Jump to content
New Publication - Ship Modeler's Handbook - Accepting Orders ×

rwiederrich

NRG Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,083

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rwiederrich

  1. rwiederrich
    I too would make that conclusion...if I knew for sure that that actually happened. We do know when she had the stick mods done and about the year...but to return her mainmast BACK to a composite mast from a simpler stick mast was never made clear...if that even happened. Not to mention her mizzen mast issues. The reason I bring up this inconsistency...is.. it might lend validity to her poop having mods done on her twin skylights. Which might explain that inconsistency in the image that was mistaken for her. Because in that image it does show that she had a main and mizzen masts that were composite and a single stick mast for her fore. It does show that she did indeed have her fore rail on her poop cabin modified when her boats were shifted to the Boy's cabin roof. It's just odd to see mods being done in this image to whatever ship that is, that were done to Glory. It's all odd to me. This is why building an accurate model of her during any particular point in time has to be so critically researched...because she changed so much. Rob
  2. rwiederrich
    I’m just amazed Vladimir. Are you going to have laser cut bulkheads made? How do you have that done?
  3. rwiederrich
    Magnificent work Vladimir . I do still have questions. What scale is your drawing in? The copper line on Glory is 22ft from her keel, and your drawing appears she has more. The waterline to the rail at the jib boom is around 24~25 ft. That means her hull above the waterline must be greater. It appears less. Am I correct? Stunning work though.
  4. rwiederrich
    Rich. If you look with a discerning eye you will agree with me that there is something wrong in the image of Glory looking aft with her captain on the house. It says this is Glory but it shows her with both fore and main masts made from single sticks and her mizzenmast as an iron banded composite mast. But when she was being fitted out for Alaska, she had a composite main mast wrapped in iron bands , the mizzenmast is a single stick. That image is supposed to be years after the picture looking aft with her captain in the image. How can that be? Too many weird issues
  5. rwiederrich
    Sorry folks. I should have noticed the wood slats for rat lines on the mizzen too. She has a single stick for a fore mast as the Glory did. But she has her spreaders and not the add on back stays .......Too many similarities , but too many errors too. Rob
  6. rwiederrich
    Terrible hogging. Just terrible. I bet this contributed to her exaggerated bow
  7. rwiederrich
    I wondered about that myself . Far too many things are similar but that is incorrect I’m sure. Lots to conside. Rob
  8. rwiederrich
    There is so much information in these images...we just need to draw it out and recreate it. Rob
  9. rwiederrich
    Rich...I still haven't seen Glory's hogging documentation....can you provide it? Secondly...it is hard to imagine that Glory didn't stray too far from the Donald McKay's lines...cept for a slightly more vertical stem. Notice her robust curve of her prow...quite similar to that of Glory's IMV. Rob
  10. rwiederrich
    Interesting information can be gathered from this image. Note: the person who took this image took it from a standing position..aiming forward, just next to the mizzen mast. Notice the extreme sheere in the deck moving forward. Validating that at least 7ft was her sheere. If it can be agreed upon from this image. Second: Closeup and notice the curve of the prow, begins at the edge of the forecastle...if the forecastle length can be derived then the curve of the bow can be calculated, since we know the length of the hull to the knighthead. Also...in every image of her bowsprit....it is clear her monkey rail concluded where the rail touches the sprit. So duducing this,we can gather that the forward curve of the return rail is minimal at best. the width of the bowsprit itself. Rob
  11. rwiederrich
    Vladimir....thank you for applying your computer drafting skills to aid in bringing Glory alive 3 dimensionally. I can't wait till we have some rock solid plans. Your beginnings are coming along nicely, though I think the rake of the stem needs to be a bit more inclined...more like 8.5 degrees from vertical. Sweet job for sure. Rob
  12. rwiederrich
    When I read that email I was moved. It is surely a work of love......combining skills sets from many dedicated folks. Thanks everyone! Rob
  13. rwiederrich
    Good job Rich....now taking all these measurements and applying them to the images we can begin to make her materialize. Rob
  14. rwiederrich
    Rich can you find that report? I'd love to see it. Rob
  15. rwiederrich
    Vladimir. Glory was not an extreme clipper like Cutty Sark or Flying Fish...she was a full bodied *Medium Clipper*. More of a *DownEaster* then an extreme clipper. She could be considered a prototype of the DownEaster design that came after the clippers. But to get back to your point. I think that Mike's original drawing might be a bit too blunt also.....but further analysis will need to be done. My example that I built was based upon this bluntness...but with slight alterations. I wanted to see what it looked like in 3D. Thanks for bringing up still another issue we need to resolve. Rob
  16. rwiederrich
    Vladimir... your work is wonderful...especially with the cad. I agree...with your assessment...Mike was not far off...just in minor details and slight measurement issues. Rich points out one clear fact about a *good* reference. The figurehead is 7.5 ft long...this drawing is drawn to the scale of 1/8"= ft/ So if you measure the figurehead out to scale...you can therefore use that to make all other measurements. With that info in hand lets take a look at what you've drawn. Your proportions are not far off but it appears your naval hood is a bit elongated and the stem beneath it is not thick enough compared to the thickness of the hood. Take a look at the new very clear image we all got of the figurehead/bowsprit of Glory at her conversion. If you can see...her hood is nearly the same thickness of the stem directly behind the figureheads feet. The stem is actually slightly wider...not narrower as you have depicted. Your work is wonderful and I can't say enough about your assistance. We've discussed this before and about your own desires to build a Glory model as accurate as possible. I'm with you. But if we use the scale of her figurehead being 7.5 ft then we can deduce pretty closely many of her other measurements. Establish the waterline of 22ft from the keel foot and you will then be able to properly relocate the bobstay plates. By using her old images...along with what measurements we do know...we can get pretty close....I'm sure. Did you ever compare your frame line drawings...the ones you drew, to the Australian shipwrights re-drawings of them......? I wonder how different they truly are? Great work...great effort! Rob
  17. rwiederrich
    Rich, personally I think Mike is relieved to know that 2 or 3 more minds are corroborating with him when it comes to the finer details. His sole research has uncovered so many personal and historical aspects of the vessel. A true accomplishment. The devils in the details. Hashing them out is a true relief I think. It would be an entirely different matter if Mike felt his original computations and depictions were cut in stone and beyond contestation. *Capturing* her true beauty scientifically is far easier then trying to capture her beauty based upon McKay's *impressions* or emotional feelings of what a perfect bow of his last clipper should look like. Rob
  18. rwiederrich
    Druxey...the above mentioned *Unknowable's* can be,(By the modeler), interpreted as a beneficial aspect. The general viewing public, will, in most cases, not even be aware of any discrepancies.....and for that matter, even skilled knowledgeable modelers can be ignorant of such minor details as well....especially if we are talking about a vessel that has much ambiguity associated with its design details. In both camps I am free from discriminating eyes. Rob
  19. rwiederrich
    Indeed it is getting exciting. One item I'm trying to get over is not to step on Mike's feet. meaning.... every time we conclude error in his original drawings it makes me feel as if we're betraying him in some weird way. Yeah, I know that is all in my head, but I've been a fan of Mike's for over 10 years, marveled in his historical accuracies, and I respect him greatly. We are plowing up new ground here and it is odd to think we are pushing it further then he originally did. When I couldn't imagine being able to do that. It is a wonderful thing to know that even Mike feels he didn't go far enough and that we are joining along side him with our own energies...undergirding his research and efforts. Which is extensive to say the least. I hope his shipwright friend in Australia will be willing to redraw hull plans based on what we have uncovered. Great work. Rob
  20. rwiederrich
    Good deducing....... Getting closer day by day. Rob
  21. rwiederrich
    I thought about using some kind of silkspan myself for my 1/128 scale Great Republic but translucency was an issue for me...and hand painting every sail wasn;t what I wanted to do...though each of my sails is painted as well. I used paper and even used a crimping plier I invented to emboss the stress points. But at my scale it just wasn't necessary. Your 1/96 versions are wonderfully made. Here is my example Rob
  22. rwiederrich
    Wonderful stay and jib sails....just wonderful. What was your technique for creating the folds and stress creases in the sails? Secondly...what did you use for the hanks and did you thread the stay through them prior to fixing the stay to the mast? Rob
  23. rwiederrich
    Difficulty with comparing McKay designs is that he never, if rarely duplicated a design....unless it was with his sister ships. Rob
  24. rwiederrich
    Great deduction. Utilizing other means I was able to conclude also that her bow was estimated to be 25', close to your estimation. If you compare that her copper line was 22' from keel foot...you can note that the distance from that line to her monkey rail is slightly longer.......25'. My 1/8" redraw of her stem shows this. She is roughly what we deduced....24'~25" Mike told me that 22 degrees is the angle of her bowsprit....but not sure if that is derived from true horizontal or from her sheer angle at the bow....which you suggest is 7ft above her sheer at mid deck. This would significantly alter the angulation of her bowsprit. Also....A point Mike pointed out.....if this angle is derived from her 1869 launching image or from her 1907 image where she suffered from hogging. 2 points to consider. Rob
  25. rwiederrich
    What exactly could he mean by *Bold, dashy rake*? A 7 foot sheer defined as a 7 ft curve to her deck from aft to forward prow.....*Sufficient Spring* can be subjective, as well as *air of lightness and buoyancy*. All these descriptive portions can be misconstrued if not understood fully by the reader. Correct? Rob

About us

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

SSL Secured

Your security is important for us so this Website is SSL-Secured

NRG Mailing Address

Nautical Research Guild
237 South Lincoln Street
Westmont IL, 60559-1917

Model Ship World ® and the MSW logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,929,264 & No. 6,929,274, registered Dec. 20, 2022)

Helpful Links

About the NRG

If you enjoy building ship models that are historically accurate as well as beautiful, then The Nautical Research Guild (NRG) is just right for you.

The Guild is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to “Advance Ship Modeling Through Research”. We provide support to our members in their efforts to raise the quality of their model ships.

The Nautical Research Guild has published our world-renowned quarterly magazine, The Nautical Research Journal, since 1955. The pages of the Journal are full of articles by accomplished ship modelers who show you how they create those exquisite details on their models, and by maritime historians who show you the correct details to build. The Journal is available in both print and digital editions. Go to the NRG web site (www.thenrg.org) to download a complimentary digital copy of the Journal. The NRG also publishes plan sets, books and compilations of back issues of the Journal and the former Ships in Scale and Model Ship Builder magazines.

Our Emblem ®

Modelshipworld - Advancing Ship Modeling through Research

Nautical Research Guild ® and the NRG logo are Registered Trademarks, and belong to the Nautical Research Guild (United States Patent and Trademark Office: No. 6,999,236 & No. 6,999,237, registered March 14, 2023)

×
×
  • Create New...