Ferrus Manus
-
Posts
1,339 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Ferrus Manus
-
This is why i decided to add the tackles. The reason i know (or at least highly suspect) tiller tackles were used on carracks is due to their massive size- controlling the rudder without them would be impossible. I guess if there's one part of the ship that won't be destroyed in a storm, it's the tiller. Also, owing to the Mediterranean tradition of brightly painting ships (that still exists today!), you'd think that the idea of at least some caravels being brightly painted is plausible. This is the steering tackle: I also rigged the preventer for the rudder: It would be nice if that stayed on the ship.
-
The tiller on this model is very long. So long, in fact, that on the real ship, it would be no more than six inches away from fouling on the mizzen mast and being rendered entirely nonfunctional. At 1/1 scale, the tiller would also be about 6 inches square at the tip. This begs the question: Is there any evidence for the use of tiller gear on caravels in the 15th century? I am tending toward adding it on this build, owing to the impracticality of not having it. We also know it was used on carracks, which adds credence to the "yes" route.
-
The more i think about it, Heller is probably the reason we can't have good, historically accurate plastic models of 15th century carracks. They ruined that with their ridiculous hull-reuse stunts and horrendously inaccurate reconstructions.
-
My decision to paint the upper works a blue-green color comes from the other plastic models i have seen constructed of 15th-century Iberian vessels. There is likely no evidence for or against the use of this practice on the real ships, but this is kind of a little homage. The paint i applied to the model was more blue than the examples i have seen. This is probably the only thing on this model that doesn't have a clear origin in the Middle Ages. However, there are remnants of paint on the Mataro Carrack. Granted, that paint was red and in a different place.
-
Can't tell if this is good or bad. Anyway... Fun fact: This model has a grand total of six (6) locator pins. By far the most common complaint i read about this kit was in regard to part misalignment. That being said, the alignment of parts was not worse than most of the ships i've built, and significantly better than some. Even the upper works, which were to be aligned entirely by eye, fit together well. The transom, which is the most ridiculously challenging part to fit on any plastic model ship, went on without a major issue. With that exception out of the way, the other two most common complaints i read were that the model had almost no detail, and looked more like a toy than a model when completed. Both of these issues could be resolved with any amount of effort put into the paintwork:
-
Bingo! The sterns on the ZHL 1/48 model and the Model Shipyard kit, available in either 1/78 or 1/60, are identical. SHAMEFUL!!
-
This is a screenie from ZHL's actual site showing the frames of the ship. @chris watton This looks like something you would design. Have you ever designed a Surprise, regardless of scale? They may have scaled it up.
-
Someone on Ships of Scale bought the ZHL kit and from looking at it, it's likely that they stole it from AL. There are a couple differences, like in how the parts are laid out, and a couple parts are different, so it might be a different kit. The guy's name on SoS is Jweb.
-
Steven, i (as a severe type A hemophiliac) find your new signature quote very fitting. It really isn't a ship model until you've bled on it, and it really isn't a ship modeling tool until it's caused you to bleed. The worst offenders are my xacto knife (obviously) and, get this, my pin vise.
-
It does at the aft above the quarterdeck. I was talking about using stringer-like rails mounted to the bulwark stanchions just like you have on your nef.
-
Upon seeing what they gave me in the instructions, i'm probably ditching their parts and doing what you did on the nef.
-
I'm pretty sure nautical archaeologists are also quoted as saying they have no clue what that capstan was actually used for.
-
Granted, cogs were much wider and heavier in terms of displacement than caravels. I would think that a single windlass would be fine. Plus, i only ended up using one windlass on my Nef, and the crew would weigh anchor by hand. This would be much harder to do on a caravel, though. I know woodrat put a windlass and capstan on his carrack, but that's easy as his ship would have been almost 4 times as large as mine.
-
So those are for the shrouds? Got it. On my caravel, i will simply have the lanyard originate from the upper block. The kit gives me bulkhead rails to tie stuff to (you can't prove me wrong 😜), so the issue of finding a place to mount the lower blocks and tie stuff off is no big deal.
-
I see the capstan, and good luck fitting one on a caravel. I am gravitating toward putting the windlass behind the mast and figuring out what to do with the anchor gear later. I might put a cross beam athwartship at the fore and wind it around that. More than that, i'll need heavy bitts at the fore to make up for the lack of catheads. The other thing is where to put the anchor cables. Would they have used nippers and a messenger cable, or do you think they would have wrapped the anchor cable around the windlass? I'm going with the former as this windlass is multipurpose.
-
Are your sails supposed to tack around the front of the mast? If so, i think there's an issue with your eyebolts. You see, both the standing end and running end of every line would have to be physically moved in order to tack the sail should it be tacking in front of the mast. The eyebolts would be unworkable assuming you were going for a more "modern" approach to attaching the standing end of a line to an eyebolt by seizing it. It would probably be better to just treat both ends of any given line as "running", i.e. tied to a rail. That is what i plan to do on my caravel. Let me know if i'm an idiot.
-
I plan also on making simple pumps and a windlass for the anchors. Would a second windlass be necessary to hoist the mainyard? If so, it is possible that that windlass would be sufficient to haul the anchors as well. Thing is, the decks of these ships are pretty much entirely a crapshoot.
-
#3. Wooldings. There is not a single image i've seen depicting a caravel with wooldings. My theory regarding this is that because of the relatively small size of the ships and thus their masts, wooldings (and possibly wedges) were not necessary as they did not need "built" masts. Once again, for more information on built masts, Woodrat's carrack.
-
#2. The shrouds. This should come as a surprise to no one, but in 1441, a caravel would not have carried any kind of ratlines. Let's take a look at some more caravels (from Steven's collection obviously) and pay special regard to the shroud arrangements. Three pairs on the main, two on the mizzen: Two pairs on the mizzen and bonaventure, three(?) on the main Likely three on the main and two on the mizzen (bottom left) For the purposes of this model, i have chosen to use three pairs of shrouds on the main, and two on the mizzen. These shrouds are inboard the bulwarks, and will use two single blocks per shroud, with the origin of the lanyard being the upper block and the fall being the strop for the lower block. I will elect as well to use toggles on at least the main, probably also the mizzen shrouds (easier shroud removal/dismasting) For a better picture of exactly how the shrouds were set up, let's look at some carracks (bigger ships=more central in paintings=more detail). All of these show the same arrangement of shrouds. The only difference being on carracks, they were sometimes outboard the bulwarks, a position that would have been unmanageable on a caravel. For more information, look at @woodrat's carrack.
-
Same, but i would also add that you should not weather as much in high-traffic areas on the deck, as filth would not have as much of an opportunity to build up there.
-
Now, we should get started in defining the lines that would and would not have existed on a caravel. Let's start with the obvious. #1. Brails and clew lines. Not a single one of the caravel paintings i have seen include either brails or clew lines on any of the sails. This is even when they are depicted as existing on other ships in the same painting (i.e. the Santa Catarina image, which includes an obvious clew block, the artist forgot to draw the actual line). More than even that, we know how impractical it would be to have clews and brails owing to how the sails tacked. Every image of a caravel shows the sail and yard as being outside the shrouds. The way you tack a lateen sail that's outside the shrouds is by allowing the sail to blow in front of the mast, then pivoting the sail and yard around the front of the mast. For that reason, every single line attached to the sail or yard must be pivoted with the yard, or taken around both the shrouds and mast to the other side. Furthermore, we have proof that they got by just fine without brails or clew lines: This painting from 1546 (over a hundred years later, but still legitimate) shows the taking in of sail on the deck: And this image shows the setting of sails aloft. The way the sails are behaving proves that neither clew lines nor brails were present on these sails. This is a painting from 1565 showing the Portuguese caravels and carracks doing battle. Look at how the men are climbing the yard in order to release the furling ropes that bind the sail to the mast. This painting also proves the use of peak halyards on at least some caravels. P.S. notice how both paintings include peak halyards, but the diagram doesn't. The reason why modern caravel replicas include brails and clew lines is likely for safety purposes (not having men go aloft), and models (even museum models!!) are based on these modernized replicas.
-
I already have. Look at this picture: this image seems to show a caravel with a peak halyard emanating from about a third of the way up the yard from the mast, and running through a block or thimble and belaying somewhere at the sterncastle. Do you see it?
-
I have learned from you that a theoretical reconstruction, as accurate as it may be, is just a theory and not necessarily indicative of reality. I believe i also found evidence of a line he excluded in his drawing.
Our Emblem ®
