Louie da fly

Very worthwhile information for those of us interested in the vessels of this period. Interestingly, no sign of blocks with sheaves, just heart blocks. Which is strange considering that in the Mediterranean sheaved blocks go way back. As I understand it, this ship was Spanish, or possibly Basque. Surprising that the technology doesn't seem to have travelled from one side of Spain to the other. On the other hand, she has a parrel truck, which was a fairly recent development at the time.

Yes, but not directly caused by his dalliance. And that wasn't his only dalliance, either. A bit of a naughty boy, Horatio. The only thing about the Parkinson book I didn't like is his taking it upon himself to "let the cat out of the bag" about the accident that occurred to the Captain of the Renown when Hornblower was a lieutenant . . . those who've read Lieutenant Hornblower will know what I mean. Oh, and C. Northcote Parkinson is the same man who discovered Parkinson's Law: "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion" It started as a satire, but its truth was very soon universally acknowledged.

Very nice Ringericke style (late 10th - early 11th century Viking) decoration on that vane.

Unbelievable work, Greg. Another masterpiece!

I love the research you're doing, Dick. By all means take a break if you need one for the time being, and wait for inspiration to strike again. You're not on a deadline with this, and it's supposed to be fun, not a slog. A fascinating build, though. Whether or not the prevailing academic theory regarding hulcs is correct, you're doing the physical research to show its practicality or otherwise, and I regard that as a very valuable addition to the sum total of knowledge in this area.

Yes, those nails are to hold the hatch doors together (the doors obviously have a wooden support structure the planks are nailed to), not to the sides of the hatch itself.

Looking good, Clare. Keep up the good work (when you get a moment to spare . . .)

The glue I used was supplied by the people I bought the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] from, so presumably it's the right glue for the job. It's not superglue.

It's certainly different!

It's no criticism of the reconstruction itself - it's a good representation of a carrack - just rather later than Victoria. In fact it looks quite like this one from about 1530: Carracks in the roadstead of Zierikzee circa 1530 As I mentioned before, this was a time of considerable evolution in carrack design, and a matter of 10 or 20 years produced quite significant differences.

Eric, that's a nice reconstruction, but again, has features that make it too late for Victoria - in particular she has a flat stern, the aftercastle's too big and the sail plan incorporates features that didn't come into use till quite a few decades later - the thinness of the mainmast and the small size of the mainyard, the large size of the main topsail and the height of the foremast and presence of a foretop and fore topsail. All these things did come into use a little later, and she's a good example of a slightly later carrack, but they aren't appropriate for a ship of Victoria's likely build date.

Bradley, I've found [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] very good. Nice and light, and rigid so long as you do your gluing properly. But be cautious with the gluing - I got spots of glue on the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] surface when I squeezed the air out of the (really thin!) nozzle as instructed, and drops of glue flew into the air and landed just where I didn't want them to. And once they're on the surface there's nothing you can do about it - trying to wipe the glue spots off just smears them and makes it worse. And if you squeeze too hard when applying the glue down the length of the joint it spreads out onto the surface instead of just staying within the join. I think it's mostly just a matter of practice, but forewarned is forearmed. You run the glue along the inside of the join and surface tension "pulls" it into the space between the two surfaces. It's really quite cool to watch. It doesn't take long to dry solid, either. I found one joint came apart a bit and had to be re-done. But once everything's successfully glued together it's light, strong and self supporting. Pretty cool! Making the first join is the hardest because you have to somehow hold everything together in exactly the right configuration while you're gluing. Once the first two panels are joined it becomes easier because they support the following panels.

Nice work, Eric, and a good research-based save. I like your oarports. Very attractive.

Beautiful crisp work, Lapinas. I like the fact that you've made your own wooden gun carriages to replace those provided in the kit. The "backside" would be called the transom, and the "captain's deck" would probably be best called the poop deck. But many of our modern terms for sailing ship parts weren't in use at the time Santa Maria was built (apart from the fact that they would have been Spanish words anyway).

Hmmm, on reflection and re-looking at my picture collection I realise I gave wrong advice in my previous post. Main topmasts and bowsprits were certainly in use by the mid-1460's and main topsails by the early 1480's, at least in larger ships. And I now recollect that the Santa Maria is recorded as having had a main topsail in 1492. However, the main topmast and topsail were quite tiny - you can see them in the pictures below - and the foremast is relatively small and never has a topmast or topsail. And no spritsail on the bowsprit. 1482 Grazioso Benincasa, Italy. Map detail 1490 From the Legend of St Ursula. Carpaccio, Venice, Italy. The Marisstella carrack might be worth bashing - the forecastle and aftercastle seem rather high, more typical of carracks from a little later, but that's something you could probably handle with some judicious kit-bashing. However, it does have a flat stern, which was (almost) unheard of for carracks in 1519. Roger, I printed off the sheet showing the surviving frames for the Newport ship, with the projected hull shape superimposed. Here's the sternmost surviving frame (F60), which as I understand it is the basis for the "flat stern" theory.: And here is the side view showing where F60 is (the sternmost vertical dotted line). And I have drawn a curved red line crossing the line of this frame at the point where it becomes concave - showing how a round carrack "tuck" could be fitted in without disturbing either the frame shape or the line of the planking. This line would also mean that the (missing) sternpost would be further forward than they have shown, making the ship somewhat shorter. By the way, I also have doubts about the concave waterline at the bow. That seems to fly in the face of all I know of treatises on shipbuilding of the time. And as the shapes of the timbers (presumably including the planking) had to be calculated compensating for the considerable deformation and flattening caused by the weight of soil above it, I don't know how much can be deduced from the shape shown in the picture - how much is reliable and how much (educated) guesswork?

The auction model is what they call a "decorator model", based on imagination and that's about all. The other looks pretty good, the hull shape is ok but probably a bit late in sail plan - it looks like the sail plan is based on a galleon rather than a carrack. More likely not to have topmasts or a bowsprit, and the mainsail and mainmast need to be huge. Is that 161 Euros and 16 cents? You could probably re-do the masts and sails to make it pretty close to right. But of course it's a generic carrack, not the Victoria, because nobody knows what she really looked like.

Just be aware that [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit]has disadvantages as well - the main one is that it scratches easily, and if you get glue on the surface where it's not supposed to be, the surface goes "cloudy". But if you're careful enough (not like me!) this won't happen - but I found the glue sometimes spurts unexpectedly out of the nozzle of the tube of glue as you squeeze it. So take care!

Unbelievable! I just can't get over how real that looks!

Ah, now I see it! VERY nice!

Same for me. Can you re-post the pictures? I'd love to see them.

Hi Christos, The [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] was 4.5mm thick (any thinner and the joints don't join), and the glue was supplied by the people I bought the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] from, so I don't know what it was. If you're looking to make a case the same way, the people who sell you the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] might be able to provide glue, or at least tell you what to get and where to get it.

That's good, Jonathan. But the same caveat applies regarding modern models as modern reconstructions. Use primary sources in preference to modern interpretations and follow your own judgment if there seems to be a conflict. A modern model is only as good as the modeller's understanding of the original sources. Roger, I thought the "flat stern" idea for the Newport ship was based only on the shape of the sternmost frame (of which very little survives, and which is about 2.1 metres forward of the extrapolated position of the sternpost), but I could be wrong. Looking further through Pigafetta's account I find references to more than one mast (the foremast and mizzen of these ships were often very small, used more for manoeuvring than propulsion) and several references to their artillery, including swivel guns (Versi), and "when they went away we fired several bombards in their honour . . . Sunday the 8th December, we fired many bombards, rockets, and fireballs to celebrate the Conception of our Lady . . . Afterwards the King of Giailolo came to see again our gun exercise." Unfortunately I couldn't see any footnote regarding what the original words were for these things, so we're left to wonder what they were. I also found (from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=n24NlWkm65sC&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) : So the ship had clew garnets on the mainsail (assuming the translation is correct), and I hope this helps you with your research. Oh, and to get an idea of the characteristics of Spanish carracks here are some pics - a bit early, but probably these features didn't change much i the interim. Sorry about the picture quality - these are the best resolution I could get. But note the swivel guns on the gunwales of the two lower depictions, and the triangular deadeyes and the ratlines in the shrouds. 1465 Tavola Strozzi. Aragonese fleet returning from the battle of ischia 1465 Tavola Strozzi. Aragonese fleet returning from the battle of ischia 1475 Spanish carrack from a retable celebrating the battle of Zumaia battle (off Gibraltar) 1475 Spanish carracks from a retable celebrating the battle of Zumaia battle (off Gibraltar)

Just found this - a translation of the account of the voyage by Pigafetta, one of the members of the expedition. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_First_Voyage_Round_the_World/Pigafetta's_Account_of_Magellan's_Voyage It may contain some useful information on the ships, I've had a quick look through it and found the following: "when he wished to take a tack on account of the change of weather, or if the wind was contrary, or if he wished to make less way, he had two lights shown; and if he wished the others to lower their small sail,[10] which was a part of the sail attached to the great sail, he showed three lights. Also by the three lights, notwithstanding that the wind was fair for going faster, he signalled that the studding sail should be lowered; so that the great sail might be quicker and more easily struck and furled when bad weather should suddenly set in, on account of some squall[11] or otherwise. Likewise when the captain wished the other ships to lower the sail he had four lights shown . . . Also when he wished the studding sail to be replaced with the great sail, he showed three lights." but it would probably be best to get this in the original language. Looking at the footnotes it appears that the translator uses the terms "small sail" and "studding sail" to describe a bonnet attached to the bottom of the mainsail. The rest of the text seems to describe the voyage and not mention the configuration of the ships, but I only skimmed over it very quickly and there may be more I missed.

Just as an additional note, my understanding from Loewen's paper is that in "hauling down", all the curved timbers at a particular point were the same radius no matter what frame they were on - they were just placed and angled differently - whereas in the Mediterranean method the radius was different from frame to frame. This obviously made "mass production" of futtocks much more practicable in the Atlantic method. Jonathan, your investigations, and particularly your building a physical model, would be a valuable addition to the body of knowledge on these wonderful and sadly overlooked craft. Oftentimes the construction of a model will bring to light issues that would otherwise have gone unnoticed or whose significance and importance would not have been recognised.

That's very true. The Newport ship is thought to date to 1468 and you can get all their archaeological information here: https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/newportship_2013/downloads.cfm However I have serious reservations about their reconstruction. It appears to have been drawn by someone much more familiar with 18th and 19th century ships and just "looks" wrong for a carrack. I would also dispute their contention that she was flat-sterned. The evidence is equivocal, and could just as easily support the idea of a round-sterned vessel with the "tuck" close to the sternpost - as we see on contemporary representations of carracks. By all means work off the archaeological drawings, but don't take their extrapolations from the remnants too seriously. Use contemporary pictures as your guide, for preference. Apart from the Newport ship and the Red Bay wreck, the carrack wrecks in my link above are Mediterranean and I would use them with a pinch of salt, simply because design principles were so different. In the Atlantic (and particularly Iberia, but also England - the Mary Rose is an example) the shape of the hull was determined by a process called "hauling down the futtocks" involving drawing arcs which were moved as you moved forward and aft from the master frame. The Mediterranean technique (the right-hand image) was different, and resulted in a rather differently shaped hull (see attached PDF) However, there is another wreck which I didn't provide a link for, the Cavalaire wreck of 1479 - https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10191-the-cavalaire-wreck-basque-carrack-of-c-1479/?tab=comments#comment-303295 . Unfortunately the on-line archaeological report doesn't include the images referenced in the text. However, this article I think includes much of the pictorial data - https://www.academia.edu/6921643/Oak_growing_hull_design_and_framing_style_The_Cavalaire_sur_Mer_wreck_c_1479 hauling down the futtocks.pdf