Louie da fly

Mast wedges under way for the fore and middle masts

And all three complete

As the halyards have to go through the floors of the tops, I've put temporary halyards in so I can locate the supports (equivalent to crosstrees and trestle trees). Note that I've started putting them in on the mizentop.

I've finally begun planking the hull.

Because I couldn't clamp the strakes I had to pin them in place with treenails.

Steven

This is simply superb work. My hat off to you, sir!

Steven

Very impressive work. I've tried a couple of models built on a plug and always found difficulty in getting the two halves exactly the same. You seem to have succeeded admirably. And you've done a superb job on the (difficult) rounded stern. Very precise work.

Steven

I love your imaginative solutions to the problems you encounter. It's all looking very good, mate!

Steven

Nice work, mate.

Steven

This is a very interesting kit, and an interesting build. I'm pulling up a chair and opening the popcorn.

The Villefranche wreck (Genoese carrack, sank 1516), also known as the Lomellina, had internal planking from the bilge up to the level of the lowest deck. It was not planked internally above that level.

The English Mary Rose (sank 1545) was fully planked internally

The San Juan (Basque whaling ship, sank sometime around 1550) was not internally planked

So it appears that not all ships in this period were internally planked. This may have been a time of transition - and it appears that the more important ships, and later ships, were fully planked inside, but not those less important or earlier in the 16th century. Your galleon is both later and more important, so I think it probably would have been planked inside.

Steven 

Yep. There are certain fungi that work as well as char cloth, too - the ones that grow on the trunks of trees. Apparently you grind it up when it's dry and then (and I forget what comes next).

I've done it with char cloth and tow. When the spark hits the char cloth it forms a small glowing point which you then wrap the tow around and blow like the blazes (sorry!). Dry grass works as a replacement for tow, too. I was once in a mediaeval gathering over the Easter weekend and we had to douse our fires when we'd finished with them (it was in a pine forest!). I decided to get some practice lighting with flint and steel every time we re-lit the fire- got fairly good with it, too. But hard on the knuckles - you lose skin either from the steel slamming against them while you hold the flint, or (worse still - it's sharp) from the flint itself. This video is very enlightening - I wish I'd seen it before 

Steven

I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you provide a picture of the kind of thing you're considering?

Steven

Welcome back, Silverman!

Perhaps the bowsprit could go through the foredeck and be fixed to partners beneath? I realise that area is storage space, but the bowsprit wouldn't take up much room, and let's face it, knightheads would have gone through the deck as well, so there's very little difference when all is said and done. And you wouldn't have to show the partners as they'd be hidden by the deck. However, I suppose the bowsprit might get in the way of the door; it's a bit hard to tell from the photos how far back it would intersect with the keel.

That mast support is a very interesting feature. I don't know an English equivalent term for it.

Steven

Ah, interesting.

I thought it might be this one

Or perhaps this - all from Ostia.

You may be right - that could be what the mosaicist saw and misinterpreted. I'm certainly not fully satisfied that the "hole through the hull" is completely workable.

Here's a clearer view of the relief, by the way.

Some very interesting details there, even if 1000 years away from the San Marco ship.

Steven

Hi Ian,

The height of the oarholes above water don't look excessive at all, but it was the heights at bow and stern that seemed a bit much. However, so far I haven't seen the full midships height once the superstructure is on so I don't have an idea of how it will look when that is added.

Good luck with those rudders! Your 'disguise' idea might be the only workable answer.

Anyway, looking good.

Steven

Looking good, mate. I don't think you need to worry about a slight inequality between port and starboard. I'm tall, and I can't see the difference 

Steven

You've done a very nice job. Superb.

Steven

Hi Dick,

It's OK. I haven't definitively decided that just because something can be done, it's necessarily the way it was done. (You know my feelings about the incredible Hulc). I'm still keeping my options open.

There are a number of ships that come up in a google search for Ostia Ship. Can you let me know which one you mean?

Steven

Thanks for all the likes.

Cathead, that's a good question. It seems to vary somewhat. I went with what looked like it would work best. Perhaps it might have been better to have it a little further aft, but it seems to be ok to go either way. The helmsman himself is stationed in front of the aftercastle in most cases, and as you can see, there is quite a bit of variation in the configuration of the aftercastle itself. And these are all supposed to be the same ship!

Steven

I haven't posted lately, but I haven't been idle.

Staircase from the Captain's cabin down to the hold. I'd originally intended it to be going out through the fore end of the cabin, but discovered the break of the poop got in the way, so instead I found another place for it, where it still wouldn't intrude too much into the rest of the cabin space. Having this set of stairs means the captain doesn't have to go UP to the poop, DOWN to the maindeck and DOWN again to the hold, but can get there down a single set of stairs.

Ladders - the wider one goes down from the poop deck to the Captain's cabin, the narrower one down from the maindeck to the hold.

Making the tops. Tightly bent pine strips to make a "basket". Took a lot more work than I'd expected, but finally all complete to my satisfaction.

And attached to the masts

Maindeck planking.

The 'crossbeams' in the second picture are my impromptu clamps to push the planking down into contact with the deck beams till the glue dries.

And deck planking complete, with the aftercastle dry fitted. The stairs down from the maindeck to the hold will be in the oblong opening just in front of the fore hatch.

Unfortunately I realised too late that with the decking in place it's going to be difficult to clamp the hull planking to the frames. To misquote the famous Eccles  "I should have thought of that sooner, shouldn't I?" So I've given myself a bit of a problem. I won't be planking in this sequence next time. But I'm sure I'll come up with a solution.

And now I'm going out on a limb. I had originally decided that the pictures in the mosaics showing the side rudders coming through a hole in the hull were unworkable, unlikely and anathema.

But when I worked out where they were going, and the shape of the hull at that point, I decided to try it out and see if I could make it work. I first had to cut one of the frames short between the top wale and the gunwale to allow enough 'swing" for the rudders to be swung up out of the way. The hull would be a tiny bit weaker at that point (but nowhere near as much weakened as, say, cutting out gunports).

The rudders do stick out at an angle sideways somewhat rather than being vertical, and at least in this configuration with a wale in the way there's no way to change that. This might affect the steering to a certain degree, but perhaps not as much as might be thought. The rudders can still swivel in the vertical plane just as does a stern rudder, so the ship should be able to be steered that way. Had I placed the wales differently, the rudders might have been considerably closer to vertical, and that would have been better still. But I'm quite happy with them as it is, at least for a first iteration of the design. I won't be changing it - it's an experiment, and I think I've shown - at least to my own satisfaction - that rudders coming through a hole in the hull would have been workable.

There remains the issue of being able to remove the rudders when in port, in line with legal requirements (the authorities would hold onto the rudders while in port to discourage ships from doing a 'flit' without paying harbour dues). But that could be solved by having the tillers removable, so the rudder could be let down through the hole, to a boat (as in Woodrat's Venetian Round Ship).

Steven

Congratulations on your first sea trial!

On 9/22/2023 at 11:15 AM, Ian_Grant said:

Will need to revisit the upper oar bars this winter and mount them again more carefully. Probably would be a good idea to change their mounting holes in the beam to vertical slots to allow adjustments on the fly.

That sounds like a good idea. I'd agree: although the fulcrum for oars should be as close to the water as possible for maximum rowing efficiency, they do need to be able to be lifted far enough to avoid catching crabs on the return stroke.

The action looks good - quite similar to that of the Olympias, so you must be on the right track. Perhaps a little slower would be good, to look even more realistic? I know this works for model railways - people always seem to run their trains too fast to look quite real.

On 9/22/2023 at 11:15 AM, Ian_Grant said:

She is very sensitive to ballast amount and distribution

Yes - so is the Olympias. Apparently people have to be careful walking around on the upper deck because the vessel tilts alarmingly very easily.

Your turning using backwater on one side seems to work well (though again, perhaps it would look better if it was a little slower). I can understand your issues with the rudders for lesser turns. Unfortunately I can't make any suggestions - you're right; not enough movement through the water to get the rudders to 'bite' properly, and this may simply be a matter of scale - she's 1/32nd of the length of the full-sized ship, so volume is 1/32 x 1/32 x 1/32 = 1/32,768 according to my calculator - miniscule effects compared to the real thing - perhaps even in relation to the water molecules? Certainly in relation to surface tension.

Now that I see her in the water, she seems rather high in comparison with her length for a vessel propelled by muscle power. (extra height = extra weight) - at least at bow and stern. I just looked back at page 4 of your build log (posts #100 and #106) and your quadrireme does seem rather higher in relation to its length than the triere shown in post #100 (I realise they're not the same type of ship and that does make a difference). Might just be worth a thought. The weight difference surely doesn't make any difference to her performance, so long as she floats at the right level - and it would be totally pointless getting into a scaled power to weight ratio comparison between a fully loaded and crewed ship with the power provided by a crew, vs the weight of  the mechanism you've put into your model and the power it provides. 

The carrying handle idea seems worthwhile - it'll be interesting to see if it works ok.

Anyway, wonderful work so far. Looking forward to further progress.

Steven

Superb work on your part. Something to be justly proud of.

Steven

19 hours ago, Ferrus Manus said:

It means unprepared.

Yes, that's what it means here. You might be confusing it with "flat out like a lizard drinking".

Beautiful work, Bryan.

What, it's not an American term as well?

Nice shields. You're right, Viking shield bosses were of iron. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html There are no traces of paint on the ones found in archaeology as far as I know, but that doesn't mean they weren't painted. I would have thought a silver finish (to suggest new iron) would be better, but it's your model and that means you get to choose. And who's going to tell you you're wrong?

Steven

Probably a bit late to add this (and yes, I was on the hop when I answered you above, so I forgot to add lifts, halyards, and possibly tacks - the last one is uncertain, but a distinct possibility -if a beitass was used by Vikings to push the clew of the sail forward, it's likely a tack would have replaced it), but the seal of Hastings has reef points (who knew?).

Steven

4 hours ago, Ferrus Manus said:

So you're telling me that the rigging of nefs was simpler than the rigging of viking ships?

We don't know what the rigging of Viking ships was. We know they had a beitass from written records. All the rest is conjecture, mostly based on difficult to interpret pictures on standing stones.

It's your model, and your decision.

Steven