Jump to content

Looking for plans or possible models of Magellan's ships.

Recommended Posts

Although it would be nice to see a stern view, that looks more like what I think a carrack looked like; again there is a lot of speculation here.


A lower boat shaped hull with convex but not bulbous lines forward.  The forecastle and after castle are more like separate structures built atop the lower hull than integral parts defined by the lower hull’s framing.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello from Spain

Forgive me for my bad english.

That is a model built and exposed at the "Museo Naval" in Madrid, Spain. As far I know  the research for the model design was made in the museum by Professor Francisco Fernadez Gonzalez and the museum modellers team. Its supposed to be the most accurated  of El Cano´s Nao Victoria interpretation.


Here you can find some photos I took of that model: Alejandro Yañez | Flickr

Hope you like them.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again,

As far I know there are no plans of that model available for the public. There are some drawings and several pages explaining the design process of the model published in the catalog of the exposition “Fuimos los primeros” made in the Museo Naval past year. Unfortunately the book is currently out of print.


Of course you must consider that this model is an expeculative one, desgined taken in consideration known data given by Pigafetta, and Albo about the ship, data found in spanish archives from other ships of similar size and shipbuilding methods of the age.


Naval Museum have many acts scheduled from present days to 2022, maybe there is a posibility that they will publish a monograpy about Magallanes ships.


Here is a link of a video (in spanish) made by Luis Fariñas (one of the model buiders) who explain the ship hull design process. Second part will be available in december: La construcción de la réplica de la Nao Victoria para el Museo Naval de Madrid. 1ª parte - YouTube



Link to post
Share on other sites

Alejandro, great post and very informative video. Again, thanks for posting this information which give's an excellent insight to the ship along with how they were able to surmise construction of the model. Can be easily converted to English subtitles for those interested and I highly recommend the part 1 video on Magellan's ship model.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan, that Museo Naval model has a lot going for it, and a lot of things I like, such as the clinker planking at the sides of the aftercastle. However there are a few points I don't agree with - not major, but I think they ought to be noted. As in this Catalonian picture from 1468 the planking at the break of the forecastle should follow the curve of the forecastle rather than be a flat plane (No. 1) and the hull planking immediately below the forecastle should also be curved (No. 2). And it might just be me, but it seems to me that the model is rather too narrow.




Also most of the contemporary illustrations (where you can see it) show the forecastle coming to a sharp point rather than cut off as in the model. And this is the case with the Mataro ship model above, as well.




This is Catalan, from 1494. In my opinion this picture is probably about as close as you can get to what Victoria really looked like,


As I understand it you want plans already drawn rather than having to draft them for yourself (which is totally understandable - a whole extra level of difficulty there!) and they just don't exist to the level of accuracy you need if you want to do a nao as close to the historical Victoria as humanly possible.


You might still be best getting a round-sterned Santa Maria kit (the Dusek kit has a round stern but no forecastle, but the hull seems a little narrow) and bashing it to follow the pictorial evidence.


I hope this helps.



Edited by Louie da fly
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Louie da fly, appreciate your input on the Museo Naval model. Here's a closeup of the rear of the model, and if I am following you right it would still need to be more rounded than what is shown?




Then here's the S.M. model:




Which has a small amount of difference. Using the two I still am leaning toward this model for a reference guide incorporating the Museo Naval model. Basically using the hull design as a template below.




Your two points as illustrated help in understanding the differences around the forecastle. I have contacted the Museum and have gotten back an application wanting some very personal information which I will not be sending them for security reasons. But thanks to @Peregrino and his flicker images of the model I feel I have enough data to start a preliminary set of plans in the future. Plus the video he posted also provided some excellent reference's on how they determined their model representation.


Plus @woodrat work from his blog (Thanks for posting) gives an excellent reference on how to tackle this new model representation and get it a little closer to historically accurate as possible from today's information. Those rounded hull's are very unique and beautiful in design during that time period; I can see how they would hold up to long ocean voyages for such a journey as Magellan had accomplished.


So in the future I'll start drafting out the hull plan a section at a time then post them when I have a fairly accurate workable plan. It will be awhile and in the meantime I'll continue to look for more references also. Many thanks to all whom have contributed to my request.



Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonathan11 said:

if I am following you right it would still need to be more rounded than what is shown?


If you compare it with the illustrations, it seems to me the ships in the pictures were beamier than the model. Granted that the transom on the model is taller than on the Catalan line drawing above, the picture still seems to have a wider stern than both the museum model and that of the Santa Maria, and I think this would follow right through for the full length of the hull.


Regarding the details, there are of course any number of individual variations between different carracks, and it's very much a judgment call as to which you follow. I'd be following Iberian ships as exemplars as much as possible. However, even Catalonia, despite now being part of Spain, was (a) a separate kingdom at the time and (b) is on the northern Mediterranean coast, not the southern and Atlantic coast. And the Zumaia pictures




though from the Atlantic side, are from the very north of Spain, almost into France, whereas the fleet left from Seville, in the far south..




I've just been re-looking at the contemporary pictorial record and a few things have occurred to me. First, though the Zumaia pictures celebrate a victory of 1475, that is not necessarily the date the picture was done - it might have been quite a bit later. Second, there is evidence that bigger ships than I'd been thinking of were in use earlier than I'd been aware of: 




This is from the view of Lisbon of 1500-1510 that @rybakov put up a link for on the previous page of this thread




And this is variously dated 1475 (unlikely), or more probably between 1510 and 1514. It is from the Portuguese painting "S. Joao em Patmos" (St John in Patmos) by the master of Lourinha. If these dates are correct, then some of my statements about the Victoria may be wrong and she may have been bigger and more advanced than I'd thought. Which means the reconstructed ship in Patagonia could be very close to how she actually was (except for the flat stern). Unfortunately, these realisations are probably making your job more difficult rather than less (sorry!) The more I learn the more I realise I don't know . . .


However, against this we need to set the fact that when they set out from Seville the Victoria's crew was numbered at 45 with a burthen of 85 tons and the flagship, the Trinidad, had a crew of 62 and a burthen of 110 tons (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellan's_circumnavigation ). This would give a fair idea of the size of the ship and indirectly of the complexity of its form.


In comparison, the figures for the Duyfken (which is tiny! So tiny they launched her by hoisting her into the water in a yacht cradle - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIWE4ot672E - and check out the fishing boats nearby!) are:





So Victoria was by no means a big ship. If my maths is correct, the comparative figures would be for a ship of 85 tons - 

Length: 62 feet,

Beam: 18.66 feet

Draft: 7.6 feet


So probably not one of the "super-carracks" shown above. Back to the Catalan line drawing above after all, I think.


Edited by Louie da fly
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Louie da fly, wow that's some hunting down information. I first thought along the same lines as the ship being much larger also. Then going over the video and it's information as how they used historical barrel measurements of the time to compute the basic dimensions of the ship I understood it was a smaller size ship.


But I would love to one day build a huge Super-Carrack style ship as some of the historical paintings and line drawings show. What a masterpiece that would be! Now to talk my sweetie into a thousand dollars worth of specific modeling wood. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...