Louie da fly

Nice. Steven

Yes, unfortunately the Botticelli Judgment of Paris picture (and, for that matter his Punishment of Korah - he just seems to recycled the same ship) is the same - no hatch covers. I read somewhere that the 'pierced' hatch covers made of criss-cross battens were a fairly late development, intended to allow gunsmoke to disperse. But I don't know what evidence that conclusion was based on. The 'removable planks' idea - I think Viking ships used that technique (don't quote me, I'm not sure), and I first saw it on a model of Woodrat's. Unfortunately the information just isn't out there as far as I've been able to find. Contemporary images hardly ever show ships from a helpful angle, and if they do, the hatch is often shown without a cover - oh, look! another one that's no help at all . . . no cover on the hatch. I feel like the guy leaning over it - frustrated. Andrea di Bonauito de Firenze - Conversion of st ranieri Camposanto of Pisa - mid 14th century after a 13th century Giotto original And is this a hatch cover or a coffin? (sorry, I don't know the source) And is this a multi-plank hatch cover? Or something completely different? 1475-85 by 'Master W with the Key' - Netherlands? And how about this one? 1514-1515 Le_combat_de_la Cordeliere by Pierre Choque bnf btv1b525080522 and archaeology so far has been no help as almost all wrecks are missing the upper works. However, the Black Sea wrecks might be a worthwhile source of information, as they seem to be pretty much intact - maybe the hatch covers are intact, too. Might be worth following up. Steven Steven

Good to know, mate. I realised I'd not been in touch and had no idea how things were going with you. I hate it when people just seem to drop off the forum and you never know what's happened to them or if they're still out there. I'm glad you're enjoying reading the build logs (including mine!) - I find a lot of enjoyment simply doing that even when I'm not actively building. You don't have to build to enjoy being on the forum. I'm currently at a bit of a slow patch, not sure what is my best next step. And sometimes I have to just stop and let things percolate mentally before I know what is best to do next. (OTOH sometimes I rush into things without thinking them through enough first, but hey, I never said I had to be consistent). Good to hear from you. Best wishes, Steven

Yes, much better. I don't think the pine is s problem. The windlass looks very nice now. Steven

That appears to be a windlass. And yes, replace the plywood. Here's a photo of the windlass on the full-size reconstruction vessel - https://www.sea.museum/en/whats-on/events/sail-on-duyfken I hope that helps. Steven

Going to be interesting. Steven

Waldemar is correct. Oak planking was used where a strong timber was structurally preferable; the rest of the planking was of pine. Mark, at the moment I probably have enough oak to get me by, so I won't ask you to go to all that trouble. But I might get back in touch with you later. We'll see how it goes . . . Steven

So many things. A "galleass" from the Anthony Roll (not a Mediterranean style oared galleass at all - a sort of low version of a galleon) Brunel's Great Britain, a reconstruction from a graffito in Hagia Sofia cathedral in Istanbul, the Grace Dieu of Henry V (not to be confused with Henry VIII's Henry Grace a Dieu), HMS Captain (which turned turtle and sank in a gentle squall because of her bad design, taking the crew - and the designer - with her), HMS Thunder Child from H.G. Wells's War of the Worlds, HMS Sophie from Master and Commander, a Maltese luzzu, perhaps an Australian pearling lugger, a French pre-dreadnought, an Indonesian fishing boat, a galleon from 1545, one of the earliest carracks from a church pew-end in England from 1415, an early Mediterranean carrack from before the shape had been "tied down", another Mediterranean mediaeval merchant ship . . . the list is endless. And perhaps the NSEA Protector from Galaxy Quest. And of course the Liberator from Blake's Seven. Steven

How about one of the more complex ones? These are all from a map of Normandy from 1545. I've had the first one on my bucket list for years. Steven

You've done very well with her. Turned out beautifully. So - what's next? Steven

Hi Tarbrush, just wondering how it's all going. Best wishes, Steven

Very nice work. You're producing a beautiful model of a beautiful ship. Steven

Nicely done. Steven

I changed my mind about making the keel of four pieces. Based on previous attempts, I'm not all that confident of making the scarph joints well enough to get a good fit, so instead I've made the keel from a single piece and faked the scarph joints by inscribing lines on the wood. I'm using oak for the keel, stempost and sternpost and I only have a limited amount of it, so I have to be careful about wastage. These three elements are to be 3mm (1/8") thick, though the keel and sternpost are slightly thicker than the stempost and I'll have to sand them down so everything's the same. I'm contemplating putting thin wooden pegs between these pieces to strengthen the joints. Here it is dry fitted against the drawing. Gluing them in place I wanted to make sure the angles followed the drawing exactly, but didn't want to stick the wood to the paper. So after a bit of thought, I cut up the transparent plastic lid of a yoghurt container and placed the plastic between the wood and the paper. Voila! (and it worked!) I chose oak because - what the hey - that's what they made the ship out of, but even though the grain is finer than the usual oak you get, it's still a bit hard to work with. I'll be making the frames of oak as well (2mm thick), building them up out of futtocks as in the real thing. If I run out of it, I'll use another timber (probably walnut) for the remainder of the frames. They'll be hidden within the hull, after all. Mediterranean shipwrights of the time would put every fifth frame in place and then fill in between with the other frames. I'm going to do it every fourth frame - mainly because it's more convenient - the wreck's measurements were determined in relation to a grid of 1.0 metre squares, and the frames are 0.5 metres apart, so dividing by 4 is easier than by 5. The original was planked with oak and pine (depending on where it was on the hull) and I'll be using walnut (in place of oak) and pine. Steven

Thanks, guys. All I now need to do is paint the name on the nameplate and stick it onto the stand and she's finished! Steven

Not going to happen, mate. I've done all I want to on this one. I'll be glad to draw a line under it without adding anything else to do. Time to get back onto the Lomellina! Steven

I've planned to make a model of the Lomellina for over 6 years now, since I found out about her. But she was discovered in (I think) 1979 and the excavation was done over the following decade. Yes, there's just not enough of the ship left to know the bow shape - at the bow only the keel survives. So it has to be done by educated guesswork - extrapolated from what does survive. And extrapolation of this magnitude is risky - it's impossible to know for sure whether or not you've selected the correct curve. Though I don't have access to the contemporary text the author quotes, I have spent a lot of time looking at many many contemporary representations of carracks, and I believe I have a pretty good idea of what the bow shape should be. You make a good point regarding the guns and the wheels, but I believe Max Guérout is correct. Apart from anything else, why would they make wheels for field guns but leave them incomplete, without iron tyres? If they were needed in a hurry they would have had to wait till the tyres were made and fitted, which seems unlikely to me. Regarding spaces for gunports, the bottom of the gunport that was discovered was level with the top of a stringer which they have marked as S1, and though the ship had come to rest at an angle of 45 degrees, with the mud above it preserving much of the starboard side, unfortunately there was not a lot surviving above S1. On examining the drawings I thought I'd found another gunport in the region of the master frame, as the frames and planking seemed to be cut off in a straight line there, which argued for an opening - though it was one frame (about 500mm) narrower than the gunport that was found. However, Max Guérout sent me a photo of the relevant part of the ship and unfortunately I had to come to the conclusion that I'd been wrong. And most of the rest of the surviving hull is preserved far enough above S1 that there seems to be hardly anywhere for any other gunports to be. I believe the statement 'very well armed' has to be taken in context. Up till the very end of the 15th century, guns were light, as they had to be mounted on the gunwales. So at this time, a dozen guns would have made the ship 'very well armed'. Her predecessor (also called Lomellina) sank in 1503 and I'm of the opinion that the owners would have had a replacement built as soon as possible, so I should think she was probably built in 1503 or maybe 1504. And gunports were so new at this time that I'm quite prepared to believe that they were very wary of them, and that it's very likely that they only had one per side (as shown in the illustration above of the fleet outside Genoa) and that the other guns were located on the upper deck, pointing over the gunwales. Which necessitated larger wheels to lift them high enough to do so. This seems to have been the case with the Mary Rose - each gun had its wheels individually tailored to raise the muzzle high enough for use. That information about the mast protruding from the water 2 canes is useful to me. The water is 18 metres deep, so the height of the masthead (assuming the mast remained complete) above the seabed there would be 21 metres. But she came to rest at 45 degrees, so we would have to multiply the mast height above the seabed by 1.414 (the tangent of 45 degrees) and then allow for the depth of the hull as well. Taking into account all the uncertainties built into this assumption, this might still give a fairly good estimate of the height of the mainmast. I've worked it out by proportion from contemporary pictures, and it will be interesting to see whether the two figures agree. Thanks for the good wishes, and the offer of translation help. Interestingly, I recently joined a French conversation group here in Ballarat, and for the first time about a week ago I was able to read a full paper in the original French (with occasional journeys to Google Translate for words I didn't know). But if I find myself at a loss, I'll keep you in mind. And now, enfin, I've started making sawdust. Here's the stempost (not recovered by the archaeologists), and the piece of wood from which the keel and stempost will be made. As all the segments of the keel except one were found (and they know the length of the gap where that segment used to be), I think I will be making my keel out of four pieces copying the real ones. The sternpost wasn't found either, but they have a good idea of its size and angle. Best wishes, Steven

So . . . straight to the pool room? Steven

Added the wavy border of the awning. And painted it. Some kind of brace for the paddlewheel housing. Dunno what its function is. Maybe to help with vibration? And the ship is now on its stand, waiting for the glue to dry. And you can see the paddles in this shot. And views from different angles. I still have to add the rudder and a label and then she's complete. Steven

From my own reading, the general British attitude has been that it was a disastrous and very embarrassing loss for Britain. Steven

A very pleasing curve, very well executed. Steven

That's looking very good, Patrick. Beautiful work. Steven

I think you're right, Patrick. The Pilot's cabin seems to be fairly close to the ship's side, and if the staircase is behind it, it makes sense there'd be another one near the other side of the ship. I think there would have been an enclosed walkway - between the aft wall of the Pilot's cabin and another, parallel, sloping wall some distance behind it, which is also the rear wall of the forecastle. And the stairs would be between these two walls. But there'd have to be enough room between the aft wall of the Pilot's cabin and the aft wall of the forecastle to allow for people to walk past the opening in the deck for the staircase - so perhaps the forecastle would have extended about 2 metres behind the back wall of the pilot's cabin? The staircase seems to be somewhat inboard, and that would make sense - there appears to be a walkway between the pilot's cabin and the side of the ship, which would serve the side-gunners. And this would perhaps be mirrored in the forecastle. By this time ships may or may not have had the 'great arch' any more - you can't tell because the boarding netting and its gangway are hiding that part of the ship, but above that just a relatively small arched opening for access from the gangway that supports the netting, as you've shown. And you'd walk through the arch and into the walkway behind the Pilot's cabin. And the rest of that enclosed space between those two walls would allow room for the gunners of the rear-facing guns (which the Anthony Roll shows at the ends of the forecastle rear wall), as well as of the men serving the sideward facing guns, who would work in the fore-and-aft walkway. That's my thoughts on the matter. Steven

Patrick, I think I've found the stairs! I believe that the aft wall of the pilot's cabin is at an angle of 70 degrees and the stairs follow it - that in the red circle we see the Pilot's cabin, and that its aft wall is indeed inclined at 70 degrees, and the stairs can be seen on the other side of that wall, with the treads running from side to side, up the aft side of that wall. And if that's the case the forecastle would be directly above the Pilot's cabin, and extending both forward of it, and aft far enough to allow room for the stairwell. And furthermore, I think it's likely that the rear wall of the forecastle would also be at 70 degrees, and would perhaps be only far enough aft of the aft wall of the Pilot's cabin to allow space for the stairwell. Here's the Anthony Roll picture of the Mary Rose, and the aft wall of the forecastle certainly seems to be leaning forward. And it seems to me there'd be room each side of the stairwell for the (light) guns facing aft toward the waist of the ship to defend against boarders. Best wishes, Steven

Looking good, Doug. Perhaps you're using the wrong type of gun for the forecastle. I'm PMing you a paper on the range of contemporary guns in use, by Max Guerout, who was in charge of the excavation of the Lomellina. The rest of it looks really good. I'll have to look at my documentation for the distance between decks on the Lomellina, though you should also be able to get info those distances on the remaining structure of the Mary Rose, which would be more appropriate to your build.