rwiederrich
-
Posts
5,128 -
Joined
-
Last visited
10 Followers
About rwiederrich
- Birthday 01/22/1962
Recent Profile Visitors
6,911 profile views
-
First, what is your website address? Second. We know from Glory of the Seas, that McKay incorporated his “Hood”. That is undisputed. We also know that he built glory of the seas on his own account, at this time in his career, he was beginning to financially falter. He could not afford patented, capstan’s or windlesses. He made easier wooden ones. He also used wooden bits as well. However, structural items such as his “Hood” remained. It was a signature piece. Images of Champion of the Seas strongly indicate a Glory of the Seas bow. The lack of ample evidence is not proof, since we actually have evidence in his last clipper. It was not a feature that evolved like his body designs(always searching for the fastest design). It was a feature that set him apart. Rob
-
You're all too funny Johnny. I appreciate your valuable input. Robin Wiederrich....aka..rwiederich
-
You said, "if those beaks were only on McKay ships they sure could have been an important development it does appear that I need to work some on my Flying Cloud drawings to better conform to what McLean describes". Rich and I have been researching this issue for quite some time...both, independently, and together as of 2009 to present. Understanding the ingenious mind of Donald McKay, with the aid of Michael Mjelde, we have concluded McKay incorporated this very unique structural element into all of his clippers. Model builders for over a hundred years have been misrepresenting his clippers, either by bias, or most likely, by simple ignorance of the fact. It is hard to identify these structures in paintings, because McKay guarded it so. Painting were like photographs of the time. Not until actual photographs of Glory of the Seas, where we able to finally identify these structures, as what they were....and their naval architectural structural significance. Noticing that every other clipper made...NEVER had them...in paintings or in photographs. This fact, in part led us to devise, , these were indeed one of McKay's well guarded *secrets*. Now it has become Rich's desire to educate and, if possible, get model manufacturers to change their inaccurate drawings. And fully represent the *Real* McKay clipper bow. to pay real honor to that visionary master, ship builder. Rob
-
eatcrow2 reacted to a post in a topic:
Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper
-
Rich and I discuss it in some length on pages 11-14 or so of this log. Rob
-
No..I understand. But looking at the forecastle...does it look like there is space under it for a full watch crew to comfortably live and work? The deck of the FC is at the height(5.5ft) of the main rail. Nice model, by the way.
-
No...1/128 she would be too large for my space if she was 1/96.
-
I agree with your assessment. However, the drawing is in error. That drawing does not depict the GR as she was first built by McKay. It is an amalgamation of her original and rebuilt profiles. That is just a fact. I don't know any other way to put it.
-
It would be actually over 8ft.
-
We concluded it was a Walker *type* of patented windless. there were several other *types* that functioned in a similar fashion. I posted this image to show the arrangement. A double action capstan, works with a double action windless.
-
Indeed. the forecastle deck was, set at the main rail....roughly 5.5ft above deck and with the 3ft recessed floor....giving ample room for bunking. McLean states the topgallant forecastle was very spacious and amply lit. Light could only come in way of forecastle bulkhead windows(on deck), and flush deck prismatic skylights(ceiling). Rich and I have concluded the forecastle steps down just as the companion way does in the aft portico...down 3ft into the parlors below. Here is a rendering of the forecastle bulkhead on deck with companionways(leading down) and ladders leading up to the forecastle deck. This is for Staghound...and since Flying Cloud was of similar design and detailing....we concluded she too had as similar styling and function.
-
I'm sure the hull drawings have a McKay origin...but like I pointed out...her sparing profile is wrong. McKay would not draw her as she was NOT built. Good educational recourses though. Rob
-
Similar to this....
-
This is another issue Rich and I have with many drawings of Staghound , Flying Cloud, and Flying Fish. They were all fashioned the same in the topgallant forecastle. Most drawings show they were outfitted with the older wood capstans, mounted just under the edge of the forecastle deck.......HOWEVER. the descriptions of these vessels clearly indicates the forecastle crew space was recessed 3ft below the main deck...to make room, in a weather tight space for their patent windlesses.....that were driven by their patent double action capstans on the forecastle deck. this description is very clear concerning Staghound...and Flying Cloud was a near duplicate of Staghound, with minor differences. this patent windless had to be protected from the elements, so it was within the recessed forecastle cabin.
-
Here, again in her case.
-
This rendering of her yard and sail plan is highly suspect and just inaccurate. This drawing shows her after her rebuild.....with flying skysails and bulwarks and splash rail. You can see them clearly. No complete stanchioned railing around the weather deck. Plus, when she was rebuilt...her eagle figurehead was replaced with a simple billet figurehead and gilded cheeks. With all these glaring errors....why would Duncan McLean..draw this? Why would he draw her with bulwarks...when he described her,.....he described her as she was first built.....he saw her in NY. This is what she most likely looked like at her arrival to NY....prior to her burning.
Our Emblem ®
