Hull shape

Although there is enough data to try a reconstruction of the hull shape from the profiles taken during the 2002 field season, that effort seems premature at this stage of the project, in view of the amount of data that can be retrieved during the next field season, when a number of frames are scheduled to be disassembled.

Fig. 58 - Mr. Albuquerque's sketch of 1970.

As it is, the existing data shows that the planking at the bow has fallen out slightly - frame C2 must be slightly tilted towards starboard - and that the keel must have been severely misaligned upon breaking in 1970.  In fact, the first striking feature when one looks at this vessel is that the frames are not perpendicular to the keel!

The sketch made in 1970 by Mr. Albuquerque may correspond to a section very close to amidships because it shows a fairly flat section (Fig. 58).

The data retrieved during the summer of 2002 shows a hull shape that is compatible with Mr. Albuquerque's sketch but ends - at floor timber C10 - well before the midship frame.

Fig. 59 - Floor timber C17 showing the treenail connecting it with B18EB and B17EB.

It is hypothesized that floor timber C17 may be the midship floor, because it is treenailed to both futtocks B17EB and B18EB.  However, since further evidence suggests that longitudinal treenails may run through three timbers (floors and futtocks) in other places (around C3 and C4), this supposition has to remain just that, a working hypothesis.

After we ignored stations C1 and C2, which are tilted outwards, as mentioned above, the lines drawing of this portion of the hull showed it to be quite fair and compatible with a flat amidships of about 1.60 m, as suggested in the picture.

Fig. 60 - Schematic sections along the bow sections C1 through to C10.