Louie da fly

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

I'm afraid I have to agree with Jaager regarding the scarcity of information and the amount of work needed to produce a worthwhile model that is accurate to the time and type of ship. However, there's more known than you might imagine. Firstly I'd recommend you read and become familiar with Woodrat's superb Carrack or cocha here: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/4915-venetian-carrack-or-cocha-164-by-woodrat-completed/ This is of an earlier vessel, taken from a drawing of 1445, but many of the features hardly changed, if at all. We know the number and types of ships that took part - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellan's_circumnavigation - four naos (carracks) and a caravel - and the number of crew per vessel, which might give us an indication of their size. And we know they set out in 1519. Presumably they weren't brand-new ships - it's unlikely the king would have had them especially built for the voyage, as he was strapped for cash and had to get loans to pay for the expedition - but they wouldn't have been more than, perhaps, 10 years old. So that gives us a rough idea of when they were built - maybe 1510 or thereabouts. Given the size of the crews they weren't all that big, and probably would have had three masts, not four as larger and later carracks had. So what do we have from that time, keeping in mind that this was a period of considerable evolution in carrack design - they were getting bigger and adding decks, and starting to be pierced for heavy cannon. With the crew sizes quoted they wouldn't have been as big as the Santa Caterina do Monto Sinai (see https://modelshipworld.com/topic/25590-santa-catarina-do-monte-sinai-by-robert-taylor-pyro-1144-scale-plastic/), and she's a bit late anyway - launched in 1520. Probably the best available pictures the right size and from about the right time are below: 1495-1500 carrack fleet from Story of the Destruction of Troy the Great, French. 1492-3 Jonah and the Whale Nancy, France BNF MS Lat. 10491 f. 166v. 1494 reprint 1518 Consolat de Mar Barcelona, Catalunya (Spain) 1500 approx.Octavian de Saint Gelais France 1500 Jacopo Barbari Panorama of Venice (details) 1504 Return of Vasco da Gama from India, Tapestry. Tournai, Belgium (detail) 1514 Jonah by Bellano. Basilica of San Antonio, Padua, Italy 1515 Panorama of Antwerp Roadstead, Holland (detail). This one might be a bit late - it seems somewhat too advanced and sophisticated. These are probably the most appropriate for the time period you're looking at. However, it has also to be kept in mind that different regions had different details - for example the shrouds of carracks serving in the Atlantic had ratlines and were fixed to the hull with deadeyes, while carracks of the Mediterranean had a single rope ladder per mast, and the shrouds were fixed to the hull with blocks. Also, contemporary pictures very often show the bow as too "tubby" compared with the reality, and exaggerate (often dramatically) the sheer of the decks and particularly the forecastle. For an accurate carrack shape, look at Woodrat's build referenced above. I've put together a Pinterest page on carracks at https://www.pinterest.com.au/lowe1847/carracks/ which you might find of use. And there's a collection of archaeological reports on carrack wrecks at https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10190-archaeological-studies-on-carrack-wrecks/ And don't take too much notice of modern reconstructions - they have no more information than you do, and often get it very wrong indeed. But to get something that is as close as possible to Magellan's ships given the lack of information, you'll need to draw your own plans based on what is available, and build from scratch. The alternative would be to get a Santa Maria kit and bash it to be more in line with what we know. Some of them would probably be suitable for this and end up with a ship that was pretty close to the reality of Magellan's vessels - but choose one with a round stern, not a flat one. Though caravels had flat sterns, carracks didn't begin being built with them till later. The only other thing I'd recommend is to get hold of the contemporary account of Magellan's voyage, to see if they mentioned anything about the ships or their rig or characteristics (for example, Columbus's account describes the rig of Santa Maria and how they changed the rig of one of the caravels from lateen to square, so perhaps there's similar information in the Magellan accounts). For the caravel, you could use a kit of Pinta or Nina. Apart from getting bigger, caravels didn't change much over the period they were in use.

More progress on the planking. It's a bit rough and ready on the surface, but i believe that will sort itself out when it is sanded. But I've finally passed the turn of the bilge. And we're finally starting to see that exquisite curve in the planking where the body of the hull meets the deadwood of the keel. I just sat there holding it for maybe 10 minutes admiring the beauty of that shape. Looking at the photo below there seems to be something wrong with the line of the last plank at the bow. I'll have to look at that and see if it needs fixing. I find my main problem is that I'm as Treebeard says, "hasty". I get a bit impatient and probably don't take as much care as I should to get the joins between the planks perfect, so I get the occasional tiny gap when I thought I had it right (usually when it's too late to correct). I'm not a very methodical person, unfortunately. Unless there's something I'm missing? I'm learning a lot by putting into practice what was previously just theory - mostly by making mistakes and having to correct them. But I've decided to make this model my "learning experience" in planking. Even if I make mistakes I'm learning as I go, and by the time I'm finished I think I'll be considerably better at it.

Very good work, Cri-Cri. Very crisp and precise. Worthy of such a beautiful vessel!

Wonderful work, Lupo. Your piece on Robert Dudley made me curious whether he he was related to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, the favourite of Elizabeth I of England. I looked him up and it turns out he was Leicester's illegitimate son! There's a lot of fascinating information about him here: https://www.swaen.com/robert-dudley.php Your walnut timber is very beautiful, and I'm impressed by your internal lighting for the ship.

Very appropriate for a Venetian ship.

Usually made out of thin willow branches (or wands), split lengthways in half. Nice and flexible, also used in such things as baskets and wattling (making 'woven" fences - or combined with mud to make "wattle and daub" walls for houses).

Beautiful work, Cri-Cri!

I don't know anything about how easy or difficult it is to build, but the Saint Louis (Heller and Airfix both make a kit - there's a discussion on their relative merits at http://cs.finescale.com/fsm/modeling_subjects/f/7/t/98193.aspx) has always appealed to me, perhaps because of those wonderful "turrets" at bow and stern.

Welcome to MSW, Bjørn! There is a lot of information available on this site about planking - see https://modelshipworld.com/forum/98-planking-downloads-and-tutorials-and-videos/ - read through these carefully and they should help a lot. And you should definitely start a build log. It's the best way to show the rest of us your progress, but also to get help, encouragement and advice. Instructions are here: Good luck with it, and have fun!

Very nice work, Marcus.

Have a look here: and following pages where Siggi explains how he made the figures from brass sheet and copper wire, and clothes from rice paper. Your ship is 2.5 times the scale and this technique might not work for you - but then again maybe it would!

You could try making your own cases - https://modelshipworld.com/topic/10344-10th-11th-century-byzantine-dromon-by-louie-da-fly-150-finished/page/54/ I worked out the overall cost - came to about $100 Australian. The main cost was the polycarbonate. It would have cost more if I'd also put polycarbonate on the back, but I have plans for a background - but that's going to be a big (A1 size) print of a picture which will cost me another $20 from the office supplies place. So $120 overall. I don't know how that compares with the cost of the ones above. If it's a lot cheaper it might be worth considering. Bill, the rake on your mizzen is better, but it still looks a bit extreme to me. Does the manufacturer supply any views of the finished kit from side-on? I expect not, otherwise you'd have mentioned it. Even your bonaventure (means "good adventure", or perhaps "good journey" in French) mizzen looks like it has a pretty extreme rake. However that may be the way the manufacturer intended it. But I'd be going with a rake on the mizzen that's about halfway between the angle of the main mast and that of the bonaventure.

Beautiful work, Silverman! Not only the barrels (which are superb - I especially like the hoops made from (millet?) broom bristles), but also that amazing winch. It really makes the vessel come alive! Are you planning to put any people on board?

I'm working on making the case for the dromon. A plywood body, with the "glass" made of [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit]. Front view Back view (from "inside") The [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] is a separate structure which will be screwed to the body once the model is inside. I used "metal" screws because of their fine threads. Because the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] is so fragile I had to be very careful about making the holes - first I drilled small pilot holes through both body and [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] - then larger ones - almost as wide as the outside of the screw threads. I rubbed each screw against a bar of soap (to provide lubrication), and slowly and carefully turned the screw, which acted as a die-cutter, making a female thread in the hole in the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit]. The guy who supplied and cut the [Edit] polycarbonate acrylic [/Edit] to size showed me how to do the gluing between the pieces - didn't reckon my inexperience, so there are a few places where the glue has interfered with the pure clarity of the surface. But not too bad for a first time. I'll be staining the plywood so it doesn't just look like cheap pine. And I have some ideas for the background panel. But don't expect anything to happen for a while. I have other things that have to be done first.

Photos! We need photos! But I'd agree with earlier posters - start a build log. And put the photos in that. A build log is a great way to get feedback from other members, and help and advice. This is how to start yours:

Heroic (and imaginative!) solutions. Just one question - why do the additions to the sternpost not go all the way down to the keel? You've probably got a good reason, but I can't see it at the moment.

Those sails look really good. I can see the glue would hold them in the curved shape as though the wind is blowing on them once it dried, but how did you get them to take the shape?

You're doing a very good job on this, Goemon. It's becoming a very attractive (and beautifully detailed) model.