Hello Almal
En zo het dit tijd geword om aandag te gee aan de braedspit - en ja dit is de korrekte oud-Hollandse naam; niet braadspil. En dit was een behoorlijke controversie op SOS net zoals dit ook tijdens Hans se bouw van de Willem Barentsz was.
Na ik de Kolderstok bouwdoos se componente geplaats heb, was ik oortuig daarvan dat dit niet korrek kon wees.
Eers de planne van Ab Hoving:
De rode lijnen dui aan de grade van beweging van de braedspit. Duidelijk is dit niet werkbaar op een rechte schip. Ik verduidelijk my rede waarom de Hoving en Kolderstok uitlecht niet kon werk as volg:
Ab's plans differ from Kolderstok's in the way that the foremast is right up against the stem. By doing this he gains a little more space than in the Kolderstok configuration. However, how on earth, would the crew have operated that windlass? What I call the functional degrees of operation is determined here by the roof of the canopy at the front and the height of the belaying pin rack. Even if the handspaken (ratchet poles) could theoretically extend beyond the foremast, their movement would still be severely impeded by the belaying rack mounted directly behind the foremast. Logic tells me this would not be possible.
Now the Kolderstok Plans:
Because Hans does not place the foremast right up against the stem, the situation is even worse here, because now there is even less space. Once again the belaying rack and the roof of the front canopy serve as the factors determining the functional operation of the windlass. Not surprisingly, the angle of operation is even smaller than in Ab's layout.
The green arrow points to the space that is lost because the foremast does not butt up against the stem.
Now let's look at De Weerdt's configuration:
It's a no-brainer. Here the windlass can operate unimpeded and in the way that it was intended. So, purely in terms of functionality, there can be no doubt as to which is the most preferable option.
En zo het dit tijd geword om aandag te gee aan de braedspit - en ja dit is de korrekte oud-Hollandse naam; niet braadspil. En dit was een behoorlijke controversie op SOS net zoals dit ook tijdens Hans se bouw van de Willem Barentsz was.
Na ik de Kolderstok bouwdoos se componente geplaats heb, was ik oortuig daarvan dat dit niet korrek kon wees.
Eers de planne van Ab Hoving:
De rode lijnen dui aan de grade van beweging van de braedspit. Duidelijk is dit niet werkbaar op een rechte schip. Ik verduidelijk my rede waarom de Hoving en Kolderstok uitlecht niet kon werk as volg:
Ab's plans differ from Kolderstok's in the way that the foremast is right up against the stem. By doing this he gains a little more space than in the Kolderstok configuration. However, how on earth, would the crew have operated that windlass? What I call the functional degrees of operation is determined here by the roof of the canopy at the front and the height of the belaying pin rack. Even if the handspaken (ratchet poles) could theoretically extend beyond the foremast, their movement would still be severely impeded by the belaying rack mounted directly behind the foremast. Logic tells me this would not be possible.
Now the Kolderstok Plans:
Because Hans does not place the foremast right up against the stem, the situation is even worse here, because now there is even less space. Once again the belaying rack and the roof of the front canopy serve as the factors determining the functional operation of the windlass. Not surprisingly, the angle of operation is even smaller than in Ab's layout.
The green arrow points to the space that is lost because the foremast does not butt up against the stem.
Now let's look at De Weerdt's configuration:
It's a no-brainer. Here the windlass can operate unimpeded and in the way that it was intended. So, purely in terms of functionality, there can be no doubt as to which is the most preferable option.