Louie da fly

Damn - I thought it was to do with your surname! Steven

And more . . . Bonaventure stay being replaced. The collar on the mizzen mast under way. Note the small loop to take the lower section of the stay. The stay with its deadeyes glued to the bonaventure mast just below the top, hanging free till the glue dries - I'll do the same as I did with the mizzen stay.. And the mainbrace and main sheet loosely in place. Steven

Yes, these main courses were enormous, at least on carrarcks, and the main mast was equally enormous - had to be to deal with the forces involved. Here's an example from a Venetian portoloan of 1482 by Grazioso Benincasa. Steven

From the wreck of the Geonoan carrack La Lomellina (sunk 1513, probably built 1503), the estimated proportions were Length of keel 33.38 metres, width at master frame 14 metres, overall length 46.45 metres. IIRC they recovered the whole length of the keel and over half of the ship amidships, (she sank on her side, like the Mary Rose) so these estimates should be pretty reliable. That gives the ratios length of keel to width = 2.38 overall length to width = 3.32 You could also check out the Newport ship, though much less of the upper hull has been preserved because she sank upright, so you may not be able to determine the full width of the ship. Steven

Beautiful work as usual, Dick. She's really starting to take shape. Steven

I realised I'd forgotten to thank everybody for the supportive and encouraging comments. So, thanks everyone, for those and for the likes. Very much appreciated. Steven

Working on the mainsail braces. I already had three eyebolts I'd made earlier. I needed two for the braces and another two for the sheets. So just one more to make. Eyebolts in place, starboard and port sides. I drilled holes in the bulwarks for the standing and free ends, glued the free end through one hole and the eyebolt through the other. I came up against problems caused by an earlier decision I'd made. When I put on the lower stays for the mizzen and bonaventure masts, each was to be tensioned with a pair of deadeyes. I thought at the time I was being clever by leaving them a bit loose (to allow for things moving), but when it came to tightening them they wouldn't tighten. In each case I couldn't get the lanyards to move through the holes in the deadeyes, so I ended up with loose loops of lanyard. Mizzen stay Bonaventure stay To fix the mizzen stay I had to cut the lanyards and completely remove the lower end of the stay and its deadeye. Turns out even when the deadeye was available I couldn't get the lanyard out of it - it was stuck fast - perhaps glued into position. Having a good look at the deadeye I realised why. It was one of my earlier attempts, made of pear wood. It had split (as most of them did) and I'd glued it back together. The lanyards passing through the holes got stuck by contact with the (supposedly dried) glue, so of course I couldn't tighten them. Here is the deadeye (both sides) after I'd re-drilled the holes. It was obviously beyond redemption. However, I was fortunate enough to have made quite a few second generation deadeyes out of card, which I'd never used. I grabbed one of these, made a new lower end for the stay and added the lanyards, this time tightening them to the length I wanted. Because cotton thread is springy, I made them straight by soaking them with a weak solution of PVA (white) glue and putting the whole assembly under tension. I hadn't been all that thrilled with the lower end of the stay anyway - I'd had it go around the mast on an angle, which I wasn't sure was correct (I'm still not sure). But this time I put a "collar" on the mast, merged with one of the wooldings, but with a tiny loop in it, just big enough for the end of the stay to pass through. Then I pulled the free end off to one side and temporarily clamped the end to the shrouds to make the whole assembly tight, and glued the halyard into place in its loop on the collar. When the glue was dry I ran the free end around the mast over the top of the woolding (to make it more secure), glued it in place and trimmed it to length. The next project was another repair, also of a lanyard, but this one had come adrift. It was on the halyard for the mainsail. I think I'd trimmed it to length and the glue must have come unstuck so the end of the lanyard came back out of the hole in the knight. You can see it in the photo below - with the red circle around it. A much harder proposition. I agonised over how I was going to fix it. I didn't have enough free end to thread it back through the hole, and it probably wouldn't have gone through anyway. Add to that the springy nature of the cotton thread, it really didn't want to co-operate at all. I thought of several possible solutions, none of which I was happy with - and they probably wouldn't have worked anyway. Finally I did something simple - it's cheating but it worked well enough for me to be happy with it. I soaked the free end of the lanyard with water so it wasn't springy any more, then clamped the bottom down with a tiny peg so it was running down the face of the knight, just where it would have been if it was doing its duty properly. (Keep in mind that I was having to put my hand in this tiny space past a multitude of ropes, none of which I wanted to disturb). I put glue on the lanyard to fix it to the face of the knight, then washed most of it off with a wet watercolour paintbrush. I haven't yet sorted out the bonaventure stay. That has to wait till next time. In the meantime, here she is in her current state. Steven

From what I can make out, you and Snug Harbor Johnny are making pretty much the same point, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Steven

Lots of food for thought here. Thanks everybody for your input. As I mentioned above, I am no sort of expert on rigging - in fact it generally makes my brain hurt - so now I'll have to sit and think about it. Fortunately it's not something that vitally affects any aspect f a model in progress - it was mainly curiosity, wondering what it could possibly be for when I couldn't see a reason for doing it that way. I certainly understand rigging far better having spent some months applying Anderson's The Rigging of Ships in the Days of the Spritsail Topmast to my Great Harry, but I'm still just working through it, trying to get my head around it all. Yes, I agree. I've also seen them called fiddle blocks and Anderson calls them sister blocks - as far as I can see, all the same thing - a block with two sheaves, one above the other instead of side by side. Your explanation makes sense, particularly as I've seen a similar function carried out by a fiddle block on the martnets of the Great Harry. Anyway, thanks again, everybody. I appreciate your help. Steven

Yes, I agree that artists probably exaggerate the angle of the forecastle in many depictions. But the more reliable ones (Carpaccio, Master WA, Bonfigli and others) show it as quite reasonable. I don't have any doubt that the arrangement would work to raise and lower the yard if I'm correct in thinking the falls/downhauls are among the vertical ropes coming down next to the mast - I just can't figure out why they'd have the lower sheave. It doesn't seem necessary. Steven

OTOH, this detail from the Tavola Strozzi of 1465 shows lifts which seem to have a similar arrangement (if that's a rope going through a lower sheave - I can definitely see two lines there).

Here's a picture from 1457. It's from "Hesperis" - a fantastical biography of the Italian nobleman Sigismond Malatesta. The mainyard has been lowered. I had a look at the lifts; this is one of the few contemporary pictures that shows them in any detail. At first glance it looks very good. The lift goes from the outer end of the yard to a double-sheaved block (sister block) hanging from the masthead, and back down to the yardarm, plus the upper sheave has a rope passing from the masthead and back up again. But though I'm no rigging expert (that's for sure!) it seems to me that the artist has got it wrong - surely it can't work like that. The rope passing through the lower sheave doesn't seem to do anything - it's got no "fall" - nothing to pull on to adjust it. And the same applies to the rope going through the upper sheave - where are the "falls"? I suppose they might be among those vertical ropes coming down from the masthead. But why have lower sheave in the sister block, with two fixing points on the yardarm? To reduce the forces involved, or possibly even them out? I dunno. Any advice or explanation would be greatly appreciated. Steven

I got sneaky - put all the rigging on the mizzen lateen sail and yard before putting it in place. It took a lot of preparatory reading and working out what to put where, but it was worth it. Martnets. I hadn't realised I was going to have to do more of these rotten things, but I'm actually starting to get pretty good at it. Oh, and note to Druxey - it is easier to have fore and aft martnets right from the start after all - you just have to have your head around the process. Here are the martnets for the two sides of the sail. Brails (only one side shown, but they're on both sides of the sail) Two-sheaved block for the downhauls of the martnets. The tackle for the lifts under way. (I later found out I'd misread Anderson and added an extra unnecessary rope to this assembly and had to take it off again). And the lateen in place, with the lift assembly put together. I think that looks pretty cool . . . I don't want to put the curse on it, but I'm finally starting to get the idea that the end of the project is coming into (distant) sight. Four more lateen sails, the spritsail and its rigging, flags and a bit of tidy up. Still plenty to do, but it's the first time I've felt that I'm actually going to complete this thing! Steven Steven

Can I suggest you ask a moderator to shift this thread from where it is to "Build Logs for Scratch Projects - Up to and Including 1500 AD"? Basically what you're doing at the moment seems more appropriate to an actual build log than to "discussions for ships plans and project research" - it's more to do with a specific model (your own) than to the more general field that this section usually deals with. And it means all this preliminary research and development information will be available for viewing when you actually begin to make sawdust, rather than being in a thread that then needs to be looked for separately. Best wishes, Steven

Yes, very likely. This is an interesting vessel, with interesting differences from carracks of other nations. Oh, and I had another thought regarding painting a coat of arms on the back of the sail as well as the front - coats of arms usually aren't symmetrical - the one above isn't - so if you "trace through" the sail you get a mirror image of the coat of arms, and it's no longer the Earl of Warwick's. By the way, his daughter was the wife of Richard Neville, who himself became Earl of Warwick, and is known as "Warwick the Kingmaker", due to his influence during the Wars of the Roses. Neville was also father-in-law of Richard III and also of Richard's brother George, Duke of Clarence who, according to the source of all historical wisdom 1066 and All That, "finding that his name was Clarence, had himself drowned in a spot of Malmsey wine." Steven

Agreed, but I doubt very much that these sails were made that way. I'd be very surprised if the patterns weren't just painted on. I did consider painting both sides of all the sails when I first started out, but decided (a) it was too much trouble and (b) back in the day they almost certainly only painted the front of the sail - the part that would be most visible. Issues of time and money - this was, after all, just an exercise in impressing the public with one's wealth and status - no need to go overboard on expense for little extra result. I just checked one of the more famous examples of this activity - the so-called Beauchamp Pageant - an illustrated record of the life of the Earl of Warwick, from the late 15th century. His personal ship had a mainsail painted with his coat of arms, and it's shown several times in the pictures. However, every time it's shown the mainsail is seen from the front (even though the ship is seen from the stern), and I still think that would be the only side that was painted. Sorry about the quality of the pic, by the way. That's how it is in the original document. I believe it was drawn out in the contemporary equivalent of pencil (possibly lead or silver-tipped stylus) with the intention of coming back and colouring it, but it never got done. Cheap acrylic paints in tubes from the local art supplies shop, and a fine-tipped watercolour brush. They've served me well over the years. By the way, thanks everybody for the likes and supportive comments. Steven

And here they are, all done. Took about a day in all. I started with the smallest sails first, to get myself into the habit. And then the lower bonaventure sail; here it is with the pattern raced from the other side in pencil and partly painted. And here they all are, with the pattern painted on the correct side. Steven

I second that. Wonderful man - I have fond memories of the Clarke and Dawe interviews, and of course "The Games" (not to forget Fred Dagg) Regarding design information, Brad Loewen has written a worthwhile number of papers on the design parameters of 15th and 16th century ships, particularly Basque ones (the Basques seem to have been at the cutting edge of ship design in this period). One appears at https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/MCR/article/view/17791/22170 and you should be able to find other papers of his at academia.edu - otherwise I have them as PDFs and could email them to you. They relate particularly to the way of determining the change of frame shape between the master frame and the frames fore and aft of it, and thus the shape of the hull. I'd also like to refer you to my thread on archaeological finds of carracks at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10190-archaeological-studies-on-carrack-wrecks/#comment-965239 Regarding tools, your friend's list does sound more like a carpenter's list than a ship modeller's one, but essentially he's pretty much on the money. I get by with a surprisingly small number of tools. Scalpel with No. 11 blades is one of my most useful, you can't have too many clamps, or too many types of them. A coping saw for cutting out frames - though I find I have great trouble cutting at right angles to the timber so I've finally invested in a scroll saw. Sandpaper of various grades, files (especially tiny ones). A drill (drill press for preference, but I've got by for years with a hand-held electric drill). And something to bend planks - in the real world they use steam, but from my own experience and advice from MSW members, it's not so much the water as the heat that does the work - apparently it softens the wood fibres and allows them to stretch. I use a cheap soldering iron held in a small vise and can get (if the wood is thin enough) a circle 32mm in diameter. You need to avail yourself of a baseboard to support the model as you work on it and to make sure everything is at right angles (particularly between your keel and your frames - otherwise your ship will come out all twisted). These jigs can be bought but you can make your own - there are several build logs on MSW that show home-made jigs (some people use Lego blocks to ensure everything is square). Kikatinalong's jig at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/21745-caracca-atlantica-by-kikatinalong-mamoli-scale-154/#comment-652159 is an example of the kind of thing - he made a very nice job of what was originally a pretty crappy (and very historically inaccurate) kit. Unfortunately he moved to another State and never finished the model. I hope that helps. Steven

The big difference in my experience is that with a plastic model the hull is already shaped - you just have to glue the two halves together. With wood you have to build it up, making the hull shape by planking over the frames. There's quite a number of extra skills needed, but fortunately there are tutorials on MSW on how to do your planking - see There's also the shaping of masts, spars, making your shrouds and ratlines from thread rather than them being ready-made, quite a few other issues. It's a bigger game, but having made both plastic and wooden models, I find wood far more satisfying. Oh, and wood is far more forgiving if you make a mistake. Steven

Too late for that, I'm afraid. I'm committed to having the ship seen from the starboard side - the sign on the stand is on that side, all the square sails are aligned to be seen from the right - I'm pretty much stuck. Well, I've figured out I can put each lateen up against the window and trace the patterns onto the other side of the sail, and then paint over the tracing. Not as much work as I'd feared. Steven

Well, I have to agree. This is how she was when I started the restoration. The lower starboard shrouds for the foremast did exist but were not on the ship, and the larboard main shrouds were only attached loosely, and without ratlines. Not to mention the lack of a lower hull, among other things. Latest progress: I've now fixed the railing above the companionway which I broke trying to insert the mizzen knight (also in the picture, along with its halyard). The railing looks a little crooked, but I'm pretty sure that's just the photo. And here's the bonaventure knight with halyard. Working on the "parrel truss" (really just made out of cotton). Starboard martnets complete; now both front and back of the sail are done on this side. The rear martnets for the larboard side, loosely fitted. And the martnets for the front of the sail, loosely fitted. Tightening up the rear martnets and gluing Loose ends trimmed off. And now it's time for the mizzen parrel truck to come into its own: All ready to put in place and hoist the sail. At which point I realise I've painted the lateen sail's "cloth of gold" decoration on the WRONG SIDE. It will be facing away from the viewer when the ship's on display. And that applies to ALL the lateens - five of them! Looks like I'll have to get the paints out again . . . Time for a cup of tea, a Bex* and a nice lie down . . . Steven * Aussie reference. It was a TV slogan for a headeache powder back in the day.

G'day, Glen, from sunny Ballarat, and welcome to MSW. Where in Sydney do you hail from? (I lived there for many years). Make sure you start a build log for your model - it's a great way to get help and advice from the experienced members of MSW (and from others who've been up against the same problems you're bound yo face at some point as you make your merry way through the wonderful world that is ship modelling. If it's a kit, there are instructions at the top of the "Kits" section of the forum here - And have fun with it. That's what it's all about. Steven

I wasn't satisfied with the larboard martnets so I started to try fixing them up. Bad mistake. I ended up stuffing them up and having to pull them off and re-do them completely. Sigh. You live and learn, and sometimes you just live without learning . . . Larboard martnets from in front. You can see the little dabs of white glue at the joins. All seemingly going well. Little did I know . . .* One thing, though. My bright idea of continuing the after martnets through the edge of the sail and using the same cotton to do the aft and fore martnets (I thought it would save work) was a bad idea. It just made everything more complicated and harder to adjust. So I've gone back to basics and just doing the after martnets as one set, and then I'll do the fore ones separately. Once the martnets are all done, I'll be free to do the braces. In the meantime I've added the halyards and tyes to the mizzen and bonaventure mizzen masts. I had to fake it - there's no way I could drill a hole through those masts for a sheave, even a fake one, without breaking the masts - they're far too thin. So I looped the cotton around the mast and glued it in place where the sheave would otherwise have been. Yes, it's not correct, but only I will know (and you of course). Here you can see the knights and blocks for the halyards, each in front of its appropriate mast. Unfortunately in fitting the mizzen knight I broke the railing for the stairs down from the upper deck. So now I have to fix that! And here she is in a longer view. Starting to look pretty good. Steven * Or as Neddy Seagoon said in "Tales of Old Dartmoor" "Little do they know of the little that I know of the little that they know. If I knew a little of the little that they know, I'd know a little. I'll have to keep my little ears open, you know!"

Vasco da Gama - first round the Cape of Good hope to India in 1497-1499. So yes, these spices came the traditional way - over land and through several middle men. Gribshunden was a royal carrack, as far as they've been able to make out. She was the king's flagship. But nomenclature varies - as far as I'm aware, what we call a carrack was referred to in Scandinavia as a Kravell (from caravel). Here's her dragon (griffin-hound, actually) figurehead being retrieved from the Baltic: Steven

Craig, Woodrat and I had a discussion on these and he convinced me that despite a learned article discussing these "through-hull" side rudders, they really aren't a feasible possibility, but more likely to be artist error. That they may be sweeps is an interesting idea, but given their position, I'm pretty sure they're rudders. Dick, I checked with the guy who put the post up, and yes, the vessel is Portuguese. But I did a google image search for "Portuguese fishing boats" and it looks like it's not typical. Steven PS: Craig, where in Melbourne are you? Nice to have another Victorian resident here on the forum.