Ark Royal circa 1587.

[Chewbacca]

11 hours ago, patmaquette said:

Regarding the pizza cutter - the Blue Stuff can be tough to cut, particularly when cold. I found the pizza cutter very useful to use when the Blue Stuff was still hot - it was quick and easy to use, giving straight lines and did not distort the mould that was still soft. It was sufficient just to leave cut marks - score lines if you like - as I found problems when trying to cut clean through. However, it was easy to use the scissors along the score lines to trim away the excess Blue Stuff once it had cooled, Without the score lines it was difficult to cut the mould to size and shape - which is important for the lower mould as I am using its edges to align the upper mould and so the edges want to be crisp & distinct.

 

Thanks - get it now

[Murdo]

On 8/17/2019 at 10:51 PM, Black Knight said:

It works on a simple principle of mechanics. The tiller-man pushes his control 15* to the right, the lower part of the control goes 15* to the left and takes the tiller arm with it deflecting the rudder 15*. Up to about 20* was normal, no more than this is normally needed

 afaik The tiller-man's efforts was supplemented with rope tackle. He's trying to move a rudder weighing several tons

Most steering relied on the sails, the rudder seemed not to be too important except in low winds

The tiller-man was in small room, or a sectioned off part of a room. All space was valuable on these ships so he got just the space he needed

 

 

 

It's amazing how a few short lines can make it all (somehow) sound so easy and non-remarkable. No offense Black Knight (please), your input has been fascinating!!!

 

The people that sailed these ships were truly of an amazing skillset. Docking it must have been a nightmare, which is probably why they usually anchored well away from the dock. 

 

 

 

 

[patmaquette]

The hull is now ready to apply paint.

All small items placed onto holders: some items glued to bits of sprue or plasticard, or mounted with Blu-Tack to a piece of wood....

 

 

The gun ports and fo'c'sle front were blanked off with foam sheet....

 

 

The lower part of the hull was airbrushed with Badger's white Stynylrez primer. This was my first time of using it. I initially had problems with sputtering and the air cap getting covered in paint. However, all worked well once I increased the air pressure to beyond 25 psi (when flowing) and it laid nicely onto the model.

This was followed up with transparent shades starting with Vallejo 72.101 Off White with Vallejo Glaze medium and thinner medium applied by a flat brush in areas of shade. This was gradually deepened by adding Badger's Militaire D6-112 "Mummy", then Vallejo 72.034 Bone White and finally Citadel Kommando Khaki. The white underside was the lead white in tallow applied to some of the ships of this period. Shading worked fairly well but some further treatment including washes will be needed once the entirety of the hull has paint on.

 

 

The waterline was marked using a pencil resting on a conveniently sized box lid. In fact, the line was placed about a mm higher than wanted, so it could be erased once the masking tape was in place. I used low tack Frogtape for the first time. It worked reasonably well and I had no paint lift off when the tape was later removed, but it did tend to lift and curl up at the corners, so I applied patches on top from stronger tape to keep it down where needed.

 

 

 

A coat of Badger Militaire D6-112 "Mummy" was airbrushed in shaded areas of the hull, particularly beneath the bow beak and the two counters on the transom (here I go again - trying my hand at some nautical terms!). This was my first use of the Militaire paint in the airbrush, so once again I used a highish pressure as it seems quite gloopy in comparison to my usual mixes. I then put down a layer of K-colours Ivory primer over the remaining areas of the hull. Guess what: it was my first time of trying this paint as well. It went down well but I had problems getting dried residues out of the airbrush cup at the end of the job so will need to buy some cleaner from them.

 

 

 

The hull was then masked for two wales to be airbrushed Revell 9 Anthracite and then all the masking was removed for painting to continue by brush.

 

 

 

 

I experimented with various wood colours on a scrap piece of plastic duct before committing paint to the model. 

 

 

I selected acrylic paints with glaze and thinner mediums to build up the colour of each plank using a brush. Despite this, I overdid things and the colour contrast was far too stark:

 

 

I then experimented with some ways of unifying the colours and decided to airbrush several coats of Citadel Seraphim Sepia wash thinned in equal measure with Winsor & Newton Flow Improver. I am quite pleased with how it turned out, albeit being a lot darker than I originally intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have now learnt that Ark Royal had a pair of stern turrets like those on Scottish castles and the poop bulwarks were battlemented. So my next task will be to come up with something for these on the model.

 

Thanks for reading and your thoughts and ideas are always welcome!

Pat

[Murdo]

Looking really superb, Love the deck planking!

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Fabulous; love that deck effect.

[patmaquette]

20 hours ago, Murdo said:

Looking really superb, Love the deck planking!

 

19 hours ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

Fabulous; love that deck effect.

Thank you, guys - I much appreciate your comments!

 

21 hours ago, patmaquette said:

I have now learnt that Ark Royal had a pair of stern turrets like those on Scottish castles and the poop bulwarks were battlemented.

I came across this illustration published in the 1850's that is said to be of Ark Royal. It shows crenelated battlements and castle-like turrets at the stern. I hadn't taken it seriously when I first saw it. How likely do you think it to be correct?

Here is a link, just in case there are copyright issues....

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Manuscript-Sketch-Drawing-Royal-Navy-Galleon/9435119154/bd

 

I would appreciate your opinions. It would take a lot of work to modify the model and in the end it will look very strange. I therefore hope the illustration is bogus!

Thanks,

Pat

 

 

[Black Knight]

50/50 that is a reasonable depiction of the Ark Royal

I doubt that the illustration is really of the Ark Royal and its just some artists idea of what it might have looked like

As far as we know there is no illustration anywhere of the Ark Royal, at any period in its history. These ships were rebuilt fairly frequently. Look how many times the Mary Rose and HMS Victory were rebuilt and altered

From the early 1800s there was a sort of 'love-affair' with medieval & Tudor history. Things were made up and passed off as originals. The Royal Armoury Leeds has some 'medieval armour' which for years was passed from owner to owner as being true medieval armour. When the Royal Armoury got it they could tell at once that it was fake. How? cos the shape of the pieces means its impossible for anyone to wear it!

I've come across supposedly real pieces in collections which are Georgian/Victorian fakes.

TBH, I'd ignore that drawing. It has no more basis of being true than your model build, and probably far less considering how much work you are putting in

[mdesaxe]

With the possible exception of this:

 

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/11754.html

 

The notes about this painting suggest that the sr=tern view in the lower right is Ark Royal.

 

Maurice

[Black Knight]

Read through the description of the painting. It can be no more trusted as evidence as the other drawing. 

quote "The galleass may also be meant to represent the principal Spanish flagship, Medina Sidonia's 'San Martin', 48 guns, although by showing her as a galleass, when she was in fact a galleon, the artist has used poetic licence to emphasize her Spanish origin. " my emphasis. Thus if there is that sort of mis-information than what else is mis-represented? Nowhere does the description actually declare that the ships in the painting are those the writer thinks they they are. This is merely speculation. Without supporting evidence this painting can only be considered a nice painting of Tudor war warships. No historian worth his/her salt would rely on this painting for a description and identification of any Tudor ship

[patmaquette]

Thank you all for the discussion and your thoughts.

Let me go back to the source of the information that started this discussion and give it in full.

Although no reference is cited, "Sailing Ships of War 1400-1860" by Dr Frank Howard, Conway Press says on pp51 the following:

"One English ship from the last quarter of the century differed from all the others. This was the Ark Royal (the Lord Admiral's flagship during the Armada campaign), which was described by him as being the best ship in the world. The Ark Royal's hull form has not in fact been discovered but some basic data are known. Her keel/beam/depth in hold measurements were 100 ft/37 ft/15 ft, her fore rake was 33 1/2 ft and her after rake 6 ft. When she was built the Ark Royal had a galleon beak, a single deck to her forecastle and open galleries at her stern. But what distinguished the Ark Royal from her companion ships was the unusual construction of her after part. There were two turrets, or rather half turrets like those on Scottish castles, at her stern and her poop bulwarks were battlemented. There may have been another pair of turrets at the forward end of the poop, used for latrines".

 

Although as you know I come to this build without any prior knowledge of ships (but am enjoying what I am finding), the last sentence really does not seem right. I can't imagine any turret would have constructed for use as a toilet. If I can't believe that, then can I believe what else it says?

I assume a half turret is semi-circular in plan. You can see some shapes like this on a number of illustrations and models of the Ark Royal, that probably originate from this unreliable source (see just below the poop deck - not the four tall turrets):

 

However, having spent more time tonight Googling for images of Ark Royal, a lot of them do show turrets and some show battlements. None are consistent. None are by any means contemporary. But I think there must be a seed of something that has led the various artists in this direction. I wonder what and how reliable it is?

 

Pat 

[mdesaxe]

I agree 99% with Black Knight's comment - you note that I carefully said "possible" and "suggest" rather than stating this was solid evidence. Nevertheless, you do the writer of the notes an injustice in dismissing the attribution as "merely speculation" in that he or she had some real basis for suggesting the image of the ship in the lower righthand corner was intended to represent Ark Royal. The ship flies the royal standard (is this supposed to be capitalised - I'm not English and intend no insult, especially in these contentious times) at the main masthead. Ark Royal was the flagship of the Lord High Admiral, the only officer at sea entitled to fly that banner, so the artist presumably intended the image to represent Ark Royal.

 

All this, however, is beside the point. The model builder made his position clear at the outset of this thread. He was uncomfortable with the Visscher image (which dates from 40-50 years later than the event) and preferred to rely more on the Baker material from Fragments of Ancient English Shipwrightry (which has its own problems, discussing which should not intrude on this thread), which is a justifiable position. We all know there is an infinitesimally small chance of uncovering a definitively identified image of Ark Royal, so we should instead applaud him for his exciting model rather than suggest he makes changes based on less-than-reliable evidence.

 

Maurice

Edited September 4, 2019 by mdesaxe
claritfication

[Black Knight]

Let me put the case of another ship I'm more familiar with; the Mary Rose

For hundreds of years we had only 3 illustrations of her;

1. The Cowdray Painting/drawing,

2. the painting 'The Embarkation of King Henry VIII at Dover'

3. the Anthony Roll

 

1 we can dismiss as it only shows the top part of a mast as the MR sinks

2. Mary Rose, Peter Pomegranate  and the Great Harry are in the painting,. We know which is the 'Great Harry' but not which is MR and which is PP as they were near identical sister ships

that leaves

3 The Anthony Roll was finished a year after MR sank. The drawing was considered to be accurate. For 450 years it was the basis of painting and models of Mary Rose. But since the MR was raised the inaccuracies of Anthony Anthony's drawings are shown up. Just one example; the number and placing of the gun ports.

 

With the Mary Rose we had some [all of 2] images, yet the one thought most accurate is found to be not so.

 

As for that painting of the sea battle the writer admits that it is only believed to be the Armada battle of 1588. Many people do not know that there were two previous Spanish Armadas, one in 1578 [from the Spanish Netherlands] and one [small one] in 1587. This sea battle can be any one of the sea engagements, or none, just a depiction of a sea battle. The admiral in Tudor times flew his own flag on his chosen ship. Only when the Regent was on board was the Royal Flag flown**. Ordinary captains of war ships flew the St. George cross. Merchant ships flew the flags of their owners

** as today, at a Royal Palace the Royal Flag is only flown when HRH the Queen, Elizabeth II is in residence, at other times the Union flag of the UK is flown

 

 

Yes, I agree, Pat is doing a superb job on the build.

carry on, as you were

[mdesaxe]

From State Papers Henry VIII, ccv, 160 and restated in Instructions drawn up by Sir John Hawkins in the latter part of Elizabeth's reign (cited in W.G. Perrin,  British Flags, their early history at sea, with an account of the origin of the flag as a national device, 1922) "The Ld. Admiral shall beare a flagge of the Armes of England upon the top of his Mayne-mast. And a flagge of St. George one the foretopmast." The "Armes of England" is the Royal Standard.

 

Things have changed since then, no doubt.

 

Maurice

[patmaquette]

Thanks everyone for your knowledge, guidance and reasoning: I appreciate it greatly.

 

How can it be that I find my mind occupied (even in the early hours) with a thing as oddball as "what did the rear end of Ark Royal look like in 1587? ". And, yes, I am very thankful that it is all I have to worry about!

On 04/09/2019 at 21:28, mdesaxe said:

so we should instead applaud him for his exciting model rather than suggest he makes changes based on less-than-reliable evidence.

 

On 04/09/2019 at 22:38, Black Knight said:

carry on, as you were

Thank you for those nice words. Before I take your advice, perhaps I can sound you out on a possible alteration that may not look too out of place on the model (at least to my non-expert eye). 

Background thoughts:

I feel a bit uneasy about passing off Airfix's Revenge kit as being Ark Royal. The statement......

On 04/09/2019 at 21:22, patmaquette said:

But what distinguished the Ark Royal from her companion ships was the unusual construction of her after part.

......bothers me somewhat, so I am tempted to make more substantial changes than gun ports and paint job, so long as what I do has a basis and is plausible.

 

Why have turrets at the stern of the ship? Let me speculate and please tell me what you think. I understand the Spanish method of warfare was to use their guns to destroy the topworks of their opponent and then board by bringing the bow against the enemy's waist and crossing soldiers using the beak of their ship. The beak had quite high sides presumably to offer some protection to the attacking soldiers. Having got their troops onto the main deck, they would then attack the fore and after castles. Small cannons were placed at corners of the castles to counter this attack.

 

Maurice mentioned in post 27 that AR had....

"17 smaller guns (including an unspecified number of minions (4-pounders) and some of which may have been old-style wrought-iron breech-loaders of around 2-pounds for anti-personnel work - and these could even have been in the tops in swivel mounts)."  

The Revenge kit has places for 12 cannons. I wonder whether the purpose of the turrets was to allow more guns to be placed there to defend against the form of attack just mentioned?

 

Half turrets. It dawned on me this meant that the turret did not go all the way to the ground (when thinking of a Scottish castle), rather than it being semi-circular. Indeed, I also think a circular profile would not be appropriate for a wooden defensive structure - but that it would be flat sided. 

 

With the above in mind, I have made a couple of preliminary sketches. I have included some battlements, even though these sound a daft idea for a sailing ship as the sails and ropes are bound to catch on them. I haven't shown a chainwale for the fourth (bonaventure) mast: attaching shrouds and backstays may take a bit more figuring out but Jeff mentioned in post 8 that the kit ones don't line up well anyway.

 

 

 

 

I would love to hear your thoughts about altering the ship along the lines of the sketches. Maybe give a vote from 0 = you can't be serious! to 5 = okay, seems rational, defensible and I won't stop reading this thread if Pat goes ahead with it!

 

Thank you all!

Pat

 

[Black Knight]

3.5

I'll be back. I have to look for a photo

[Black Knight]

I'm back. With three photos.

These three images are from two castles built only slightly after the date of the Ark Royal.

They have turrets which do not go to ground. The bottom part where they merge into the wall is called corbelling

I think, from what I see on the images which have gone on before that the rear turrets are [maybe] semi-circular with their bottom ends corbelled into the sides of the ship - in the manner of these castle turrets. Both ship builders and castle/house builders of the time used ideas from each other

 

 

 

I think a semi-circular turret, inside diameter just about equal to 4 or 6 feet, enough for two men to stand back-to-back for each firing a gun through a port, crenellated on the top and corbelled on the bottom. No roof to it, or just a minor roof. It needs to be high enough for a man to use a long-bow, about 8.5 feet high inside.

[mdesaxe]

I should point out that I corrected my entry 27 with entry 30, in which I used the actual inventory numbers rather than relying on the usually-reliable statement of William Laird Clowes. The State Papers inventory only listed four small guns. Nonetheless, just because the inventory did not list Clowes' 17 small guns does not mean that they could not have been added as a temporary expedient.

 

There is a fair amount of iconography depicting ships of this period, some admittedly of uncertain reliability. You might enjoy exploring the online collections of artwork depicting warships of the 16th century at the National Maritime Museum, the Rijksmuseum, and the collaborative Dutch maritime museums site maritiemdigitaal.nl (in Dutch only) for ideas if you have not done this already.

 

Maurice

[patmaquette]

18 minutes ago, mdesaxe said:

I should point out that I corrected my entry 27 with entry 30, in which I used the actual inventory numbers rather than relying on the usually-reliable statement of William Laird Clowes. The State Papers inventory only listed four small guns. Nonetheless, just because the inventory did not list Clowes' 17 small guns does not mean that they could not have been added as a temporary expedient.

 

There is a fair amount of iconography depicting ships of this period, some admittedly of uncertain reliability. You might enjoy exploring the online collections of artwork depicting warships of the 16th century at the National Maritime Museum, the Rijksmuseum, and the collaborative Dutch maritime museums site maritiemdigitaal.nl (in Dutch only) for ideas if you have not done this already.

 

Maurice

Many thanks for this, Maurice, and for reminding me of the number of smaller guns. I'll take a look at the on-line collections you mention - they do sound interesting.

Best regards,

Pat

[Courageous]

3. I have no way of proving or disproving your rational. What ever you decide, I'm sure it will be great.

 

Stuart

[Black Knight]

I should also say, the turrets in the old illustrations may also be angular. You could do half an octagon rather than semi-circular, or you could . . . . . . . . .

[patmaquette]

5 hours ago, Black Knight said:

circular turret, inside diameter just about equal to 4 or 6 feet,

Thank you for your photos and thoughts Black Knight. I was wondering whether the planking would have to run vertically for a circular turret, but probably it doesn't matter too much as it would be painted over.

I'll bear in mind what you suggest as I peruse the on-line collections Maurice mentioned.

Thanks again and best regards,

Pat

[patmaquette]

7 minutes ago, Black Knight said:

I should also say, the turrets in the old illustrations may also be angular. You could do half an octagon rather than semi-circular, or you could . . . . . . . . .

I missed your reply Black Knight before sending my one above.

My gut feel is the turret would be angular as circular sections of wood would require a lot more effort to make and not be so strong. But, as I say, it is only a gut feel.

If I do go with circular turrets, I have some suitable items in my spares box I could use.

Pat

Edited September 7, 2019 by patmaquette

[patmaquette]

15 minutes ago, Courageous said:

3. I have no way of proving or disproving your rational. What ever you decide, I'm sure it will be great.

 

Stuart

Thank you, Stuart, much appreciated,

Pat

[patmaquette]

Hi everyone,

I've spent two weeks away from the model, undecided on whether to add some turrets to the stern. I searched through the on-line galleries Maurice mentioned but could not see anything similar to use as a basis, but it was an enjoyable and inspiring time spent. My modelling mojo has started ebbing away so I must make a decision on this build and get back to the bench. I do feel the need to do something turret-wise, rather than leave the model as it is.

I think Visschler's depiction of the Ark Royal with turrets at the waist is not reliable, even though Gribble's amazing painting is based on it....

 

So rather than perpetuate a myth, I'll start a fresh one. Out came the saw and sander. I have made up bases and decks for a pair of turrets at the stern and left everything to set overnight. I'll work on the sides tomorrow, but it will not be a quick job....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[patmaquette]

Hi everyone.

My stern "half turrets" and battlemented bulwarks around the poop deck are about done now. It turned out to have been fun to do, getting the various angles to fit together. I used 1mm thick plastic card for the sides and 0.5mm thick strips for the frames. A cheap digital angle gauge from Lidl was enormously useful for the job.

 

 

The height of the rail above the deck was kept the same as for the fo'c's'le. Deciding on positioning of the cut outs (crenels) of the battlements called for a bit of head scratching (or more like day dreaming!) as I weighed up aspects such as field of fire, getting a greater volume of fire forwards to repel boarders amidships, structural support of the cannon's recoil and protection of the gun crew. 

I found an abrasive cutting disc in a Dremel to be an easy way to remove the bulk of material from the crenel, followed by trimming with a scalpel. I placed a rail along the battlement's sticky up bits (merlons) as they would otherwise have been a problem for catching ropes and sails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have also spent some time planning ahead for the rigging. I have used "Rigging Period Ship Models" by Lennarth Petersson as a basis for the square rigging (if that is the right terminology) but it has nothing for the lateen rigged mizzen masts, so I need to find out more about those. I have gone ahead and installed some "bitts" (again I may have the terminology wrong) for the belaying pins for the jib, fore mast and main mast.

 

 

 

 

I may leave those for the mizzen masts until later, so I can get on with painting.

 

So things are progressing okay. I think the stern turrets will be less noticeable once they are painted.

 

The transom has a depiction of the Royal Coat of Arms with supporters. I suspect this is incorrect for this ship, being as it was commissioned by Sir Walter Raleigh. However, I can't bring myself to remove it. Possibly the shield could be painted in Sir Walter's Coat of Arms (a white diagonal zig-zag on a red background)? Any of your thoughts on this and anything else to do with the model would be much appreciated!

 

 

Thanks for reading,

Pat

Edited October 24, 2019 by patmaquette
Spelling of lateen