Mary Rose by Baker - scale 1/50 - "Your Noblest Shippe"

[Louie da fly]

Beautiful work, as usual, Patrick.

 

Steven

[Old Collingwood]

Amazing work  -  so  hard  to  find  out the  100%   facts   as  proof  is  burried  -  but damn  good  attempt  is  all  we can  do  (like  my   own build)

 

OC.

[72Nova]

Your craftsmanship is on full display, just fantastic!!👍

 

Michael D.

[Baker]

First.

Thanks everyone for watching, liking and comments.

 

Building the upper part of the hull at the waist. We change from fraims on the inside of the planking to standards on the outside. Planking is quite thin here, only about 4cm 1/1 scale.
First the stadards, luckily some of these remained. And my standards were created based on them. One by one, time consuming

Glue the standards in place after dry fitting

Then the planking on the rear castle is neatly cut.

The first plank

The second plank, all hands (clamps) on deck.

Additional supports around the gun ports.

Glued the middle rail in place

And the top rail.

The starboard side is ready, the tops of the rails still need to be shortened slightly. 

I'm happy with the look of this part, if I say so myself 

[Alvb]

 

Hallo Unterstützer,

 

Ich bin sehr gespannt, wie ihr den Bau der Bugfestung lösen werdet. Da ich derzeit an einer ähnlichen Rekonstruktion arbeite, interessiert mich insbesondere die Konstruktion des über den Bug hinausragenden Galions im Hinblick auf Deckbalken und Seitenwandanbindung. Balkweger (ich kenne den englischen Namen nicht) sind dort nicht möglich.

Gruß

Alvb

Edited April 30 by Alvb

[Baker]

11 hours ago, Alvb said:

 

Hallo Unterstützer,

 

Ich bin sehr gespannt, wie ihr den Bau der Bugfestung lösen werdet. Da ich derzeit an einer ähnlichen Rekonstruktion arbeite, interessiert mich insbesondere die Konstruktion des über den Bug hinausragenden Galions im Hinblick auf Deckbalken und Seitenwandanbindung. Balkweger (ich kenne den englischen Namen nicht) sind dort nicht möglich.

Gruß

Alvb

Yesterday your text was in English and now in German?I understand the German language, but writing in German ...

 

The hull under the fore castle will be further planked with horizontal planks up to the top rail of the waist.

What will happen next above this planking, only the future will tell.
step-by-step, so patience, patience, patience 

[Alvb]

A text that inexplicably translates itself? very strange, indeed...

[Baker]

With the port side also ready, the standards are made to height. A simple way to measure, is to use a wooden plank as a template.

 

A mold for the semi-circular gun ports. This is slightly conical, so up to the arrow and no further, otherwise the hole is too big.

Ready.

This is how far we have come, next is the last piece of planking on the bow.

Thanks for following

[Ab Hoving]

A pleasure to watch your thread Patrick.

Ab

[tartane]

 

Can this reconstruction contribute anything to the bow of the Mary Rose? It is in the Mary Rose Museum in Greenwich.

Constant

 

[Baker]

For some parts yes, for most parts not.

The first models appeared just after the wreck was recovered. Based on information at that time.
This model, and the caldercraft model, are based on this early info.

in fact they have turned a carrack into a kind of a galeon. 🤢

 

buy and read.😉

 

 

Edited May 6 by Baker

[tartane]

 

Is anything known about the exact position of the masts on the ship? It doesn't seem to be because only one side of the ship has been recovered. Based on the locations of the gun ports, it is possible to see exactly where the masts stood.

 

Constant

[Baker]

Only the main mast

[tartane]

 

If you study the excavated guns of the Mary Rose, it becomes clear that the heaviest guns had large dimensions. The heaviest guns were also front loaders and they were placed as low as possible in the ship. To operate such a cannon, a space of at least 80 cm was needed between the mouth of the barrel and the ship's hull. This space is needed to clean the barrel after a shot and to be able to put the bullet and powder in.  Then came the cannon itself, of which I don't know the exact length and then there had to be a space behind the cannon to give space to the hoists that had to hold the cannon while loading.

On the other side of the ship, exactly the same thing happened. So there had to be as few obstacles as possible in between. You can see on many warships that there were no cannons at the position of the masts.

On the MR, the spaces between the gunports are not evenly distributed. It is therefore very likely that the masts were located in the middle of the greatest distances between the gunports.

If you know the length of the guns, in this case the length of the barrel, you can calculate the minimum width of the ship. Warships had to be able to sail fast, so the width of the ship was kept as narrow as possible.

You might find this useful.

Constant

 

[Baker]

10 hours ago, tartane said:

 

If you study the excavated guns of the Mary Rose, it becomes clear that the heaviest guns had large dimensions. The heaviest guns were also front loaders and they were placed as low as possible in the ship. To operate such a cannon, a space of at least 80 cm was needed between the mouth of the barrel and the ship's hull. This space is needed to clean the barrel after a shot and to be able to put the bullet and powder in.  Then came the cannon itself, of which I don't know the exact length and then there had to be a space behind the cannon to give space to the hoists that had to hold the cannon while loading.

On the other side of the ship, exactly the same thing happened. So there had to be as few obstacles as possible in between. You can see on many warships that there were no cannons at the position of the masts.

On the MR, the spaces between the gunports are not evenly distributed. It is therefore very likely that the masts were located in the middle of the greatest distances between the gunports.

If you know the length of the guns, in this case the length of the barrel, you can calculate the minimum width of the ship. Warships had to be able to sail fast, so the width of the ship was kept as narrow as possible.

You might find this useful.

Constant

 

please
Don't start endless discussions like you do in other build logs.
thank you

Edited May 12 by Baker

[tartane]

 

I do not understand what is wrong with talking about shipbuilding. I thought this forum was meant to help each other and create interesting things together.

But if the intention is to ban me from this forum and accuse me of inproper behavior please let me know

Constant

[Ferrus Manus]

I don't think there's a problem with talking about shipbuilding. I personally value the discussion about the specifics of the Mary Rose. However, this is Baker's build log, and he gets to decide what is necessary and what is not. The intention (as I interpret it) is not to ban you or discredit your valuable research, but simply to get along with the build. Personally, I am excited to see the forecastle! 

I hope no offense is taken from this response; none is intended. 

Cheers! 

[druxey]

Perhaps such discussion - which can be valuable - should be on a separate thread and not a build log?

[Ferrus Manus]

1 hour ago, druxey said:

Perhaps such discussion - which can be valuable - should be on a separate thread and not a build log?

Perhaps a research log? Baker says Constant regularly does this. 

[Baker]

Sufficient archaeological remains of the main armament of the Mary Rose have been found.
All this has already been neatly researched and put on a drawing by the Mary Rose organisation.
The irregular placement of these cannons is simply because they were added later. Not in the best, most logical place, but simply where there was room and where the hull construction allowed it.
Most of these cannons have already been printed in 3D by a friendly Australian 
Since I will first continue building the outside of the hull, these cannons will only be placed in the year 2025 or later.
And iwill probably build the fore castle as one whole and then put it on the model.

But, when that will be. no idea for now.

[tartane]

 

Thank you for your explanation, I didn't know that about the guns and didn't find it in the information I can find.

I continue to follow the construction of your model with interest, you do that with a lot of craftsmanship, and also come across the problems I had when building my models, and did research on that (but with someone else I'm probably a bit too enthusiastic)

In the meantime I also see that the model in Greenich is not correct, the gun ports are not in the right places, according to the excavations.

Good luck with the build!

Constant

 

[Baker]

peace 😉

This is a long term project.
Nothing thoughtless is done before moving on.
But every now and then you will see something like this 
Then there is removal and rebuilding😉

[kirill4]

Good day Patrick,

Watching your building reports with great interest!!!

She is groving up nicely !!! :)))

All The Best !

Kirill

[Baker]

Planking the bow.
Purely speculative. As mentioned earlier, the planking here is horizontal, on many carracks it is curved vertical, but at the time of the sinking of Mary Rose this seems to have become somewhat old-fashioned. most drawings then show horizontal planking.

 

First, a clean up on the inside

Then the bow is built up step by step.

The bow is planked. Not clearly visible in the photos, but there are still depths and heights in the shape here and there. But the planks are thick enough to sand away these imperfections.

 

And. Not happy with the errors on the right, but we don't see anything about this later. Needs further sanding (left)

With the cardboard fore castle. In this setup the height is already 1.5cm lower.

Next, sanding, applying treenails, etc. to be done.

Thanks for following