Danish defensionsskib 1630 – Dutch invention / English draught / Dutch implementation (bottom-first)

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Transoms in the early ships could be really narrow, and this not only in the fluits. Below are some samples. The transom of the Badewanne, the fluit built in 1636, is even narrower than transom of the Balfour's fluit (about 1.5 feet and 2.5 feet respectively). As far as the aerodynamic function of high sterns is concerned, I think it is more about emergency or abnormal situations, such as a heavy storm or other situations where the sails could not be hoisted or were destroyed, and the ship was still expected to self-align to the wind. Because a ship with its side facing the waves and the wind in a storm is a doomed ship.

Niklas Eriksson explains that Sund tolls were never paid according to the breath of ship's deck. It is just another myth. They were paid according to the declared cargo value (see his work Urbanism under Sail...). Anyway, the breadth of decks on fluits at midship area was the same as on other ships.

EDIT: I also just came across a very good, convincing paper by Mogens Jensen, Was the flute a vessel designed to evade paying toll in the Sound? [in:] „Tidschrift voor Zeegeschiedenis” 37, 2018/2 (available online on the publisher's website), which discusses the issue in more detail, and clarifying this misunderstanding repeated by even the most recognised authorities in the field.



Transom of the Badewanne 1636; width at the top – 40 cm (photo by Jouni Polkko):





Visual reconstruction of the Badewanne 1636 by Niklas Eriksson:





Wenceslaus Hollar, Naves Mercatoriæ Hollandicæ, vulgo VLIETEN, 1647:





Dutch herring fleet drawn by van de Velde the Elder, depicting fluits all sporting extremely narrow transoms, very similar to the defensionsskib 1630 by David Balfour:

.​

 

[Martes]

Until today I believed the narrow decks and superstructure of fluyts were designed to avoid payment of too much toll.

Well, definitely it could not be the case with Danish state-ordered ships.

Narrow deck always equals less topweight, which translates to better stability.

 

[Maarten]

You do see the actual small superstructure on wrecks. For example the upper teansome of the 1636 fluyt in Finland found by the Baddewanne group and discussed in this thread.


The later fluyt indeed shows a wider stern like the ghost ship.
Niklas Eriksson even refers to it as possible position for a toilet in in his book.
The ghost ship stern

 

[Maarten]

.​

Transoms in the early ships could be really narrow, and this not only in the fluits. Below are some samples. The transom on the Badewanne, the fluit built in 1636, is even narrower than transom of the Balfour's fluit (about 1.5 feet and 2.5 feet respectively). As far as the aerodynamic function of high sterns is concerned, I think it is more about emergency or abnormal situations, such as a heavy storm or other situations where the sails could not be hoisted or were destroyed, and the ship was still expected to self-align to the wind.

Niklas Eriksson explains that Sund tolls were never paid according to the breath of ship's deck. It is just another myth. They were paid according to the declared cargo value (see his work Urbanism under Sail...). Anyway, the breadth of decks on fluits at midship area was the same as on other ships.


Transom of the Badewanne 1636 (width at the top – 40 cm)"

View attachment 389838



Visual reconstruction of the Badewanne 1636 by Niklas Eriksson:

View attachment 389841



Wenceslaus Hollar, Naves Mercatoriæ Hollandicæ, vulgo VLIETEN, 1647:

View attachment 389840

.​

See we just crossed each other with an answer to this.
Great post btw

 

[Martes]

As far as the aerodynamic function of high sterns is concerned, I think it is more about emergency or abnormal situations, such as a heavy storm or other situations where the sails could not be hoisted or were destroyed, and the ship was still expected to self-align to the wind.

There probably should be some delicate balance between how much such stern would contribute to leewardliness, and at the same time keep the ship aligned to the wind. I am not very much sure about the emergency case, it appears to me that the stern would work best in conjunction with at least some of the sails set and has a permanent function in handling of the ship. But that's only a theory and open to testing, of course.

 

[Maarten]

Isn't it just change of design over time. You also see these high narrow sterns at other older types of ships like the jacht Duyfken or the replica of the ship of willem barentz.
During the 17th century these became wider and wider and at the end of the 17th century the ships became more flat with lower sterns.
You would also expect the sheer of the hull would play a role here.

See below Duyfken and Willem Barentz

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

My conclusion from all of this is that in 1595, i.e. while inventing the fluit, it was not the narrow stern top that was superimposed on the wide hull, but quite the opposite – the wide, boxy hull was placed under the then normal narrow stern top, creating the perfect cargo ship sporting a bulky hold and ample living space for the crew.

.​

 

[Steef66]

I think that Maarten hit the right point. Evolution... when you see the ships through the ages, kogge to galley/carack to galleon you see that the changes where small. So what Waldemar said about placing a big hull under a narrow stern top was a logical step in the evolution of these ships. And trough time the stern changing to.
It is like the change of square sails on the mast. First there was only a mainsail and a few shroudlines. When the sails get bigger the amound of shrouds increase (about 1530) then there came topsails. More shrouds where added. But at some point the max. was reached. Then they discover backstays and less shrouds where needed. (About 1580) Topgallant sails, more shrouds, more backstays, less shrouds. And around 1780 you're see a clear grow in sails and effectieve rigging. Everything goes in small steps without throw away the old step to soon. The shipbuilders start with these fluytship with a narrow stern and big hull. It was good and they stick to their build, till someone changed it and make a more effectieve ship. (Maybe the new captain want a bigger cabin .
Don't search for a complex reason in a build or design, sometimes it is the more simpel evolution in building things over time.

My 50 cents

 

[El Capi]

.​

True, it's a great book and of course it's in my home library. The point, however, is that in the Holsten 1772 period the ship design is already, or should be better known. My activity, on the other hand, focuses on earlier, less well understood periods where there is still room for pioneering achievements or even discoveries.

.​

0k.er du dansk?

 

[El Capi]

.​

@El Capi

Hello Peter(?),

Many thanks for your comment. Perhaps it will please you to know that I am also intending to work out some other Danish ships from the early period if only time permits. For example the river frigate Stormarn 1703. In fact, there is so much extremely interesting material just in the Danish archives! A veritable horn of plenty!

.​

POUL

 

[-Waldemar-]

.​

Then we're namesakes, as my second name is also Paul.

* * *​

Back to the shape of the gripe. The renders below show two variants of the bow shape. On the right is the concave variant, on the left the straight one. The second variant, with straight cross sections, seems to have been more common after the archaeological finds. However, I personally think that the bottom-first method was flexible enough in this respect to achieve 'any' desired shape, and this was only dependent on the experience and skill of the shipwrights. Needles to say, different forms (sharper or fuller) being needed for ships performing different functions, and the most basic division relates to the military or civilian purpose of the vessel.

The comparison of the developed planks of the „flat” for both variants shows that the curvature of the planks in both cases is realistic and even quite similar, in fact it is even lesser and rather easier for the concave variant. Either way, the ability to properly pre-profile the planks in order to achieve the desired surface shape in this method was most likely already the domain of master-craftsmen, rather than journeymen and apprentices.

For now, thank you for your participation and attention,
Waldemar Gurgul

.​

 

[Uwek]

Great to get the form of single wales designed

 

[Peter Gutterman]

Back to class. Clearly, I will have to devote far more than a cursory perusal of this edifice of a post and responses, a subject and use of tools and understanding of history and Naval Architecture I am barely able to begin to appreciate!
So much to learn, so little time!

Pete G.