|
Post by amateur on Jan 23, 2022 16:14:27 GMT
I guess Martyn is right: it is almost two years ago that Fred visited the forum. He probably won't see your question.... In case you get an answer from the museum, can you repost it here?
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Oct 10, 2021 17:25:09 GMT
Whatever you are going to do: Batavia is almost never a good reference.
|
|
|
Post by amateur on May 28, 2021 20:54:41 GMT
Hi Peter,
As far as I know the futtock 'staves' were no rigid pieces. They used a piece of rope for that (the same as for the shroulds). That is also how they show it at the Vasa museum. Also: no catharpins in those days.
Question 2: I really cant help you there.
And number 3: again taking the reconstructed rigging of Vasa as guideline: no ratlines behind the futtocks.
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Mar 24, 2021 16:49:54 GMT
A bit disappointig: looks like a cheap version of the Batavia. I know that much work has gone into these animations, but I don't think they do add anything to the knowledge and understanding of shipbuilding. (And I do not have an opinion on the correctness of what is shown there)
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Mar 23, 2021 18:54:26 GMT
Hi Jules,
As far as I know, Rene Hendrickx is not an employee of Ab. They "met" - if you can use that expression on a Belgian forum - years ago.
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Mar 13, 2021 18:01:22 GMT
You take a large amount of text to say 'Ab Hoving'.....
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Feb 15, 2021 17:16:35 GMT
Hi Philemon,
Point g is derived from what Witsen describes on page 67 (facsimile 1671 edition), under the tilte 'Van de KImmen': de holte op de hals is 1/3 van de total eholte op de hals' [i.e 1/3 ot the distance a-b in de drawing]. van de wijdte op de kimmen, 10 voet lange van 't schip doet de kimmen 1 duim nauwer zijn als de gehele wijte, zo dat de oplange 10 duim uithangen over 't boeizel. [i.e. at a ships length of 134 voet, point g is 13.4 duim inside the total width.]
What I find quite unclear in Witsen is whether or not he refers to the total width when speaking of thes 10 duim, or to the distance to the centerline of the ship (ie 5 duim, half a foot, o5 10 duim at earch side, so a full foot - give or take a duim) The drawing suggests a full foot at each side A second point I can't discover in the description of W, is what he uses as radius to find point h: the figure suggests that it is the point halfway e and f, but that is not what he describes, and in the figure point h is not completely on this line. A third thing I can't quite understand is how you can be sure that the listing of measurements on page 67 and the description of the frame are in accordance with each other. Is the drawing used to derive the measurements, or is it the other way round?
It was Hoving who somewhere wrote that you actually do not need this profile to construct a ship, and tha Witsen tries to give his work a kind of 'scientific look', in order to look like the english texts who are very much focussed on the mathematical construction of frames and frame parts. {I quote from memory, so maybe I do injustice to what Hoving wrote}
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Feb 15, 2021 16:37:37 GMT
Hi Philemon, IN reaction to your remark that yuo lack more precise data on the stern of the Wasa. I guess you are aware of the drawings taht the Vasa-Museat issued in the 70-ies (and that were uploaded in the forum by Fred Hocker) warshipvasa.freeforums.net/thread/216/vasa-drawings-ship-48-scaledrawing 3-B gives a longitudinal cross-section of the hull, from which you can see the stern (I assume that the measurements, and constructin details were taken from the ship itself) Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Feb 15, 2021 7:51:12 GMT
Hi Jules, (and Philemon)
Sorry, I should have expressed myself more precise. I was thinking that a shipreconstruction based on Van Ijk, may be of wider interest than for the relatively few active members here. It was not meant as an instruction to leave (although, on re-reasing I understand why you read it as such), it was actually written as an suggestion to seek a wider audience for a potentially very interesting topic Hope you'll accept appologies...
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Feb 13, 2021 17:42:08 GMT
Hi Philemon,
Before starting on your journey, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the amount of traffic on this forum is very, very low in the last year. So: your reconstruction will be interesting to see, but I doubt it willbe seen by very many if posted here. Perhaps you should try and find another place to present your work, where more people can read it, and gove you feedback (in case you want any).
I don't know any of your background, but there exist a rather active german forum (segelschiffsmodellbau) and a very active american one (modelshipworld). The latter more focussed on modelbuilding, the first alsosome members active in the research-area.
And a last one to Van Ijk, although being easier to read, and consistent in what he writes, he is by far not complete in what he writes. All reconstructions I know of, are therefore 'Witsen-based'. And with respectto Wasa, I don't think those two books were used as 'handbooks' Both are written for a rather lay,an public (Witsen himself was a lay,an, and not a shipwright)
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Feb 11, 2021 18:14:21 GMT
Those Dutchcerters give the main dimensions of the main parts of a ship. Above are the measures that describe size and form of the stern and the keel. (Length, curvature, angleto the keel). In the last post above it is the sternpost. It shouldbe possible to draw these. The resulting ship will be an interpretation as 1. Not all things Van Ijk writes are equally clear, 2. Within the measures of the certer, the shipwright has a reasonable amount of margin.
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Dec 29, 2020 13:40:26 GMT
You can also see on the drawing (and in some of the sideviews) that the upperrail is above the gunports of the upper gun deck. A forward pointing gun would have to be on a platform to get clear of the gallion. Plcing guns at the bakschot would be of no use. All models I checked have their upper rail at the level of the luizenplecht
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Dec 26, 2020 13:25:07 GMT
Hi Rein, Interesting thought, but we will never be sure with respect to that beakhead bulkhead...... With respect to the sculptures, I can see that someone made a mess of those: most standing on the lower rail, but not all (the first on the left side sitting too high, the third sitting too low), but how can you be sure that the first and second on both sides need to switch places? Seen from the side, that would be difficult, as the angle of the underside does quite neatly follow the lower rail. Seen from aside it is number three that seems 'out of line': sitting too low, not parallelto the others, but also considerably smaller than the two at the foreward end. Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Dec 10, 2020 21:14:43 GMT
The protrusion may be there, but as there is so much paint on the hull, it is sometimes difficult to guess what is underneath it.
Jan
|
|
|
Post by amateur on Dec 3, 2020 17:25:10 GMT
Yes, but I have been scanning the pivpcs, all thise lower deck spuigaten do have this form. (And the same orientation: pointing forward). There seems to be method in this. However, it does not match the usual 'square with sack' model. Again: major alteration, or misunderstanding of 'how it should be'?
Jan
|
|