Waldemar

Hi again, Tom. Although this goes somewhat against your wishes, it’s still essential to clear up a certain misunderstanding that arose publicly — and which was later clarified in private correspondence — along with a few other matters. It concerns the relative placement of gunports and scuppers. Gérard, when he wrote that scuppers should not be located directly beneath gunports, was basing his statement on the recommendations of Pierre Morineau in his Répertoire de Construction from the mid-18th century, though he did not specifically reference this work by name. I, on the other hand, due to the linguistic similarity of the phrasing, assumed that he was referring to a recommendation taken from Blaise Ollivier’s Traité de Construction from 1736. As a result, a mistake occurred involving an unnecessary swap of the terms “above” and “beneath.” It is also worth noting that the recommendations of both French authors are not mutually exclusive. For those interested, below is a translation of the entire passage concerning this aspect, taken from Morineau’s manuscript, published by Ancre in 2010 (page 307), and indicated by Gérard: — „… and that the scuppers on the second deck should not be directly above the gunports on the first deck, nor beneath those on the second deck. They must clear both, as they would allow water to enter the first deck, and the guns on the second deck would prevent the debris from being cleared from the said scuppers; which are to be shifted as far as possible to avoid these inconveniences”. Another version of the Morineau manuscript from Greenwich (SPB14), transcribed by Gérard, also specifies: — „On ships with their first battery armed, scuppers are drilled through the side flush with the first deck, in the gaps between the frames, off the gunports of the battery, in order to clean said scuppers” (page 93 of the transcript of the Greenwich manuscript). — „The scuppers on the first deck are drilled through the gaps between the frames beside the gunports of the first battery so as not to be obstructed by the gun carriages” (page 50 of the transcript of the Greenwich manuscript). My comment on Morineau’s recommendations is that, in practice, it is not easy to find examples that fully conform to such an ideal arrangement of scuppers in every respect; nevertheless, in the contemporary model of Le Sans Pareil from 1757, a certain number of scuppers are indeed arranged in precisely the manner recommended by Morineau, as shown below (photo from Modèles historiques by Jean Boudriot, 1997). Admittedly, there are other issues as well, but my main concern was to clear up this particular misunderstanding. contemporary model of Le Sans Pareil 1757:

Hi, there’s no hostility at all — quite the opposite, in fact. It’s just that some people can be a bit more assertive in certain situations, and I’m sometimes on the receiving end of that assertiveness too. In any case, certain issues — which were most likely caused by so-called communication misunderstandings — have hopefully already been clarified in private.

All in all, you’ve achieved a very good result, and it only took me a few minutes to draw those few catenary curves in the CAD software, so there’s no real loss on my part .

As my access to the ModelShipWorld forum has been blocked 😊, I would nevertheless like to add a few points and examples here that are relevant to the discussion on this topic that took place there. This is, in a sense, a continuation of the thread at the following link: https://www.modelshipworld.com/topic/ 1327-la-courronne-1636-oar-ports-sweeps/ Firstly, it is worth quoting the correct translation of the source text, an 18th-century description concerning the positioning of scuppers in relation to gunports: Care must be taken to arrange the scuppers in such a way that they are never situated above a gunport… (Blaise Ollivier, Traité de construction, 1736). The point of the above example is that one of the participants in the discussion, whilst quoting this description (without citing the source), replaced the term ‘above’ with ‘beneath’, which quite drastically distorted the essence and implications of the source text. The French Encyclopédie methodique. Marine (1783), which deals in detail with all aspects of nautical affairs and written by a team of the era’s most eminent experts in the field, mentions securing scuppers with a non-return valve in the form of a leather flap on the outside of the planking. Naturally, such safeguards are most necessary for the lowest deck, in contrast to the decks above, which may not even require them at all. This serves as indirect evidence for the use of scuppers on the lowest deck, a claim denied by one of the discussants. It is also worth pointing out further examples from an earlier era, showing scuppers clustered quite densely in the midship region, whilst being absent at both extremities of the hull; this is directly related to the greater longitudinal curvature of the decks compared to the standards of later eras. Exactly this arrangement, which is most suitable for strongly curved decks, is depicted in the engraving of Le Grand Saint Louis 1626, and there is no basis for disputing the correctness of this arrangement. Five scuppers grouped amidships on the Christiansøe 1707 (Danish archives): Four scuppers grouped amidships on a contemporary model of the Anna Sophia 1669 (Krigsmuseet, Copenhagen; photo by Thorbjørn):

Hi, You can make a template out of thick cardboard, plastic sheet or a similar material, cut to follow one of the selected catenary curves, and then use this template to shape a rope that has been pre-soaked in some hardening agent, as you’ve already described above. You may need to protect the contact line between the template and the rope to prevent them from sticking together, but this will depend on the specific substance used.

Yes, of course, if the hatches, gangways, gratings and fittings run the full length of the deck, then normally cannot be any carlings or ledges there. The construction of French decks, at least from around this period onwards for the Ponant (Atlantic) ships, can be somewhat misleading when viewed from above. Every other ‘beam’ (more or less) is in fact a ledge — whilst it is admittedly the same width as an actual beam, it is considerably thinner and should be supported by longitudinal carlings.

Lovely , but I’m afraid it’s not quite finished yet, as the central section should also have carlings and ledges (except, of course, in those places where there are hatches or any deck fittings). As a point of interest, it’s worth noting that this particular method of arranging carlings and ledges is a typically Dutch approach, described, for example, in Witsen's (1671) and van Yk's (1697) works, or seen in Vasa 1628. Or, more broadly, it’s most likely characteristic of all Northern European ship constructions, not just Dutch ones.

Clearly, the model-makers didn’t always bother to make carlings and ledges either — completely or partially... Havfruen 1701 (your photo):

In my opinion, this is a clear case of simplification in the drawing. In this instance, the carlings and ledges ought to run the full length of the deck, all the more so as it is laden with heavy artillery; this follows not only from the general principles of ship deck construction, but also from several other drawings by Judichær, which have already been drawn in full detail (though a few others are also drawn in a similarly simplified manner, such as the Elephanten 1703). Take a look at the drawings that are complete in this respect; they apply to virtually ‘all’ types of ships, regardless of size and purpose (whether for warfare or transport): A738 – Raae 1709 A740 – Hummeren 1715 A762 – Hvide Ørn 1715 A779 – Christiansøe 1707 A853 – Laaland 1711 A871 – Christianus Qvintus 1665 A909 – Færøe 1709 A910 – Raae 1709 A936 – Raae 1709 A976 – Sophia Magdalena 1727 A1013 A1198c – Sophia Magdalena 1727 B35c – Hielperinden 1718 G2669 – Hjelperen 1715

Hi Jacques, It’s become something of a plague lately with these warped hulls . In your model, the upper part of the hull seems already too rigid to bend at all, yet taking the model apart is rather pointless. Nevertheless, there’s a very good chance that your solution will work, because under the pressure of 1-2-3 blocks that you’ve applied, the lower sections of the delicate, hopefully flexible frames should bend appropriately. More precisely, the lower sections of the frames at midship should generally become slightly less arched, and it is precisely this new shape of the frames that you can try to set by wetting them and similar methods. But all these cases are excellent confirmation that wood can be, and is, a rather unstable material, which must be taken into account when using it — or one must simply come to terms with the effects of this instability.

The models are indeed spectacular and, what’s more, in my favourite style — that is, without all the ‘superfluous’ details that only obscure the shapes and structure of the ships’ hulls, which are the most important aspects for me. I’d also like to thank you for posting these photos. If you have any more, I’d love to see them (and, of course, add them to my existing, sorted collection on my hard drive, which allows for much more comfortable and efficient browsing). I’m curious to know whether the museum has digitised any of these models, that is, from this particular era. Have you asked the museum staff about possible access to the museum’s storeroom, which is normally closed to the public? Perhaps you might find the ‘missing’ Elephanten 1703 model there, which for some reason isn’t on display? I once requested such access at the Maritime Museum in Karlskrona, Sweden, and not only was I granted permission to spend the whole working day there, but I was also given a free lift by car (there and back) to their storeroom somewhere in the countryside, several dozen kilometres from Karlskrona itself. I was delighted, as I’d travelled to Sweden by ferry without my own car! I’d also like to add that Judichær’s drawings, which in my opinion are by no means inferior to others from this particular early period, are significant not only in a Danish context but also in the context of naval architecture as a whole. But that is another, rather extensive story...

Thanks for pointing that out. I must admit that what interested me most was the dating of these examples, and whether they might fall within the scope of my main area of interest, namely the 16–17th centuries and thereabouts...

Yes, one could also mention wood-boring worms, particularly in warm and more saline waters, which find it easier to bore into wood along the grain than across it, as well as the poorer watertightness and structural integrity of the construction. I’d meant to ask you about this earlier, as I saw you’d used this solution in at least one of your ship model reconstructions, but now’s a good opportunity: what source examples do you know of for this particular practice? Naturally, I’m most interested in those from the early modern period, if any are known.

Yes, I agree that this particular detail relating to the continuity of the planking (below) or the lack thereof (above), which you describe, may decisively reflect Judichær’s actual intention regarding the shape of the stern. On the other hand, I beg to differ somewhat with the assertions of the authors of Danske Orlogsskibe 1692–1860, that Danish monarchs during this period did not approve conceptual plans, since many of Judichær’s extant designs of this kind (particularly the final ones, as opposed to working or auxiliary drawings, or just copies) also bear approving signatures of Christian V (until 1699) and Frederik IV (from 1699). Below is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of such surviving plans by Judichær (Maagen 1690; A 259 I) to have been approved by the monarch, in this case Christian V, and yet below the lines plan of Wenden 1706 (A 905), approved by Frederik IV. These are merely examples from the vast collection of such conceptual plans approved by monarchs.

Returning to the question of whether a square tuck or a round tuck (actually a hybrid one due to the very full shapes of the fashion piece) should be used for the Elephanten 1703. Firstly, it should be noted that for a square tuck, the contour of the fashion piece, on the body plan, should extend all the way to the stern post at the tuck level. This is in contrast to a round tuck, where this contour should end short of the stern post at that level. This is nicely illustrated in the diagrams below relating to the frigates Printz Carl and Printz Wilhelm 1697. Both frigates were clearly designed in a manner appropriate for a round tuck (the black lines of the original conceptual plan on the left). However, the model of one of these frigates was built using contours taken from the decoration plan or from another, alternative conceptual plan which has not survived. The red lines on the conceptual plan are those transferred from the decoration plan, and a comparison of the two fashion piece outlines illustrates how they should differ for a square tuck and a round tuck, taking into account the tilt of the fashion piece which I demonstrated in one of my earlier posts, and which still remained in use for roughly the first quarter of the 18th century. The question now is: was the same modification to the fashion piece applied to the Elephanten 1703? According to the decoration plan for this ship, which is recalled below, the shape of the fashion piece is clearly appropriate for a square tuck, but this may as well simply be another drafting convention.