Are there any scarf joints in the hull planking or they only used on the whales?Also do the hull planks at the lower part of the hull at the rear run horizontal to the keel until the curve starts or do they start to curve upwards above the keel - I have seen it done both ways.
All of the planks, both wales and normal strakes, are scarfed rather than butted. I am not sure what you mean by your second question, but here is the planking plan of the bottom of one side that might help.
Hi Fred I am building the Revell kit and have been trying to see from various website photos of the ship where all the scarf joints are situated as they are not shown at all on the Stolt Drawings I bought from the museum a few years ago. Your reply post to another modeller earlier in this thread with the diagram of the locations has saved me hours of time trying to work out where the are. Thanks. I don't have the skills to do plank on frame modelling like most of the other modellers on this site and really admire their work. Just looking at their models is an inspiration to me to make the most of my humble plastic kit.
Good day, Dear Fred, please,when You have time, give a light on Vasa's underwater planking protection arrangements , did they use a few layers of planks and sacrificial sheathing to cover under water part of the hull ? if yes,could it be arranged in the same way as it was found on remains of Warwick,early 17th-century English shipwreck in Castle Harbour, Bermuda?(there is a fragment from report in atrach)... or it was made in different way? or no several layers of planking at all? I saw in Batavia shipwreck study, THE BATAVIA SHIPWRECK: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF AN EARLY SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY DUTCH EAST INDIAMAN A Dissertation by WENDY VAN DUIVENVOORDE, that VOC ships in 17 century used to protect under water part of their vessel almost the same way as it was found on Warwick shipwreak... Just very interesting now, how it was situation with Vasa in this? Thank You very much in advance. Kirill
Vasa had no sheathing or extra protection on the bottom. The single layer of planking (about 10 cm thick) was covered with a layer of tar, and may have had some kind of tallow-based anti-fouling coating, but that was it. Since there are no shipworms in the Baltic, there was no need for a sacrificial layer like we see in Batavia and Warwick. The Swedish navy did employ secondary planking or sheathing as a repair technique, or for making an old, leaking hull watertight. We found this on the remains of Scepter, a ship built in 1614 and kept in service into the 1630s, then buried as shore cribbing in 1639-1640. It had been badly strained in a grounding in the 1620s, and the repair involved a second layer of oak planking, followed by pine sheathing. If Vasa had stayed in service for 30 years, it might had been sheathed at some point.
Hi Fred, Thank you very much for the answer, now is clear! ...which kind of underwater protection will be implemented, great depends on operational area of the vessel. Thanks also for interesting facts abt employing second layers in Swedish navy/ and abt Scepter . All the Best ! Kirill
I have a question concerning the upper gun room with the two round ports aft. The opening for the tiller ist well strenghened with filling pieces from within, but the two round ports are just cut out of the planks with a little ornamentation around it and no filling pieces on the inside between the verticals. Has nothing been found? Is that "naked" arrangement original? Looks pretty weak to me, given that Vasa is usually very strongly built. Thanks!
The stern ports in the gunroom are actually rather heavily framed, but this is disguised by the round opening. There is a heavy transom timber immediatly above and below, and a vertical timber about 20 cm square either side, mortised into the transom timbers. These frame a space about the size of a normal square port. The ringbolts for the breeching and tackles are driven through the vertical timbers. The edges of the round opening might be a little fragile, as there is only the sculptural ornament on the outside to reinforce them, but the internal timbers which frame the port are set right at the horizontal and vertical limits of the opening. Looks pretty substantial to me, and the carriages found at these ports are for 24 pounders.
Hi Fred! Is there evidence, that Vasa was built in this order? According to Witsen after the main frame with bottom timber and first futtock is erected, all the bottom timbers should be filled in in the shell first.
As far as we can see (without taking the ship apart), the ship is built in the bottom-based manner, with the bottom planks fastened together temporarily with cleats nailed across the seams. The bottom is assembled out to the turn of the bilge (the hals) and then floor timbers are inserted. Once the bottom is stabilized, first futtocks can be added. We have plotted seven floor timbers which are much heavier than the rest, and these occur at useful locations for shaping the bottom, so there may have been some guiding floor timbers used. There do not appear to be any fasteners between the framing elements, so no made frames that we can detect. Also, the maximum breadth at each waterline does not occur at the same frame, which suggests that there was no master frame to define amidships. This agrees more or less with how Witsen and van Yk describe ship construction in the northern part of the Netherlands.
I have some questions about the torsion of the garboard strakes. When reading Cornelis van Yk about this subject I conclude several things. First, the joints of the keel do not taper, in width, nor in height. So tapering of the width of the keel starts beyond the joints of the keel. In other words, only the first and last keel parts taper. Second, the place where the torsion of the garboard strake starts coincides with the tapering in width of the keel. When the width of the keel decreases, the garboard strake starts to rise. This leads to the conclusion the torsion of the garboard strake will never exceed the length of one keel part. Cornelis van Yk gives angles at certain places these garboard strakes make with the keel. Analysis of these directions let me conclude that the last part of the keel needs to have a length between 34-38% of the total length of the keel. The length of the joint is included in this total length. If I measure the length of the last keelpart of the Vasa this looks like to be the case and I think this is no coincidence. An assumption I make is that the joint of the garboard strake does not participate in the torsion. I have several questions concerning the first garboard strake of the Vasa. 1. Is the first garboard strake aft at port and starboard contained in the last keel part so it doesn’t run beyond the keel joint? 2. What is the exact torsion, i.e. in what rate do the garboard strakes tilt from the back of the sternpost towards fore? I suspect the development of this torsion really starts when the garboard strake leaves the sternpost. 3. Are there any marks of puncturing or holes cut, filled later on with wood, at the place where the garboard strakes are mounted on the sternpost? I hope there is someone who can give me an answer to these questions.