Jump to content
Supplies of the Ship Modeler's Handbook are running out. Get your copy NOW before they are gone! Click on photo to order. ×

Ferrus Manus

Members
  • Posts

    1,369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ferrus Manus

  1. @Louie da fly congrats on restating what i said in a better and more descriptive manner 😏
  2. Check out any build log of the H.M. Cutter Cheerful, namely the Vanguard kit by our own Chuck Passaro. Pay close attention to the planking thereof.
  3. nothing. However, adding drop planks and a tangible plank shift would help. Also, wider wales and rubbing strakes and scarf joints. Lots of scarf joints.
  4. Jokes on you!! I can plank the Senora Fielden however i want because it's almost 600 years old and almost no historical evidence exists for how it was planked!
  5. I guess you could refer to this as a work of art, and you wouldn't be wrong. However, i see it as more of a living sculpture or a 3D technical drawing. I will admit, i do feel proud of myself when some of my images look like enhanced close-ups of a Vroom painting.
  6. This vessel comes from that nightmarish period when the Mary Rose had stopped being a useful source material, but before admiralty models became a thing.
  7. Bedankt, Baker. Now, i legitimately believe this vessel will be much more complex and insane than your Pelican, only because it is a much larger and more heavily rigged vessel. Also, i figured out how to run the bowlines up to the fighting tops without them fouling on their respective sails, which was your issue on the Pelican. You simply need to run them through the lubbers' holes instead of running them over the tops of the structures themselves. Also, the main course will be slightly easier to rig than the fore, owing to its increased size as well as the fact that the belaying area is larger than the relatively small forecastle.
  8. The one frustrating thing is that most artists, even Vroom, omitted many small/light lines in the interest of simplicity.
  9. I got the fore course done today. Surprisingly, there wasn't much more to it than the courses on the Golden Hinde. All that was left to do was the buntlines, topping lifts, martnets, and bowlines.
  10. @Isaiah I suggest reading this build log as well for help on rigging techniques.
  11. Yeah, we go through an apocalypse every year. If we just went back to traditional methods of eating and living, we wouldn't have this problem.
  12. Or maybe, the extant shipwrecks simply show the keel having bent under the stress of almost a thousand years of existence. It could be a common deformation of the wood as it gets eroded away and buried in silt and dirt.
  13. Stay here for a bit, Steven. The main course's heavy lines are rigged. The lighter lines (buntlines, martnets, bowlines) come next.
  14. The next task is to rig the sheets and tacks, before belaying the clews and finally, the buntlines, martnets, and bowlines.
  15. Then, after that, i rigged the lanyard to the knighthead, and made up the block and tackle, raising the yard into its position. I also i did the braces for the yard. I also did the tackles for the parrel, which are the two sets of double blocks on the deck. They fall to a pair of cleats on the mast.
  16. So, today i got the fore course mounted to the mast. First, i tied the halyard at one point to the yard. Then, i threaded the halyard through one of the sheaves in the side of the mast, and held it in place. It was at this point that i began prep for the parrel. I threaded the halyard through the violin block and back through the second sheave in the mast, before tying it back to the yard. More in the next few minutes.
  17. Goes to show how ahead of the game you were in the world of ship modelling at my age. Thanks!!
  18. Yes, the rigging plan is accurate. And yes, the sails should be rigged before being hoisted.
  19. I did more prep for the fore course. The mainstay tackle is complete, in its stored position at the base of the foremast.
  20. @woodrat @Louie da fly Let's settle this argument once and for all. Yes, you already know what i'm talking about. For those unaware, there is a debate between Dick and Steven concerning the bowsprit grapnels common on carracks of around this time. Steven believes they only existed on warships, to serve the purpose of dropping on top of another ship to hold her in place for boarding, while Dick believes they existed as sort of an auxiliary anchor. Now, gather round and listen to my ramblings... These two naves are clearly warships, as they possess both anti-boarding nets and gads on the fighting tops (gads are large javelins meant to be thrown onto enemy sailors). They also both have the characteristic grapnel hanging from the bowsprit. Now, i tend to fall on the side of Steven in this debate. However, the true answer is likely more nuanced than that. In the medieval period, all the way up until the Renaissance, most if not all painters of nautical scenes did not care much about perfect realism in their artworks. Instead, they wanted to portray the idea of "ship", and they certainly did not imagine that almost six hundred years later, historians would use their artworks to piece together the functional details of an entire type of vessel that no longer exists. That being said, when a young artist in the medieval period first saw a carrack, the awe-inspiring image would certainly be burned into his memory. Were that a military vessel, it would have had a grapnel. This, to the young artist, would have been one of the most striking features of such a vessel, and, not being a sailor himself, would not have known the difference. Then, throughout his career, when asked to paint a carrack, he would likely call upon this memory like it was yesterday, and he certainly would not forget the spiky metal bit hanging off the bowsprit.
  21. I love how this one little ship facilitated the most underrated, history-altering heist in world history.
×
×
  • Create New...