Louie da fly
-
Posts
7,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Louie da fly
-
Perhaps you could cut them off then paint them? Then if you have high wastage (by being flung in various directions etc) it wouldn't matter too much. Just paint the ones that turn out well. Oh, and at the risk of being thought annoying, here are some genuine Viking (and Frankish) shield patterns - http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/shield/shield.html Steven -
Well, of course the boat may not be in its proper place. This is a speculative kit, not a precisely accurate reproduction of a known vessel. A lot of guesswork involved, and I for one think the kit manufacturers got this bit wrong. Steven
- 137 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Golden Hinde
- Revell
- (and 2 more)
-
Beautiful ship - beautiful model of her. Just a quick point - it's possible to put more than one picture in a single post. You don't have to do a separate post for each picture. Very nice work. Steven
-
That's good news, and it looks like their current reconstruction is much more like the examples from contemporary pictures than their first version. But there's really not very much of her left. Here's a reconstruction model of the existing remains. Here it is compared with the proposed reconstruction: I'm assuming that what they'll display is the existing timbers, with some sort of framework showing the shape of the rest of the hull, as in the models above. And they're even talking about the possibility of building a full-sized reconstruction and sailing it on the Usk river. It would be nice if that could be done, but at the moment I'm not holding my breath . . . I see they're still going with the flat stern, which I'm not so sure about, though I'm aware they justify this by the shape of the aftermost frame. The ship is believed to have been built in 1449, and carracks of this period are always shown as round-sterned in contemporary pictures. The earliest representation of a flat-sterned carrack-style ship I'm aware of dates to 1511. Having said that, ignoring the stern for the moment, the proposed shape does look good. Steven
- 1 reply
-
- 11
-
-
Beautiful pics. I didn't know there was a kit for the Great Eastern, one of my favourite ships! Steven
- 21 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Great Eastern
- Entex
- (and 2 more)
-
Looking very good, mate. I wouldn't want to take on all that rope work. Steven
-
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Dreadful ghastly stuff. Remember visiting the UK and being offered a beer in a pub; as a proud Australian I said "Anything but Fosters . . ." Steven
-
Nup - it's all about how Bundy is as much an Aussie icon as the other two: http://www.postkiwi.com/2006/bundaberg-rum-bundy-bear/
-
Nice. I can see that the idea of having a separate mortice for each tenon is a little (i.e. VERY) impractical and that at this scale a single long slot does the job just as well. As usual you try out things that nobody else would dream of taking on. Even the pegs fixing the tenons in place! Steven
-
As Baker has pointed out in his Pelican build, when the ship left England she was still called the Pelican - she was renamed during the voyage. So in that respect, your model is more correct. On the other hand, I have a feeling that only ships that actually belonged to the monarch would have the right to display the royal coat of arms. My understanding is that though on a royally approved (and subsidised?) voyage, the ship was privately owned. But that's just me being extremely picky. You can actually send a private message to people you want to alert to your build. On the banner at the very top of the page there is a symbol of two intermingled "speech balloons" which allows you to do so. I'd recommend you also contact Baker, whose scratch Pelican build is very thoroughly researched. He's even put a pelican on it. You're quite correct, though; nobody knows exactly what the Golden Hinde looked like. It's all conjecture, or perhaps you could say educated guesswork. There's been quite a lot discovered since this kit was produced, but generally it's a pretty good representation of a "typical" Elizabethan galleon. I look forward to seeing your further progress. I think I'll pull up a chair, break out the popcorn and watch. Steven
- 137 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Golden Hinde
- Revell
- (and 2 more)
-
I've had a lot to do with oil lamps, made one or two out of pottery, seen any number of them in Byzantine museums. A bit of an unfair advantage . Steven
-
Very interesting model. That strange swelling at the bow is something I've never come across before. I think the thing is a ship-shaped oil lamp, and that is the oil reservoir. The inscription reads something like "holy/sacred/priest/temple of Athens" possibly "sacred to Athens"? Steven
-
That's starting to look very interesting, Dick. The cross-section looks considerably more stable in my (admittedly ill-informed) opinion. Have you read "Age of the Galley"? It's a collection of papers on galleys of various eras, including this one IIRC. The issue of protective screens appears in it. I think they suggested it was some kind of wooden lattice, but it's quite a while ago and the rotten local library went and sold the book without offering to sell it to me! Also Prof John Pryor's Age of the Dromon is worth checking out - it contains considerable calculations regarding oar length and angle, and offsets for oarsmen in different banks. He came to the conclusion that the oars of the upper bank should be longer than those for the lower bank. OTOH the builders of the Olympias trireme (IIRC) had them the same length because of issues about pendulums of different lengths having different periods of "swing", so they wouldn't be able to keep in time with each other. Of course that meant the upper bank oarsmen, the thranites, had their oars at a much steeper angle than the bottom bank, the thalamians. Just a few things that might bear thinking about at this early design stage. Steven
-
There was another liburnian build log but it seems to be a very different ship, but then there's very little known about what they were like, so there's a fair bi of freedom available in interpreting it. Steven
-
With the level of research and care Dick puts into everything he does, I'm looking forward to seeing the result. Steven
-
Yes, the galleys recovered from the Yenikapi excavations are incredibly lightly built - though they were about 30 metres (90 feet) long, their keels are made of timbers only 150mmx150mm (6”x6”), the frames 50-60mm (2-2.5") square and 160-200mm (6"-8") apart, and the planks are only 20-30mm (3/4”-1.2”) thick. However, they are reinforced longitudinally with stringers and wales. And yes, storms sank many fleets, not only in ancient but also mediaeval times, as recorded in Byzantine documents. Steven
-
That's for sure. I've tried to get my head around it several times, with little success. Steven
-
Granted, but rough seas would surely be likely to cause an unstable vessel to turn turtle more easily by putting the CofG and the CofF further out of alignment. Steven
-
OK. I think this thread is officially derailed . . . If you want to see some real "ouch!" pics, the martyrdom of Isaiah is a real gold mine. On second thought, you really don't want to see them . . . this is one of the least horrific ones.
-
I don't really feel qualified to make any suggestions on this - I know too little about this kind of ship, despite being very interested in ships ancient and mediaeval. From what I've seen in your log so far, you're not only following the instructions well, but your ship looks good. Your work is neat and precise, and the ropework in particular raises it above the run of the mill model.
- 28 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Nave Egizia
- Amati
- (and 1 more)
-
Don't tempt me . . .
-
Hmm, interesting question. I can see what you're getting at, but I think the skipper would try to avoid submerging the lower oarports at all - it's impossible to keep the water out, even with leather "grommets" to seal the oarports. Any tendency to heel, and I think he'd head to shore as fast as he could. My first thought was that manning the upper benches when the ship was heeling would move the centre of gravity upwards, making the ship even more unstable. But if they're not on their benches, where would those upper oarsmen be? There's probably not room for them anywhere else. So I think that point is moot. BTW, I studied (Ancient) Greek for a year, so if i can be of help with translation, please feel free to ask. Steven
-
Bob, you're right that nothing survived of the Sutton Hoo ship's hull except the impression made in the sand. There are plenty of photos showing the excavation which ake this very obvious, apart from books which describe the state of the ship at the time and the procedure used to excavate it. I'm not qualified to comment on the need or otherwise for caulking on a clinker-built ship, but yes, as far as I know (given the minimal information available) the planks for ships of this time and region were split rather than sawn. The only saws recovered from Viking sites are fairly small, and the shipbuilding panels in the Bayeux Tapestry don't show saws in use, only axes of various types, and drills. There is a wonderful manuscript illumination from France in about 1170 of a bow-saw being used to cut the prophet Isaiah in half, which is the earliest illustration I know of showing one in use. But that's a different region, and over 500 years later (a little gruesome, but it's art, so that makes it ok. You ought to see some of Durer's pictures of mass martyrdoms - talk about graphic). Steven
Our Emblem ®
