Jump to content

Louie da fly

Members
  • Posts

    7,567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Louie da fly

  1. Welcome to MSW, Michael.That's a very nice-looking vessel - I have nothing but respect for people who build live-steam models. Do you have another project on the go? If you have, it'd be great if you started a build log. I'm sure a lot of people would like to see it. Steven
  2. Bob, that's a very nice piece of work. I feel I ought to comment, though, that the planking layout recommended by the kit manufacturer isn't how it was done in the real world. Not suggesting you pull everything apart and start again, but as your model looks like a double-planked model, for your second layer of planking you might like to consider this link which goes through the steps of duplicating the planking layout used in actual practice. It is more complex than the way the kit manufacturer says to do it, and you may decide to stick with what you're already doing. That is totally ok. It's your model, and you have every right to do it however you wish. Just thought I'd let you know in case you feel it might be worthwhile. The vessels of this period are a favourite of mine, and I always love to see another one being built. Keep up the good work. Steven
  3. Swords were highly valued (and expensive) personal items - each would been in its scabbard, carefully wrapped individually in (presumably) oilcloth, and probably in the personal possessions of the individual owners. Only a few high status warriors would have owned them. Axes (single and two-handed) would have been more common, with spears the most common of all. Though those wrapped spear shafts look good, they appear rather too thick? They wouldn't in real life been thicker than maybe an inch an a half or two inches. Otherwise they would be (a) too heavy and (b) too hard to get a good grip on. After all, they usually doubled as "javelins" in battle, so shouldn't be too heavy to throw. The shorter ones would be no less than 6 feet long (though personally I never liked using anything that short - it put you too much within reach of the opponents' swords and axes); the longer ones more like 9 feet. Everything else looks absolutely brilliant. I'm very impressed. The barrels, the open "scuttlebutt", the chests - all add verisimitude to the presentation. Regarding the (unspecific) oilcloth bundles, I think they look best with the rope around them. The shields are a problem. Stacked like that on the deck they'd slide over each other and be all over the ship, the moment you got into the ocean swell. There's just no information available on how they were stored if not at the sides of the ship. Maybe tie them down with a net? Or perhaps store them under the oar-benches - amidships (so they didn't get in the way of the oarsmen) ?
  4. That's amazing, mate! You've achieved a hell of a lot in just a year, and it was certainly worth the time spent. This is perhps the most beautiful model of a Viking ship I've ever seen . Steven
  5. Great news. The more models out there that aren't just the usual generic square-riggers, the better (not that I've got anything against them, but it's nice to see the currently rather narrow focus open up a bit.) Steven
  6. Possible, but in my opinion it would be fairly easily possible to represent a square sail, even if somewhat too narrow, in the space available, without having to slant the yard as shown. It seems to me if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. There has been a lot of academic discussion of the origin of the lateen sail - not only where it first appeared, but when. It was thought for a long time that the lateen originated among the arabs and appeared in the Mediterranean quite late, but there has now been quite a bit of evidence suggesting a much earlier, Mediterranean, origin for it. What is particularly unusual about this example is the clarity of the representation and the early date. The next earliest representation I'm aware of is the 5th century AD Kelenderis mosaic, which strictly speaking shows a settee rather than a lateen; But certainly the overwhelming majority of representations of ships from this period show a square sail and I'd be very surprised if the Sea of Galilee ship had anything else. Steven
  7. Though the lateen is now known to have been developed earlier than previously thought - as evidenced by this tombstone, dated to the second century AD this is the only evidence for such prior to the 5th century; all other contemporary representations I'm aware of show square sails. So a square sail is far more likely for the Sea of Galilee ship, which is dated to the first century AD. Steven
  8. Good thought, Pat, but the thread is pretty stiff and isn't all that hard to thread through. Just fiddly and time-consuming. Steven
  9. Thanks everybody for the likes and comments. The weave of the cloth isn't as coarse as the camera makes it seem, and apart from keeping my hand still (and taking frequent breaks so I didn't start making careless mistakes) it was just a matter of following the lines I'd traced on the fabric through the template. I used a very fine watercolour brush and watered-down acrylic paint. After all the paint was properly dry I went over the sails with a soft eraser to get rid of as much of the remaining pencil marks as I could. I'm now in the process of adding bolt-ropes (photos later) - by gluing cotton thread to the edges of the sails with PVA (white) glue. I did a test piece first and it worked well. Once the glue is properly dry, I can cut around the outside of the bolt-ropes - doing it this way means the sails don't warp and lose their shape (particularly the lateens, which are cut diagonally across the weave) after cutting. I developed this technique on my previous build, the lateen-rigged dromon. Steven
  10. It's been a while since I posted any progress. It's taken some time to get things done. Well, here are the sails all painted . . . A bit of variation in the colour - a result of having to mix the paint up in separate batches, as it dries pretty fast. But not too bad, overall. I'm pretty happy with it. At this scale I wasn't prepared to do separate cloths for the sails or do stitching to indicate it - instead I did what I did back in the day - mark the joins with a 2H pencil. Looks pretty good. I had forgotten to add the wooldings to the main and foremasts. Not too much of a problem with the main: But as the foremast was already in place (when I was removing everything else to fix the ship up, I'd been unable to remove it without causing damage) I should have put the wooldings on before I added the shrouds. As it is I'll have to thread the cord around the mast past all the shrouds and the tyes for the foresail. It sucks a bit, but it just takes a bit more work. First one under way - a few more turns still needed. Steven
  11. I think you're right, mate. Just have another go at it. My own workshop is littered with first attempts - it's part of the learning process. Here's the tripod and cauldron for you, And here are the dimensions and some construction details: http://warehamforgeblog.blogspot.com/2020/04/oseberg-tripod-and-cauldron-refining.html Steven
  12. It might b the fault of the wood you're using. I've never used basswood, but on looking it up it's described as being very good for carving, which presumably means it would be ok for making this chest. Maybe just try it again; but you could also try it in a different timber. Steven
  13. I'm glad this discussion has been of help to you, rupertmac. I was going to say the planking should curve upward at the ends, but as you're doing close-ups this really isn't an issue. The sail and the planking look good in the trailer. Can I say, however, that the woman with a naked sword hanging from her belt would be an accident waiting to happen . . . apart from cutting her belt, she'd be likely to hurt herself on the blade . . . Still, that's just me (having been a mediaeval re-enactor for many years) - nobody else is likely to notice. Unfortunately we haven't heard from deperdussin1910 since November 2018 - it would be really nice to see if he continued with his project (hint, hint). Steven
  14. I'm not familiar with beech (we don't have many beech trees in Oz). I use pear wood and have good results. But the best is supposed to be boxwood - I can't say from personal experience because I've never used it. Having said all that, you're doing very well with your lion, so I don't think there's a problem anyway. Steven
  15. Hi Pat. It does look a bit coin-toss. Against the steel version is the fact that it follows the form of the bell so closely, which is not seen on the lithograph. The wood version would be harder to make (especially as you have all those amazing metal-working equipment and skills!), but it could be done. First question - why do you have three layers at all? Is it to follow standard belfry construction? Certainly you can't see them in the lithograph. However, if you do, there are two ways to go. The first is to carve your three layers from separate pieces of fine-grained timber (box for preference) and glue them together. That would take a fair bit of care to get everything to fit accurately, but it could be done. Rather in the manner of post #1404 at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10344-10th-11th-century-byzantine-dromon-by-louie-da-fly-150-finished/page/47/ - (only more complicated) Alternatively, treat the horizontal projections as a separate structure - you'll never get a change of direction that tight by bending. Glue the three layers of the arch together and while the glue is still wet put them in a two-piece press of the correct diameter (you'd have to make that, I suppose) to get the curve. The layers will slide over each other longitudinally, so make them a little too long and trim to length once the glue is dry. Make the projections separately and glue them in place. This is a very fiddly method, and has many opportunities to go wrong - I'd be going for carved pieces, myself. If all else fails, send me the dimensions and I'll be quite happy to carve the arch. (I have to say I'm rather tempted by the idea of having a little bit of my stuff on this beautiful model). Nup, the bow-on aspect would still show vertical legs as vertical, or at the very least as parallel. If this is an accurate rendition, then the legs would be splayed, even in timber. It could be an advantage in structural strength to do it that way, actually. Though I think you're right in spotting a "step" in the legs toward the bottom (before the gunwale obscures them). Steven
  16. Oh heck! I've already got it! But thanks so much for the offer. I've read it at least once, but I'll have to go over it in more detail. I actually used the Serçe Limani block in my dromon build (!) and yes, for the halyard . . . (see posts #1170 and #1172 at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10344-10th-11th-century-byzantine-dromon-by-louie-da-fly-150-finished/page/39/) Steven
  17. Pat, do you have a photo of the original belfry? I've worked with making fake curves in wood and might be able to come up with some ideas if I could see what's being aimed at. Steven
  18. Thanks everybody for the likes and comments. It's interesting that the original painting shows the "cloth of gold" on the back of the sail but not the front. I think that as the artist shows the ship from aft this is a device to show off the pattern - and it is followed in the reconstruction painting. I believe it would actually have been on the front where it would have been more easily seen, and as shown in many other pictures of ships of this period. So I've pretty much decided that I'll have the pattern on the front (lets not even think of painting it both sides). Steven
×
×
  • Create New...