Louie da fly

Hi Bruce, and welcome. Mark's right - steam-powered models are a bit rare on MSW. A few questions - Firstly, have you ever built a ship model before? Though it's not impossible, taking on a large or complicated project first off can be a bit overwhelming. If you're planning to build a steamer, what kind did you have in mind - modern or transition from sail to steam - merchant vessel or warship? That will make a big difference in where you should be looking. Second, do you have any experience with steam engines? That's a whole subject in itself. There are quite a few model steam engines out there that might be of use to you, but I can't point you in the right direction because I have no experience with such things since my Dad built one from a kit when I was a nipper about 60 years ago. As far as I know there aren't any kits out there that are steam-powered, so the first thing to find out would be what kit you could buy that would be suitable to convert to a steam-powered model, that was also not too expensive, and has clear instructions? I realise this doesn't really answer your questions at all, but it might give you some idea of what to look for and where you should be looking. Having said that, the idea of a proper steam-powered ship model being built on MSW would certainly be of interest to me, and I expect also to many other members. Once you're over the search phase and have a kit to start on, you'll find the members here very helpful and encouraging. I wish you every success with your quest - I just wish I could be of more help.

Looks very good from here, Rodolfo. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the likes and for the replies. Matle, I'd agree that it would be unlikely for Turks at that time to put an animal figurehead on a ship. However there were plenty of people who'd already been in shipping when the Turks took over, who would have simply continued in business, and it may have been such a ship. And yes, such figureheads are quite common on contemporary pictures of carracks, and the discovery of the Gribshunden one was a wonderful proof that they really did exist. Cotrecerf, thanks in particular for the translation. That's very helpful indeed. It links together what I'd made from my poor attempts at translating and makes it all into a coherent whole. I think you might be right - that von Grünemberg would have considered himself "above" making his own drawings and local artists to illustrate his account of the pilgrimage once he got home. Certainly some other pictures in his account support that idea - particularly that whoever drew the pictures didn't fully understand how a lateen sail works. On the other hand, the level of detail in the drawings suggests someone who actually observed the ships first hand, even if lateen sails confused him. Look at the placement of the lifeboat on the galley, the supports below the oar outrigger, and other details. And though galleys did get at least as far into the Atlantic as Antwerp (I have a picture from 1515) the ship behind the galley and the ship on the left in the picture below are vessels characteristic only of the Mediterranean. It's my opinion that von Grünemberg took an artist with him to illustrate the journey. The flag with the complex red cross on it is directly connected with the Kingdom of Jerusalem - though Jerusalem had fallen centuries before, the "kingdom in exile" still existed. With some research it would probably be possible to track down the yellow and blue striped coat of arms on the galley's awning and banners. Just below the "crow's nest" is a note in red which seems to say "Duser galleig" - perhaps it's from the port of Durazzo/Durres in the Balkans? The idea of the balls being clay containers for fire weapons is interesting. Perhaps that really is what they were. Amateur, I agree about the bonnet. I think the artists just missed a bit of line immediately to the right and left of the wolf's head which would have made it complete.

Mighty Mo, indeed! About 30 years ago I almost got on board Missouri when she was berthed in Sydney. It would have been good to stand on the actual ship where the final surrender was signed and the end of World War Two. But the crowds were so huge and thick that they closed off visiting before I got to the head of the queue and I missed out. Still regret it a little.

Irony, Dick. Irony . . .

Very nice, Hellmuht. A very enjoyable process to watch.

While it can be risky to go against the kit instructions (as I've discovered to my cost in the past), sometimes they are just plain wrong, and you have to weigh up what is the best thing to do when confronted by conflicting information. Regarding the sketch, it seems to me that it shows the scrollwork having splayed edges as received, and that you should cut the edge to a right angle - or even to a slightly acute angle - before fitting to the model. Would this make sense? There aren't any photos of the scrollwork in your log, so I don't know if it's supplied loose or if it's laser cut from a sheet. If the latter, I'd expect the edges to already be square. Regarding the doubling, perhaps the shaded sketch at the top is a sectional view which shows the doublers being tapered down towards the ends? (assuming that's what it's supposed to represent - there's no label on it). But if so, what's that long slot running down the centre? If you compare that picture with the model, it might give some insights . . . perhaps the slot is where the keel goes? (working completely in the dark here as I can't look at the bits and pieces).

Careful Pat. It's very easy to get hooked!

You're pretty close - the best word to use for profondeur would be depth. Unfortunately Engliush is not a very logical language. And I certainly agree with your comment.

Silverman, there's a whole section of this forum called "Wood discussion - where to use it? Where to find it? What types are best? How to finish it? which you might find of help.

Obviously not rowing yet - otherwise the bosun would be tearing strips off them for catching crabs and seagulls . . .

Yes, what Strelok said, except that the Empire was actually split in two, with a senior and junior Emperor (Augustus and Caesar) for each half, for purposes of easier administration, quite a while before Constantine. Constantine moved the capital from Rome to Byzantion, but in fact he reuinited the Empire - at least for a while. It stretched from Italy, through the Balkans, to the eastern border of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), and incorporated Egypt and much of North Africa. Territorial losses over the centuries reduced the size of the Empire, but it was a very international phenomenon. Though the language of the Empire after maybe the 6th or 7th century was Greek, (and the term "Byzantine" to describe them was coined by Western scholars much later) they called themselves Romans right up to the end.

That's very interesting, Kris. I hadn't known about it before. Also the frames all lean over slightly in the vertical plane, towards the ends. It certainly looks as if they did that on purpose, and they must have had their reasons, perhaps to oppose the forces of waves crashing against the hull from bow and stern. I can't really see that the diagonals you mention would have affected the structural strength particularly, but the vertical lean might have. Keep in mind that these ships were built "shell-first" with the shape of the hull determined by the planks and the frames added afterwards, so they might not have worried all that much that the frames weren't quite evenly spaced, or exactly square. But in building the model I really can't see that any slight structural advantage that might be conveyed by the diagonal and leaning frames would make any perceptible difference to the strength of the model - your clinker built vessel will be more than strong enough, if my own dromon (even more delicately built - and of carvel construction) is anything to go by. So, it then comes down to whether you want to copy the frames exactly for historical accuracy's sake, or just build it in a way that will be easier on you. I doubt very much that the strength will be affected at all. And I doubt that anybody but you will ever notice the difference.

Shame on you, Pat! And just as I'm coming to the end of carving my oarsmen, too!

But also pleased, if she's still around. Worth a try! I've had good success with this kind of thing, and so has Woodrat. Yes, at this period in particular, you often can't fit a vessel into a category (most of which seem to have been invented by academics anyway). I've put together a collection of pics on Pinterest of various periods and types of mediaeval and renaissance ships, at https://www.pinterest.com.au/lowe1847/boards/ which you might find of use.

Well, all I can say is "Every day, if you are not careful, you learn a new thing" So, does this apply to staining where there is a glob of glue? Does preparing the surface with rubbing alcohol avoid that horrible patchiness caused by the glue when you apply the stain?

Yes, the deck beams had two functions - to support the deck, but just as importantly, to hold the frames apart so they kept their shape. And there'd need to be two sets of beams to hold the two decks, but two would also maintain the hull shape even better.

Most likely, but probably best not to overdo it. They were very enthusiastic about colour, and it's possible they'd re-paint the shields if they faded.

If they supported a full deck they'd be called deck beams. The most accurate term might still be "upper deck beam"- but as the upper deck is really what we would call a catwalk, perhaps "catwalk beams"?

That's fascinating, Binho. I had no idea Britain was so intensively farmed that early. I've bookmarked that site so I can read it again at my leisure.

That's very interesting - good to see someone tried it out. Maybe the chest theory is right after all?

In fact this looks very good and there's definite progress here. I find that unfortunately once you've made something it takes very little time for it to become the "new normal", so the amount of progress you've actually made tends to get overlooked. Sometimes it's good to go back over your build log and see just how much has been achieved - it can be very worthwhile and good for morale.

Nice to see the hull planked, Christos. That's a very nice shape.

Yes, early 14th century is rather "generic mediaeval" - 15th is the start of a huge change in all kinds of things - tailored clothing, armour, you name it. And, of course, ships - 15th century sees the birth of the carrack. Interestingly, quite a few early 15th century ships seem to be a transition between the cog and the carrack, so it's hard to categorise them as either one or the other. Yes, I tend to agree with you that the lines on the seal could be interpreted as shrouds rather than a bipod mast, and it's a rather thin piece of evidence to base a definitive statement on. However, I agree with you - it's your model, it'll be unusual and interesting, and nobody can prove you wrong . . . I agree with Woodrat about contacting the archaeologists. I've often found them to be (i) amazed than anybody but themselves is interested in this kind of thing, and (ii) very helpful indeed.

Ok, got it now. Maybe you could build the next Titanic model and call it Britannic? Oh, no - she sank as well . . . For any other liner you'd probably have to go over to the Dark Side and scratch build . . .