The San Marco mosaic ship c. 1150 by Louie da fly - 1:75

[Louie da fly]

I haven't posted lately, but I haven't been idle.

 

Staircase from the Captain's cabin down to the hold. I'd originally intended it to be going out through the fore end of the cabin, but discovered the break of the poop got in the way, so instead I found another place for it, where it still wouldn't intrude too much into the rest of the cabin space. Having this set of stairs means the captain doesn't have to go UP to the poop, DOWN to the maindeck and DOWN again to the hold, but can get there down a single set of stairs.

Ladders - the wider one goes down from the poop deck to the Captain's cabin, the narrower one down from the maindeck to the hold.

Making the tops. Tightly bent pine strips to make a "basket". Took a lot more work than I'd expected, but finally all complete to my satisfaction.

And attached to the masts

Maindeck planking.

  

The 'crossbeams' in the second picture are my impromptu clamps to push the planking down into contact with the deck beams till the glue dries.

 

And deck planking complete, with the aftercastle dry fitted. The stairs down from the maindeck to the hold will be in the oblong opening just in front of the fore hatch.

Unfortunately I realised too late that with the decking in place it's going to be difficult to clamp the hull planking to the frames. To misquote the famous Eccles  "I should have thought of that sooner, shouldn't I?" So I've given myself a bit of a problem. I won't be planking in this sequence next time. But I'm sure I'll come up with a solution.

 

And now I'm going out on a limb. I had originally decided that the pictures in the mosaics showing the side rudders coming through a hole in the hull were unworkable, unlikely and anathema.

But when I worked out where they were going, and the shape of the hull at that point, I decided to try it out and see if I could make it work. I first had to cut one of the frames short between the top wale and the gunwale to allow enough 'swing" for the rudders to be swung up out of the way. The hull would be a tiny bit weaker at that point (but nowhere near as much weakened as, say, cutting out gunports).

 

The rudders do stick out at an angle sideways somewhat rather than being vertical, and at least in this configuration with a wale in the way there's no way to change that. This might affect the steering to a certain degree, but perhaps not as much as might be thought. The rudders can still swivel in the vertical plane just as does a stern rudder, so the ship should be able to be steered that way. Had I placed the wales differently, the rudders might have been considerably closer to vertical, and that would have been better still. But I'm quite happy with them as it is, at least for a first iteration of the design. I won't be changing it - it's an experiment, and I think I've shown - at least to my own satisfaction - that rudders coming through a hole in the hull would have been workable.

There remains the issue of being able to remove the rudders when in port, in line with legal requirements (the authorities would hold onto the rudders while in port to discourage ships from doing a 'flit' without paying harbour dues). But that could be solved by having the tillers removable, so the rudder could be let down through the hole, to a boat (as in Woodrat's Venetian Round Ship).

 

Steven

 

 

 

 

[Cathead]

That's really cool. A quick question: with the understanding that the original images are highly stylized, I noticed that the mosaic you shared shows the rudder piercing the hull below the aft castle, while you placed your rudders fore of the aft castle. Just curious what the thought process there was, if you felt that below the castle just wouldn't work (and thus it's just a style thing in the image) or if there are other mosaics showing the rudders coming out where you placed them.

[Louie da fly]

Thanks for all the likes.

 

Cathead, that's a good question. It seems to vary somewhat. I went with what looked like it would work best. Perhaps it might have been better to have it a little further aft, but it seems to be ok to go either way. The helmsman himself is stationed in front of the aftercastle in most cases, and as you can see, there is quite a bit of variation in the configuration of the aftercastle itself. And these are all supposed to be the same ship!

 

Steven

[woodrat]

I'm sorry Steven, but I feel I should put an oar into the water here. I think it would be an error to put your quarter rudders through the hull just to prove it could be done. Having oblique rudders makes no sense and would detract from an otherwise excellent model. Have a look at the Ostia ship as a solution. There, I've said it.🙂 

Dick

[Louie da fly]

Hi Dick,

 

It's OK. I haven't definitively decided that just because something can be done, it's necessarily the way it was done. (You know my feelings about the incredible Hulc). I'm still keeping my options open.

 

There are a number of ships that come up in a google search for Ostia Ship. Can you let me know which one you mean?

 

Steven

[woodrat]

This one. You can see how a mosaicist with little nautical knowledge would mistakenly think that the rudder went through the hull but is actually encased beside the hull.

Dick

[Louie da fly]

Ah, interesting.

 

I thought it might be this one

Or perhaps this - all from Ostia.

You may be right - that could be what the mosaicist saw and misinterpreted. I'm certainly not fully satisfied that the "hole through the hull" is completely workable.

 

Here's a clearer view of the relief, by the way.

 

Some very interesting details there, even if 1000 years away from the San Marco ship.

 

Steven

 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Louie da fly

[Ferrus Manus]

Steven, if i had to give my input, i would tell you to probably just do what Woodrat did with the rudders on his Nave Rotunda. At least the side structures, and maybe you could plank outside them as shown in the images. 

[Ferrus Manus]

Amazing work, by the way! 

[Louie da fly]

Mast wedges under way for the fore and middle masts

And all three complete

As the halyards have to go through the floors of the tops, I've put temporary halyards in so I can locate the supports (equivalent to crosstrees and trestle trees). Note that I've started putting them in on the mizentop.

 

 

I've finally begun planking the hull.

 

Because I couldn't clamp the strakes I had to pin them in place with treenails.

 

Steven

[Glen McGuire]

Lookin' good, Steven.

[Louie da fly]

Planking - that and rigging are my two biggest bugbears - and with a lateener, the rigging is a lot simpler, allowing the planking on this model to be the hardest part - at least for me!

 

Bilge planking - up to the wale at the turn of the bilge

 

The same view with different lighting - shows the amount of sanding I'm going to need to do.

 

Around the turn of the bilge

After bending the strakes to shape, I use treenails to hold them tight to the frames.

Drop planks at bow and stern

 

I'm still not terribly confident I've got my head around drop planks, despite having used them on previous models. Basically just muddling through and hoping I've got it right. Fortunately it'll all be painted black anyway, so though this is a learning experience, any mistakes I make won't be glaringly obvious. This last one is a double dropped plank, and I'm probably doing it wrong. Any comments or suggestions welcome, but I'll only use them for future builds - I've already committed myself on this one and I'm not prepared to remove this and do it again. Not this time, anyway.

 

Steven

[BANYAN]

Well for someone ho doesn't like planking you're doing a pretty decent job of it Steven

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Ferrus Manus]

Are you sure drop strakes had been invented by that point? I heard somewhere else that they were a late 15-early 16th century invention, or later. 

[Louie da fly]

No, I'm not sure. I'd be interested in seeing that information.

 

On the other hand, I'd also like to see what evidence that assertion is based upon. Unless there's something contemporary written down like "wonderful new invention - drop planks make it so much easier to plank the bow and stern", or some archaeologcal evidence that ships before that time didn't have drop planks, and after that time they did - but most shipwrecks I've seen are missing the bow and stern strakes, either completely or partially, so hard evidence is likely to be a bit thin on the ground (or the seabed, as the case may be), so it might be a moot point. 

 

In the meantime I'm getting valuable practice at making and installing drop strakes, and in any case the hull will be painted black, so they won't be visible. I'm doing this for myself more than for the model.

 

One thing I can tell you from experience, though, is that clinker built ships wouldn't have had them. It's just not feasible, as I found out when I tried it.

 

Steven   

[Ferrus Manus]

I have never seen a period drawing or engraving of a ship of the time with drop strakes, and never seen an honest reconstruction with them either. It wouldn't be bad if it's painted and you can't see them. Go ahead! 

Edited October 24, 2023 by Ferrus Manus

[Louie da fly]

Neither have I. But allowing for the vagaries of contemporary artists, that doesn't surprise me.

 

There's a very good paper by Shelley Wachsmann of Texas A&M University "On the Interpretation of Watercraft in Ancient Art", which among other things deals with the failings of art, even with the best of intentions, to properly and accurately show vessels in full detail, which has made me very wary of trusting contemporary illustrations too much. Unfortunately, often they're all we have to work from.

 

And of course reconstructions aren't "Primary source" either. They're always modern interpretations from the available information, including extrapolations when the information is not available.

 

Steven

[Ferrus Manus]

I will not use drop strakes on the Senora Fielden. I will, however, use stealers. 

[Ferrus Manus]

I have seen Amati Coca's with drop strakes, and while it looks nice, i don't think it's accurate. Maybe we should start a new debate/controversy on MSW? 

The bottom line is we have no evidence, so either way can count as valid. Don't you love working with practically zero evidence outside eight-hundred-year-old buried shipwrecks and inaccurate art? 

Edited October 25, 2023 by Ferrus Manus

[Louie da fly]

Exactly. The speculation is at least half the fun.

[Ferrus Manus]

Mathew Baker. 

Can you identify any drop strakes? Grab your magnifying glass and photo editing tools. 

Neither the Newport Carrack nor the Contarina 1 yielded me any results. What sucks is that the outer planking for pretty much all of these ships has rotted away. It seems as though the Mary Rose has a sort of prototypical drop strake system. However, good luck finding a picture of the outside of the actual hull. 

This reconstruction of a Venetian medieval ship shows stealers at the stern, but no drop planks. 

 

Imagine banging your head against a brick wall because your friend wants to plank his model a certain way. Couldn't be me! Until an intact shipwreck is found, which it likely never will be, we will never know. Someone's interpretation has got to be correct. 

[Ferrus Manus]

The Mataro Carrack shows no drop planks either, although the planking goes up into the lowermost wale. The one singular thing the Amati kit got right beyond the overall look of the ship. 

[Ferrus Manus]

This is a picture of the Vasa that i have significantly edited in order to make the lower planking more visible. 

I don't see any drop strakes. 

The below-waterline planking is nearly impossible to see clearly in any photo i've seen. 

[woodrat]

2 hours ago, Louie da fly said:

And of course reconstructions aren't "Primary source" either. They're always modern interpretations from the available information, including extrapolations when the information is not available.

Zackly. Which is why, when I hear the term "replica" applied to ancient and mediaeval vessels and to paraphrase Fat Herman, I reach for my gun. We, after all, are only making hobby models, so a little slack can be cut for us. Let us not get too precious.

Cheers😎

Dick

[Roger Pellett]

A trite expression: “you can’t prove a negative.”

Fundamental geometric relationships have not changed since ancient times.  Venetian shipyards were not outfitted with “Plank-O-Matic” machines that allowed them to defy Euclid’s laws.  If the shape of your hull requires a stealer or drop strake it’s a reasonable assumption that the Venetians required ones too.

 

Roger

[Ferrus Manus]

You're right, Roger. That's why I am doing this mostly for fun, and plus, it's useful for my scratch projects in the future. 

[Louie da fly]

And remember - though this principle can be abused (for example to justify Celtic Ninjas), it's still true, particularly for archaeology, that Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. (It used to be believed that women in the 17th century didn't wear knickers, because none had been found. Until a pair was found, consigning that theory to the dustbin of history.)

 

More planking. Up to the second wale.

And onward, ever onward.

Steven

[woodrat]

On 11/9/2023 at 5:53 PM, Louie da fly said:

used to be believed that women in the 17th century didn't wear knickers, because none had been found. Until a pair was found, consigning that theory to the dustbin of history.)

I need a reference for that!

Dick

[Louie da fly]

This is probably the best outline of the issue I've been able to find.

 

 

Steven

[Louie da fly]

Ferrus Manus' question about drop planks got me thinking (don't get a swelled head, though, mate! ). 

 

I still don't have a problem with drop planks for mediaeval ships - innocent until proven guilty. But it made me look again at how I drew up the ship in the first place. One of the problems in drawing up your own plans from scratch, particularly for a ship which no longer exists, is that you can't necessarily see that you're designing problems for yourself into the build.

 

Having re-looked at the configuration of the wales at bow and stern, I found that I've rather painted myself into a corner without realising it. Let's have another look at my original drawing.

Each of the curved lines along the hull represents a wale. Look at how the space between them narrows, particularly at the stern. So the strakes have to get narrower and narrower - and at some point they have to be so narrow that it's a better idea just to drop one or more planks, as shown in the photos below. Note how very narrow the space between the wales is at the stern.

 

Bow: getting a little tight.

Stern: Really running out of room here.

Ideally, the wales should be parallel throughout their length, so the strakes wouldn't narrow at all, but this is of course impossible in something boat-shaped. But it should be kept in mind when working out the configuration, particularly of the wales. Had I done so I don't think I would have needed anywhere so many drop planks - perhaps even none (can't be sure of that, but perhaps).

 

I came across this problem in my dromon build, but I don't think I really learnt the lesson well enough at the time. Now I've had it shoved in my face - in future I'll be keeping this concept very much in mind.

 

On the other hand, I did feel I needed practice with making (and understanding) drop planks, so it's certainly not wasted effort.

 

Steven