Louie da fly

That's rather like the fact that if the household contains the "good scissors" it must also contain the evil scissors . . . Steven

That's mediaeval, not ancient!

I've moved and shortened the aftercastle (poop?) and also narrowed it. So this is how it looks now (including a view from above). Though it looks like the aftercastle is now flush with the sides of the ship that's not really true, as the hull narrows there. I'm trying to balance having enough room for the side rudders with not making the castle too wide for good seakeeping. I'd debated with myself whether to taper the aftercastle so it narrowed as it went aft - a trapezium rather than a rectangle - but looking at other mediaeval Mediterranean ships where you can see it in 3 dimensions (though unfortunately most are a couple of centuries later), they almost all seem to be rectangular (where they're not semi-circular or some other weird shape). And I've decided not to include the "thunderboxes" because I can't see them shown on any contemporary picture where you'd expect to them to be. Not to say they may not have existed, but I'd want to find more corroboration before I added something which is otherwise just speculative. Steven

That's a thought, Roger. It hadn't occurred to me and may well be the answer. If so, it (or they) wouldn't have been very wide and probably wouldn't have affected the vessel's trim all that much, and there might still be room for them to be fitted in even with a reduced overhang of the aftercastle. Steven

It's good that they've found it, but I wish they wouldn't use the word "ancient" - I got quite excited there for a moment and it turns out to be only a few hundred years old. Steven

After a lot of thought I've decided I like the shape of mosaic 'B' the best. But that aftercastle just isn't quite right. I decided to get rid of the strange downward extension aft - as far as I can see that would make it very unseaworthy. But after removing it, it became obvious that the aftercastle itself extends too far aft past the end of the hull; it would unbalance the ship and make her wallow in the waves. So, what to do? Well, with the Winchelsea nef, there were any number of variations shown in the town seals, which could each be correct for the individual ship shown, but if I wanted to do the Winchelsea ship I should duplicate it as shown on the seal to the best of my ability. But in the case of the San Marco ship, there were five mosaics, all somewhat different, but all supposedly of the exact same ship. I felt that in this case I was justified in merging the representations, or at least mixing and matching. To me it seemed that the stern overhang of the aftercastles of Mosaics A, C and E (see post # 20 above) was more believable. However, the one on mosaic E comes down below the gunwale, which is very rarely shown in other fairly contemporary ship pictures. I didn't want to do multiple arches (of which more later), so that took out A and C. What I settled on was keeping B's aftercastle but reducing the overhang, possibly sliding it little forward (to incorporate the handles of the side rudders) and shortening it overall. Here's my side view (you can see how much overhang the aftercastle has - I will be reducing this) Though there are many representations of aftercastles with solid walls I believe in this case they are made lattice-fashion rather than solid, as shown in the pictures below. With an open poop deck like this, I don't think they were too concerned about protection from the weather. Or it might even have solid side walls but be open at the back, as this one seems to be. Earlier in life I was a mediaeval re-enactor and as part of my activity I investigated the Weird and Wacky Weapons of the PBI* and in fact wrote an article about them (http://www.oocities.org/egfrothos/ and follow the "Arms and Armour" link). Most art in the middle ages was religious, and a fruitful source for the weapons of the common soldier is the many portrayals of the Betrayal of Christ, such as the one below in a 12th century manuscript in the Uffizi gallery in Florence - pretty much contemporary with the mosaics of the ship. Regarding the strange phenomenon of pointy things sticking out the back of the aftercastle, I believe these are pole-arms laid to rest. It's possible that the polearms are resting on the deck, but I think they would get in the way and it's more likely they are in a vertical rack against the side of the aftercastle (or probably both sides). I've used the Libro di Navigar and Mezza Lune techniques as outlined in Woodrat's Round Ship build log and come up with this - here's the cross-section at the master frame I'm not sure if I'll be including through-beams. They're not shown in the mosaic, but that might just be an oversight by the mosaicist. And front and rear views (side rudders not included on the rear view at the moment, and I might be narrowing the aftercastle somewhat. As the ship gets narrower towards the stern I don't think it needs to be this wide to allow enough room for the side-rudders). I think the artist has shown the stempost a bit exaggerated - here's how it looks with the sternpost and keel - it does look too big to me. Compared to the curved stemposts in these 12th century ships from the Leaning tower of Pisa and in the fifth picture from the top in this post. That's the current state of play. All comments and suggestions welcome. Steven * PBI - Poor Bloody Infantry - an Australian term from World War II

Makes sense. Thanks. Steven

Hi Amphibette, and welcome to MSW from sunny Ballarat. I just googled the Scientific model of Santa Maria. Am I right in thinking the basic hull is already made as a solid piece? If so, this will enable you to avoid a lot of the difficulties associated with building a hull from planks. However, have a close look at the instructions - sometimes in the simpler kits they are VERY basic. And sometimes things that are supposed to fit - don't. However, wood is a very forgiving medium, and if you've already built model aircraft you have quite a few of the skills you'll need for ship modelling. I'd also recommend you start a build log. For one thing if you hit trouble you'll have a lot of people available - and very willing - to help. It can be a bit intimidating seeing all those amazing models out there. Just remember that even the demi-gods of ship modelling were newbies once. Don't be too afraid of making mistakes - you will make them. Obviously, do your best to avoid them, and when they do happen, fix them if you can. But it's a learning process. Your second model will be better than your first, and your third will be better still. Just keep at it, and don't forget to have fun (and try to avoid throwing the model at the wall if you get frustrated ) Looking forward to seeing your log. Steven

That looks very good, Dick. Beautiful work. I was wondering, does the shaft of the rudder swing all that way down as the rudder swings up? It looks like it would foul the tiller against the side of the ship. Steven

Yes, I'd been thinking about that after seeing what you'd done with your round ship. Steven

That's fantastic, mate. I'll be waiting with bated breath Steven

As I mentioned before, there are five representations of the same ship on the walls of San Marco, in a sort of cartoon strip telling the story of Saint Mark's body being rescued from destruction and smuggled away to its current home in Venice. The five depictions of the ship are very similar, but each one is slightly different from the others. To get a better handle on just what these differences are, and to get a "feel" for the ship itself, I took a leaf out of Björn Landström's book, by drawing them myself. But as we are now blessed with digital technology he had no access to in the 1960s, I was able to import the five mosaics into AutoCad and trace each one. Here they are: Note that there are gaps in the tracings. These are where there are human figures obscuring the lines of the ship. All the ships have three masts, evidently lateen rigged, with what appear to be lanterns (or tops?) at the masthead. In the two pictures where the sails are spread they are decorated - onewith a red cross, the other with two quatrefoils (four-leafed flowers). All are without a forecastle but wherever it's visible, the stempost curls backward. All have a "sterncastle", but each one is different. All have some sort of "fretwork", but in some it's square, in others arched. In B and D (and perhaps in A) there is a strange downward extension at the aft end. I have no idea what it is. All are shown with (usually two) side-rudders in the usual Mediterranean tradition, but the rudders are different shapes. E shows some sort of tackle for controlling the rudders, and has the larboard rudder swivelled upwards. B and D show only a single rudder, but I believe it was simply omitted from the mosaic, not that it represents the ship having a single rudder. A, B and D show the rudder shaft going into the hull through a circular hole. This is mentioned in what is pretty much the definitive study of rudder evolution The Development of the Rudder A.D. 100-1600 - A Technological Tale by Lawrence V. Mott, but after discussion with Woodrat I've come to agree with him that this is not in fact a practical way of hanging a rudder and must be a result of artist's error. Probably the thing that finally convinced me was looking at the Cocharelli Codex again and discovering that though ships are shown with this feature in a side view, in a stern view it is evident that they are supported outside the hull, from the "sterncastle". B, D and E have what might be described as cleats sticking up above the gunwales, and in the mosaics they have loops of rope belayed to them (see the second photo in my first post above, though the loops are a bit hard to see). Whereas A has a sort of "battlemented" side. Two mosaics (C and E) show "wings" at the stern, a common feature of Mediterranean ships of this period. I've used the Mezza Lune technique to work out the shape of the hull (thanks, Woodrat!). These calculations relate only to the floors - that is once the stempost and sternpost curve up from the keel it no longer applies, and you have to work out how to curve the hull inwards from there to the bow and stern. You can see on the plan view the lines that show the extent of the floors. and the last pic shows how the frames line up with the hull in B. Now I have to reconcile these five pictures and choose which features I'm going to go with - or perhaps choose a single mosaic and just go with that one. Steven

Brilliant as always, Greg. I'd like to sit at your feet as you weather your models - amazing! Steven

Oh, yes. I'm a big Pratchett fan, too. Have you seen the short movie of his short story "Troll Bridge", starring Cohen the Barbarian, made here in Oz?

Making very good progress, Norseman. Most people seem to have trouble with the planks - not sure if it's a fault in the kit or just the way it goes with such a complex shape. I think you're right to try making your own rudder fittings. Plywood really isn't suitable for something like that. Steven

I'm glad you're getting it sorted out, Rudybob (having had enough problems myself with the same thing). I think Gregory's most recent post explains the issue very clearly. Steven

Not on this day, but I couldn't find any other section to put it in, and I think it's worth seeing.

I totally agree. Not only henry, but over the years I have had so much generous unselfish help from many MSW members which has been invaluable to me. This is a pretty special forum. Steven

Thanks everybody for the suggestions. Fortunately it looks like @henrythestaffy is coming to the rescue by 3D printing a whole bunch of them for me. My heartfelt thanks, mate. And this is the reason I'm having so much trouble making the deadeyes out of natural materials: That deadeye is 2mm on each side. I haven't been able to make any myself that are smaller than 3mm. And keeping in mind that those three holes have to be big enough for cotton thread to fit through . . . Steven

Just to answer a question several of you have asked, the grain orientation is up and down or side to side (depending on which way up the deadeye is), not front-to-back. I think that would be an even worse invitation for the wood to split. Steven

Hi Keith, I tried that. Really not as satisfactory. Steven

Thanks everybody for the reactions, and suggestions on how to fix it. Baker and Druxey, I really think that wood isn't capable of this kind of job - I don't have any boxwood so I don't know its grain would be fine enough, but I think it would be the only wood suitable - and maybe even that wouldn't work. I've tried pear wood and it splits as well. I've tried card impregnated with white glue and it works better, but still not really all that wonderful. Don't worry, I'm not going to do anything drastic until I have a better solution, but I really think the current deadeyes have to go. Liteflight, I've never heard of Paxolin. Where do you get it in Oz? I don't think the birch would work any better than what I'm using, but I have considered the hot needle method - just a matter of practicality; over 100 deadeyes each with 3 holes, without burning my fingers . . . Henrythestaffy, I'm sending you a PM. Thanks again, everyone. Steven

That's coming together very nicely. Steven

Yes, it's a fair bit of work and needs quite a bit of thought. I certainly don't regard myself as an expert (and I still make a lot of mistakes). But it does make a nicer looking model in the long run. And of course, experience is a great teacher. Steven

Some good news and bad news. First the good news; I've finished adding the ratlines on the larboard main shrouds. In progress: All ratlines in place but before trimming After trimming Now the bad news - the main starboard deadeyes really aren't working. They're all over the place, some of the deadeyes themselves have broken (red circles below - they're made of wood), they're different sizes, different distances apart, some twisted (yellow circle), the holes have pulled through so the lanyards terminate in the wrong places (blue circle) - and I have no idea what happened in the green circle. Add to that the fact that some of the lanyards got glued into the holes so I couldn't pull them tight. Gak! I think I really need to re-examine all of these, probably rip them all off and start again doing it differently. I've started experimenting, but not having a lot of success so far. Steven