Jump to content

Louie da fly

Members
  • Posts

    7,576
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Louie da fly

  1. I wish I knew. Even if I could justify taking the time off from renovating to make a start (which I can't), it's impossible because we currently live in a building site - even the rooms which have been finished are filled with stuff (disassembled cupboards, boxes of floor tiles, ceiling lights etc, homeless furniture) to go into the incomplete rooms when they're finished. There's nowhere to make a model ship even if I could spare the time right now. 

     

    Fortunately, after over two years, we are finally approaching the end - plasterboard's up and due to have the joins gooped up in the next week, then painting, fitting architraves etc, second fix on plumbing and electricals etc etc etc. But it's going to be months yet . . .

     

    On the positive side, I've nearly completed drawing the plans for the dromon. I was thinking maybe I should start a build log, even if I can't do any building yet.

     

    Steven

  2. Ben,

     

    I'm very impressed with your model, and particularly impressed with the most recent video of the oars in use.

     

    But it seems to me that the galley is backwatering(!) I hope I've got it wrong, but it seems to me that the oars go toward the stern, dip into the water, and then push towards the bow, which would push the galley sternwards.

     

    Steven  

  3. I was barefoot throughout my childhood in the 1950's in a suburb of Perth, the capital city of Western Australia. I only started wearing shoes on a regular basis when I went to high school. Before that it was Tuesday evenings (I was in the cub scouts) and on occasional trips to Perth.

     

    I found shoes constricting, and they're bad for the development of a child's feet. I had very tough soles to my feet, and I could walk on stony ground and some (not all) thorns without being bothered. The only major problem was stubbed toes - they could be painful and bloody, but they healed up pretty fast. If any kid had worn shoes at my primary school they would have been laughed out of the place.

     

    Nowadays I wear shoes all the time, and my feet are as tender as anyone else's, but if I go somewhere where I need a good grip (like walking on the roof of the house) I prefer to go barefoot. 

     

    After all, barefoot is the natural way to go - our ancestors were barefoot for a million years before shoes were invented. They seem to have done all right.

     

    This doesn't answer the question of whether all sailors were bareoot on shipboard, but from my own experience there's no reason they couldn't have..

  4. Woodrat, I agree with your analysis - I'm sure there were not only national variations but individual variations between shipbuilders to have a broad range of features and shapes in the same basic ship type. Though the following links relate to Iberian and English ships, you might find them of interest -

     

    Hull design and construction, and differences between English and Iberian framing practices - http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17791/22170

     

    Portuguese vs Spanish Shipbuilding Practices: https://www.abc.se/~m10354/bld/portspan.htm

     

    Hull characteristics of 16th century Spanish and Portuguese ships: http://www.patrimoniocultural.pt/media/uploads/trabalhosdearqueologia/18/19.pdf

     

    There's also the (possibly Basque) Cavalaire wreck of 1479:

     

    The Mediaeval Shipwreck at Cavalaire:  http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/archeosom/en/caval-s.htm

     

    Oak growing, Hull design and Framing Style: The Cavalaire-sur-Mer Wreck c.1479 https://www.academia.edu/6921643/Oak_growing_hull_design_and_framing_style._The_Cavalaire-sur-Mer_wreck_c._1479

     

    Archaeological Report (in French) on the Cavalaire Wreck: http://medieval-europe-paris-2007.univ-paris1.fr/M.Delhaye%20(ss%20ill.).pdf . - my French isn't good enough to translate it in full, but I've had Google translate this and now I'm working on turning it into proper English.

     

     

    and the Genoese Lomellina of 1516:

     

    http://www.culture.gouv.fr/fr/archeosm/archeosom/en/lomel-s.htm

     

    http://archeonavale.org/lomellina/an/l_6a.html

     

    I was fortunate enough to go aboard the 'Matthew' replica in Bristol when I was in the UK in 2009. Unfortunately my camera's memory card filled up just before I saw her (we were actually there to see Brunel's Great Britain), so I don't have any photos of my own, but there are some good ones at http://bidefordbuzz.org.uk/2012/03/matthew-calls-at-bideford-6th-march-2/ and the photo at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Matthew-BristolHarbour-Aug2004.jpg shows the lines of her bow, which may not be as fine as those of your own carrack, but are considerably less tubby than some of the contemporary pictures.

     

    Steven

  5. Very nice. Really starting to get that typical carrack "look".

     

    One thing that interests me, and that in the beginning I had trouble accepting, is that this carrack has such fine lines. Most modern models and representations I have seen of carracks are very tubby compared with yours, but I believe you have the right of it.

     

    I think artists of the time had great difficulty portraying the bows correctly and often showed them much more rounded than they really were - not because that's how the ship was, but that they just couldn't work out how to portray the shape of a ship's bow seen from in front. The better artists like Carpaccio managed it, but others - the Beauchamp Pageant artist, for example, and even Master WA - just couldn't get it right.

     

    It makes sense to me that a carrack would be designed to swim as well as possible, and I believe archaeological finds back this up. The underwater lines of the Iberian "Newport" ship unearthed in Wales even seem to have been concave at the bow.

     

    Keep up the good work. She's looking brilliant.

     

    Steven

  6. You're doing amazing work, Alan. I only have AutoCAD LT, and I envy you the ability to work in 3D to work out problems before they arise.

     

    (On the other hand, I'm a bit of a dinosaur - I learnt my trade on a drawing board with pencil and ink-bow pens, so I'd probably feel uncomfortable with 3D - I tried it and though it was interesting and obviously had great potential, I felt happier with the old standard.)

     

    I'm really looking forward to seeing you putting this one into physical form.

     

    Steven

  7. Amazing stuff, Sharpie. That's a really impressive balista.

     

    It's amazing the forces involved in such weapons, even at this small scale. I think a blackened metal spindle for your string should be fine - strong enough to do the job and thin enough to look right. At that scale know one will ever know the difference.

     

    If you have any trouble, you might try contacting the Grey Company's Tossers, who have a long history of making trebuchets, onagers and springalds (though I don't think I've seen a ballista on their page). However, I haven't been in touch with them for years, so they may not be at it any more.

     

    They even have miniature table top trebuchets colloquially known as cheesechuckers - see the section called "Models and Prototypes".  

     

     

    Steven

  8. I just came across another carrack picture. This is from Botticelli's 1485 painting of the Judgment of Paris, and shows a carrack being careened - she's leaning over with her deck toward the viewer, so you get a view that is almost directly from above - the ships overall shap is very clear, and you can see the deck fittings. I believe Botticelli to be one of the more trustworthy artists, so I'd be willing to take his painting as being pretty much spot-on.

     

    But what's that wooden thing in the foreground? And how do you get to the poop deck and the forecastle?

    post-1425-0-81360900-1418783943_thumb.jpg

×
×
  • Create New...