The Ship Model Forum

callen wrote:So all that to say, we probably agree more or less, though we favor different sources.

Yes, we appear to be in agreement and I can't dispute a leaning one way or the other. I'd love to dig in and study one of the scholarly reconstructions and see what led to the resulting design but I don't have access or time, unfortunately.

There's one other remote possibility to somewhat explain the deck angles. The British Navy of the 1700-1800's featured decks that didn't match the apparent sheer of the external planking. The decks were flatter than the sheer resulting in decks that "cut across" the sheer line. This was readily visible on the uppermost stern deck (quarter or poop, depending on rate) and in the gun port piercings which literally cut across the sheer line. Given that the British Navy was descended from the carracks, I suppose it's possible that the early drawings are showing the exaggerated sheer without accurately conveying that the decks didn't follow the sheer, at least to the extent shown. This is just wild speculation on my part.

You've stimulated my interest with all of this. I'll do some rechecking of my references and try a bit of digging. I'll let you know if I come up with anything more definitive, one way or the other.

In the meantime, keep going and I look forward to seeing more of your great work!

Regards,
Bob

Here's a picture of Vasa which shows what I was trying to describe about the way the decks may not follow the sheer. You can see that the angle of the sheer is fairly extreme as it approaches the stern but the decks are relatively level. In fact, from the vantage point of the photo, we can't see any rise at all in the decks. Vasa was not a carrack, of course, but the photo illustrates the concept. Whether this feature was present in carracks or not, I have no idea. Just something to think about.

callen,

This thread is very interesting. I suspect that what carr said about the decks having much less sheer than the side planking is correct. I visited a reconstruction of the Nina, which had high sheer in the strakes, and the deck wasn't all that steep. Also, the height between the main deck and the poop deck was not great enough for me to stand up straight. Of course, the Nina was a very small ship.

One other small point to reinforce your arguments about the design and purpose of carracks has to do with the average life of a ship. We often hear about sailing ships that were active for twenty years or more, but this was nowhere near the normal life of a wooden ship. I recall reading somewhere that the average life of a ship in the American Navy in the early 1800s was just four years! However, wood boring worms from tropical waters were responsible for much of the damage, and these weren't a problem in northern European waters or the Mediterranean. Still, you point about using carracks like siege towers is a good one. People didn't expect ships to last very long in the 1600s.

callen wrote: If anyone has any thoughts on how to create 3d sails, I'm interested!

Hello Callen,

I just discovered this amazing thread. I must say that what you are doing is innovative, technically challenging and overall a major thrill to follow.

Regarding sails, I am no expert as my time period of interest is squarely in the steam era, but I believe that in small scales, the best way to make 3D shaped thin objects has to be thermoforming of plastic, or vacuum forming although at such a small scale the vacuum is probably not necessary.

You might want to try this: shape a piece of wood (a dowel in fact) with files and sanding sticks to serve as a pattern. Cut a square of suitably thin styrene, heat it over a flame (it will get black but who cares, just make sure you do not let it melt or even catch fire. When soft enough, quickly press it down on the wooden dowel. Ket it cool down a minute, then cut to size and clean up. It should be ready to take paint, decals etc. To give it some texture, you might experiment with hand brushed thicker paint, eventually drybrushed when dry. I never tried that for sails, but for canvas covers for deck machinery, ship boats etc. where the plastic needs to conform to an object underneath and look in-scale, it works well.

Just a thought.

Jean-Paul Binot wrote:Cut a square of suitably thin styrene, heat it over a flame (it will get black but who cares, just make sure you do not let it melt or even catch fire. When soft enough, quickly press it down on the wooden dowel.

You might also try a heat gun or simple hair dryer for better control and no burning. Just a thought.

Many thanks all around for your replies, gentlemen!

Bob I think point in the difference between the deck and the sheer line is well made, particularly in reference to Galleons and later ships. Some of these carracks have what look like firing ports for arquebusiers, archers, hand cannon gunners, etc., also from the time of the Mary Rose on we have actual gun ports in the hull. It could be that the line of these ports would be a clue to internal deck sheer, as I think it would probably be desirable to have the firing ports all at the optimum level for the sake of the gunners. I will be reviewing the Breughels and other credible artistic depictions in the light of this issue to see what can be determined.

Another thread of evidence is period models. I am not familiar with model carracks/naos, etc. Does anyone have a line on this? I seem to remember something about a 'votive model' in a church that depicted a Nao from Columbus' time.

Jean-Paul, thank you for your input. I considered vacuforming, but was talked out of it by a modeling friend who thought the result would be too thick. I may give your method a try though, just to see what happens. Thanks for the tip!

Many thanks all around for your replies, gentlemen!

Bob I think point in the difference between the deck and the sheer line is well made, particularly in reference to Galleons and later ships. Some of these carracks have what look like firing ports for arquebusiers, archers, hand cannon gunners, etc., also from the time of the Mary Rose on we have actual gun ports in the hull. It could be that the line of these ports would be a clue to internal deck sheer, as I think it would probably be desirable to have the firing ports all at the optimum level for the sake of the gunners. I will be reviewing the Breughels and other credible artistic depictions in the light of this issue to see what can be determined.

Another thread of evidence is period models. I am not familiar with model carracks/naos, etc. Does anyone have a line on this? I seem to remember something about a 'votive model' in a church that depicted a Nao from Columbus' time.

Jean-Paul, thank you for your input. I considered vacuforming, but was talked out of it by a modeling friend who thought the result would be too thick. I may give your method a try though, just to see what happens. Thanks for the tip!

Progress on the Carracks! Transom planking on 'Fatty.'Beginning to place frame tops to gunwales.... a tedious and difficult process...Family photo... Bruno and 'Fatty' together. The venerable 'WA Kraek' engraving "Flemish Carrack." This illustration pops up in nearly every book I have on the subject and is one of my prime sources. This is a 15th Century carrack, rather than a 16th Century ship, like the ones I am attempting to model, but much of the information holds true. Notice the primitive rigging. Shrouds support the masts, but are not given ratlines for access to the fighting tops. Instead, a Jacob's ladder parallel to the mast is used. Notice the large open port in the port quarter. According to Archaeologist Margaret Rule this is a loading port, and not a gunport. I have learned a lot in reading and researching these ships. This ship has the rounded 'Mediterranean Stern' typical of pre gun-port warships. Apparently the transom stern was adopted to facilitate the mounting of stern-firing cannons. Of particular note are these large wooden frame-like pieces. These are prominent in many illustrations of the time and, if I remember correctly are believed to be a sort of 'bumper' to protect and strengthen the hull at the beam from collision. I felt it would be important to model them. The question was...How?

So the problem was how to fill the spaces between the various wales in order to establish a good foundation for the bumpers. For me this was not just a question of aesthetics. Since this was a casting master, I didn't want to have gaps where mold material could creep in. My good friend Rusty White had advised me on this. So I decided to basically use styrene pieces that I would glue in place and then cut to shape.Bumper foundation completed...Some 0.030 rod for the actual bumper. Beginning to shape the rough rod pieces now into the peculiar curved shape of the 'bumper...' Also now adding planking to the superstructure gunwales in anticipation of outboard framing, which has begun on the stern quarter.

Adding the outboard framing...Creating bumpers for the other side...Attempting to repeat the detail on the other side. The most challenging thing for me in scratch building is creating uniformity by hand. So often it's down to 'eyeballing it', which can be very difficult. In the end you realize that none of the measurements are absolutely perfect, and there are slight imperfections everywhere that will persist no matter how many times you reposition a piece, because you failed to precisely recreate the curves identically on both sides. I unfortunately damaged some of my planking detail while attempting to reposition outboard frames to mirror the other side. Only the resin casts will tell me if this is a serious mistake or not.The Anatomy of Columbus' Ships by Xavier Pastor mentions the curious curved outboard planking at the forecastle common to most nao/carrack type ships built in the Iberian Peninsula. I have attempted to recreate that detail in both 'Fatty' and the 'San Bruno' hulls, but with the high freeboard of Fatty, I was able to make this kind of detail more prominent. Again, mirroring one side on the other is an exercise in approximation...

Chain plates. For those of you not familiar with this term, these are the outboard platforms that the shroud lines for each mast will be attached to. Both carracks will be four masted ships with the very small 'virtually useless' bonaventure mizzen typical of the period.Chain plates are now trimmed to an appropriate width. You can see drilling has begun for the waist cargo hold coaming.

One problem is what to do about the chain plates for the foremast. Because of the many different configurations possible from the various pieces I will be casting, creating a 'one size fits all' chain plate configuration for the forecastle is problematic. You can see chain plates mounted on the forecastle in some of these pics, but later I removed them. I have decided at this point that I (and Bruno and Jean) would have to add the foremast chain plates to the resin casts during 'primary assembly' (sorry guys!)Creating the coamings for the cargo hold grates. The grates themselves will eventually be made from PE on the final models.

Forecastle options. I very much wanted to create the possibility of a wonderful 'double decker' forecastle fighting platform with those strange rows of firing ports as seen in the "Flemish Carrack" by 'W.A' (see above). In looking at the engraving I realized that Lion Roar IJN pierced girder would do nicely for this kind of detail... You might call this 'Aftermarket Cross-Pollination' Here is how it went...By now I was really under the gun to get all of this stuff ready for casting. I had seven separate superstructure decks, all of which needed framing inside the wales...Attempting uniformity. Always a challenge...Belatedly I realized that a piece that could work for a bow deck, might also work on the stern. One great difficulty was what to do about the angle of the frames on the deck parts. Should I make them vertical relative to the deck? Or vertical relative to the waterline? This had also been an issue with the external framing. On the stern, where the shape had been somewhat two dimensional I opted for straight vertical frames, but because of the great curvature of the bow, I chose to have the frames follow the curves radially, as I felt this both looked more reasonable and would probably have also been stronger. The problem with the deck frames was that the same deck piece could be used either for the Fatty Hull (which had significant sheer in the forecastle) or for the San Bruno hull (which had none). This meant that either way the frames would be at an angle with one or the other hull, unless I made separate parts for each hull, and I was now out of time, so that was not an option. I decided in the end to make them all angled so that they would appear vertical in sheer. I felt (perhaps wrongly?) that the frame elements angled forward on a level forecastle platform looked better than frames perpendicular to the deck but angled backwards on a forecastle platform with sheer. Now that I'm actually writing out my reasoning, it doesn't sound nearly so convincing...

For sailing ships after the period of carracks, the visible internal framing (frames on the inside of the bulwarks) of the various decks, regardless of the level, was a continuation of the ships main framing. Thus, the angle of the framing was the same as the main frames which was perpendicular to the waterline (or whatever horizontal line of reference was used in the design - it wasn't always the waterline). So, the internal "deck frames" were straight up relative to the waterline. Whether this convention was true during the era of carracks, I don't know. As I've confessed, my area of interest and slight knowledge is from the 1700's on. It would seem logical, though, that the same system would have been used. It would seem like extra work for the shipbuilder to make main frames and then a second (or third/fourth) set of "deck frames". Splitting the frames like that would also weaken the structure of the ship since the upper frames would no longer be part of the primary structure since they would be separated from the main frames.

Just some thoughts and speculation on my part.

Regardless, the level of skill demonstrated on this project is just fantastic and I thoroughly enjoy looking at this. Keep it up! Can't wait to see more.

Regards,
Bob

I only noticed this topic now....remarkable work so far!!!! It's amazing to see the differences in sizes when comparing a XVI Century sailing ship to a XIX or XX Centuries ships!!!!

Beautifull, real lacework

moomoon wrote:Beautifull, real lacework

Thank you moomoon!

Filipe Ramires wrote:I only noticed this topic now....remarkable work so far!!!! It's amazing to see the differences in sizes when comparing a XVI Century sailing ship to a XIX or XX Centuries ships!!!!

Hello Filipe! Good to hear from you over here on MW! The size difference really is striking, isn't it? These would have been considered fairly good sized vessels according to the naval architecture of the time. I have learned a lot about your country researching these kind of ships. The Naval History of Portugal is really amazing, I have to say.

carr wrote:For sailing ships after the period of carracks, the visible internal framing (frames on the inside of the bulwarks) of the various decks, regardless of the level, was a continuation of the ships main framing. Thus, the angle of the framing was the same as the main frames which was perpendicular to the waterline (or whatever horizontal line of reference was used in the design - it wasn't always the waterline). So, the internal "deck frames" were straight up relative to the waterline. Whether this convention was true during the era of carracks, I don't know. As I've confessed, my area of interest and slight knowledge is from the 1700's on. It would seem logical, though, that the same system would have been used. It would seem like extra work for the shipbuilder to make main frames and then a second (or third/fourth) set of "deck frames". Splitting the frames like that would also weaken the structure of the ship since the upper frames would no longer be part of the primary structure since they would be separated from the main frames.

Just some thoughts and speculation on my part.

Honestly Bob, I think you're right. It was a mistake for me to make all of the parts with the angled framing. I should be able to make an additional decking set with some 'level framed' parts and then cast them soon. In the meantime, I can create some sheer-mounted forecastle builds... assuming the casting comes out well.

Thank you all for keeping up with my efforts, I will have more to post soon!
Cheers!

Continued progress...These nippers came in handy when it was time to trim the frame ends from the inside of the bulwarks, etc. Perfect for the job. By this point I was really under the gun to get the carracks done so that they could be cast. Because the two 'heavy carrack' parts went together I was not able to complete the frame ends inside the bulkhead of the lower 'flat iron' piece. These will have to be done to the cast resin part during primary assembly. Last piece finally done!!!The complete 'set' ready to take to Rusty White's studio for resin casting...

A trip to the Resin Studio! Rusty's pressure chambers. It was very difficult to photograph Rusty's equipment because the lens on my camera is a 'Macro Lens.' Great for close ups of small objects, but with a rather telescoped field of view.Rusty's vacuum chamber. He uses this to remove air bubbles from the resin at the beginning of the casting process.Some of Rusty White's award winning models. He sells many of his builds rather than keeping them in his house. Rusty White was the first really great ship modeler I became aware of when I first entered the hobby as an adult. His builds were so incredibly intimidating to me, like works of art. I had never seen painted wooden decks that looked more like wood than real wood. I had never seen intricate PE work or rigging or super tiny 700th scale figures until I met him at a local club in the 90s. This was right around the time he started Flagship Models. I was completely intimidated by his skills, and resolved then and there that it was completely out of the question that I would ever be modeling on his level. He tells me now that he hardly has time to model for pleasure because of his business, and that his skills have slipped quite a bit, but if you look at his new CSS Teaser kit, which he did the product art build for, you will see that is not the case. Rusty has shown me a lot not only of the resin casting process, but of PE design, kit production and the nature of the Model Ship business in general. Rusty has been kind enough to devote his spare time to helping me by getting these ship parts cast. This was a real adventure for me!Another one of Rusty's models. A highly modified USS New Jersey reconcieved as a hybrid battleship helicopter carrier. Two of Rusty's beautiful Civil War Ironclads from his Flagship Models range, the USS Cairo and the CSS Chicora, both in 1/192nd scale.Rusty begins preparing the master for the carrack hulls and parts.Preparing the Elephant for casting (I'll explain later... )

Oops! Last minute addition! Almost forgot the hawse pipes for the carracks! Seems like you can never quite finish a ship! Casting masters mounted and ready for the box assembly.Casting gate for small parts: turned brass cannons and mast elements.Rusty working on the mast and cannon casting master. Rusty was skeptical that such tiny pieces (see earlier posts) could be cast. I told him we had to try it. Shortly after this shot was taken I took over mounting the brass on the casting gate and he moved on to building the 'flasks' (mold boxes).The completed mast and cannon casting master... two hours of tedious CA work getting these tiny bits mounted.Close up of cannons. The large one is the silver bombard made by my friend Kevin Holtan. A beautiful piece. The others are the microscopically fine BMK cannon barrels turned by Burkhardt Masch to Bruno Gire's specifications. Even the very smallest ones have perfect muzzles that can only be seen with a magnifying glass. Rusty told me he had never seen anything like them.The hulls and decks in side a flask built from styrene sheet by Rusty. Ready for casting...

Rusty's dog 'Willy,' named after the famous dog in the movie 'Patton.' I dont' know if Patton actually had a dog named 'Willy' or not. Unlike the dog in the Patton movie, this Willy is quite dangerous towards other dogs. He is however very friendly towards ship modelers, and seems to take as much interest in the proceedings as his limited intelligence and an obsession for being fed and petted will allow.Making the casting flask for the cannons and mast mold. Rusty could make a box from rough plastic in about two minutes. He has made hundreds of these.Turned brass parts mounted and ready for mold making.Making the mold material. This is a product from Reynolds Advanced Materials called 'Mold Max 30.'The Rubber itself is white, and the hardening agent is red. The result is a pink block with a working time of about 15 minutes. We put double the normal amount of hardener in as I was anxious to get as much cast as quickly as possible, since Bruno is waiting for these parts.