Venetian Carrack or Cocha by woodrat - FINISHED - 1/64

[cog]

Couldn't it be an extrusion, or a short bar, so the rope/line wouldn't slip off the knight's head ...

[woodrat]

Thanks, chaps. I lean to Carl's interpretation which would allow quick belaying of a line.

The stand I use, Steven, is a monitor stand I found in a pawn shop. Indeed, it allows positioning of the ship to facilitate access. Very useful.

How is sheer expressed, as a percentage or a ratio?

Dick

[cog]

Dick,

 

I can only see it based on the degrees between the horizontal and vertical. Hope this is clear enough to you ... I haven't seen anything on the subject, but my experience is limited. Maybe one of the architects on this forum can help you out?

 

Cheers

[Louie da fly]

I don't know how sheer is expressed in maritime terms, but slope in ground and on roofs is expressed either in degrees to the horizontal plane (e.g. 30 degrees) or in the amount of vertical distance compared with the horizontal distance - for example a roof that falls 1 metre in 20 metres of horizontal length would have a 1:20 (or 1 in 20) fall.

 

These measurements are different ways of expressing the same thing - for example a 30 degree angle is equivalent to a fall of 1 in 1.732.

 

Probably the easiest way to express sheer would be in vertical vs horizontal distances.

 

Steven

[druxey]

The problem here is that the slope continuously varies - it's not constant like 1:30 or whatever. So one can't really quantify it in degrees. Usually sheer is a line that is a circular arc of large radius; or of two different arcs, one forward and another aft.

[Louie da fly]

Yes, sheer is really a curve, not a straight line. But over a short enough distance it approximates a straight line and you can get a fair idea of the slope at that point.

 

Steven 

Edited December 18, 2016 by Louie da fly

[cog]

Then it can be defined as part of the length from the circumference of a circle with a certain radius. All you need are two numbers, to replicate it. The other option is Steven's

 

Cheers

[woodrat]

I wonder if you already have checked a book called "navi venete" written by Cesare Augusto Levi in 1892.

He made the type of research that you are doing more or less now.

He searched for venetian ships images in every corner of Venice, including anonymous paintings, sculptures, ex-voto, frescos.

The result of his work is inside that book.

It is a book only of drawings, with specificated the source of the image.

It is more precious than that it seems, for your research.

Below a link to the book...

http://www.libreriaeditricefilippi.com/index.php/navi-venete-da-codici-marmi-e-dipinti.html

 

 

Cristiano I have now obtained the book by Cesare Augusto Levi. It has quite a number of images of venetian shipping of various centuries. Many are redrawn for the book and there are several images of navi that I have not seen before with interesting rigging details. Thanks for the recommendation. Buon natale

Dick

 

Edited December 23, 2016 by woodrat

[Cristiano]

Great that it can be of use.

If you need some translation, let me know and I can provide you fast answers.

the descriptions are mainly the locations where the image is taken, such as the name of churches or cathedrals and the name of the artist that produced the painting or sculpture, and a brief decription of the overall painting/sculpture.

 

if you want to search in the web eventually the original image, keep in mind that some of the names of the foreign artists has been "Italianized" as usual in the last centuries. 

So Albrecht Durer became Alberto Durero in the book.

It can happen in addition that a painting or a map that was present in a church or palace (in the period on which the book was written), now is not anymore there and is eventually in a museum or in another palace. 

 

it can become a tricky search!!! like in Dan Brown novels!!! 

[woodrat]

Thanks, Cristiano. One of the images in the book led me to this ship from Fra Mauro's Mappamundi of about 1459. It shows a venetian merchantman similar to the Trombetta navi. Note the single mast. I wonder if my nave only had one mast

 

Steven note the lack of sheer

 

Merry Xmas

Dick

[Cristiano]

Hello Dick,

Inside the book there are various drawings that shows your type of ship either with a single mast and three masts.

I think that the number of decks present in your model and the relative scale, forces the presence of three masts.

It's just my opinion.

The author regarding some of the drawings warns the reader that some of the ships can be hystorically partially wrong, due to some "artistic modification" or lack of ship engineering knowledge.

 

If you want to make a deep search inside charts and drawings, this can be of help:

http://www.internetculturale.it/opencms/opencms/it/index.html

Here you can find the scan of several hundreds of drawings and charts, maps, from Italian archives, which can be downloaded in pdf.

the search with keywords can greatly reduce the number of material to be checked.

Here are present many drawings of venetian ships, constructive ones, too.

As an example, below the link to some ancient maps collections (several thousands):

http://www.internetculturale.it/opencms/opencms/it/main/esplora/storiageo/geoviaggi/

[Louie da fly]

Dick, I've seen a lot of representations of ships that are identical to carracks except that they have only a single mast - for lack of a better name I call them 'proto-carracks'. Not only prior to the carrack 'high period', but contemporary with it as well - I've come to believe these contemporary ones were simply smaller than full-fledged carracks and didn't need all those masts - like a cutter in relation to a frigate.

 

And yes, almost no sheer in this picture.

 

Steven

Edited December 26, 2016 by Louie da fly

[woodrat]

I do apologize for my tardiness in updating this log. I have been in the process of restructuring my professional committments and, consequently, have neglected the more enjoyable of my pursuits. I have, however, finally worked out the likely method that was used to laterally stabilize the mainmast. The shrouds are passed inboard, not as in later vessels outboard to chainplates. The pendants from the mainmasts ( more later) are secured by tackles. This is more in keeping with the iconography of the period in mediterranean vessels. It may well have been different in the northern european vessels as illustrated by the drawings by the flemish master WA, which show chainplates. Certainly it would have been vastly simpler for me to secure the pendants outboard but, in shipmodelling, it is sometimes better to aim for accuracy rather than facility. Nonetheless, I offer this as a solution which is consistent with the scanty evidence.

Dick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by woodrat

[JesseLee]

Wow, looking great!

 

Jesse

[Moonbug]

     Glad you're back at it a bit Dick!  I can totally relate and often get frustrated with the professional commitments.  :/

 

    I just wanted to say - I love this build.  It reminds me so much of the 14th and 15th century models (like the Mataro model) that were found in Europe. 

[woodrat]

Thanks Jesse and Moonbug. The Mataro nao has been a major resource for this build. Anyone building a late mediaeval carrack such as Santa Maria should have a close look at it. Xavier Pastors Anatomy of the Ship volume on the Ships of Columbus uses the Mataro nao for its reconstruction. Dick

[Louie da fly]

Looking very good, Dick. Good to have you back.

 

I totally agree about the shrouds being fixed inboard , and with blocks rather than deadeyes -  Carpaccio and others are very specific about this.

 

And yes, it's far better to follow what the evidence shows us than to take what seems to be the easy or "accepted" way of doing things. Ship design changed over the centuries, and sometimes when we do this we learn why they did it that way. 

 

A beautiful and impressive model. I've learnt a lot from following this build.

 

Steven

[druxey]

Nice to see you back, Dick.

 

The arrangement you show looks very convincing. Logically it would be easier and safer to bowse down the laniards from inboard - especially if one couldn't swim - although the spread of the shrouds athwartships would be less advantageous.

[woodrat]

Thanks Druxey. Those carracks depicted without ratlines showed a wide spread of shrouds fore and aft. In addition the use of tackles and pendants would allow easy adjustment of shroud tension at the price of less strength. Dick

Edited February 20, 2017 by woodrat

[woodrat]

 

this shows a closeup of the attachment of the shrouds to the mast by looping over pegs inserted in the mast. This may seem odd in that the usual arrangement we are used to is looping the shroud through crosstrees and AROUND the mast. I chose this method because the Trombetta drawing of the mast being set up shows the fighting top already in place BEFORE the shrouds were rigged. This method is also seen in some models close to this period.

Dick

 

[Louie da fly]

I never cease to be astounded and impressed by the level of research that's gone into your build, Dick. I takes me hat off to you, sir.

[druxey]

A fascinating observation and detail! I'm sure I would have missed that, Dick.

[Louie da fly]

Dick, I've just sent you a PM.

 

Steven

[woodrat]

The next step is the mainyard. In mediterranean vessels the mainyard was made of 2 spars bound together. The combined length is approximately the length of the keel and the two spard overlap by 50%. It is an error to apply 17th or 18th century preconceptions to these yards. They are very different and a lot longer than many Santa Maria models depict. Once again the paintings of Carpaccio come up as the best source. But even Carpaccio leaves things out, in this case the forestay.

The mainyard is held to the mast by parrels. The bigger the vessel, the more rows of parrels. In my case there will be four rows of parrels.

 

note that one spar has a concave cross section and the other convex

 

 

[druxey]

Nice sleuthing! Im curious as to why the 'splice' of the yard was convex/concave, rather than a flat mating surface. Were there no treenails or bolts through the joint? If not, i can understand this more labor-intensive method.

[cog]

Can't imagine using treenails - not strong enough it seems to me - and I wonder if they had bolts at that time, I would sooner expect iron hoops ...

[woodrat]

Flat surfaces would be subject to shear forces and would need reinforcement with trenails , bolts or nails, all of which would weaken the wood and lead to splitting. the concave /convex joint reinforced with rope is strong and not rigid. Moreover iron hoops are difficult to make and apply and rope is readily available and cheap.

Dick

[Matle]

For what it's worth, I remember an original drawing of an 18th century Swedish galley showing the same concave-convex arrangement on the joint of the two halves of each yard. So it seems like a persistent technology.

[druxey]

Ah, of course! Thank you for the explanation, Dick.

[woodrat]

On 10/03/2017 at 4:36 PM, Matle said:

For what it's worth, I remember an original drawing of an 18th century Swedish galley showing the same concave-convex arrangement on the joint of the two halves of each yard. So it seems like a persistent technology.

Yes. It survived well into last century as this photo of a dhow from 1972 attests.

 

This the mainyard ready to be swayed up