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.

THANK YOU Kroum Batchvarov for a most interesting lecture! This is SO useful to us model builders. ❤😍

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.

Thank you very much, Kroum Batchvarov 💙💛✌️

Excellent stuff.

Love it! Thank you, sir!

Best wished on your archaeological trip back to the Black Sea, Kroum!

Thank you very much!!!

Best description of framing I have seen!! Thank you!!👍👍👍

Which woods would they prefer for futtocks and logging knees? Good luck in the field .Those waters may be getting unnecessarily turbulent.

👍👍👍👍👍

Thank you, as usual:)

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.

Thank you for your video, and success with your excavation!

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?

I can just imagine some ancient version of Beavis saying: hehe haha He said Foot hooks. (all right not a brilliant comment but I want to attract the algorithm)

Does this design hold for Dutch Fluyt or fluitschips? I had heard they were constructed differently and more cost effectively.

Do you learn anything from commenters?