|
Post by fredhocker on Sept 6, 2017 7:28:45 GMT
Hi Albert, Here are a few pictures that should help you. They show the gunport framing with planking and ceiling removed, as well as the completed port. Let me know if you need anything else! Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Sept 4, 2017 11:18:35 GMT
Hi! What sort of upgrade do you mean? Location? Construction details? Lids? GLad to help. but need a more specific question!
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Aug 21, 2017 9:27:23 GMT
Hi Kirill, Happy to oblige! The windlass is removable (it was found inside the ship, in fact)and mounts in a pair of brackets nailed to the inner face of the framing. See the attached photo and reconstruction drawings, which should make the arrangement clear.
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Jun 12, 2017 6:57:01 GMT
Not to worry, your building will start to slow down around installment 25! Planking takes a while.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on May 17, 2017 8:42:34 GMT
Hi Fabrizio,
I am afraid that the contracts will not tell you as much as you would like to know. They only specify the number and length of anchor cables to be carried, nothing about the anchors themselves. I have a specific contract for the ship Tre Kronor of 1626 which indicates the weight of the anchor cables, but otherwise the Swedish records are not very detailed on this score. English inventories and specification books of the 17th century are much more detailed by comparison.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on May 11, 2017 7:09:18 GMT
Yes, the beams on the upper and middle deck on Vasa are constructed exactly the same way, with a filler treenailed on top to make the surface flush with the deck planking. Less wasteful than cutting down from the solid. See the drawing below, in which the cap or filler is coloured red. Note that the fillers here are notched; this is for the capstan mount located at these two beams. As an aside, many of the beams on all decks have fillers of various sizes on top to fair the deck for planking, which seams to have been the Dutch preference, rather than dubbing the high spots in the beams down to fair them, as the English typically did. Fred Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Apr 26, 2017 7:12:16 GMT
Hi Fabrizio,
There are similar contracts from earlier in the 1620s, which usually say the same things about anchors: how many anchors each class of ship should carry and how long the cables should be. The contracts themselves are not published, but I can provide the data and references if you need them.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 31, 2017 7:52:13 GMT
There have been at least five ships named Vasa/Wasa/Wassan in the Swedish navy, plus a couple of armed transports. "Our" Vasa is nr. 3. There was a ship in the 1570s called "Gyllene Wasa" (Golden Vasa) about which I do not know very much, it is only mentioned a few times. A ship named Wasa was built in 1599 and was in service until it burned and sank in 1623. This is sometimes called Rikswasa (Royal Vasa), and the wreck was heavily salvaged in 1963 (one can still buy pieces of it on the Swedish equivalent of Ebay), leading to the legislation of 1967 which protects historic wrecks in Sweden. After our Vasa sank in 1628, it is hardly surprising that the navy did not use this name again for 150 years. Fredrik Henrik af Chapman's 60-gun ship in the post card above was named thanks to revived interest in the Vasa dynasty under Gustav III. It served a long career, and was converted to an East Indiaman in the 19th century before being bought back by the navy; it was sunk as a breakwater after 1819. Finally, an armoured cruiser of the Äran class was named Vasa in 1902, serving until it was scrapped at the beginning of WWII.
The model in the postcard is one of several models of Chapman's Wasa in our collections.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 20, 2017 12:22:29 GMT
Hi Terry, Here is a drawing of the exterior that should give some idea of the relative placement of the wales, quarter galleries and beakhead. It is not the most up to date version, but it corresponds pretty well with the Billing kit hull. Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 14, 2017 7:40:57 GMT
Indeed, the main halliard arrangement on Vasa seems to be typical for the period. As far as we can tell, there is no provision for slings or jeers to supplement the halliards, which is also typical of Dutch rigging. The elements to which one would attach slings or jeers survive, and there is no sign of the necessary tyes or ringbolts. English ships often had jeers in addition to the halliards. The ramshead block on the halliard tye is set up to be the main carrier of the yard, and the upper sheave in it allows the necessary play for bracing the yard about, so it seems like it was expected that the halliard would bear the weight continuously The difference between the fore and main rigging probably has to do with the relative sizes and loads of the stays and halliards. At the foremast, the mainstay has to run past the mast to be fixed to the bowsprit or stem, and so it needs to stay on the centerline. The mainstay is also a bigger line than the fore halliard, so the fore halliard "loses" that contest and has to be moved off-centre. At the mainmast, the mizzen stay is smaller than the main halliard, with a lighter load, so it "loses" to the halliard. Kalmar Nyckel uses a non-traditional solution, with the main halliard bitt/knight offset to starboard, and with jeers to supplement the halliards. The mizzen stay can then lead to the mainmast on the centerline. This has partly to do with the arrangement belowdecks - there is no place for the main halliard bitt below the upper deck, as on Vasa and William Rex (the engine room bulkhead is in the way) and so the bitt has to be on deck. If it were in the traditional spot, it would be very much in the way of handling the rest of the main rigging, especially the topsail sheets, and so offsetting it to starboard gets it out of the way. In the photo, the shot is taken from just abaft the mainmast, and one can see the main halliard knight at the extreme left edge of the picture. Fred Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 13, 2017 9:49:02 GMT
Hi Kirill,
From the nail holes in the mainmast, it appears that the collar for the lower block on the mizzen stay was nailed to the mast (nails driven driectly through the rope), to resist the rotating force that would try to center the stay on the after side. It is not entirely clear, but there may have been a block or cleat as well (unfortunately, the are in question is now covered by the reconstructed mizzen stay).
An alternative arrangement, if one wants to keep the tye centered behind the mast, is to split the mizzen stay into two legs which angle off to the sides. I think that it is interesting that the knight for the fore halliard fall is offset to starboard to provide clearance for the mainstay. Clearly the forces on the mizzen stay are not as great.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 10, 2017 8:22:10 GMT
Thought I would post a little information that came to light this week while we were opening up some of the hull structure for dendrochronological sampling.
As was discussed above, the gunport sides more or less follow the frame locations, but as I have pointed out here, in some cases the match is not exact, and one or both sides of the port are notched into the frame. This week we removed four gunport sills, two on the lower deck and two on the upper deck. In two cases (one on each deck), one side of the port does not correspond to the frame, and so the frame has been notched to a depth of up to 8 cm to make the port opening the correct width. I will leave it to others to argue over what this means.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 10, 2017 8:15:56 GMT
Hej Reinhard,
It is an internal filling piece, to bulk out the core of the mast where it is a too thin on one side. It is not visible on the outside of the mast.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 10, 2017 8:12:02 GMT
Hej Jörgen,
Have not started building the kit yet, have too many other projects on the go. I am also waiting until I have all of the hull parts, so I can plan the modifications I will make to add internal and external detail.
Fred
|
|
|
Post by fredhocker on Mar 9, 2017 9:14:06 GMT
To revise my initial answer to this question, I think that the Hohenzollern model represents a similar mast design to Vasa, but perhaps accomplished slightly differently. The photographs suggest a similar shape, although with a different degree of fairing and hounds which are not so wide. I see no reason that we should consider this form unusual, since it appears on both real ships (Vasa) and detailed models. Unfortunately, Witsen does not provide any detail on mast construction that I can find.
Fred
|
|