Louie da fly

There's no easy way to make the gun-carriages at this scale except piece by piece. 
this shows the concave cutouts for the sides. Each pair of sides are held together by double sided tape during these steps and drilling.
Drilling for the axles. I do not have the skills to mill the axles so I chose a less accurate method.
 

a jig for aligning the front and back crossmembers during gluing.

the carriage assembled and pinned 

Now for the cannon.
 
Cheers
Dick 
 

Interesting idea!

First mock-up of the mount. Seems like it should work. 
 

Reconstruction of the aft wall of the upper deck.
Drawing of what remains.

Result.
Swivel guns may have originally been placed here. That's why two holes were provided in the beam on each side. Whether these were still present after the renovation...?

The supports in the middle are a guess. 

The drainage channel of the deck above; once painted, you won't notice the wire anymore.

By the way, another point with the Lomellina is that she did capsize, so perhaps wasn't all that stable. But as we don't know the exact circumstances of her loss, that may not have been the problem. She was in harbour when a tempest came down from the hills and tipped her over. Was she in ballast or did she have cargo on board? There were some indications that she was not in full sailing condition when the tempest hit - IIRC the capstan was not shipped - but  we just don't know for sure. What we do have is a fair section of her underwater lines.
 
Steven

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

Beautiful work as usual Patrick.
 
Steven

Beautiful work as usual Patrick.
 
Steven

Beautiful work as usual Patrick.
 
Steven

By the way, another point with the Lomellina is that she did capsize, so perhaps wasn't all that stable. But as we don't know the exact circumstances of her loss, that may not have been the problem. She was in harbour when a tempest came down from the hills and tipped her over. Was she in ballast or did she have cargo on board? There were some indications that she was not in full sailing condition when the tempest hit - IIRC the capstan was not shipped - but  we just don't know for sure. What we do have is a fair section of her underwater lines.
 
Steven

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

It's been quite a while since I've posted. I've been busy - life does tend to get in the way. But I re-thunk the sliced 3D shape.
 
And I thunk - the one I've done was sliced into every second frame. But the frames are 5mm apart and the dropsaw's kerf is only about 2mm wide. I could have cut a slice for each frame - they should each end up about 3mm thick - and not have to interpolate between slices to work out the shapes of the ones in between!
 
So I did it all over again - made another 3D model and sliced it into individual frames. And it worked!





Now of course I have to transfer that onto paper and mirror it to get the full frames, but all good!
 
There are a few glitches in the shapes of the frames nearest to the stern - the curve seems to go upward at the keel instead of downward. I'll just have to fix that when I transfer it to paper.
 
Steven

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

Thank you Lashenden. I agree with you in many ways. Apart from obvious mistakes, I'm inclined to accept pictorial evidence as being correct unless proven otherwise. But there are artists and artists. Some - the ships in Carpaccio's superb Ursula Legend paintings and Botticelli's Judgment of Paris I feel I can accept (almost) wholeheartedly - but even Carpaccio's pictures contain a couple of things I find hard to accept (the blocks that tighten the shrouds, the configuration of the wales at the bow) - because they don't seem likely to work in the real world. Similarly, there are a couple of details in the Botticelli that don't ring true - there is a ladder just behind the after hatch that doesn't seem to lead anywhere, for example. But overall, excellent.
 
On the other hand, there are some pretty abysmal contemporary pictures out there.

 
Oversize figures - certainly there's a tradition of showing people oversized, particularly if they're important. However, though I'm prepared to ignore them in general, every now and then an artist shows people pretty much correct size. Again, it depends very much on the artist.
     

If I understand you correctly, by the 'bow-curve profile' you mean that the bow is shown very rounded, as in this picture from the Beauchamp Pageant, but Carpaccio and Botticelli show a sharper bow, and this is backed up by what archaeology is available. The current reconstruction of Lomellina's lines gives her a bow even sharper than this, though I'm not sure I agree with them.
  

 
On the other hand, perhaps you're referring to the extreme slope of the forecastle and aftercastle shown on most of the ships in the left-hand pic below.
 
Regarding the angle of the deck, there is great variation in how it's portrayed in contemporary images. I'm completely happy to accept some degree of slope, but artists of the time were experimenting with how to portray foreshortening, and I believe some of them overdid the angle. For example, in the left-hand image below, if you look at the ship in profile view the forecastle and aftercastle are shown with a fairly gentle angle, while the ones seen from bow-on both are considerably more extreme. I believe the right-hand image (1455-61 Benedetto Bonfigli. Saint Louis de Tolouse - Miracolo del denaro. Galleria Nazionale dell'Umbria) is a more believable representation.
   
Fortunately, in the Lomellina we have a good idea of the slope of the main deck, as a good proportion of the starboard side has been preserved, including the deck clamps. Unfortunately the forecastle and aftercastle are lost, so there's a fair bit of guesswork involved with them.
 
Though I'm not an expert on 15th century armour, I do understand what you are talking about. In fact I have made armour myself, and I have a colleague who has made himself a complete set of gothic plate which he wears in re-enactment combat.

There is also a robust discussion regarding whether or not contemporary images of Byzantine lamellar armour are to be believed, as to how the stuff was put together. I'm an aficionado of the 'Yes' argument. 
 
Again, regarding hull shape, we are fortunate that enough of the Lomellina survived to give a good idea of her underwater lines, though the bow and stern are lost.
 
Steven
 
 
 

I've joined just to contribute to this thread, lol. I'm an art historian and also have some historic ship experience and therefore have a couple of observations (which may already have been made elsewhere in the thread). On the question of overscale figures in fifteenth century paintings - yes, but also no. I used to run the replica Golden Hinde in London (of which more below) but I can tell you that the stern castle on that replica is vertiginous (I would estimate 20'+ from the top of the stern rail to the waterline) and the poop deck is both tiny (about 10' x 6') and slopes at a severe angle. The whole structure looks far more imposing from the quayside than it actually is. You can see much the same effect in Van de Velde drawings from the 1660s; the design of stern castles are meant to look monumental but actually they're quite underscale, almost 'toy' architecture. While the medieval convention of oversized figures goes back hundreds of years before the Renaissance, adults standing on quarter galleries or the poop of a ship with high castles would indeed look oddly over-scale.
 
Further to that point, I'm always cautious about the degree to which we should discount contemporary representations of anything, including ships, as uninformed or inaccurate. In my experience artists have generally tried to give what they considered a convincing or 'characteristic' representation of objects in the world. I would take the fifteenth century depictions of carracks at face value unless there's clear evidence to the contrary. This is especially the case concerning the exaggerated profile of the bow that bends back on itself producing that extraordinary 'bow-curve' profile. That feature is pretty much universal in contemporary depictions - it might be counter-intuitive to a twenty-first century eye but to diminish that feature is a perfect example of the 'condescension of posterity'. A useful example of the benefit of taking this period at it's own estimation is provided by Tobias Capwell's study of armour from the early fifteenth century - he's done amazing work by assuming that contemporaries knew exactly what they were looking at.
 
During my time on the Golden Hinde I had several conversations with Brian Lavery about the errors built into the 1977 replica. One of that ship's most glaring mistakes was the degree to which its beam  was underestimated in the twentieth century design - as many of you will know, the resulting instability and poor handling had to be corrected with foam-filled sponsons bolted either side the hull. Lavery always thought that in early modern ships the widest part of the beam was below the waterline, which would give the ship the kind of stability later achieved with a deep keel. Some decades later the Duyfken replica benefitted from computer-aided modelling of its handling characteristics and featured much more convincing and historically-accurate hull dimensions.

G'day Grant. Yes, fully retired and able to spend more time in the shed. Where size permits, I like things to open and close (within reason), Very neat work on the Harriet McGregor I see. I have made a callout for interest in a Perth Static modellers club on MSW . But no bites as yet. The bricks were painted molded resin, orange ochre with dry brushed charcoal.
Cheers
Dick

Construction of the various hatches on this deck.

Eight small hatches, above each gun on the deck below. None are identical. It looks sloppy, but so be it...
Larger hatches are provided in the middle.
An anchor cable will later "disappear" under one.
A ladder will remain partially visible under another.

The mast is aligned, straight across the width and leaning slightly backwards along the length.

Capstan under construction

Thanks for following and likes

With the deck planking finished, the deck (outside in the garden) is sanded and dusted.

The planking at the back is virtually invisible later, so most attention has been paid to the parts that remain visible.

Ladders glued

The openings around ladders and other openings are finished with planks with grooves milled into them. The cross beams of the hatches fit here.

(Most of the hatches in the middle will be closed)


Thanks for following

Interesting question. I was actually surprised to find true deadeyes as early as 1380 - I hadn't thought they'd been developed by that time, and contemporary illustrations (yes, I know they're not necessarily reliable) don't show them at all. I'm afraid you'll have to decide for yourself whether the Stralsund cog had them.
 
Regarding deck planks, I doubt that the Viking method of planking was also in use further south - certainly the framing is completely different. The only planking apparently found on the Bremen cog was on the afterdeck, and its side to side, not fore and aft. The orlop(?) deck beams can also be seen, and they are oriented such that the planking would also be side to side.

 
I don't think the through-beams can be relied upon as a gauge of the planking direction, as the attached photo shows - they don't seem to have any relation to the planking. Personal opinion, however - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would be quite happy with the idea of the main planking running fore and aft.

Steven

Hi Ferrus! I'd also refer you to the Bremen cog (c. 1380), the best preserved of all the cog wrecks. Google it for images - there are so  many wonderful details in the photos, such as the windlass. I seem to recall she also had a capstan, but I can't see it in any of the photos, so perhaps I'm wrong. And here are three deadeyes from the same vessel - they're described as blocks but they're obviously deadeyes. 

Steven

Interesting question. I was actually surprised to find true deadeyes as early as 1380 - I hadn't thought they'd been developed by that time, and contemporary illustrations (yes, I know they're not necessarily reliable) don't show them at all. I'm afraid you'll have to decide for yourself whether the Stralsund cog had them.
 
Regarding deck planks, I doubt that the Viking method of planking was also in use further south - certainly the framing is completely different. The only planking apparently found on the Bremen cog was on the afterdeck, and its side to side, not fore and aft. The orlop(?) deck beams can also be seen, and they are oriented such that the planking would also be side to side.

 
I don't think the through-beams can be relied upon as a gauge of the planking direction, as the attached photo shows - they don't seem to have any relation to the planking. Personal opinion, however - in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I would be quite happy with the idea of the main planking running fore and aft.

Steven

Hi Ferrus! I'd also refer you to the Bremen cog (c. 1380), the best preserved of all the cog wrecks. Google it for images - there are so  many wonderful details in the photos, such as the windlass. I seem to recall she also had a capstan, but I can't see it in any of the photos, so perhaps I'm wrong. And here are three deadeyes from the same vessel - they're described as blocks but they're obviously deadeyes. 

Steven