Louie da fly
-
Posts
7,576 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Louie da fly
-
Yes, I'm afraid it is - see post #271 on page 10 of this thread to see why. I finally decided I'd have to accept the slight out-of-squareness after my repairs, because it would have required just too much extra work to correct. I decided I'd just have to put it down to experience, and I'll know more for the next build. Steven -
Finally finished the deck beams. Here are some progress pictures. Still quite a way to go Gradually closing up the gaps. Finished! There are four openings - two for the masts, one for a cargo hatch and the other for a companionway. And here are some of the wood shavings from making the last lot of beams. Note that this little table is currently all I have of workspace, so it gets pretty cluttered and I tend to lose things. But I have a cunning plan, which cannot possibly fail . . . And here is a view of the completed beams from the bow. For a first effort at this level, I don't think it's too bad. Now I have to work out what planking I can do while still leaving enough visibility below decks to put the lower bank of oars in place. Nice to have got this far. A real milestone! Steven
-
That's pretty amazing. The stern rudder must have been invented by the Liburnae and lost again, because it doesn't reappear for about another 1500 years! They survived as a major naval power from at least the time of the carving (5th/6th century BC) to the second half of the 1st century BC. According to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, at some point they evolved from monoremes to biremes and made such an impression on the Romans that they copied the liburna and even adopted its name for their own light fast ships. The name persisted for centuries, long after the Liburnae themselves were forgotten as a race. How long they kept these stern rudders is anybody's guess; they may have dropped them in favour of side rudders themselves, in imitation of their neighbours, or they may have kept them until they themselves vanished as a seagoing power. But why wouldn't the cultural flow go the other way as well? Why don't we see others copying the stern rudder? Are side rudders more effective in galleys than stern rudders? There appears to be evidence in favour of that - according to Lawrence Mott's 1991 TAMU thesis The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1600 - A Technological Tale, side rudders are more efficient and give better control than do stern rudders. As I understand it, this is because the keel doesn't interfere with the water flow. Very interesting. Steven
-
Thanks for the replies. That helps clear a few things up. Just to clarify, the top of the pump mechanism (the top wheels and the handles) would be on the upper deck itself? (I think I've already answered this, but I'd like to make sure.) And regarding the dales, a pipe or hose across the upper deck leading to a scupper on each side? Thanks again. Steven
- 12 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- chain pumps
- dromons
- (and 2 more)
-
Progress on the deck beams. Earlier in the thread, the effect of the spur's weight on the ship's trim was discussed, and I decided that storing the water barrels aft should offset the weight of the spur. So I've put a hatch about 1.5x1.2 metres (5'x4') aft of the middle mast to allow for the water barrels to be lowered into the hull. It's in the second photo but doesn't show up well because I took the photo with too little light. I discovered the beam shelves for the prymne (poop deck) were a bit out of alignment with those for the main deck, which caused the prymne's deck beams to be angled upwards towards the port side. Not very much, really, and my inner demon told me "go on, leave it - nobody will notice". But I'll notice, and if I didn't fix it, it would sneer at me for the rest of time. So one by one I'm taking off the beams and shaving the bottoms at the port end, so effectively the beam will be returned to the horizontal. I've done three so far. You can see the difference in the photo below. A lot of fiddly work, but worth it in the long run. Oh, and I had a very fortunate find. I wanted some chain to support the spur, and had decided to visit all the local op shops (charity stores) to see if there were any cheap jewellery chains I could get hold of. But before I did, my wife and I visited our local branch of Ishka, a shop that sells stuff with a hippie emphasis, Indonesian furniture, that kind of stuff. Found a multiple-chained necklace for $12.50, reduced to 50% on sale, exactly right for the dromon. But that wasn't the best thing. A necklace with really fine chains, in black metal (what, like iron?), already reduced from $24.50 to $5.00, further reduced by 50% to $2.50! I checked to see if this really was the price and being told it was, went and got the only other one in the shop as well. Ideal for the grapnel chain for my sadly neglected Great Harry model which is on the list for eventual restoration and repair. Score! Here's the chain with the spur. I now have enough chain to outfit a fleet! Anyone in Oz wanting some really cool chain might be well advised to check Ishka out. Steven
-
I have some questions regarding chain pumps. Apparently these are the most appropriate pumps for my Byzantine dromon (as remnants were found on the contemporary Byzantine Serce Limani wreck). As I'd never heard of chain pumps before this week, I've done a search through previous posts and they've cleared up the worst of my iggerance, but I still have a few questions. * In the models I've seen, chain pumps always seem to come in pairs - a port and a starboard one. Was this always the case? There were never any single chain pumps? * In all the pictures and models I've seen the pumps seem to be cut off at the outlet (the dale?). Am I right in thinking this leads to scuppers via a pipe or hose? * The dromon only has one deck; the upper deck (if you ignore a little poop deck). So would the pumps and dales be on this upper deck? * In an earlier thread which dealt with chain pumps Druxey replied I realise this is a very different kind of ship from a completely different time and culture and I do have the Serce Limani ship still to check, but lacking surviving evidence to the contrary, would I be safe enough putting the chain pumps "a few feet aft of the main mast"? Any help with these questions would be gratefully received. Steven
- 12 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- chain pumps
- dromons
- (and 2 more)
-
Thanks everyone for the likes. Druxey and Pat, thanks for the comments. Mark, thanks very much for the link. I can't believe I hadn't bookmarked it for myself. I've found it very valuable in chasing up details for this and future proposed builds - including such things as pumps, lighting, lateen rig, seats of ease . . . Just in the last couple of days I've been researching pumps and discovered that though the Romans had chain pumps, they seem to have fallen out of use, at least in Western Europe, until the mid 15th century, when they were rediscovered by a Venetian who ascribed them to the "Tartars" (possibly the Turks? The Tartars weren't a seagoing race). However, the early 11th century Byzantine wreck found at Serce Limani had the remains of what's thought to be a housing for a chain pump, so I'm going to have one on my own model. All I have to do is get more information on what it would have looked like and where it would have been on the ship. The only pictures on the Net appear to be Captain Bentinck's "improved" version, and all the diagrams are a bit lacking in 3Dness. Steven
-
Thanks everyone for the likes. Mark Pearse said: Mark, your comment inspired me to check the headroom belowdecks (something I hadn't thought about before) with one of my carved figures from earlier in the build. It turns out person approx 5'6" tall has the top of his head exactly level with the deck. So though the lower oarsmen might have to duck their heads to move around belowdecks (depending on how tall they were - someone 5'2" may have no trouble at all), it would possibly be no more difficult than in the ships of Nelson's time. More progress on the deck beams. Got as far as the foremast, and created an opening for the mast with intermediate beams at right angles; the deck beam that would otherwise go right across the ship at this point is cut and connects to these beams. I wasn't happy with the finish of the plating on the spur, so I've removed it on the starboard side. The main problem was the glue - I used a clear glue from a junk shop that professed to glue anything to anything. But it was lumpy when applied and made the plating have lumps and bumps. Also I cut the side plating too narrow, so there was a gap at the corner where it joined the plating on the bottom of the spur. This time I made the plating a tiny bit too wide so there was an overlap. Also I tried standard PVA white glue and was rather surprised to find it worked very well - I thought it only worked on wood. A very thin layer of glue, and when I clamped it all together, a very nice flat surface on the plating. Then I bent the surplus aluminium plate around the corner at top and bottom. This covered the join at the bottom, and at the top I filed off the overlapping plating with a fine file so it reached just to the top of the spur. When I do the top I'll bend the plating over both corners to cover the joins, which I think is probably how they did it back in the day. Some of the photos don't have a lot of detail because I took them in the evening when there was too little light. But I find it hard to work on this stuff in the daylight because the reflections are so bright I can't see the detail of what I'm working on. The joins between the plates were scored with an awl and the marks for the "nails" were made with the pointy end of a rat-tail file. They're less obvious this time - the ones I'd done before were too deep to be in scale. Here's the finished product for the starboard side; the port plating is still in progress. I think it looks considerably better than the previous version. Next I have to do the port side and the top, and then colour the plating to look like aged/oxidised bronze. Then I'll make the "iron" - the pointy bit at the business end. And in between times (in daylight) I'm continuing with the deck beams. Steven
-
Dick, that's very interesting about the Contarina ship. The through-beams idea came from a doctoral thesis from TAMU which I was able to download, on the development of the rudder. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark the site that offered all these TAMU theses and now I can't find it again. It may be that they've taken it down, which would be a shame. I did get to download all the ones I was interested in, however, so not all is lost. I've noticed that a reasonable number of mediaeval pictures show either one or the other of these sets of tackle, but I've only come across one source that shows both - a bas relief from the tomb of St Peter Martyr in the church of St Eustorgio in Milan, dated 1339 (see https://www.gettyimages.com.au/detail/photo/ship-in-storm-detail-from-tomb-of-saint-high-res-stock-photography/159618074 ). I'll probably be following this for my own rudders. Pat, it's good to have worked out these issues, but I have a feeling there'll be others just as difficult waiting down the track. Still, the detective work is perhaps the most interesting part of doing a conjectural reconstruction. Steven
-
Here are the deck beams complete for the prymne (poop) in its new configuration. I've laid a couple of planks on the beams so you can see the (rather small) step between the prymne and the main deck. And as I got onto a roll, I started on the beams for the bow as well. When I get further into the main deck I need to make allowance for the deck furniture - at least one (or possibly two) hatches for a ladder below decks, maybe a cargo hatch, plus openings for the masts and also the stands to support the masts and the yards when they've been lowered. But that's yet to come . . . Steven
-
Thanks for the likes. The reason for the problem is that in the original design the prymne was too short - it was both too short and too narrow to hold both the awning and the steersmen - see post 268 of 16 September 2017. By making it longer it also became wider, providing all the room needed. But to avoid the deck sticking out past the gunwale, it had to be lowered. The changes have resulted in about an 8" (200mm) step between the decks. Still not as much as I'd have liked, but enough to look somewhat respectable. It does mean that the steersman's feet are level with the gunwale, but as the rail of the pavesade (the structure to hold the shields at the sides of the ship) extends right back to meet the tail, he shouldn't be in danger of toppling off the side. Steven
-
I put all the beams in for the prymne (poop deck) and dry-fitted planks on the prymne and the main deck. At that point I realised there was only about 4" difference in height - really not a proper poop deck. This problem goes back to the original design for the ship with its curved "tail" - the prymne was originally going to be quite a bit shorter, and extending it makes the line of the deck intersect the gunwale lower down - and there's not much I can do about it. If the poop is much higher it'll be above the gunwale, but I can at least raise it as much as possible. This of course involved removing all the deck beams for the poop, plus the beam shelf on which they rested. So I've done that, and put in a new beam shelf and the highest (sternmost) and lowest (furthest forward) beams, and now I've got to fill in the beams between them. Fortunately I can salvage the beams I took out. They may need to be adjusted in length, but I think I can re-use most of them. If not, they can go in the bow. Steven
-
Beautiful work, Savo. What tools do you use for your woodcarving? Steven
- 27 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- carrvring
- micro wood carvring
- (and 3 more)
-
Thanks, Mark. That helps a lot. Any idea of the likely width of the opening? Obviously enough for a person's shoulders to fit through, but how much wider than that would it have to be (a standard house door is 820mm, and I was thinking of something about that width)? Steven
-
Armed Lugger by altalena18
Louie da fly replied to altalena18's topic in - Build logs for subjects built 1801 - 1850
Looking good, Eitan. Interesting (but totally useless) fact: The vessels that used to be used for pearling in Broome (top left hand corner of Australia) were referred to as luggers, but were always gaff-rigged. I've no idea why . . . Steven -
In the meantime, I've been working on the structure to support and protect the side rudders. A pair of through-beams form the supports, and are cut out to take the rudder shafts. A framework from the beams forward to the hull forms a triangle which protects the rudders from collisions etc. It will be filled in with planking. The upper through-beam is forrard of the lower one, so the rudders will be angled forward to where the steersman stands. The rudder shafts will be lashed to the through-beams, but with enough play so the rudders can pivot around the shaft to steer the ship. I had this structure in place earlier in the build but had to remove it because other things needed to be done first. Now it's time to put it back again. [edit] Looking at the photos, maybe I have to have another look at those oarports. They do look a little rough. [/edit] Steven
-
Thanks for the likes. Also thanks to Don and Carl. That kadirga footage in particular is amazing and very informative. Unfortunately both these vessels are single-banked, so there's no upper and lower deck, so no ladders down belowdecks. I think there are no perfect parallels, because after the 12th century galleys became single-banked owing to a technological advance - first they began having more than one oar per bench (alla sensile), then later a single oar per bench with several oarsmen per oar (a scaloccio). Double-banked galleys vanished from the scene because these new galleys were faster - a higher power to weight ratio - less weight per oarsman because they didn't have that extra deck. I also looked at the footage of the trireme reconstruction Olympias, but they had an upper deck with a "slot" in it running from bow to stern, which gave access to the oarbanks below. So, can anybody who's been building multi-decked vessels, no matter the period, give me some idea of the expected size of the hatch in the deck and the width of the ladder itself? The main factor I have to allow for is getting oars down from deck level through the hatch without obstruction, so the hatch might have to be longer fore and aft than if it were just to allow access for a crewman. [edit] And maybe I should be thinking about adding a cargo hatch as well . . .[/edit] Thanks, Steven
-
This is a lot earlier than I'd thought. I googled "liburnian" and found this, which includes a photo of the 6th/5th century BC Novilara tablet, bearing a likeness of the original from which the Maris Stella model must have come. Even more interesting than I'd originally supposed. Maris Stella come up with some fascinating and original model kits. A really enjoyable build to follow. Steven
- 23 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- liburnian novilara
- marisstella
- (and 1 more)
-
I've been twice already and didn't get to see the kadirga either time (sigh). But at that time I wouldn't have appreciated it anyway - I was interested in other things. And I don't think they'd let me climb up onto her. Steven
-
Again, too little available information, Carl. I can't think of any ship of that period and type in the archaeological record where the deck is preserved with the opening for the companionway intact. But as I mentioned, I think any sailing ship, even from the 18th century, is likely to have had pretty much the same arrangement and would work as a model for mine. Perhaps a chebec would be appropriate? Or perhaps a renaissance galley - but there's only one genuine one in existence as far as I'm aware, the Sultan's kadirga in Istanbul. Steven
-
Doing a test fitting - mainly to work out how long the yards are in relation to the hull to see where to put the supports for the yards when they aren't in use, but also to get an idea of how she'll look when they're rigged.These are just bits of wood - I've yet to make the yards themselves. It's a little known fact that the yards of Byzantine ships were fixed to the masts with large rubber bands 😁. On a more serious note, I will shortly need to locate the companionway which leads below decks, and I really have no idea how big to make it. Can anyone advise me of the usual size of the opening in the deck for a companionway, and the size and angle of the ladder leading belowdecks? I realise there are no available comparisons of similar ships, but I should think the size of opening and angle of the ladder wouldn't change that much over the centuries. Steven
-
A liburnian! Wonderful! Nice to see someone making one of these. I find ancient and mediaeval (oh, and renaissance!) ships more interesting than any others. Watching this with great interest. Steven
- 23 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- liburnian novilara
- marisstella
- (and 1 more)
-
Looking really good, Chris. We do get some good weather here in Ballarat. Sometimes as much as 10 minutes at a time😀! Steven
Our Emblem ®
