Louie da fly

I've been working on the shrouds and the tackle for them. Woodrat was kind enough to send me drawings of the upper fastening of shrouds on various mediaeval Mediterranean lateeners, and I've based mine on these and other contemporary representations. I used a clothes peg to hold the calcet upright so I could glue the shrouds at right angles to the sheave (i.e. on the sides of the mast) It was a bit more difficult on the foremast because I'd already glued it in place, so I had to deal with it standing up instead of lying on the bench. And then I wrapped wooldings around mast and shrouds as in the contemporary representations above. The next thing was to work on the tackle for the lower ends of the shrouds. Deadeyes were an Atlantic invention, and they didn't come into use in the Mediterranean until the 16th century. Instead, shrouds were held to the hull, and tension adjusted, by pairs of blocks - the lower block single-sheaved and the upper block double-sheaved. Single-sheaved blocks have been found on Byzantine wrecks, but I haven't come across any equivalent finds of double-sheaved blocks. However, triple sheaved blocks have been found, so I extrapolated/interpolated between the singles and triples to create what I believe a Byzantine double-sheaved block would have been like. Threading these things is very fiddly, and they often act like fencing wire - they have a mind of their own and fly off in all directions right in the middle of the process, and get twisted so you thread through in the wrong direction and have to do it all again. So I adapted a method I've seen in setting up deadeyes, which get the tackles the same length and reduces the problem with twisting. Rather than strops, the main rope is secured by passing through a hole in the block. I've then glued the rope in an eyelet to approximate the look of an eye-splice, which I believe is most likely how they were attached. The rope for the double-sheaved block is short and ends in a toggle. This will pass through an eye-splice in the main shroud, acting as a quick-release mechanism (this technique is still used on Mediterranean lateeners, though I haven't seen it used on shrouds). The free end of the rope from the single-sheaved block will pass through a ringbolt attached to the side of the hull and be tied off. This leaves the tackle between the blocks, which is used to adjust tension. The free end will be belayed to a cleat near the ringbolt. When I started organising all this I realised I'd made a mistake. There are in fact three different single-sheaved cleats that I've made copies of. The ones in the shroud tackle have a small through-hole at the end (see photo immediately above) to which the tackle between the blocks is belayed. Unfortunately, I used these ones for the tacks and vangs on the yards, when I should have used the other ones I'd made (which were identical except for the little hole in the end). So I had to undo all that work and swap the blocks around. Annoying, but it had to be done. As I removed a pair of blocks I replaced it with the correct pair and then moved to the next pair. That way I didn't get things mixed up (very easy to do). I used a clothes peg to keep the yard upright, so the blocks would be hanging vertically from the ends of the yard. And when the blocks had all been removed I was able to re-use them on the shrouds, which is where they were supposed to have been all the time. More to come in due course.

Coming together nicely. The blocks and rigging, and particularly the flags, are very good, especially at 1:100 scale. And yes, there's a lot to be said for the feeling of achievement of painting them yourself instead of letting a computer and printer do the work for you.

You've done a beautiful job of modifying the capstan Jeff.Looks really good - a bit shiny at the moment, but the matt varnish should take care of that.

That's very interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing how it turns out in the next stage . . .

You are getting the job done (despite the rotten instructions) and it looks like the end result is going to be very good indeed. But I won't be recommending Dusek to anyone who wants to build a model of a Viking ship. Keep at it, mate. Every time you come up against one of these problems and overcome it, you not only achieve something with this model but you gain experience, skill and judgment for your future builds.

Well really I should have been wearing more appropriate attire - I have all the Byzantine costume, but haven't worn it for yonks as i don't do re-enactment any more. I did think about repositioning the columns in relation to the benches but the problem is that the benches are uneven distances apart (a mistake I made much earlier in the build). I decided the most important thing was to get the columns spaced evenly - following the uneven spacing of the benches would just look wrong, particularly as I've put arches between the columns. So no matter what I did some of the columns wouldn't be in front of the benches. It's a compromise, but in the circumstances I think it's the best one available. Oh, and the Romans didn't have galley slaves - that's Hollywood. Galley slaves didn't become a "thing" until the Renaissance.

Thanks for the likes and comments. One thing that is definitely true - the castles are a lot stronger than before. And I do think doing this has made the whole thing look better. I can still tidy up the benches a bit by inserting a little bit of wood to close up any minor gaps between the bench and the column. And I think this is less noticeable than leaving it as it was.

Thanks for that info, SweepHall. So, one day . . . maybe they'll answer the burning question - what was the forecastle really like?

I've finished re-making both the castles. I had to juggle the spacing between the castles and the pump - basically by slotting the inboard columns further into the body of each castle. Note that I've taken off the rear uprights of the side "walls" and moved them inward, and cut a slot into the back of each column where it crosses the floor structure, so the column sits flush with the back of the "wall". But now there's (just) enough room for someone to get between the pump and the castles on each side. I thought about removing the capitals from those columns so people wouldn't bash themselves against them, but when it's a contest between aesthetics and practicality, aesthetics has to win (ask Frank Lloyd Wright about his beautiful - but leaky - flat roofs!) I decided to move the castles a little aft to allow more room for the oarsmen to swing, as mentioned by Landrotten Highlander above, and cut into a couple of the benches a little to allow the columns to slot in. It seems to be the best solution. Unless you look really carefully you can't see that it's been done, and the oarsmen look better without their reach being obstructed by the columns. I'm not quite ready to glue the castles in place - there are other things that need to be done first - but it will be soon. But in other ways it hasn't been my day. I discovered I'd miscalculated the number of sheaves necessary for the halyard knights - I'm really rubbish at this sort of thing - the halyard block has three sheaves, but the knight needs four so the downhaul can be pulled horizontally back to the bitts. So I had to start again from scratch to make new knights each with 4 sheaves instead of three. That's three versions of each knight I've had to discard as the build has evolved. And the fore knight was all finished - in fact it had been glued in - when I realised there was something wrong. In drilling the sheave holes (with a hand drill) I'd somehow got them a bit skewiff so the rope which went into hole number three came out the other side at hole number two! And the same with holes four and three. There was nothing I could do about it - I had to pull the knight out (fortunately the glue was still wet ), trash it and start again. So that's yet another knight I've had to discard and re-make! But now I've finally completed the fore knight - everything's now all square and ok - installed the tackle from it to the halyard block, glued the foremast in place and temporarily strung the block to the mast. The halyard itself and the rest of its tackle will be added later, but the knight and its tackle had to be done before the mast was glued in place. I think I should have added the shrouds to the mast before I put it in, but in all the excitement I forgot. I think that can be remedied without too much trouble. Finally, I've decided to go back to "version two" of the sail configuration, with the foresail hoisted and crewmen clinging to the yard unfurling the sail with the after sail, also furled, in the process of being hoisted up. So I get to use those figures I carved after all. Today I asked my lovely wife to take photos of my hands as I pulled on a garden hose, pretending it was the halyard downhaul, so I could get the hands correct on the carved figures. That's it for now. Next I have to make a new 4-sheave knight for the after halyard. Wish me luck!

So how thick are your strakes? It might be possible to make the angle shallower so it goes further along the strake, but there's obviously a limit to that (the "thin end of the wedge" gets too thin). The idea of fully carved stem ans sternposts is very cool. It'd be really nice to see. And RC would be good too. Just sail, not oars, I suppose? I'd be interested in what you have to say about efficient square sails, too.

Good word. Not a bad name. We still have those words in English, though not all that commonly used nowadays - swart or swarthy, and mew for a gull (named after its call, perhaps?) I have to say, having seen the giant child-eating gulls they have in the UK I was very happy to get back to our normal sized ones. The scarphs (yeah alright, I like traditional weird spelling) on Viking ships appear to be in the thickness of the planks rather than the width, as in this pic from Cathead's build log Was that what you had in mind? Though a scarph of this type would be best lined up with a frame, obviously it doesn't have to be.

Fair enough. 2mm isn't much - it's probably hard to see the difference between the two mast tops - so it's probably right to do all that work again (sigh) tomake a new top that looks right on the foremast. I do know what you mean . . . If I had a dollar for every change I've had to make in a scratch build, I'd have - several dollars.

Nice clean work, Slowhand. Looking good.

Those tops look very good, Patrick. It's hard to tell from the photo whether the foretop is too big because it's closer to the camera than the maintop is. Just check it by eye to be sure, or take a photo from directly side-on, so you don't get the camera messing up the proportions. Otherwise you may be giving yourself unnecessary work.

That's looking very nice. I seeyou have a couple of eyelets and cords in the plug for when you need to lift it out. Good idea.

Nice repair, and I agree about not repairing the cracks. It's a fine line to navigate, but the client brief was to maintain the aged look and you're doing the right thing. You're not trying to make new, but to repair what absolutely must be repaired without disturbing its (very attractive) patina of age.

You could still use the three part system for the jig but bolt it together, so it can be unbolted and removed later. So long as the joins were solid enough that should work ok.

Well, there was a famous longship called Ormen Lange (long serpent). Perhaps you could call this one Kort Orm (Norwegian for short serpent - at least according to Google Translate). Glad you realise this. Good to see you're taking the right attitude . . . . BTW, the ship's looking good. And step by step you're overcoming the obstacles as they arise. Who knew that staining the wood would make it swell that much? Haven't heard of that one - I did know it as cack-handed (the idea doesn't bear thinking about), or now you're in Oz you'd be called a molly-dooker.

Yes, a bit of experimentation to see what works best, and you should be ok.

Good idea. I think I'll make use of it for my own build.

Hello again, Guy. Once you've decided what model to make, it's a good idea to start a build log. The instructions on how to do that are here. Having a build log lets the rest of us see your progress, and offer advice and encouragement as you go. And the members here are a very supportive and knowledgeable community. Looking forward to seeing your model under way!

Good to see your model, Billy. The thing to do now is start a build log and upload your photos there. Then everybody gets to see them and follow your progress. Instructions on starting a log are here: You'll find a lot of helpful people along the way who'll be able to offer advice and encouragement as you make your journey.

PhilB, I wouldn't rebuild the castles - the problem is not with them but that the spacing of the benches is unequal. Currently all the columns are evenly spaced, which is the way it ought to be, and the arches are all the same size, which looks better than if I'd lined the columns up with the benches (which is where the original mistake occurred). I'm stuck with it - short of a major rebuild of the ship I can't do anything to fix the bench spacing. And you're right - nobody will notice but me - when you're looking at the model the oarsmen under the castle aren't terribly visible anyway - the photo is taken from a viewpoint lower than normal eye level and exaggerates it (as they often do). However, for my own peace of mind perhaps I could have the offending column come down through the bench - or at least cut it off short so it looks like it does. Again, a compromise, and I'm not sure which compromise I'd rather live with. LH, I didn't take it as a criticism - in fact I hadn't noticed it myself. But whether I decide to cut the column short or leave it as it is and treat it as a learning experience I haven't yet decided. There are plenty of things about the model I'd have done differently if I did it again (don't ask me about the sternpost) - maybe one more won't to make too much difference. To be honest most of my attention at the moment is on how I'm going to do the rigging. Onward and upward.

I'd like to LH, but I'm afraid I've used up all the adjustment available to me - at least I think I have . . . I'll sleep on it. The castle is only dry fitted for the moment. But if I'd got my distances right in the first place this problem wouldn't have happened, and I might just have to live with it.

Sounds like a very good project. Looking forward to seeing it. And don't worry about the time it takes. Some people build fast, others build slow. Just go at your own pace.