tarbrush

Finally got back into the shop on the Erycina. With the shrouds and forestay done it was time for ratlines. On another model I borrowed a neat little tool for ratline spacing. Take a thin piece of wood long enough to cover all the shrouds with a width the same at the ratline spacing.  Glue sandpaper to the wood (I used 320grit) place one piece behind and another in front clipping them together. (I use alligator clips). Tie the lines and slide the knot down to the spacer wood.
Wood with sandpaper. I use glue sticks for glueing the sandpaper also works for patterns much better than rubber cement.

spacers placed

spacers clipped (I remembered to describe this method afterthe ratlines were done but not shaped)

 
Time to lift sails and running rigging. This was fairly straight forward and there's not much to show.
Added the parrel rope to main gaff and rigged per drawing.

 
Lashed the sail to the boom and routed the boom sheets to the block.

 
Tied the topsail to the topmast added the halyard, down haul and tied the gaff.

Mizzen sail like the main sail with the exception of tie off points. The foresail and jib were very straight forward with little explanation.

 
One last set pictures of the basically completed Erycina.

 
Need to make hanging ropes at the tie off points and one last thing forming the sails. Using a box fan set the sails in a tight starboard run but I haven't decided how to keep them in shape. Thoughts are use dead flat water based variphane thinned and sprayed with an airbrush. Just thinking.
 
Will

just beautiful, thanks for posting these pictures!

just beautiful, thanks for posting these pictures!

just beautiful, thanks for posting these pictures!

Model of the Treasure Galleon “La Nuestra Señora de Atocha”, 1620 in the Archives of the Indies in Seville, Spain. No date or scale available—unfortunately my photo of the placard was unreadable—although it looked to be about 1:48. This is the galleon that foundered in a hurricane off the Florida Keys 400 years ago this September, and was found in 1985. The estimated value of her cargo, including gold, silver, and Columbian emeralds, was USD $500,000,000.

Give or take…

Welcome to MSW Dave and please please please post your photos of la Nuestra Señora de Atocha!

Welcome to MSW Dave and please please please post your photos of la Nuestra Señora de Atocha!

Welcome to MSW Dave and please please please post your photos of la Nuestra Señora de Atocha!

Welcome to MSW Dave and please please please post your photos of la Nuestra Señora de Atocha!

Welcome to MSW Dave.  Yes please do post the photos!   The Nautical/Naval History forum here might be appropriate, but no doubt one of the moderators here will give you a better answer.
 
Allan

Hello Dave and welcome to MSW from the UK.
Looking forward to seeing these pictures, perhaps the mods will talk you through the process?
Regards,
Bruce

Finally decided to say hello after lurking for a while. I’ve been a modeler since the early 1960s, mostly 1:48 WWI aeroplanes in plastic & resin, but have always wanted to try my hand at a wooden ship. I actually started a scratchbuilt 1:96 Dos Amigos/Fair Rosamund about twenty years ago from the Chapelle drawings, but made the mistake of carving the hull out of Honduran mahogany… and it was so beautiful when I got it done that couldn’t bear to paint or copper her, and the project languished. Live and learn.
 
Question: I’m actually in the process of walking the Camino de la Plata from Seville north to Santiago de Compostela, and was able to get some relatively decent photos of the beautiful model (quarter scale?) of the treasure galleon la Nuestra Señora de Atocha from 1620 in the naval museum on the banks of the Guadalquivir River. Would there be any interest in my posting them? And if so, what sub-forum would be the appropriate one?
 
Dave

That's a thought, Roger. It hadn't occurred to me and may well be the answer. If so, it (or they) wouldn't have been very wide and probably wouldn't have affected the vessel's trim all that much, and there might still be room for them to be fitted in even with a reduced overhang of the aftercastle.
 
Steven

After a lot of thought I've decided I like the shape of mosaic 'B' the best. But that aftercastle just isn't quite right. I decided to get rid of the strange downward extension aft - as far as I can see that would make it very unseaworthy. But after removing it, it became obvious that the aftercastle itself extends too far aft past the end of the hull; it would unbalance the ship and make her wallow in the waves.
 
So, what to do? Well, with the Winchelsea nef, there were any number of variations shown in the town seals, which could each be correct for the individual ship shown, but if I wanted to do the Winchelsea ship I should duplicate it as shown on the seal to the best of my ability. But in the case of the San Marco ship, there were five mosaics, all somewhat different, but all supposedly of the exact same ship. 
 
I felt that in this case I was justified in merging the representations, or at least mixing and matching. To me it seemed that the stern overhang of the aftercastles of Mosaics A, C and E (see post # 20 above) was more believable. However, the one on mosaic E comes down below the gunwale, which is very rarely shown in other fairly contemporary ship pictures. I didn't want to do multiple arches (of which more later), so that took out A and C. What I settled on was keeping B's aftercastle but reducing the overhang, possibly sliding it little forward (to incorporate the handles of the side rudders) and shortening it overall.
 
Here's my side view (you can see how much overhang the aftercastle has - I will be reducing this)
 

 
Though there are many representations of aftercastles with solid walls I believe in this case they are made lattice-fashion rather than solid, as shown in the pictures below.  With an open poop deck like this, I don't think they were too concerned about protection from the weather.
 
      
 
Or it might even have solid side walls but be open at the back, as this one seems to be.
 

 
Earlier in life I was a mediaeval re-enactor and as part of my activity I investigated the Weird and Wacky Weapons of the PBI* and in fact wrote an article about them (http://www.oocities.org/egfrothos/ and follow the "Arms and Armour" link). Most art in the middle ages was religious, and a fruitful source for the weapons of the common soldier is the many portrayals of the Betrayal of Christ, such as the one below in a 12th century manuscript in the Uffizi gallery in Florence - pretty much contemporary with the mosaics of the ship. Regarding the strange phenomenon of pointy things sticking out the back of the aftercastle, I believe these are pole-arms laid to rest. 
 
    
 
  
  
It's possible that the polearms are resting on the deck, but I think they would get in the way and it's more likely they are in a vertical rack against the side of the aftercastle (or probably both sides).
 
I've used the Libro di Navigar and Mezza Lune techniques as outlined in Woodrat's Round Ship build log
 
and come up with this - here's the cross-section at the master frame
 
 

 
I'm not sure if I'll be including through-beams. They're not shown in the mosaic, but that might just be an oversight by the mosaicist.
 
And front and rear views (side rudders not included on the rear view at the moment, and I might be narrowing the aftercastle somewhat. As the ship gets narrower towards the stern I don't think it needs to be this wide to allow enough room for the side-rudders).
 

 
I think the artist has shown the stempost  a bit exaggerated - here's how it looks with the sternpost and keel - it does look too big to me.
 

 
Compared to the curved stemposts in these 12th century ships from the Leaning tower of Pisa and in the fifth picture from the top in this post.
 

 
That's the current state of play. All comments and suggestions welcome.
 
Steven
 
* PBI - Poor Bloody Infantry - an Australian term from World War II

While I was planking each section, I felt the planking line was not appropriate. I checked the lines today, and... Oh my...
 

 
I said that experience is the key determining the planking line. I should have checked my ship at the front...
 
https://www.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/rmgc-object-386365
 
It seems a bit late, but I searched museum examples for similar hull types. I couldn't stand my mistake.
 

 
It was fortunate that I only finished two sections. I removed them all. I'll draw new planking lines and restart everything.
 

 

 
According to the museum ships, my new lines would likely be this. In order to work faster, I'll reduce the sections from 6 to 5.
 
I would like to share my mistake with everyone who doesn't have experience.  

I cut the gun ports out and added the stops to the openings. A 12 inch-long strip was supplied for the stops, which was not enough, but I found some leftover material from another model and used it to finish. Taking a razor saw to the model was a little nerve-wracking, but got through it OK! Added the hawse hole metal and the port holes, which I flattened as suggested.
 

 
I decided a while ago to request the inner keel strips from ME, which were supplied in the thickness indicated in the parts list, which differed from the thickness given in the instruction manual. I used some other material which I had, but after all I did not get what I had paid for. I took care to describe the discrepancy, and received an email from the parts dept. asking me to use the proper form, which I had never noticed, in the future. I took quite a while, but eventually I was mailed the incorrect parts. Fortunately the parts can be used in another area where the kit was short on material.
 
During this time I found that the outer keel material, also used in other places, was not on the parts list at all. I used some walnut left over from the riverboat model, but decided that it was time to reconcile the manual with the parts list (I did my initial inventory using only the parts list) and found seven more instances of missing parts either not included in the parts list or not supplied in the correct quantities, etc. I used the correct Form. Parts emailed me asking if I was wanting to purchase these items. I said no, and wrote an expanded explanation with part and page numbers from the manual for each part. No response yet.
 
Kit designer David A. does a good job of identifying optional features for which one might have to obtain material on ones own. I am quite clear that if the manual refers to a part with a specific model number, and that part is not optional, it should have been included in the parts list and material provided as part of the kit. It is my understanding that ME develops the parts list from the manual written by the designer.
 
Sorry for my long-windedness. I find no fault with the kit design and am really enjoying building it. I chalk this all up to this being a new kit, and that there is a new parts dept. guy. . .  I will buy the parts if I have to in order to finish the project, but. . .
 
Update 4-23-22
 
Just wanted to take a moment to say that Model Expo has sent me the missing parts I had identified. In addition, they have initiated on their own a new mailing of additional parts missing, identified in-house. I must have missed them in my inventory. I have spent a great deal of time in cross-checking, but this is still relatively new to me. It has been a difficult road, but I am happy to say they have stepped up to the plate and are attempting to correct mistakes. All is forgiven (mostly). 
 

Added the keel, rudder and bow stem. The kit was missing the keel material, but once again, I had some walnut of the correct size. I had done a complete inventory, but used the parts list to do so, and there are some discrepancies between the manual and the parts list. Oh well.
 
The hull is now very smooth after a round of filling with Elmer's and more sanding. I will wait to do more until after priming. Right now it looks like there will be very little additional work needed. Priming occurs later, after some more work on the interior.
 



 
 

Thanks much, David.
 
Working on the two upper wheel enclosures and water closets. Pictured is one filled and sanded and one awaiting filling (outboard view). Had a hard time getting it all to mate up. I was really uncertain of my ability to shape the water closets solid rounded outboard portions, but I think they turned out well, and I really enjoyed the process. I just hope the inboard area has some room for adjustment, as that is where the accumulated error shows most. . . but will wait until mounting to the hull and placing the inboard card bulkhead before making any adjustments.
 
I used the rounded end of a  flat toothpick to apply filler to the joints, and 220 grit sandpaper folded in half to sand the joints to a sharp angle, so as not to cut a groove. Did this slowly/gently under magnification and am happy with the results.
 
I primed the PE grilles beforehand, as I did not want to spray the primer through the slots into the blackened interior- probably not necessary, but I was concerned. I will mask the PE prior to priming the rest of the assemblies.
 

 
 
 
 

Now to finish the Yenikapi. Sometimes it's good to step away from a model for a while then come back to it with a fresh eye. Having done that, I was not happy with the rudder housing and have redone it. When this is finished it will look almost like the rudder goes inside the hull as many pictures suggest. But it doesn't! If the rudder went through a hole in the hull, it would be impossible to raise the rudder for landing and we know they did this!. Also when docking it would be necessary to protect the rudder with some casing. We see on many ships pictures with quarter rudders a structure which is triangular and I have tried to show one reason for this.

 
 
This is the framing showing rudder in lowered and raised position. Planking will be installed to cover this
 

 

 
Cheers
Dick

As I mentioned before, there are five representations of the same ship on the walls of San Marco, in a sort of cartoon strip telling the story of Saint Mark's body being rescued from destruction and smuggled away to its current home in Venice.
 
The five depictions of the ship are very similar, but each one is slightly different from the others. To get a better handle on just what these differences are, and to get a "feel" for the ship itself, I took a leaf out of Björn Landström's book, by drawing them myself. But as we are now blessed with digital technology he had no access to in the 1960s, I was able to import the five mosaics into AutoCad and trace each one. Here they are:
 

 

 

 

 

 
Note that there are gaps in the tracings. These are where there are human figures obscuring the lines of the ship. 
 
All the ships have three masts, evidently lateen rigged, with what appear to be lanterns (or tops?) at the masthead. In the two pictures where the sails are spread they are decorated - onewith a red cross, the other with two quatrefoils (four-leafed flowers).
 
All are without a forecastle but wherever it's visible, the stempost curls backward.
 
All have a "sterncastle", but each one is different. All have some sort of "fretwork", but in some it's square, in others arched. In B and D (and perhaps in A) there is a strange downward extension at the aft end. I have no idea what it is.
 
All are shown with (usually two) side-rudders in the usual Mediterranean tradition, but the rudders are different shapes. E shows some sort of tackle for controlling the rudders, and has the larboard rudder swivelled upwards. B and D show only a single rudder, but I believe it was simply omitted from the mosaic, not that it represents the ship having a single rudder.
 
A, B and D show the rudder shaft going into the hull through a circular hole. This is mentioned in what is pretty much the definitive study of rudder evolution The Development of the Rudder A.D. 100-1600 - A Technological Tale by Lawrence V. Mott, but after discussion with Woodrat I've come to agree with him that this is not in fact a practical way of hanging a rudder and must be a result of artist's error. Probably the thing that finally convinced me was looking at the Cocharelli Codex again and discovering that though ships are shown with this feature in a side view, in a stern view it is evident that they are supported outside the hull, from the "sterncastle".
 
 
 
B, D and E have what might be described as cleats sticking up above the gunwales, and in the mosaics they have loops of rope belayed to them (see the second photo in my first post above, though the loops are a bit hard to see). Whereas A has a sort of "battlemented" side.
 
Two mosaics (C and E) show "wings" at the stern, a common feature of Mediterranean ships of this period.
 
I've used the Mezza Lune technique to work out the shape of the hull (thanks, Woodrat!). These calculations relate only to the floors - that is once the stempost and sternpost curve up from the keel it no longer applies, and you have to work out how to curve the hull inwards from there to the bow and stern. You can see on the plan view the lines that show the extent of the floors.
 

 
and the last pic shows how the frames line up with the hull in B.
 

 
Now I have to reconcile these five pictures and choose which features I'm going to go with - or perhaps choose a single mosaic and just go with that one.
 
Steven
 

Rob,
thanks for looking in. Yes you`re right, except for the tremendous length difference of the original ships and the model scales 1:144 vs 1:51 now,
the building of the schooner model is being built in the same way. You may note that here also I only put on a single layer of planking in 1,5 mm plank thickness. This causes me to be careful not to take away too much of the material thickness when sanding.
I`m very pleased with the scraping results of the first side, only a minimum needed to be scraped off with 0,9mm thick hardened steel blades
Nils
 

 
The tools
 

 
this is only by scraping, no sanding yet....
 
 

 
the bottom planks at the keel are also sidewise covering the slots in which the pedestal spindles will go through later on

This will be my fifth build, I'm not the best at logging my builds but will try to keep up with this time. All but one of my previous builds have been models by Midwest (The Dingy, The Muscongus Lobster Smack,  Sharpie Schooner,  Boston Whitehall Tender), and Long Boat 18th Century by Model Expo.
 
I had purchased the Trotmares on eBay last summer 2020 not knowing anything about the build process. The Midwest plans and instructions for the most part are very easy to follow.  After opening the Trotmares box and looking at the sheet plans and instructions, I was very overwhelmed. 
 
Almost a year later I have decided to go ahead and build it.
 

 
  

After sanding the laser marks from the frames I glued them in place. I used small L brackets to keep them square
 

Then the fore and aft decks also presented a clamping issue. For the aft deck I used a a small piece of wood on the underneath side of my keel clamp with Triger clamps.
 

Update
 
The planking is quite time intensive due to the glue curing time, and the bending stresses, but meantime I got 11 planks to each side.
I`m also thinking about copper sheeting the hull below the waterline. I have a sample copper sheet 0,1 mm thick, unfortunately that is not available with a gluefilm on the rear side. Will have to make some glueing trials. The poncing of the copper quality (sunk nail heads) is no problem though....
 
Nils
 

 
the red-cedar planks follow the frame contours quite well
 

 
the planking from the deckline downwards will be scraped afterwards, prior to sanding
 
 

 
the aft bulwark section will be planked with vertical attached planks. Probably the bulwarks will be planked with pine, also 1,5 x 6mm, because my red-cedar planks have come to an end
 

 
in opposite to a riviting immitation the ponce sheet parts will be turned around 180 degr. for faking the sunk sheeting nail haids
here a sample for poncing with different toothwheel moduls
 

 
this is the actual schoner in the shipyard after being in water for quite some time. My model will not be fitted with props