Santa Maria, Pinta and Nina by Doug McKenzie - FINISHED - Heller - 1:75

[Doug McKenzie]

This will be the first time in more than 60 years that I will be building a model of a ship NOT built in the 1800s.  It comes about because I am just finishing up a 1:15 radio-controlled model of the Norwegian designer/builder Colin Archer's prototype rescue vessel notably called 'Colin Archer' (a Billings Boat kit).  In looking forward to my next project,  I told my wife that I was thinking of a radio-controlled paddle wheeler.  She said, "Why not do Columbus' ships and we'll put them on top of the book case - all lined up."  A most interesting idea since it sort of implies long term display and I have never kept any model for more than 2 or 3 years.  So I thought about it and decided that it was a great idea with two conditions.  1--  I would use a plastic kit as a starting point because I do not want to commit a huge amount of time to this project and 2--  I would use the 1966 book Columbus' Ships by Jose Maria Martinez-Hidalgo and edited by Howard I. Chapelle as my exclusive source.  My intention is to modify the kit to match Hidalgo's informtion where-ever practical and use the kit's intrinsic information everywhere else.  The second posting will describe how well the three hulls in Heller's kit match the hulls described by Hidalgo.

[Doug McKenzie]

In this post, we'll compare the basic dimensions of the kit hulls with Hidalgo's hulls.  Looking at Santa Maria (the table below) first we note a few things: 1)  Hidalgo's hull follows the 1-2-3 formula (Beam-Keel Length-Length on Deck) used, at that time, for naos.  Hidalgo strove to meet these ratios exactly in his design.  2)  When we adjust Heller's hull up to full scale by mutiplying the model dimensions by 75, we find that the ratios are only approximately met.  We do not know how exact these ratios were, in fact, used at the time so we cannot hold this too hard against the kit.    3)  When we divide Heller's full scale figures by Hidalgo's, we find that, on average, Heller's numbers are 95.6% of Hidalgo's.  We have not used the keel length in this average because it isn't clear on the kit where the keel / stem break is.     

Since every post should have a photo, I've included one of the kit's hulls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now we compare Heller's Pinta and Nina to Hidalgo's.  First, we note that the hulls of Heller's Pinta and Nina are identical.  This is not an unusual assumption.  Hidalgo gives slightly different values for them.  On average, Nina is 95.5% of Pinta.  For comparison with Heller, we average Hidalgo's Nina and Pinta and give it the name 'P & N'.  Notes:  1)  The ratios for caravels, at that time, were 1 - 2.40 - 3.33 - 0.435 (Beam - Keel Length - Overall Length - Depth of Hold).  The normal expression was Beam / Depth of Hold = 2.30 but the inverse of that, 0.435, is more convenient for us.  P&N is, on average, only 74.3% as large as Hidalgo's.  This means that P & N are not in scale with Santa Maria.  3)  Heller's depth in hold is only 59.1% of Hidalgo's so that the kit's P & N is not only too small overall, it is not deep enough.  

 

With these basic differences noted, we can consider possible remediation.  1)  The fact that the kit's Santa Maria is 95.6% of Hidalgo's is not at all a problem because instead of thinking of her as being at 1:75 scale, as Heller states, we just revise that to 1:78.   2) We may be able to reduce the kit's Santa Maria's keel length by 2.7 cm  by a little shaping of the rabbet line and keel but even if not, except for these ratios, it is not an important measurement.  3)  The fact that Heller's P & N is only 74.3% of Hidalgo's is very important as it implies the caravels are actually at a scale of 1:100, very different than Santa Maria's 1:78.   A correction of sorts can be made at the display.  Pinta and Nina will be at the front of a 14" shelf  (7' high) and Santa Maria will be at the back of the shelf.  If we use the P& N scale of 1:100 as our basis, the scale of Santa Maria will appear to increase from 1:78 to about 1:90 by being further away.  In addition, by mounting her a little lower than the others, we might further induce a sense that she's yet a little smaller.   4)  The biggest problem is P & N's depth of hold being 59.1% of Hidalgo's.  We'll return to this deviation after considering the sheer and decks in the next posting. 

Edited December 10, 2023 by Doug McKenzie
I got more information on the depth of hold problem with the caravels.

[Leslie McKenzie]

Numbers always were your thing.  Have fun!

[Doug McKenzie]

Pic 1 shows the sheer view of both Heller (red) and Hidalgo's (black) Santa Maria's hulls.  In order to make the comparison, the keels were lined up and the overall lengths were made the same (Hidalgo's forecastle was not included in his overall length).  There are three main differences: 1)  At the stern, Heller is lower than Hidalgo by 89%.  The poop deck is 89% lower, the quarterdeck is 88% lower and the main deck is 90% lower.  All of these percentages are relative to the bottom of the keel.  2)  At the bow, Heller does not have the castle that was common on a nao at that time, rather it has a conventional caravel type bow.  3)  The cutout at the waist of Heller's hull is only 83% as wide as Hidalgo's and only 60% as deep.  Possible remediation - It may be possible to raise the poop deck of the kit without upsetting the visual proportions of the stern too much.  If so, we'll do that.   The forecastle definitely will be added and that will not be difficult because it was normally built above a caravel type bow anyway.  The kit's cutout at the waist can certainly be improved but how much it can be improved remains to be seen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The discussion of comparing the profiles of Nina and Pinta between Heller and Hidalgo has been removed because, I assumed, incorrectly, that the profiles of Heller's Nina and Pinta were the same since their major dimension were the same.  This was discovered, when I started to assemble the hulls, to be completely incorrect.  The correct compariosn between Heller and Hidalgo is described in the next post.]]

 

Edited January 17 by Doug McKenzie
omparison of profiles for Nina and Pinta between Heller and Hidalgo was incorrect.

[Doug McKenzie]

Having fessed up to a serious mistake, I will now attempt to rectify the situation by comparing Nina and Pinta between Heller and Hidalgo PROPERLY.  Pic 1 shows both ships as Heller models them to be the same.  Notice that even the 'transoms' are the same. btw If I remember, I'll always show Nina in front of Pinta because she was more maneuverable and probably pretty much as fast.  Similarly, Santa Maria will always bring up the rear.  This part of the hull is reflected in the main dimensions that were compared in Post 2.

Pic 2 shows them different in their fore and aft 'vertical ascensions' - Nina has no rise in the bow and a short rise in the stern while Pinta has a short rise in the bow and a long rise in the stern.  [The mistake that I made earlier was assuming they both had the short rise in the bow and the short rise in the stern.  Let's not discuss how such a mistake was made.]

Pic 3 shows the comparison of Heller's Nina (red) to Hildago's (black).  Overall, it is a close match except for the stern's upper profile for which Heller is both higher and steeper.

Pic 4 shows the comparison of Heller's Pinta (red) to Hildago's (black).  Overall, it is a good match except for the bow's upper profile for which Heller is higher but at the same slope.  Also, Heller's stem is much fuller that Hidalgo's.  It must be that Pinta's stem was fuller than Nina's and that the two lower, identical Heller stems happened to match Nina's stem.  If we add some comments on Santa Maria we can then discuss remidiation.  In Pic 1 of post 4 the profiles of Santa Maria were compared.  It is noted here that the stern upper profile of Heller's was lower and less steep than Hidalgo's. 

Focusing on the stern upper profile we quantify one of the differences in Pic 5 using the slant of the stern upper profile measured in degrees.  We focus on the slant because it is very discernable to the eye.

The first thing to note is that the varistion in the Hidalgo's slants (7 to 10) is much smaller than for Helller (3 to 13).   Combining this with Hidalgo's statement that "much less is known about Pinta than the other ships," we could duduce that the slants for all three ships was near 8.  Our target will be to decrease Heller's Nina from 13 to 8 degrees,  leave his Pinta's at 10 and increase his Santa Maria's from 3 to 8. 

 

The next thing to quantify is the verticle position of the stern upper profile.  Note that these dispacements  not only line up the stern upper profiles better but they also fix the slants.

 

The key points of interest are the aft most point on the stern upper profile and the forward most point of that profile.  Heller's aft most point for Nina needs to drop 7 mm while the forward most point stays where it is.  The aft most point for Pinta should be dropped 3 mm as well as the forward most point but we will leave Pinta alone since the difference is small and the slant does not need to be corrected either.  The aft most point for Santa Maria needs to be raised 11 mm and the forward most point raised 7 mm.

 

 

We will not be trying to fix Pinta's forward upper profile because the slant is quite close and the displacement is modest.  Nor will we try to fix Pinta's stem because it would be very difficult.  In the next post, we'll show how we will neutralize the different scales of the nao (Santa Maria) 1 to 78 and the caravels (Nina and Pinta) 1 to 100.  Then we will return to the modifications of the stern upper profiles. 

[Doug McKenzie]

In this post,  we'll show how we will neutralize the different scales of the nao (Santa Maria) 1 to 78 and the caravels (Nina and Pinta) 1 to 100.  In Pic 1 the trio is shown lined up with each other.  The Santa Maria dwafs the two caravels inappropriately because the scales are different.

 In Pic 2, the Santa Maria has been pushed back about 14" so that she is on a parallel course to the caravels but displaced from their course line.  Letting the caravels remain at a scale of 1 to 100, the scale of Santa Maria appears to have been increased from 1 to 78 up to 1 to 95.  In the actual placement, where the hulls will be displayed, the apparent scale will probable be a little less.

Well, I have disappointing news.  I started to make the changes to the stern upper profiles of Nina and Santa Maria and it became apparent that it would ruin some of the clean sweeps of the wales and planks so I have decided to leave them as is.  I still take pleasure in the technique of equalizing the scales of the nao and the caravels, though.

Edited January 20 by Doug McKenzie

[Doug McKenzie]

The deck items for Nina and Pinta are complete , Pic 1.  A couple of notes are in order relative to bringing Heller closer to Hidalgo. 

 

Heller has the anchors stowed on deck for both Nina and Pinta.  The problem is that Pinta has a much shorter deck than Nina due to its larger fo'c'sle and its much larger quarterdeck.  There is scarce room for the anchors.  The solution came from a photo of a Santa Maria model built to Hidalgos specifications showing the anchor hanging off the bulwark just aft of the fo'c'sle as shown in Pic 1 for Pinta. 

 

Also, Heller has a boomkin for Nina's mizzen sheet but Hidalgo does not so it has been left out.  This makes sense when you note how much further forward Nina's mizzen mast is than Pinta's. 

 

The 2 cannons on Nina's quarter deck, called lombardas, have a fixed elevation.  Hidalgo shows how they are mounted on the carriges with an elevation which neutralizes the steep camber of the quarterdeck so that if the ship is not rolling the cannons point horozontally. The ship has to roll to change the elevation of the cannon!

 

A note about painting. The underwater portions are black (see Nina's rudder) because the bottoms were coated with tar and tallow.  The topsides were treated with whale and/or fish oil.  Heller distinquishes beteen the dark brown topsides and the light brown deck.  Maybe that is significant and maybe not!

 

Edited January 31 by Doug McKenzie
add comment about painting.

[Doug McKenzie]

In this post, we will discuss how the high fo'c'sle is added to Heller's caravel type bow for Santa Maria to acheive the true bow form of a nao that Hidalgo describes.  It is clear from diagrams and models of the nao that this high fo'c'sle was indeed added on top of a caravel type bow.  I therefore assumed that it would be clear HOW to add the high fo'c'sle.  I did not find this to be true however.  As a result, I have used a tried and true method of construction that I call 'build-whatever-is-easy-to-understand-first-and-then-maybe-you'll-see-how-to-do-the-rest'.  Pic 1 shows the bow of Heller's Santa Maria in an almost completed state (from Heller's point of view).  There are two components of the high fo'c'sle which are easy to understand. 

 

The first is the actual upper platform.  Pic 2 shows our construction of this upper platform.  A thin piece of plywood forms the triangular deck.  3x5 card is used for the railing.  1mm rod is used for the rail cap as well as the stanchions.  The platform is painted the same color as the decks and inner faces of the bulwarks - even though it doestn't look like that.  Having made the platform, it has started to become clear how to attach it to the caravel bow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other component which is easy to understand is the flat planking on the after surface of the fo'c'sle which follows from the waist up the curve of the bulwark all the way to the bottom of the upper platform.  It is not clear, however, how this planking was done because there is a large arch in the planking that roughly follows the arch in Pic 1.  Pic 3 shows the first step of creating this curved bulkhead with an arch.  I'm pretty sure my method does not reflect common practice but I simply couldn't come up with a better method. The lowest plank is actually glued to the top of the bulwark railand will be scrapped when this curved bulkhead is completed.  The both rails above that plank have been vaselined.  The succeeding planks are edge glued to the preceeding plank.  This planking will proceed up to the upper platform when a structure is built to support the upper platform.  This planking needs to be removed so that the back can be strengthened before the arch is cut out.  I could have fashioned curved frames to mount the planks on but that seemed to be quite difficult which is why I went this way.  In Pic 4 the platform is supported by 2 pillers aft.  How the horozantal planking will be finished is now clear with the 2 pillers waiting to support the remaining planks.  Here, the color similarity is clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pic 5 shows the forward support for the platform and also the remaining engineering challenge which is how to plank the space between the top of the caravel bow (curved) and the bottom of the platform (straight).  Traditionally, this is filled in with practically vertical planks which I can emulate with some strip stops on the bulwark rail and the bottom of the platform to which the ends of the planks will be attached.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Doug McKenzie]

Now we proceed to complete the raised fo'c'sle. Pic 1 shows 3 of the slanted planks that connect the raised fo'c'sle to the top of the caravel bow.  Hidalgo clearly shows this slant but it wasn't clear to me why it appears.  The combination of the platform overhanging the stem and starting the planking at the bow induces the slant..  Pic 2 shows the completed planking.

happens

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pic 3 shows the panel borders which sort of mimic the open rail at the stern.  The large arch is seen in this Pic also.  There are no hints as to the purpose of this planked surface with an arch in it. Pic 4 shows the completed platform after being coated with whale oil and fish oil.  At this point, I can say that how the decks were treated is not described.  Heller uses a tan to represent that unknown treatment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pic 5 shows the whole ship with the completed bow platform.

[Doug McKenzie]

Pic 1 shows the 3 hulls with all their fittings on viewed midship forward.  Pic 2 is the same but viewed midship aft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Next, we'll show all 3 ships with their masts stepped discussing the modifications that have been made to implement Hidalgo's mast dimensions and locations as best we can.  This is also a good time to compare 19th century American and British masting practices with late 15th century Spanish and Portugese practices.  

Santa Maria

First, we compare the mainmasts.  1)  Heller's Santa Maria mainmast has pretty much the same length as Hidalgo's.  2)  The diameter at the partners, however, is only 85% as big.  I'm guessing that the full diameter looks too fat to the modern eye so Heller reduces it somewhat.  In the 19th century, a mast the same length would have been even skinnier, about 75% as big in diameter as Hidalgo's.  3)  Interestingly, the taper of Heller's mast (diameter at the hounds / diameter at the partners), 57%,  is about the same as Hidalgo's, 62% whereas in the 19th century, there was less taper at 75%.

 

Second, we discuss the mast rakes.  Heller follows Hidalgo closely with mainmasts being vertical, foremasts having a slight rake forward and mizzen masts having rake aft.  By the 19th century, all masts raked aft with the least rake forward and the most rake aft.

 

Third,  the foremasts and mizzen masts.  This discussion needs to include the sails since they are affected by changes in the masts.  As with the mainmast, Heller's mainsail is in good proportion to Hidalgo's.  However, both the foremast and the mizzen mast had to be shortened to about 70% of Heller's height to match Hidalgo's and this directly effects the sail's heights also.  The sail area of the foresail is reduced to 70% but the area of the mizzen is reduced to about 50% of Heller's original because it is a lateen sail and the foot is reduced by 70% as the height is reduced.  The mizzen mast also had to move forward so that the sheet of the mizzen sail  can be taken to the taffrail since Hidalgo does not support Heller's boomkin.  Hidalgo points out that the mainsail of a nao is by far the main contributor to the speed of the ship; the other sails are mainly for balance to aid in steering. 

 

Pinta

The main and mizzen masts as well as the bowsprit were fine but Heller's foremast needed to be shortened to about 90% of the original.  Hidalgo does not give info on mast diameters for Pinta or Nina so we cannot make any comparisons.

 

Nina

Both main and mizzen masts of Heller's were in good proportion to Hidalgo's.

 

The next post wil show the shrouds of the three ships.

Edited February 10 by Doug McKenzie
I forgot to describe the masts of Pinta and Nina!!!

[Doug McKenzie]

In Pic 1, only the shrouds that use deadeyes are shown.  These are the shrouds for Santa Maria's and Pinta's main masts. Hidalgo says the heart shaped deadeyes had the usual three eyes in each one.  Heller provides little rings that were drilled larger to 1.5 mm to handle the several passes of the 0.45 mm lanyards (3.5 cm full scale [FS] for Santa Maria and 4.5cm for Pinta - makes no sense, but I opted for just using 3 sizes of standing rigging).  For the shrouds themselves, I used 0.76 mm (diameter) for Santa Maria (FS 5.9 cm) and 0.63 mm for Pinta (FS 6.3 cm).  All the minature rope comes from Syren.   Shrouds were always tarred so they appear black.

 

I made a model ship building 101 error by finishing off the lanyards prematurely so that the mainmast on Santa Maria was sprung aft.  A twisted rope come-a-long is used to bring the mast vertical and hopefully stretch the shrouds a bit so that when I replace the come-a-long with the main stay (dangling)  it will not have too much tension in it.

The rings that Heller provided are small and have no grove on the outside for the shrouds so I used a little trick to attach the shrouds to the rings.  Pic 2 shows the three steps of the trick.  Step 1 - wrap the shroud around the ring flat on the table and dab glue on three of the four sides.  Step 2 - close up the throat with the first part of a ligature knot (as shown with the heavier rope below the rings).  This can also be viewed as a double overhand stopper knot before pulling it tight.  Tighten the loop around the throat.  Then finishing the ligature knot with a final overhand loop. The first part of this knot can cinch tightly, without slipping, while the last overhand loop is tied and a little glue applied.  Step 3 - Cut the working end of the shroud off at a standard length and glue the end against the shroud as if seized to it.    I use these double overhand loops, to tightly cinch without slipping, in all sorts of applicatons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The remaing 6 masts are supported by runners.  Hidalgo says that the 4 lateen masts (all 3 mizzens and Nina's main) do not have shrouds rather they only have runners - I imagine he means 'running backstays' or 'running shroulds' (allthough I've never heard this later term).  He gives no explicit information about the Santa Maria's or Pinta's foremasts supports but his diagrams indicate runners also.  The runners are all running rigging so they were not tarred and appear tan.   The blocks used for the runners are not all lined up neatly the way the deadeyes are.  I remember hearing, on a trip to Egypt years ago, that the runners on the lateen masts (on the fellucas) were tightened and loosened at different times which probably explains why they didn't all line up.  The forestays and mainstays on Santa Maria and Pinta are installed to balance the associated shrouds and runners.  Hidalgo specifically says that Santa Maria's main topmast has no support at all - it doesn't need any because the topsail is so small.

 In the next post, the square yards, the lateen yards, the sails and the running rigging will be installed because they are most easily installed together.  Adjustments to match Hidalgo will be discussed.

 

[Doug McKenzie]

Pic 1 shows the completed Nina.  In addition to the sails and running rigging, the anchor cables have been added.  The mainsail's tack rides on a traveler rope.  The sails are set for wind a bit forward of the port beam.   Pic 2 shows the block and tackle used for both halyards.  It also shows more clearly the tack rope for the mizzen sail.  I think that there would have been something to limit the vertical movement of the tack as well as the horozontal movement but neither Heller or Hidalgo show anything like that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pic 3 shows the ratlines on Pinta.  I have normally put ratlines up near last but with the sails going up I figured it would be a lot easier to put them on now. Hidalgo indicates that ratlines were only used on the Santa Maria and Pinta's mainmasts - the same masts with traditional shrouds and deadeyes.  The sailors shimmed up the four lateen masts and apparently the two square foremasts also as they were short.  In Egypt, the feluccas are sometimes larger than Columbus' ships and yet the sailors still shimmy up, not so much the masts as the lateen yards, to furl the sails against the yards. 

 

The scale of 1:100 is smaller than I have worked with before so I used a few simplifications on the ratlines.  First, I installed sheer poles to stabilize the shrouds even though I have no evidence that sheer poles were used on these shrouds! Second, I spaced the ratlines at 16" (4 mm) rather than Hidalgo's 12" (3 mm).  Third,  I put them up alternately so that the first was 8 mm above the previous and then the second was put in between those two.  This meant I only had to measure half of the ratlines as spacing one between two already installed was easy to do by sight.  Fourth, since the shrouds were so close together, I only put clove hitches on the outer two shrouds.  The result is fair in my opinion, definitely not great.  Btw, I used thread at 0.006" (FS  5/8").

 

Pic 4 shows Pinta with the complete set of sails with lifts on the square yards and flags.  Interesting to note that Heller and Hidalgo have near identical views of the flags and pennents.  There must be good documention somewhere.  On the mainsail and the foresail can also be seen leech lines that help the windward edge of the square sails keep their proper shape.

x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The last photo, Pic 5, shows the completed Nina with the completed Pinta.  Their hulls are pretty much the same size but Nina carries 50% more sail area than Pinta.

 

 

Edited February 23 by Doug McKenzie

[Doug McKenzie]

The Santa Maria is now done!  Pic 1 shows her slightly aft of the port beam.  Pic 2 shows her deck also.  The flags seem to be pretty good, flapping in the wind, but the swallowtails hang unconvincingly - I couldn't figure out anything better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To motivate the final mounting, we first show the 3 ships in a line in Pic 3.  Nina and Pinta are at a scale of 1:100 while Santa Maria is at a scale of 1:78.  As a result Santa Maria is 28% too large compared to Nina and Pinta.  To reduce the apparent scale of Santa Maria we move her back about 14" on the shelf and that produces Pic 4 where all three ships appear to be roughly at the same scale.

[ccoyle]

Congratulations on completing the set! They look good together.

[GrandpaPhil]

Congratulations!  Well done!

[Knocklouder]

Looks awesome, nicely done  Congratulations  

[GGibson]

Great job, Doug! They all look awesome!  Looking forward to starting my Santa Maria version soon.  Will no doubt be looking back at some of the things here on your build log.  Thanks!  What's next for you?!?

[Doug McKenzie]

Thanks all!  I just realized this morning that I haven't put any sailors on to show scale - I'll probably fix that soon.

 

Gregg - First I have to complete Colin Archer (radio control) for the Spring sailing season.  Then I'm not sure, maybe the Egyptian boat found next to the Great Pyramid or maybe a fancy Mississippi river boat with lights and working paddle wheels and smoke and stuff or maybe something that I haven't thought of yet.

 

Doug

[Doug McKenzie]

Having added 2 sailors to each ship I now post the FINAL photos!  Pic 1 shows the 'official' photo and Pic 2 is the same photo with the sailors circled in red.  Nina and Pinta have 1:100 figures.  Santa Maria has the same figures with 2 modifications: 1)  They are on little pedistals and 2)  they have been dipped in varnish 5 times (like candles)  to beef them up to roughly 1:78 scale.