|
Post by tromp on May 10, 2017 19:20:52 GMT
Hi everbody, I am now working on the Bakdeck of my Hohenzollernmodell replica and I have a question regarding the deck beams. At first I believed they were made of one massive Piece of oak like the top beam in this Image here:
bilder hochladen kostenlos
I thought that the raised centres of these beams were adzed from the beams in one Piece, however, looking at the Images below it seems that strips of Wood were placed on top of the centres to gain sufficient height for the beam-tops to be at the same Level as the grating coamings. The treenails fastening these wooden strips can also be seen.
bilder hochladen kostenlos
bilder hochladen kostenlos
I drew it this way in the bottom Image of my plan above.
Can the same be seen on Vasa too?
Thanks and Regards
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Mar 28, 2017 17:30:06 GMT
Found this gem on Ebay (the card - not the model)
direct upload
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Mar 11, 2017 10:39:37 GMT
Thanks for that info Fred, can we see some pictures? I guess the basic idea might have been that frames were to be used as gunport sides. When this worked, then fine - when it didn't parts of frames needed to be chiselled away to retain square or rectangle gunports. I think the reason for all this might have been because the frames in cross-section were also square. Thus the shape of the hull determined the angle of the frames.
I have tried to locate the Position of the Frames on the Hohenzollernmodel
bild upload
This is not easy and it needs to be done with more care but I did this to see if it works, and I'm certain one can create an accurate plan of the frame pieces using this method. It appears here too that some frames needed to be notched at the sides of the ports, particularly on the upper gun deck. On the lower deck most of the ports seem to match up nicely with the Frame pieces.
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Mar 6, 2017 19:02:00 GMT
Many thanks for your input Fred but the description of the Hohenzollernmodel's mainmast is not an observation of mine, it is how Heinrich Winter describes the mast in his book about the model. Though this anatomy of a lower main mast is unusual, he studied and measured the model very carefully, clearly no-one knew the model as good as he did. I accept his description and am going to build my model's mast just as he described it. On the left is the Stern/bow-view, to the right is the side-view. Kostenlos Bilder hochladenThis by no means reflects what we 21st century historians have in mind regarding a Dutch 17th century mast; Winter's rendering of the mast was clearly not the ONLY way to build a mast, it was probably one of many ways. Unfortunatly he doesn't decribe the fore- or the mizenmast, apart from them being made of, like Vasa's, a single piece of wood. What to do? Shall I make the other two masts according to the mainmast or shall I break away from this completely and build them to the rather more "conventional" way as we see them? I think I'm going to wait a while, before I make my mind up. Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Mar 4, 2017 10:48:02 GMT
I would like to drop in here if I may As some might know I am building a full-size replica of the "Hohenzollern model". This is a model of a dutch two-decker from 1665 in 1:22nd scale. There are a few interesting facts about the main mast in Heinrich Winter's recordings of the model. The main mast consisted of three pieces, the core and two cheeks. However, it tapered only longitudinally, cross-wise the main mast remained 3,5 cm wide from the deck up to the crows-nest. This means that tapering of the mast was only observed when viewing the ship from the side. When viewed from the stern (or bow) the main mast didn't taper. Can the same be seen of the remains of Vasa's masts? regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Feb 16, 2017 17:40:01 GMT
I would like to show another little piece of evidence that caught my attention. This splendid chap here is part of the Den Helder wreck, the Dutch pinass-ship that was found in the Wattensee. The ship has been mentioned in this thread several times. foto hochladenfoto hochladenLike Vasa's and Batavia's gunport lids this one is perfectly rectangular. As it is crossed by part of a wale I'm sure we'll all be in agreement that this lid most likely comes from the stern section of the wreck and not from amidships or the bow. In the middle of the hull we wouldn't have had any wales crossing the gunports and not at the bows either. To me this looks very much like the lid of a Messenger Port almost perfectly identical to the those on the Vasa and Batavia. For me this too is proof that the frames of the Den Helder Pinass were also tilted as can be observed on the Batavia and Vasa and on the Hohenzollernmodel too. Regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Jan 26, 2017 19:13:34 GMT
Well, it has been quiet here recently which doesn't mean I've turned by back on the discussion, I've been busy doing further research and I can say that I have come across some interesting points that might help to shed more light on the subject. I have received Wendy van Duivenvoorde's remarkable book "Dutch East India Company Shipbuilding" and she too raises interesting points about the "Vlakbouw" method used in the northern part of the Netherlands till early in the 18th century. As Miss van Duivenvoorde works in Australia, it is not surprising that her work concentrates on early 17th century shipbuilding, the Batavia in particular. There are nice scale drawings in her book showing different layers of interior and exterior hull planking. Kostenloses Bilderhosting We can see the gunport is perfectly square. Here's a view of the hull interior: Kostenloses Bilderhosting I have rotated the images slightly so they show the sheer of the hull more or less correctly. Looking at the interior view we can see the frames are tilted. There are also views of the gunport showing that the gunport lid is indeed perfectly square and not diamond shaped or rhomboidal or anything like that. It has been argued that by 1660-70 when the Hohenzollernmodel was built the vlakbouw method of shipbuilding was no longer used, instead had been taken over by the frame-first method. Looking at the fact that Nicolaes Witsen published his work in 1671 in Amsterdam to me it seems very unlikely that he did so describing shipbuilding technique that was no longer used in that area. Van Ijk wrote in the 1690s that parts of the northern states were still using the vlakbouw approach. Miss van Duivenvoorde wrote that the fame-first method had taken over completely early in the 18th century. that would be 40 - 50 years after the Hohenzollernmodel was built. It has been claimed here that the Den Helder wreck proves that by that time the frames were not tilted even on a Vlak-first built ship. What is left of the Den Helder wreck is mainly the hull beneath the waterline and I have to say it shows a striking similarity with the Vasa. Particularly around the stern. I have flipped this picture here to show you what I mean:
bild upload Now compare this with the iron-bolt pattern plan that Fred posted a while ago:
bild upload The similarities in the angle of the frames are stunning! Both ships were built in the Vlakbouw method and the frames beneath the waterline are stunningly identical. The tilt in the frames in Vasa's hull begins way higher up than what can be seen here. As the Den Helder wreck was also Vlakbuilt I have every reason to believe the same happened with the long since gone frames of the Den Helder wreck. I conclude that at least to me there is no archaeological evidence for frames ever being as upright as they were in the frame-first building method. Archaeological evidence we have from the Vasa, Batavia and most likely SO1 shows us that all ship built in the Vlakbouw method had tilted frames. I see exactly the same in photographs of the Hohenzollernmodel. If that model was built in the 1660-70s it was also built Vlak-first and the frames were certainly tilted. Just as I can see them in the pictures of the model.
Regards
Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Sept 21, 2016 17:30:35 GMT
You might want to get better quality pictures than that Jules. The blue lines follow the stutjes above the verteuning. The thick red line is the forward shroud. The orange lines follow the trenail pattern. We are looking at a flat surface. Photographic distortion is minimal. gratis bilder hochladenKind regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Sept 16, 2016 12:50:37 GMT
Jules, To put an end to this ridiculous public personnel feud that is going on here I apologize for the statement I made above.
Kind regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Sept 15, 2016 15:30:36 GMT
Jules,
the difference between what we were discussing last year and what we are discussing here is that last year you and others refused to accept the leaning Frames completely! And that is why I brought the discussion here because I knew that the Vasa was built that way, one can see it in the Pictures, and I knew that Fred would support my observation, and that's what he did. Now your refusal to accept the leaning Frames is reduced to the time-span 1650 onwards. This is a big difference to your views last year. So it is no surprise that you couldn't convince me last year and for the same reasons you can't convince me now. You have your opinian and I have mine. There is nothing wrong with that.
Kind regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Sept 14, 2016 21:38:56 GMT
Jules, now that explains a lot! You are writing a book about a Dutch Twodecker that was built on the Amsterdam yard between 1660-1670. We have pictures of an authentic model from that period and that yard that show that the frames were tilted which indicate that if this model had tilted frames then the ships that were built on that Yard most likely also had tilted frames. Even in 1660 - 1670. I think we should all be in agreement by now that the tilted frames didn't disappear by a flick of a switch on January 1st 1650. As Fred explained this method was slowly phased out but was probably still in use in the second half of the 17th century even though frame first was taking over at that time. We have no definitive evidence disproving this. I have to say Jules, you haven't "chipped away" anything. Far from it. But as you mentioned my post from August 21st may I remind you that you still haven't answered the questions that I asked then. Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Sept 4, 2016 20:01:23 GMT
Hello Peter (Tromp), Thanks for sharing the result of your very interesting experiment. But why did you use tape? Probably because it 'flows' easily against the hull, but wood doesn't. I would like to suggest that you do the experiment again with a strip of wood. The strip should have parallel sides, like the tape, and a width of approximately one foot (to scale of course). Also the strip has to be tapered from bottom to top: 1 foot, 11 inches, for the bottom, and half of that for the top: 5,5 inches. All this to get a closer representation of the real frames. And it would be nice if you could make two, three or more of these strips, so you can place them against eachother. Let's see what happens. Thank you for the sketches; very clear. But, as mentioned before, the 'inhouten' (frame parts) have to be placed against eachother in the bilge and at the lower wales: the contracts for these ships are clear: no spacing allowed. I think that when you place the frames with their perfect square sections against eachother, that will result in a wedgeshaped opening between the frames. To avoid this, the sides of the frames would have to be worked to make them sit flush against their neighbouring frames. Then, if you let me, to your 'the tilted frames really only make sense with the shell first method'. Like said before, E81 was built shell first, and shows parallel framing, not tilted framing. So we can maybe say that tilted framing only makes sense with the shell first method, but we can not say that the shell first method dictates tilted framing, or excludes parallel framing; E81 shows this. (Your remark 'There is no need for any tricky fitting process bevelling the frames to follow the lines of the planks', makes me think that you think that in the bottom first building method all frames were placed against the planking. This is not so: only the lower part of the hull, up to the highest plank of the bilge, was built that way. The rest of the hull was built frame first: the planking was placed against the frames, not the other way round. For the upper part of the hull, there was no way to simply place the upper frames with their perfectly square sections against the planking, the planking wasn't there yet. But, please forgive me if I got the interpretation of your sentence wrong.) Looking forward to the results of your experiment. Maybe we can establish in this way if your conclusion 'the HZM by chance being one of the last ships (models) to be built that way', is justified. Regards, Jules Jules,
I indeed used tape because it, when applied carefully, would follow the shape of the hull without me being able to manipulate it too much (provided I wanted to). I could use wood as you suggested but this would only work when very thin plywood is used. There is no way that thin oak or similar wood could be applied to the hull to follow the shape easily. I don't have thin plywood here so I used thin sheet styrene as an alternative. Several Sheets of 0.3mm sheet styrene were cemented to each other using that largest ruler I have as a guide to get the length required.
foto upload
Then three makeshift frames were cut out, 1 Amsterdam foot wide at the base and half an Amsterdam foot at the top in 1/21st scale. By then I could tell that the thin strips were very flimsy and I was beginning to wonder if the test would work.
foto upload
I then tacked small snippets of double sided tape to the frames.
foto upload
Then the frames were tacked to the hull, and this is what came out:
foto upload
I wasn't really happy with the outcome as the thin styrene Frames were way too flimsy. So I tried it again with a wider piece of styrene and this is the result:
foto upload
For this I used a strip that was 2cm wide at the top and 2.5cm wide át the bottom. There is no way that this can be distorted or manipulated into a direction that it doesn't want to take, you can take what you see for granted.
You wrote that in the shell-first system the upper hull was built frame first. I don't necessarily agree: I think we are all in agreement that the individual pieces of a dutch frame weren't attached to each other. So the upper pieces of the frames, the Stützen, had to be attached to something: the hull planks. So, as far as I can tell, the shell-first applies to the whole hull and not only the bottom.
Regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 31, 2016 16:02:47 GMT
I've done an experiment. I placed a long strip of sticky tape to the side of the keel as upright as I possibly could get it by eyesight. I then graduatly moved upwards with the tape gently pressing it against the hull but letting the tape find ist own way instead of me sticking it where I wanted it to go.
Here's the result:
bilder hochladen kostenlos
There is a slight tilt in the angle above the main deck. I know that the "Inhouden" consisted of several pieces instead of one strip but this irrelevant for the time being. For me this is exactly what frame-pieces would behave like if they had perfectly square sections, instead of rhomboidal sections. There is no need to bevel the pieces, the left cut edge of each facia can be a perfect mirror-image to its right cut edge. There is no need for any tricky fitting process bevelling the frames to follow the lines of the Planks. For me this would represent a significant advantage in the building process.
This means that in a horizontal longitunal sections the Frames would look like as in A: bild hochladen
and not as in B.
I am not saying that this is the ultimate explanation. It's an idea of mine, that to me makes sense but perhaps only with the shell-first method.
If it ever came across that the tilted frame method was the one and only method for me it wasn't meant that way. For me the tilted frames only really makes sense with the shell first method. But as Fred said earlier, this method wasn't ended at the flick of a switch. It gradually phased out in the second half of the 17.th century. I believe that in Vasa's time the Shell-first method with tilting frames must have been very wide-spread perhaps in those days it was the most commonplace method. But after 1650 it was replaced more and more by upright-frame-first method, the HZM by chance being one of the last ships (models) to be built that way.
Regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 23, 2016 16:08:10 GMT
Aug 23, 2016 14:55:14 GMT jules said: Hello Jan (amateur),
(I simply do not understand why I have to look at a composition of five separate photographs, which all show different viewing angles, when we have such awesome photographic material available: the whole ship captured in one photograph. Hello Jan (amateur),The whole ship captured in one photograph shows exactly the tilting effect you want to see and you want us to see, as in the Otte Blom model picture. You can't and you won't get rid of it. That's why I showed you close-ups composed of four individual photographs that do not have this effect but still Show the tilting. However, this is apparently something you fail to understand (or want to understand) and that's why you're showing it to us. ...But, can all these effects really be explained by photographical distortion? In short: when we assume that the frames in a model tilt, we have to prove that the gunports in any photograph of that model are actually tilted, and not only look tilted. As long as the tilt can be explained by photographic distortion, the photograph kan not be considered as proof for the tilting.This also cannot be considered as proof for non-tilting frames. And you still haven't answered my questions. Peter
|
|
|
Post by tromp on Aug 22, 2016 15:28:54 GMT
There was nothing sarkastic or anything like that in my previous post. It was not meant to be offensive at all. There is no need for any more treaties upon photographic distortion, I am very familiar with the subject. Instead please answer my questions. In future I'll put a Smiley behind every sentence I write! Peter
|
|