Ragusian Carrack by jack.aubrey - Marisstella - 1:59 scale [COMPLETED BUILD]

[jack.aubrey]

Your execution and base are excellent, but I wonder how much turning the spars at an angle would have helped? I will be building the same kit, and was thinking of turning them as much as 45 degrees, to take up less space (71% for 45 degrees). I hope to use the excellent sails included, and think this might add to the appearance as well (being at somewhat of an angle).

I tried to show the model this way but the gain was not satisfactory. In my model this angle was poor and trying to increase it resulted in touching and moving the mainmast standing rigging. The final appearance seemed me a bit un-natural so I decided to forget this idea.

Would a ship with spars and an angle, but no sails, appear unnatural (and therefore inaccurate)? It might take a study by me of "proper" sail positions to do this logically.

My opinion is that a ship shown with spars and yards at an angle without sails is not natural. In the real life a ship moored in an harbour has no need to have the yards in a similar position, only a sail can explain this position, usually used to get the proper wind for sailing . . .

Are the lifeboats included with the kit? They are quality models in their own right. Well done!

The lifeboats are not includend in the kit . . . but months (perhaps years) ago I spent some time building lifeboats to use as finishing items in case of need and here they become useful . .

Hoping my answers/opinions should satisfy you . . . Jack.

 

[Signet]

I tried to show the model this way but the gain was not satisfactory. In my model this angle was poor and trying to increase it resulted in touching and moving the mainmast standing rigging. The final appearance seemed me a bit un-natural so I decided to forget this idea.

Yes, I was looking at your photos again and felt that the main mast shrouds, in particular, might limit movement to an angle. Looking at my Victory cross section model, it appears they would there as well.

My opinion is that a ship shown with spars and yards at an angle without sails is not natural. In the real life a ship moored in an harbour has no need to have the yards in a similar position, only a sail can explain this position, usually used to get the proper wind for sailing . . .

Again, I agree.

The lifeboats are not includend in the kit . . . but months (perhaps years) ago I spent some time building lifeboats to use as finishing items in case of need and here they become useful . .

I suspected that. Are the ones you built from a kit, or scratch-built. They are quite nice, and while I wouldn't need two, the smaller one would seem to fit well over the central hatch and add interest.

Speaking of interest, I have seen some pictures of the Carrack with a capstan forward of the main hatch. None is shown on the plans. Do you think there would be one on this ship, and where might it be, what might it look like?

Hoping my answers/opinions should satisfy you . . . Jack.

Very much, I appreciate it and am closely following this thread as I will be starting my build of the same ship in a month or so.

 

[jack.aubrey]

Hi Signet,

I suspected that. Are the ones you built from a kit, or scratch-built. They are quite nice, and while I wouldn't need two, the smaller one would seem to fit well over the central hatch and add interest.

The lifeboats are totally scratch built, I made them for another model I have on the shipyard, although it is idle since many years ( https://shipsofscale.com/sosforums/...s-brick-de-24-by-jack-aubrey-1-48-scale.3064/ )

Speaking of interest, I have seen some pictures of the Carrack with a capstan forward of the main hatch. None is shown on the plans. Do you think there would be one on this ship, and where might it be, what might it look like?

I had the same question when I started this model . . Considering the limited size of this ship I feel the capstan used was the horizontal type, more suitable for small ships. This kind of equipment should be hosted in the forecastle structure, at the lower level. Obviously this is a conjecture, 'cause the plans do not show any capstan inside the forecastle . .

Regards, Jack.

 

[Uwek]

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Two and a half years have passed since my last message, in which I informed all of you that I had to stop my shipmodeling activities. I think that the "WHY" was fully explained in my last message.

Finally, after such a long time, I can write that I have now set up a new workshop in a large and comfortable garage right under my new house.

In a short time I plan to resume making shipmodeling, starting with finishing this model of Ragusian Carrack . . . all I am missing now is the necessary mental preparation to restart after so much time of inactivity.

While I'm reordering my ideas, a warm goodbye . . . see you soon,
Jack.Aubrey


01 Miscellanea/07062022/IMG20220607135122.JPG

02 Miscellanea/07062022/IMG20220607135131.JPG

03 Miscellanea/07062022/IMG20220607135139.JPG

04 Miscellanea/07062022/IMG20220607135148.JPG

Hallo @jack.aubrey
we wish you all the BEST and a HAPPY BIRTHDAY

 

[jack.aubrey]

Hallo @jack.aubrey
we wish you all the BEST and a HAPPY BIRTHDAY

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate, Jack

 

[GrantTyler]

Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate, Jack

Hope you have a wonderful birthday yesterday Jack. You have built an immaculate Ragusian Carrack Jack. I enjoy it. Cheers Grant.

 

[Signet]

I just had the plans for my Carrack copied at Staples, as well as getting a PDF copy to view on my computer. Looking the plans over, as well as your excellent model, I have two questions:

The plans show the keel at a slight angle to horizontal, and (all?) the bulkheads at an angle as well:



Circled for reference above, the keel slopes upwards 0.91mm in 14", which works out to about 0.15 degrees. The bulkheads are noted as tilting back 0.6 degrees, or 0.45 degrees with reference to the keel. Really? The only reason I can think that the keel should be on a slope is if it is measured in relation to the waterline, and I truly doubt the builders would know that angle difference of 0.15 degrees. Also, I wonder why the bulkheads are tilted back as well. With many builders such as myself, I'd be lucky to get a bulkhead specified as 90 degrees within the 0.6 degrees just as a working tolerance.

For building, I see no reason to tilt the keel by 0.15 degrees. And if it is horizontal, it will bring the bulkheads to 0.45 degrees from vertical, which I guess I could TRY to do, but think 90 degrees is close enough. Did you use any of these angles in your build?

The second question is of the lifeboat. Yours looks great with the lifeboats on the extended base. But my base will be minimal, so they would just become separate models. Would this ship have carried a lifeboat onboard, say over the central grating? Or only pulled behind it with a rope? (That always felt a bit dangerous to me, should the rope break or untie). And IF it would be mounted over the grating, would it not be simply fastened upside down? Keeping water out, giving a stable base to set it on, etc. If that were the case, then a model lifeboat with lots of internal details would be wasted. I've been surprised how much lifeboat kits cost (even from China), and didn't want to create a masterpiece, only to have it turned upside down or not be used. ;-)

 

[jack.aubrey]

I just had the plans for my Carrack copied at Staples, as well as getting a PDF copy to view on my computer. Looking the plans over, as well as your excellent model, I have two questions:

The plans show the keel at a slight angle to horizontal, and (all?) the bulkheads at an angle as well:

View attachment 318455

Circled for reference above, the keel slopes upwards 0.91mm in 14", which works out to about 0.15 degrees. The bulkheads are noted as tilting back 0.6 degrees, or 0.45 degrees with reference to the keel. Really? The only reason I can think that the keel should be on a slope is if it is measured in relation to the waterline, and I truly doubt the builders would know that angle difference of 0.15 degrees. Also, I wonder why the bulkheads are tilted back as well. With many builders such as myself, I'd be lucky to get a bulkhead specified as 90 degrees within the 0.6 degrees just as a working tolerance.

For building, I see no reason to tilt the keel by 0.15 degrees. And if it is horizontal, it will bring the bulkheads to 0.45 degrees from vertical, which I guess I could TRY to do, but think 90 degrees is close enough. Did you use any of these angles in your build?

The second question is of the lifeboat. Yours looks great with the lifeboats on the extended base. But my base will be minimal, so they would just become separate models. Would this ship have carried a lifeboat onboard, say over the central grating? Or only pulled behind it with a rope? (That always felt a bit dangerous to me, should the rope break or untie). And IF it would be mounted over the grating, would it not be simply fastened upside down? Keeping water out, giving a stable base to set it on, etc. If that were the case, then a model lifeboat with lots of internal details would be wasted. I've been surprised how much lifeboat kits cost (even from China), and didn't want to create a masterpiece, only to have it turned upside down or not be used. ;-)

1) personally I do not see the problem. even if in reality the keel had a similar inclination in the model it would not be visually perceptible. Also I think the problem may be due to a misalignment when printing the drawing, situation that happens very often when you duplicate large sheets of paper. You have probably noticed this by importing the drawing into a CAD program and verifying that the drawing is aligned to a perfectly horizontal line. The fact that the bulkheads are also inclined would support this thesis.

2) having my model a rather wide base and with a lot of space, I used lifeboats to fill these spaces. In reality in the sixteenth century the lifeboats were usually not embarked but followed the ship tied with a strong rope. Only in exceptional cases were them embarked. Unfortunately for this model I don't know where they could be located. However, I assume that it was not very big, given the small space of the only place where they could have put it.

 

[jack.aubrey]

Wednesday, July 27th, 2022

Rudder: in this period of time I had many other things to follow and I wasn't been able to spend much time on this model. It was only this week that I was able to resume. And I decided to finish and install the rudder.
The wooden base was already done, so I had to prepare the hinges that allow the rudder to move. I think the correct name is "gudgeon." and "pintle" even if I don't know which of the two is the part mounted on the rudder blade and which one is fixed on the hull.

It turned out to be a job that requires great precision, both during the making of the pieces but, above all, during their installation on the rudder and the hull.
The images below show the work done.
Obviously now I have to retouch the areas of the hull painted in black. In fact, the paint has unfortunately proved to be a major weakness for the sealing of the cyanoacrylate glue and, to ensure a good seal, I had to remove it before gluing.

01 Ragusian Carrack/27072022/IMG20220727172135.jpg

02 Ragusian Carrack/27072022/IMG20220727172146.jpg

A cordial goodbye. . . see you soon,
Jack Aubrey

 

[Signet]

1) personally I do not see the problem. even if in reality the keel had a similar inclination in the model it would not be visually perceptible. Also I think the problem may be due to a misalignment when printing the drawing, situation that happens very often when you duplicate large sheets of paper. You have probably noticed this by importing the drawing into a CAD program and verifying that the drawing is aligned to a perfectly horizontal line. The fact that the bulkheads are also inclined would support this thesis.

The angle is not a misalignment or print problem. The drawings actually specify the very slight angles as part of the building process. I think it's silly, because the angles are so small as to be within normal building tolerances; I just wondered what you and others thought, and if you used those angles in any way during your build.

 

[jack.aubrey]

The angle is not a misalignment or print problem. The drawings actually specify the very slight angles as part of the building process. I think it's silly, because the angles are so small as to be within normal building tolerances; I just wondered what you and others thought, and if you used those angles in any way during your build.

When I bought the kit I went to a shop to scan the two plans in order to have them on my pc. Anyway, reviewing the paper plans I discovered on one sheet that the left part was distorted. The following image shows the stern view just to show and example.



Starting from this fact I wrote my original comment. In addition during the scanning process I discovered that the scanned picture was not perfectly horizontal. To verify this I used AUTOCAD. The image shows the small difference



The same misalignment happens for the keel and the bulkheads:



Finally all the angles are different, and this is another point to consider: a small difference can be accepted as an approximation made when tracing the lines with autocad but here the difference between all the angles are too much and can't be explained easily. My idea was that the plans were distorted during the duplication made by the kit manufacturer, but this is my idea looking at how the process is done by the copier, not necessarily the truth.

Anyway, considering the very small angles involved I think should be better ignore the problem. As alternative consider asking to the kit manufaturer the reason of this small angle on the keel.

Regards, Jack.

 

[shota70]

Wednesday, July 27th, 2022

Rudder: in this period of time I had many other things to follow and I wasn't been able to spend much time on this model. It was only this week that I was able to resume. And I decided to finish and install the rudder.
The wooden base was already done, so I had to prepare the hinges that allow the rudder to move. I think the correct name is "gudgeon." and "pintle" even if I don't know which of the two is the part mounted on the rudder blade and which one is fixed on the hull.

It turned out to be a job that requires great precision, both during the making of the pieces but, above all, during their installation on the rudder and the hull.
The images below show the work done.
Obviously now I have to retouch the areas of the hull painted in black. In fact, the paint has unfortunately proved to be a major weakness for the sealing of the cyanoacrylate glue and, to ensure a good seal, I had to remove it before gluing.

01 Ragusian Carrack/27072022/IMG20220727172135.jpg

02 Ragusian Carrack/27072022/IMG20220727172146.jpg

A cordial goodbye. . . see you soon,
Jack Aubrey

Simply wonderful Jack!

 

[jack.aubrey]

Saturday, July 30th, 2022

Finally, the rudder finished. Then I'll be back to the sails . . . .

01 Ragusian Carrack/30072022/IMG20220730164112.jpg

02 Ragusian Carrack/30072022/IMG20220730164245.jpg

03 Ragusian Carrack/30072022/IMG20220730164245.jpg

A cordial goodbye. . . see you soon,
Jack Aubrey

 

[Signet]

Looking very nice, Jack. The stern decorations are really nice too, but not the ones included with the kit, are they?

 

[jack.aubrey]

Looking very nice, Jack. The stern decorations are really nice too, but not the ones included with the kit, are they?

You are right, they are not the ones included in the kit. I used something coming from my private store I collected during the past years.
By the way the original kit decorations (laser cut walnut) are really not suitable for carving, like the figurehead. I suggest the manufacturer to produce then with boxwood, walnut doesn't fit , or with metal.

 

[Signet]

You are right, they are not the ones included in the kit. I used something coming from my private store I collected during the past years.
By the way the original kit decorations (laser cut walnut) are really not suitable for carving, like the figurehead. I suggest the manufacturer to produce then with boxwood, walnut doesn't fit , or with metal.

The kit I got included a resin figurehead to replace the carved walnut one. Not the same, but similar. Mine had a broken "ear", but they replaced it quickly. Here are pics of what is included now:


I'm still not certain what it's supposed to be. Maybe a sea horse? If you inquire with them, they may send you one since your kit didn't include it.

 

[jack.aubrey]

Thursday, August 4th, 2022

Another small milestone with the sails and their rigging . . . .

01 Ragusian Carrack/04082022/IMG20220803185950.jpg

02 Ragusian Carrack/04082022/IMG20220803185959.jpg

03 Ragusian Carrack/30072022/IMG20220803190013.jpg

A cordial goodbye . . . . see you soon.
Jack Aubrey

 

[jack.aubrey]

The kit I got included a resin figurehead to replace the carved walnut one. Not the same, but similar. Mine had a broken "ear", but they replaced it quickly. Here are pics of what is included now:
View attachment 321397 View attachment 321398
View attachment 321399
I'm still not certain what it's supposed to be. Maybe a sea horse? If you inquire with them, they may send you one since your kit didn't include it.

It seems that Maristella is a kit manufacturer that listens the suggestions of its customers and reacts properly . . . . this is a good thing.

 

[Tony P]

Very nice. Maristella certainly makes high quality kits and has great customer support.

 

[jack.aubrey]

Sunday, August 8th, 2022

Yet another small step with the sails and related running rigging: mainmast topsail.

01 Ragusian Carrack/07082022/IMG20220807122408.jpg

02 Ragusian Carrack/07082022/IMG20220807122417.jpg

03 Ragusian Carrack/07082022/IMG20220807122425.jpg

04 Ragusian Carrack/07082022/IMG20220807122459.jpg

Cordial greetings . . . See you soon.
Jack Aubrey