FRAME design (Part 1)
14:00
Күн бұрын
Lines of the SHIP
16:42
14 күн бұрын
CLIPPER SHIPS - CUTTY SARK
19:10
21 күн бұрын
When the Steering wheel appeared
11:50
Rudders through the centuries
20:18
Viking Ships - BURIALS
15:46
4 ай бұрын
Viking Ships - DRAKKAR
20:27
4 ай бұрын
Viking Ships - Nordic Seafaring
17:16
15th century Shipbuilding - Part 3
16:06
15th century Shipbuilding - Part 2
18:42
15th century Shipbuilding - Part 1
15:18
Admiral Prince Rupert
22:26
6 ай бұрын
17th century Dutch Shipbuilding
31:52
Yellow Submarine - ASHERAH
12:38
6 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@fredericrike5974
@fredericrike5974 2 күн бұрын
Kroum, I hope your Summer plans are all going forward- we will miss you, and when you get back surely you will give us a "Been there, Done that" on your trip and findings!
@user-qe1uq2su8k
@user-qe1uq2su8k 2 күн бұрын
Hi sir, I enjoy your lectures. Now some questions. 1: the seats of ease. I have several of the 'Anatomy of the Ship' books, and some will show the seats of ease at the bow on the gratings under the bowsprit (Quite the place during any weather, no doubt). One shows them being in some sort of bulge about halfway around the bow. One shows the captains cabin having his, I guess, at the rear corners of his cabin at the stern. The rest don't show them at all. I guess these ships were only for constipated crews. Another question. I watch a lot of videos on building model ships and the generally plank with about 6mm or 1/4 inch wide planks. Especially the deck. Now say a 1:100 scale model with 6mm planks on the model would be 600 mm wide planks, would be about 24" wide. Are these planks chosen for looks or some other reason? Thanks for your lectures.
@DARIVSARCHITECTVS
@DARIVSARCHITECTVS 2 күн бұрын
After viewing your video, Kroum, I can see why Frank L. Fox was so disappointed with John McKay's interpretation of the framework of HMS Sovereign of the Seas in his latest book. It appears he used 18th century framing style in his interpretation of an early 17th century vessel.
@JayJSMN-tz1nv
@JayJSMN-tz1nv 2 күн бұрын
Bravo!! Excellent!!👍👍
@DARIVSARCHITECTVS
@DARIVSARCHITECTVS 2 күн бұрын
Best wished on your archaeological trip back to the Black Sea, Kroum!
@jamesjackson-lf2lw
@jamesjackson-lf2lw 2 күн бұрын
Excellent presentation! Learned a lot.
@emontes9452
@emontes9452 2 күн бұрын
part 3"""
@mpetersen6
@mpetersen6 2 күн бұрын
In many ways deep water sailing ships were the high tech of their day
@DARIVSARCHITECTVS
@DARIVSARCHITECTVS 2 күн бұрын
THANK YOU Kroum Batchvarov for a most interesting lecture! This is SO useful to us model builders. ❤😍
@andreastimper9848
@andreastimper9848 2 күн бұрын
Thank you for another very interesting video.
@davidlund5003
@davidlund5003 3 күн бұрын
Thankyou.
@torstenmay204
@torstenmay204 3 күн бұрын
Dear Kroum, the last three lectures have been my personal favourites. Otlichno! Allow me to ask a question: You stated that the introduction of the double frame cannot be dated exactly. What is your opinion about the transition from the old system? Could it be that the transition started by connecting the previously separated timbers into a freestanding "half-filled" double frame? And later on, the zig-zag pattern was completely filled? Or does one has to imagine a switch over to the new approach, without intermediate stages? Best regards, Torsten
@Pocketfarmer1
@Pocketfarmer1 3 күн бұрын
Would the anchor chocks be fastened with trunnels or iron spikes? And what type of wood would the trunnels be?
@thomasm.hindiii6605
@thomasm.hindiii6605 3 күн бұрын
Thank you for your insights on this topic. I have a question I would like to ask, concerning you knowledge of old ships, there is a hype in the ship model building community concerning the San Felipe I think a Spanish warship. Was this ship ever built?
@hiranhorta
@hiranhorta 3 күн бұрын
Tks!
@denisv4385
@denisv4385 3 күн бұрын
Thank you, I really appreciated it!
@ianbruce6515
@ianbruce6515 3 күн бұрын
I worked for some years at Rockport Marine in the State of Maine in the US. During that time we built three ships intended as 'replicas'. None were replicas in the sense of the replicas built by the Viking Ships Museum in Roskilde. One, the Godspeed, was built to replace a ship at the Jamestown historical village. We used tropical hardwoods and bronze fastenings extensively, in the hope that she would last longer than her predecessor. Her lines were more that of an Elisabethan galleon, than a typical merchant ship of the time. I was astounded how well she tacked, even in light airs. One reads of ships of this period having to wear round due to little ability to tack. Astoundingly easy to sail. We had one person experienced with the rig on each mast and the rest of the crew were the builders. The second vessel was the Discovery, also intended to be representative of a vessel of the early 1600's.designed by William Baker. She was less sleek, underwater and above, and perhaps more typical of the period. Again, compromises had to be made to make her last longer and be Coastguard compliant as they had to carry passengers.. The third vessel, the Lynx, was intended to be a recreation of a War Of Eighteen Twelve privateer. Again, compromises were made by the designer Melbourne Smith, though she was based on plans made by the Admiralty of the origional vessel. All three vessel would look correct, even to historians who were not maritime specialists. It's difficult to get funding to build exact replicas with the original building methods. The two older designs were closer to correct in construction details. We used trunnels to assemble the futtocks and forelock bolts to fasten the chainplates. We did use screws on the planking. The Lynx has travelled extensively on both coasts of the US and out to Hawaii. The other two, alas, as is the way of museum ships, have stayed close to their home ports for the most part. Was the Elizabethan Galleon built specifically for piratical pursuits and very different to a conventional cargo ship of the time? One reads about superior speed and manoeverability--but Drake, Raleigh and the Armada is such an mythic and emotionaly charged part of British history that I'm sure most accounts of the craft involved are less than reliable
@cajunrandy2143
@cajunrandy2143 4 күн бұрын
👍👍👍👍👍
@cajunrandy2143
@cajunrandy2143 6 күн бұрын
👍👍👍👍👍
@Optimusprimerib36
@Optimusprimerib36 7 күн бұрын
Sloop of war
@lutzderlurch7877
@lutzderlurch7877 8 күн бұрын
Full agreement on the beauty of mid georgian ships with friezes and carvings, vs the utter uglyness of that dreadfull 'bumblebee' paintscheme and and napoleonic looks. I am sad to see how often Victory and her napoleonic colours have 'inspired' so many in film, games and media to assume the dalton-gang-prison-clothes paintjob is perfect for the whole 18th c.
@user-wn4nl7bp9h
@user-wn4nl7bp9h 8 күн бұрын
Great video! I miss the construction principles that they used at 'De Maze " warf in Rotterdam though . I think they used 'op centen' method of construction.
@larrousseyves9408
@larrousseyves9408 8 күн бұрын
how old is the model? where ws it built?
@fredericrike5974
@fredericrike5974 9 күн бұрын
Having understood that you will be a bit scarce on You Tube, I hope your researches and studies will bring you back with even more of the story of man and sail.
@davidrasch3082
@davidrasch3082 9 күн бұрын
Will you do a video on masting?
@davidrasch3082
@davidrasch3082 9 күн бұрын
Do you learn anything from commenters?
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 10 күн бұрын
I am so glad to finally know the etymology of futtock (foot hook). Thanks! So far I couldn't help but assume it was like fuð : butt = futtock : buttock. I hope those who read Old Norse (or modern Scots, or Bavarian) will forgive me for the comment.
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
All old documents I have seen either spell it as futtock or foot hook.
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 10 күн бұрын
Thank you for starting this sequence of videos on framing: There is nothing in naval architecture that I was more curious about and have questions about than framing in the 17th century. However, the pictures you show worry me, because they do not match what I thought was scholarly consenus on the topic. After watching your video a couple of times, I came to the conclusion that nothing that you actually say is in conflict with what I thought is academic consensus, so maybe it's just the pictures that are giving *me* the wrong impression. The drawing you show starting ca. at 5:00 shows something close to the stylized framing of English Admiralty models -- alternating frames consisting of floor timber + upper futtock and lower futtock + toptimber (in the case of four-part frame bends), with alternating *gaps* as we go up a frame bend/pair. I am concerned about these gaps, not the space gaps on the longitudinal dimension that you discuss starting ca. at 10:40. It is my understanding that the consensus is that at least the larger English warships (i.e. those that we typically see represented by Admiralty models) were never actually framed like this, even if some smaller ships (other than two- and three-deckers) may have come close for a limited time period. If you look at the English 1677 construction programme, as evidenced in the wreck of the Anne and original documents for the 1677 program (such as scantling lists and building contracts, some of which go into the dimensions of scarphs for the frame timbers -- connecting them bottom to top, necessarily without gaps), the framing was clearly different: Every frame bend consisted of a pair of frames, one consisting of floor timber+middle futtock+top timber and the other of lower+upper futtock., with no vertical gaps between timbers at all, and port and starboard lower futtocks touching and resting on the keel. Every third frame bend had the frame pair linked; the fill-frames consisted of two frame bends (pairs) that were separated, spaced out, and "free-standing", without vertical gaps. So, moving longitudinally, you’d see a sequence of a double frame, four single frames, a double frame, four single frames, etc. each resting on the keel and without gaps from keel to the top end of each frame. [With some slight longitudinal offsetting to align upper futtocks and toptimbers with the sides of the gunports where this was easily possible.] It is my understanding that this was universal for at least the 20 two-deckers of the 1677 programme, and given that so many dockyards and master shipwrights were involved, it must have reflected practice that extended much beyond that programme. Could you cover in a video how far Admiralty/Navy Board model framing is stylized or was ever implemented in actual ships? I'd love to see a framing plan of Vasa as built, if you have one. Haven't been able to get the books you recommended on Vasa yet, and don't know if they contain one. Which was the easier side to shoot a cannonball through, port or starboard? Just asking in case the Swedes put Vasa back into service to renew the Thirty Years' War or the potop szwedzki.
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
For the 1677 Thirty Ships programme of King Charles II (and not Pepys, sorry), watch the next video. I speak of it there. I wrote my MA thesis on this topic and did quite a bit of reading of contracts and specifications, of Keltridge and Battine, of Thomas Fagge and dictionaries. Then I also looked at the - at the time - available shipwrecks. Warwick seems to have had a single futtock and toptimber as per Navy Board models (I did the frame recording of the central section of this wreck in 2011 for the project director), the Sea Venture seems to have had two futtock, but if I recall correctly one fore and aft fastener was found, so the pattern of doubled frame and filling most definitely is not visible on either of these wrecks. It is not visible on the early 17th century Cape Cod wreck, either. All of them demonstrate the gaps. DItto Vasa, although there it is a bit less regular and clean-cut than on the English wrecks. Vasa has 3 futtocks plus a toptimber. Generally. The framing plan of the ship has yet to be drawn (mea culpa, mea maxima culpa since I am the one who is supposed to do it!) but will be included in the hull volume of the ship. The port aft side of the middle deck remains to be recorded and Dr. Hocker and I have to figure out when we both are available to do it. I do formulate a hypothesis in my MA on the Navy Board models, but now I have a more probable hypothesis on how the style emerged. Yes, I do believe that in the earlier years, when the ships were smaller, the Navy Board style actually represented physical practice. When writing my thesis, Mr. Lavery very kindly spent hours of his time at the NMM to discuss my ideas and mostly to support them, so did Mr. Peter Goodwin. The interim decades have not yielded any archaeological material to make me reconsider what I wrote than. Though I wish to God my writing style had been more readable. I have wanted to rewrite and publish it as an article ever since, but... somehow never have the time to do it.
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 9 күн бұрын
@@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist Dear Kroum, thank you so much for taking the time for such a detailed and interesting answer while you are travelling. As for early to mid-17th century vessels of moderate size, FWIW, this random person on the internet believes you are right if your thesis is/was that the framing is as in/very similar to Navy Board models modulo longitudinal gaps that increase upwards as framing gets lighter. (To me, though, these gaps mean it's not Navy board style anymore, reconciling your thesis with what I have read -- but that's beside the point since I brought up Navy Board Model framing, not you in your video.) However: Both Warwick and Sea Venture are from the very early 17th century and smallish. Do you have an opinion on the Anne wreck off Hastings, which is the only 17th century wreck I have ever visited in place, so I have a special soft spot for it, and it is from the 1677 programme? As you have probably noted, the framing I have spoken of is argued for in the Richard Endsor books. His book on Anne has some photos of the wreck that seem to support this framing, though the photos are framed (word overload) a bit selectively. What do you think? In any case, looking forward very much to the coming videos!!!
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 9 күн бұрын
@@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist Is there some way to read your master's thesis other than by inter-library loan? TAMU isn't very nice about sharing these. Getting that masters thesis on the framing of La Belle was a struggle.
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 9 күн бұрын
Ignore, got the thesis. Super interesting. I can also already say that the rumors about bad writing are greatly exaggerated...
@tedr.
@tedr. 10 күн бұрын
Thank you very much!!!
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
Thank you for watching.
@ColinDickie
@ColinDickie 10 күн бұрын
Does this design hold for Dutch Fluyt or fluitschips? I had heard they were constructed differently and more cost effectively.
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
In essence, yes. The frame pieces are going to be the same, regardless whether this is a fluyt, jacht or pinaas or an English man-of-war. The difference is in the distribution and manipulation of these pieces. On an English ship, they are going to be square to the centreline, they are going to be pretty uniform in dimensions, they are likely to be completely converted. On a Dutch vessel they would seem more random, but there still are going to be the same pieces: there will be first futtocks between the floor timbers, second futtocks butting into the wrongheads of the floor timbers, etc. Vasa, for example has three futtocks plus a toptimber, but they differ in number from port to starboard. In a Dutch ship the timbers will not end cleanly in a fair line, but as the individual timbers fall. There may actually be two timbers next to each other used to fill up the space where a second futtock would be - this is a specific example from Vasa. And the two sides would not be matching these timber distributions. However, overall - yes, the frame has the same pieces, though with different names.
@Pocketfarmer1
@Pocketfarmer1 10 күн бұрын
Which woods would they prefer for futtocks and logging knees? Good luck in the field .Those waters may be getting unnecessarily turbulent.
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
There is the odd mine intercepted by the human navies, yes. It depends on what timber was available. As a general rule, oak tended to be a favourite, of course. Though other species have been attested in ship archaeology.
@lidialidia6981
@lidialidia6981 10 күн бұрын
Thank you very much, Kroum Batchvarov 💙💛✌️
@Nekog1rl
@Nekog1rl 10 күн бұрын
Thank you! May you have good luck in your field work! One hopefully quick question: did framing practices change much from the late 16th century to the early 17th?
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 10 күн бұрын
Curious about that too. I expect that the answer is "surprisingly little" between 1511 and 1690, though there was some real innovation starting in France in the very late 17th and early 18th century commonly associated with Blaise Pangalo and later Blaise Ollivier. More than that, they made framing more aesthetically pleasing, which can't be said of the likes of Seppings (much later). And here is the video to prove that: kzbin.info/www/bejne/amWkhKCKZd2qhJI
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
Surprisingly little indeed is the correct answer. I might be able to give you more specific answer with examples in September after the season on a 16th century ship. ;-) The timbers are going to be the same, depends on the size of the vessel.
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
@@yxx_chris_xxy More or less, correct. The double-frame emerges by 1684 as evidenced by La Belle. In England - changes begin to be observed in teh documents and allegedly in the archaeological record c. 1676-79. Watch the next video in the series for discussion of this.
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 9 күн бұрын
@@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 1690 was sloppy -- I am aware of the framing of La Belle but am super curious to learn about the changes in England in the late 1670s. Looking forward to that video!
@JayJSMN-tz1nv
@JayJSMN-tz1nv 10 күн бұрын
Best description of framing I have seen!! Thank you!!👍👍👍
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
Thank you! This is very kind of you and I am glad that it worked out.
@manfredagne6738
@manfredagne6738 10 күн бұрын
Thank you for your video, and success with your excavation!
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
Thank you very much indeed! I am hoping for a productive season.
@maxymvoloshyn
@maxymvoloshyn 10 күн бұрын
Thank you, as usual:)
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist
@kroumbatchvarov-archaeologist 9 күн бұрын
My Pleasure!
@davidlund5003
@davidlund5003 10 күн бұрын
Thankyou.
@swell07_
@swell07_ 11 күн бұрын
was the wind power not a factor? i heard the windmills running sawmills among other devices was a contributing factor as well. you mentioned the wood and other resources needed to make the ships, i will have to watch your other vids. thank you for sharing
@MikeSage-hv3hz
@MikeSage-hv3hz 13 күн бұрын
Gaspar Monge developed "descriptive geometry" and technical drawing about 1781. Before that, rule of thumb ruled!
@TheHerring7
@TheHerring7 14 күн бұрын
Thank you for bringing up this topic. Some 20 years ago I started creating CAD drawings for Chapman's Bellona frigate series, specifically the Camilla, but unfortunately lost access to AutoCAD which I was using for the task. Do you have any suggestion for software to use? Which software is used in the Video? At some stage, I'd like to pick up on this project again!
@jbepsilon
@jbepsilon 3 күн бұрын
Not sure about the software used in the video, but there is a free ship CAD program that you can find by searching the web for "freeship plus in lazarus" (I won't post a link as youtube seems to make messages with links disappear). I'm sure it's not good enough for professional naval architects, but seems to be used by hobbyist boat designers. Hope this helps.
@MissPiggyM976
@MissPiggyM976 16 күн бұрын
More, please !
@TheMrIcon
@TheMrIcon 16 күн бұрын
Thank you for the video. Curious what was the software you’ve used?
@davidangelo8902
@davidangelo8902 16 күн бұрын
Nice Cad rendition. Thanks for today's topic!
@fredericrike5974
@fredericrike5974 17 күн бұрын
Please continue, sir. For me, you are explaining the equivalent of a Space Shuttle in that time. As an aside, some comments on why some shapes are bad sailors and others are good ones?
@JayJSMN-tz1nv
@JayJSMN-tz1nv 17 күн бұрын
Thank you!! Another great presentation!!👍👍👍
@JayJSMN-tz1nv
@JayJSMN-tz1nv 17 күн бұрын
Fascinating!!!👍👍👍
@lor191ric
@lor191ric 17 күн бұрын
Thank you Dr.Batchvarov wishing you a enjoyable,interesting and productive field season.
@genojoe3176
@genojoe3176 17 күн бұрын
As always, thank you my friend!!! Well done!
@Pocketfarmer1
@Pocketfarmer1 17 күн бұрын
When did half modeling become a design tool? Good luck with your fieldwork. I am looking forward to any field footage you put out.
@tedr.
@tedr. 17 күн бұрын
Never has being victimized been such a pleasant experience. Thank you once again for an enlightening lecture!