.
Sent you a copy by PM. Indeed, a must-read for your project 
..
.
Hi Stephan,
It was published in Mariners Mirror in 1994.
On the web still available.
A Manuscript on Shipbuilding, Circa 1600, Copied by Newton. An original article from the Mariner's Mirror, 1994 by Richard Barker on Cosmo Books
London: Society for Nautical Research, 1994. First Edition. Disbound. Very Good Condition. Item #615985 14 pages, 1 figure. Note; this is an original article separated from a larger volume, not a reprint or copy. Size: Octavo, 17 x 24 cms.. Quantity Available: 1. Category: Mariner's Mirror...
www.cosmobooks.co.uk
Hello Marten. I am following your interesting project, I will continue to follow. There was a discussion about this ship years ago on the Czech forum. Maybe some link will be useful for you. Fingers crossed, Ondras
As we have seen in the previous post projecting the center on top the Lely painting the wider top timber / less tumble home of Dean & Bushnell seems to fit the picture better then the smaller top timber width of the 1620 treatise.
The Newton manuscript however mentions a top timber width reaching from the smaller 1620 treatise value towards the larger Dean values or between 2/3 bm to 4/5 bm for SotS this is between 31' to 37' 2".
To counter check the Lely painting wider top timber width I will compare it with the measured width in the Van de Velde Morgan drawing. However the Morgan drawing is made at an angle and I first have to determine the angle.
To do this I have scaled the morgan drawing to the Boston drawing in height reference points.
I also have put both drawings on top of each other in Fusion to scale the Van de Velde drawing to the Boston drawing.
After that I measured both drawing over the same horizontal reference points. The Boston drawing is 232 ft, the Morgan drawing +/-160 ft.
Dividing these gives nearly the square root of 2 which means the ship is drawn at a nearly 45 deg angle.
With this I can measure the width of the top timber on the main deck.
Measuring around 26' at a 45 deg angle or 1,41 x 26 = 36'9" and very close to the wider deck of the Newton manuscript and the Dean value.
It seems or Pett design had a wide top timber design which seems reasonable to make space for the upper gun decks. Petts larger frame radius above the bm also acknowledges this.
So I have redrawn the center frame using the larger Dean/Newton document top timber width, reconstructed the decks using data handed over from the navy archives and plotted the frame at a 45 deg angle on top of the Morgan drawing.
Te data seems to be very close. The decks do fit, the gun ports fit, the waterline fits, the angle of the lower gun ports is very close. It only looks the angle of the gun ports on the second gun deck are too much upright allthough the entrance port is again pretty close.
Sofar I wil go for the wider top timber/ deck space as mentioned in the Newton manuscript, in Dean and Bushnell.
Maybe I will retest a smaller radius for the top timber sweep to get a closer fit for the second gun deck port angle. Also I will make a comparison on the other Van de Velde drawings of the ship to double check the comparison, but that will be next time.
The Newton manuscript however mentions a top timber width reaching from the smaller 1620 treatise value towards the larger Dean values or between 2/3 bm to 4/5 bm for SotS this is between 31' to 37' 2".
To counter check the Lely painting wider top timber width I will compare it with the measured width in the Van de Velde Morgan drawing. However the Morgan drawing is made at an angle and I first have to determine the angle.
To do this I have scaled the morgan drawing to the Boston drawing in height reference points.
I also have put both drawings on top of each other in Fusion to scale the Van de Velde drawing to the Boston drawing.
After that I measured both drawing over the same horizontal reference points. The Boston drawing is 232 ft, the Morgan drawing +/-160 ft.
Dividing these gives nearly the square root of 2 which means the ship is drawn at a nearly 45 deg angle.
With this I can measure the width of the top timber on the main deck.
Measuring around 26' at a 45 deg angle or 1,41 x 26 = 36'9" and very close to the wider deck of the Newton manuscript and the Dean value.
It seems or Pett design had a wide top timber design which seems reasonable to make space for the upper gun decks. Petts larger frame radius above the bm also acknowledges this.
So I have redrawn the center frame using the larger Dean/Newton document top timber width, reconstructed the decks using data handed over from the navy archives and plotted the frame at a 45 deg angle on top of the Morgan drawing.
Te data seems to be very close. The decks do fit, the gun ports fit, the waterline fits, the angle of the lower gun ports is very close. It only looks the angle of the gun ports on the second gun deck are too much upright allthough the entrance port is again pretty close.
Sofar I wil go for the wider top timber/ deck space as mentioned in the Newton manuscript, in Dean and Bushnell.
Maybe I will retest a smaller radius for the top timber sweep to get a closer fit for the second gun deck port angle. Also I will make a comparison on the other Van de Velde drawings of the ship to double check the comparison, but that will be next time.
Last edited:
Old drawings, new 3D and basic math, you make a nice combination of them, Maarten.
Regards, Peter
The last check on the top timber shape and width I do with two additional Van de Velde drawings.
First a sketch made after the first rebuild when she received a more modern shorter beakhead. The open side galleries were removed and you can see the top cabin seems to be removed, allthough some other Van de Velde drawings contradict that.
I use this drawing as she clearly shows the rails along the side of the hull midships which highlight the shape of the top timbers.
This drawing is made at a 49 deg angle measured from the drawing scaled to the pther drawings in Fusion 360.
I projected my centre frame at this 49 deg angle and directly put it next to the rail along the hull.
If I zoom in to the rail I think my current frame is again pretty close.
The last acknowledgement is based on a Van de Velde drawing after the last rebuild in the 1680s.
Just at her launch from the yard looking at her from a 7 deg angle.
Again the frame seems to be a fit.
And when zoomed in.
To me this acknowledges the proper centre frame design which fullfills a path between the contemporary documentation from two anonymus sources to Bushnell and Dean.
For this center frame I will start with preparing the rest of the hull.
First a sketch made after the first rebuild when she received a more modern shorter beakhead. The open side galleries were removed and you can see the top cabin seems to be removed, allthough some other Van de Velde drawings contradict that.
I use this drawing as she clearly shows the rails along the side of the hull midships which highlight the shape of the top timbers.
This drawing is made at a 49 deg angle measured from the drawing scaled to the pther drawings in Fusion 360.
I projected my centre frame at this 49 deg angle and directly put it next to the rail along the hull.
If I zoom in to the rail I think my current frame is again pretty close.
The last acknowledgement is based on a Van de Velde drawing after the last rebuild in the 1680s.
Just at her launch from the yard looking at her from a 7 deg angle.
Again the frame seems to be a fit.
And when zoomed in.
To me this acknowledges the proper centre frame design which fullfills a path between the contemporary documentation from two anonymus sources to Bushnell and Dean.
For this center frame I will start with preparing the rest of the hull.
This is a fascinating study in reverse-engineering, Maarten. I love all versions of the Sovereign, but the first re-build Sovereign is my favorite.
Hi Marc,
The rebuild sovereign is certainly interesting but there is not a lot of data of her regarding ornamentation. This as we only have sketches of her without any clearly drawn carvings.
So the original SotS is best documented to build a model from.
Most definitely correct, there. I just like the reduction of the beakhead and the shortening of the quarters.