Jump to content

Mary Rose by Chidokan - JoTiKa - 1:80 - kit with modifications


Recommended Posts

hi all, this will be my first ship log, so be gentle with me! The reason for the build is a fascination with the ship, which I saw raised from a long distance many years ago and was better to see on tv that evening!

 

Opening the kit, I found an error in packing, two of one sheet and a missing one, (easily done I guess) a quick call to Jotika and Stockton Modeller got me the sheet on the way, excellent customer service gentlemen, despite the kit being five years old apparently!

 

I am building to the volumes published by the trust, and using the Anthony roll etc as further references. Off to Portsmouth for a visit to double check on some of the gun carriages and take a look at the recently raised 'tudor rose' figurehead. Hopefully the kit will not need too much modifying to match the archaeology.

 

One thing I noted during a dry run on the bulkheads and lower deck guns is that the stern ones are angled and appear to go through the rear bulkhead... need to take a look at this before the glue goes on!

 

Forty gun barrels in the kit, the Anthony roll lists seventy guns, so will need to work out if the 'missing' ones are just handguns of some description...or were on the imageproxy.php?img=&key=8f45093723bba175top deck and helped sink the ship! This weekend I will start on the frame and get some photos up... will need some fine wire to add the lifting rings to the barrel, photo shows original parts and (nearly finished) smaller iron gun. The carriage parts have a rounded end, so squared them off and added a profile to the bottom of the carriage as per the book..imageproxy.php?img=&key=8f45093723bba175imageproxy.php?img=&key=8f45093723bba175imageproxy.php?img=&key=8f45093723bba175

 

IMG_20190426_195155.jpg

Edited by Chidokan
strange boxes!
Link to post
Share on other sites

A wonderful project to undertake, Chidokan. I find ships of this period fascinating. I'm currently restoring my own scratch-built model of Mary Rose's big sister, the Henry Grace a Dieu (or Great Harry) that I built when I was 17. That was before Mary Rose was raised, so a lot of the details in my own model are wrong, but I think it's worth returning it to its original glory.

 

You'll find everybody here very helpful. Don't be afraid to ask questions, and don't worry if you make mistakes - we all do, even the best of us (in which group I don't include myself).  And have fun with it!

 

By the way, a heads-up on the Jotika model. The Mary Rose's forecastle has never been found (though I live in hope), and most reconstructions of her, including the one at the Mary Rose Trust, show her with a forecastle I believe to be incorrect, and more appropriate to a galleon than to the Mary Rose. I raised this issue on this forum at 

 

 

The forecastle still hasn't been found, but I'm still of the opinion that the "official" one isn't correct. Look at the Anthony Roll picture - doesn't look at all like a galleon's forecastle. Perhaps you might consider "bashing" the forecastle to be more like the Anthony Roll one.

 

Regarding the discrepancy between the Anthony Roll and the number of guns believed to have been on board the wreck, there's an analysis of how many of each type of gun she carried at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose, which might be of help.

 

Good luck with her. A very well worthwhile model to make.

 

Steven

Edited by Louie da fly
Link to post
Share on other sites

hopefully I will be able to get dimensions on this, photos in the article suggest about 3 feet long by about 18 inches. I will be bashing the forecastle as I prefer the Anthony version to the one in the kit, although that is supposed to be exaggerated by an extra deck...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/the-real-rose-mary-rose-ship-emblem-discovered-500-years-on/

 

There is also a suggestion that the ship may be longer than thought... hopefully not as I don't fancy trying to lengthen the kit!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/3552860.stm

 

One thing is not obvious from my sources though, which is how the guns are secured.... presumably tied to the hull or they would be rolling all over the place in a heavy sea! I was thinking the breech loaders could be permanently placed as you wouldn't worry about needing a recoil to help sponge out the barrels and reload, just change the breech and clean it later in port...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 11:01 AM, Chidokan said:

hopefully I will be able to get dimensions on this, photos in the article suggest about 3 feet long by about 18 inches. I will be bashing the forecastle as I prefer the Anthony version to the one in the kit, although that is supposed to be exaggerated by an extra deck...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/the-real-rose-mary-rose-ship-emblem-discovered-500-years-on/

 

There is also a suggestion that the ship may be longer than thought... hopefully not as I don't fancy trying to lengthen the kit!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/3552860.stm

 

One thing is not obvious from my sources though, which is how the guns are secured.... presumably tied to the hull or they would be rolling all over the place in a heavy sea! I was thinking the breech loaders could be permanently placed as you wouldn't worry about needing a recoil to help sponge out the barrels and reload, just change the breech and clean it later in port...

In my book "Mary Rose: Owners' Workshop Manual," the illustrations don't show any breeching ropes, though I can't imagine you'd want great guns rolling all over the place. One photo shows a modern wrought-iron replica with a securing rope, but no tackle to allow for traversing or running in and out. I wonder if this is because they have yet to find any indications of how the guns were rigged, so they just omitted the info?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bearegalleon

The Mary Rose Trust and others are all accepting the high forecastle, and here's a clip from their web page.  It shows the Geoff Hunt version, with the paint scheme based on the Anthony Roll.   

 

The present question is what shape it had, and how many decks.  Some reconstructions include four decks, while others use three.  The answer may come with further archeological work.

 

Its understandably daunting to imagine something as high as that actually existing, but the broad range of evidence, far beyond the Anthony Roll makes it clear that something was up there, and that it was a common and standard feature of European ships in the first half of the 16th c.   

 

These details from a print of Amsterdam, drawn in 1544, shows a variety of ships from different nations with these forecastles.  Some are imposing, others are more modest.  There are also a few vessels where the castle is beginning to migrate below the waist rail, the first steps of a significant design evolution that would occur over the following decades.   

 

Mary Rose was built, sailed and lost in the age of the high forecastle.  Have fun and build it tall.  

image1.thumb.png.089a3b66e9343aae827bff0871c56c83.png1544 map of amsterdam ship detail 10 amsterdam galleon or great ship .png

1544 map of amsterdam ship detail 6 mess o' ships .png

1544 map of amsterdam ship detail 4 ship under sail .png

Edited by bearegalleon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately spotted this before planking, bulkhead 11 has its slot mixing up with the mast slot, and I didn't think the mast would be very stable, so added a filler block. Plan sheet 2 suggests a cross member for what is currently the top rear deck, but no parts or listed in the guide. This may be because there is a hatch and ladder close by and it may be in view, but as I intend to add more decks, I have made up one to help stabilise it. Might keep the hatch and ladder there and make another couple to come down from the other decks.

IMG_20190504_171000.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

first layer of planks fitted up to the main deck.. I started to plank the deck and add the stairs to realise one of the bulkheads stops the stairs fitting, so managed to get a drill down to clear out the offending wood...

A visit to the museum last week straight after a tour of the Victory showed the planking was... waney edged.... no straight lines on any deck plank, unlike Victory! Trenails were random, almost as though they were only used when needed. The same applied to the guns on show, no two carriages alike! However I did spot some holes where the metal had gone, which suggested ropework to secure them, as well as  a missing plate where no doubt wood had worn away when fitting a wedge to secure the breech to stop gasses escaping.

The hard part will be making a few spoked wheels in 10mm diameter, so far my attempts have been miserable failures, so if anyone knows of a source of eight spoked wheels, help!:) The solid wheels in kit are plywood, and have a dark centre, so have decided to replace as per the iron gun model below. The brass gun carriages have no clamps or holes above the trunnions, just deep cuts, although there are holes just below... no cross beam there, so perhaps they were roped down like the iron cannon??? who knows...maybe the deep cuts were enough...

 

I noted the kit has open framed fighting tops, however the existing one is fully planked, so will do them all like this when building the masts. The bell is not supplied in kit, but I want to add one. One thing not mentioned is a steering method, the rudder is there, but no ships wheel etc. Presumably this would have been on the main deck near to the bell?

 

Now starting to produce framework for the upper castle decks, and realise if I do this, the masts will look short... and I have already cut the lower sections to make deck hole locations... need a trip to the model shop....:)

mary rose bell.jpg

mary rose gun model.jpg

mary rose gun modification.jpg

mary rose gun rings.jpg

mary rose gun.jpg

mary rose iron gun model.jpg

mary rose planking.jpg

mary rose stern.jpg

mary rose top.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 6 months later...

Just come to this but I do remember the Timewatch excavation of Henry VI “Grace a Dieu”. They established that the forecastle height was some 68 feet above waterline.  These boats were literally floating castles with archers raining down a hail of arrows on the opposing vessels.  Mary Rose was a first as a carvel built ship that then permits properly closable cannon ports as opposed to the triple clinker build of Henry VI ship.  I too believe most current models are too low at the forecastle and believe a figure around 50 feet would be more correct

Edited by Safetman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even a whipstaff - they don't seem to have come in until the 17th century. Which makes it a bit baffling - did they really just yell down to the helmsman which way to steer (because he couldn't see from where he was)?

 

Chidokan, be a bit cautious with how far past the front of the carriage those "built-up" guns stick out - the watercolour from the 19th century recoveries shows the barrel only sticking out a short way -

image.jpeg.591a459d5c8b26d98ae6884b5c142c83.jpeg

which is understandable - the barrel wouldn't have had all that much structural integrity and cantilevering it too far out without support would have imposed unnecessary forces on it. I envy you having your built-up barrels ready made; I had to make all mine by hand - not an easy job.

 

It's a bit of a shame your pic of the fighting top didn't come out too well, but I found some good ones by doing a Google image search, which I hope are of use to you: 

 

image.jpeg.4b5c6d1d64f67dd2fb87f935c4a37c72.jpeg image.jpeg.51eef7e7fa8ac9136612301f28af8577.jpegImage result for mary rose fighting top

Safetman, the Grace Dieu was from Henry V's time not Henry VI, launched in 1418, so over 100 years before the Mary Rose and the Henry Grace a Dieu (unfortunately the names are a bit confusing). However, your comments are still valid regarding the forecastle being a high platform for archers - that still hadn't changed by Henry VIII's time, though his two ships were probably among the last to be built that way, as firearms were in the process of making longbows obsolete.

 

Steven

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven

Mea culpa -my ancient brain still struggles with all the changes at the top in the war of the roses😀But as you say the Mary Rose was a new start point in ship building but also the end of a tradional one extending back 100 years and more.  It is pretty clear that the forecastle remains have long since rotted so the archeology is never going to appear. . The logic for choosing a small forecastle is for me very shaky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all, Safetman. In fact I agree with you that the forecastle on the Mary Rose was probably a hangover from the era of high forecastles designed as archery platforms, but among the last of them - soon to be superseded by the lower forecastles of the galleons which were already in use by the time she sank. And who knows? Perhaps they will find the remains of the forecastle after all. As I understand it, it's a matter more of finding the necessary funds to keep searching than anything else. I live in hope.:dancetl6:

 

By the way, given that nothing of the upper hull survives, the Time Team (or is Timewatch a separate programme?) statement of the Grace Dieu's forecastle height above waterline is probably based on a report of the time by the Florentine captain of galleys  Luca di Masa degli Albizzi who I believe (if I could find my records) stated that her "prow rose more than 50 feet". Modern reconstructions that try to marry up this enormous forecastle with the length of the ship (admittedly 218 feet - about as long as the Victory!) end up looking quite bizarre and out of proportion:

image.png.3267f6319ae7d1dd56d616f428fbfb93.png

But as Albizzi also stated (if I recall correctly) the mast was 200 feet high, I do wonder how reliable his description is - did he take out a tape measure and check the dimensions? Or do "50 feet" and "200 feet" just mean "a helluva lot"?

 

Steven

   

Edited by Louie da fly
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

its been a while since I posted on this.... since then all cannon are complete and most of the hull has been planked up to the potential extra decks....

I have calculated adding the next decks and put in a couple of ribs to see what it might look like... and it doesn't look too bad:) I have stuck to the plans for the mast heights, and they look right compared to the Anthony roll.

 

I was hoping the MR museum would have raised more from the seabed by now, hence the delay, but they just don't have the cash to do so... So more pics shortly on progress, and I think I will just crack on with the extra decks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought further discoveries had been found when they were dredging the channel for the new aircraft carrier. I have found one reference to this but unfortunately all my searches seem to be swamped  with the more recent discovery that the crew was from Africa and how they plan to alter the museum to represent this.

 

I do hope they do not spoil the museum too much for this. I know it is interesting but if it goes like the Sutton Hoo viking ship all reference to the ship has gone and the main display is about how a lady, unfortunately name lost to time, ruled the area at that period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...