the same detail in treenailing as the hz-model?
second question related to your post: witsen an Van IJk describe the normal framing, but do they explicitly mention the positioning of the frames square to either keel, waterlinr, or anything else? I quickly glanced over, but couldn't find.