rwiederrich

Mind you..I will be actually pinning and gluing plank sheets in place later...just taking measurements and looking now. Gotta go help my daughter hang some sheetrock..... Rob

I temporarily added some planking on the sides to give some contour effect...to visualize the curves being generated and to allow me to make any adjustments to the bulkheads. Rob

I'll show the addition of those two other bulkheads. Rob

Oh...one other observation I failed to mention. Since the Glory was of a *Medium* clipper design, McKay would have desired to increase her entrance and exit buoyancy(the real cause of Hogging). So to do this, her entrance would have been more vertical, allowing for a more rotund entry underwater. A sweeping bow would lessen her forward buoyancy, not to mention her cargo carrying ability. The opposite can be said about perceptions of her entry if one looks at her dockside view when she was being converted into a cannery. Her entry looks nearly vertical. I cut out and added 2 more bulkheads, but had to leave on an errand and didn't get any images. Bulkhead 5 is the one where she transitions to the main deck from her forecastle deck. Rob

Yes.... optical illusions can play an enormous role in our perceptions of what we think we see. In this particular case, I would defer to the clearer, less processed image of her fitting out. Because we have other clear images of her that would concur and lend credence to the actuality of that image. The former image, though it is of the Glory, is suspect, because of other distortions we have already recognized. If we understand spacial distortions and those found in the optics of the period, such as spherical, choma and chromatic aberrations....(Not to mention the poor quality of the image), we can then again disregard these distortions for what we know to actually be the truth. I don't believe the Glory suffered from any severe *Hogging*. McKay, in his design of her, not only included iron cross banding in its prevention, but he also added extreme internal cross bracing with wood structures as well. She was overly reinforced against hogging. I do have an image of Dashing Wave in Seattle and she was severely Hogged. I'm sticking with the clearest and most optically accurate images we currently have of her...and utilizing an acquired acuteness for being able to distinguish proportions based upon comparative analysis, I think I can give a real good college try at building an accurate representation. Of course I'll need to rely also upon a copious amount of self assuredness too and faith in God. Your input in these matters has been instrumental. Rob

What I find interesting about this comparison and the lower image of Glory....is that you can actually impress upon your perceptions what is not actually there. If I base my opinion on solely what I see and do not couple my understanding on what I know...then I can come away with an entirely different view point. If I gather from what I do know about the entrance of Glory's bow, I would know that where the double bobstays connect to the hull the cutwater is nearly vertical or close to it in comparison to the destroyer, which has an extreme sweeping entry. If I can cognitively remove the distortion of the crane just behind her bowsprit, knowing that, that distortion is contributing to a false impression of her stem lines, I can begin to see her actual proportions. Locating her figurehead and deducing the location and shape of her cheek plates(hoods)... and the inclination of her stem and planking line, I can conclude the actual dimensions of her bow. In essence I am forcing my eyes to disregard what they think they see and combine the knowledge of what they MUST see....based on actuality. We do this all the time in astronomy...when calculating celestial structures while looking through a distorted atmosphere. Great subject by the way...it at least causes us to become critical thinkers and enables us to deduce fact from a sea of inaccurate information. Rob

I did...and also followed ClipperFan's drawings as well..... I purposely left things straighter then I would like so I have some material to remove if need be....it is always easier to remove material then to add material. The trick is making sure I cut the bulkheads with the proper bulwark height for the forecastle and the main deck. Its noted on the drawing...but if you are not careful to notice it...well...you could cut the frame off or cut it too short. As you can see the first two bulkheads show the bulwarks frames very short(as they should be), but when I get to bulkhead 4..there takes a great change in bulwark frame height...since at this point the gunwale is over 6ft tall and needs to reflect that. I hope to cut out a couple more bulkheads this afternoon. Rob

Man she is looking great...your corrections are doing the trick. I worked on cutting out the first two bulkheads..1 and 2 anf d fared them out. 1 is glued in place on the keel/stem but the rest will be left mobile so I can make adjustments and corrections. I wanted to get everything going so I could see 3D and actually make corrections or additions now as she is being built. Everything is baseline and can be modified if need be. The *beak* of hood is deliberately short so the actual member can fit over. Moving along. Rob

39.64" is what I came up with too....I just rounded it up to make it an even number for ease of conversation and interpretation. This scale meets my goal...for sure. Thanks... Rob

I'm going to make, on the table saw, a grooved wood base to rest the keel in at the level of the bulkheads termination...so they all can sit at the same level and I can add them as I cut them...plus it will hold the hull vertical as it is being constructed. This *framing* process will be tricky because I will be placing bulkheads and then temporarily laying some veneer planks to verify the proper hull convexity and curvature before permanently securing them. The drawings are rudimentary and are going to be slightly modified as I proceed. I'm barrowing from my telescope mirror making days...when I tested the mirror on a reflection stand a process known as *Comparative analysis*. I will rely upon photographs for comparative measurements. Many ship builders used a process of thirds and fourths. Where portions of the ship equaled other portions of the ship or distances and lengths of structures were 3 times as long or shorter then other structures. It creates a sort of symmetry to the ship. Values that can be measured and replicated. Kinda like reverse engineering....but with images. Fun stuff for sure. Rob

Beautiful.....indeed. She almost has the same contours...shorter vertical/horizontal and slightly more angle to the stem and cutwater Nothing like her Revell model...…. Rob

Thank you gentlemen. Pat..as you know I have been working on the Glory in 1/96, utilizing a heavenly modified Revell Cutty Sark hull....but it just never hit the spot..the deadrise was waaay off and so was the sheer and stem. I think I did well enough to pass her off...but to the discriminating eye she just wasn't correct.......so I am embarking on building a hull model of her in a bit larger scale. Here are some some pics of the templates and gluing the stem to the keel.... Rob

Beautiful...I completely agree about the Flying Cloud...your drawings are superb. She does look similar to Glory.....wonderful design...Donald. I have a book on figureheads and will look up tonight on the subject. I'd love to see what changes you are going to incorporate in your Glory depiction. I began a new log for this subject. Rob

I wish to include contributions from Clipperfan…..And Vladimir

I've moved the subject of building a hull model of the Medium clipper built by Donald McKay in 1869 to its own log. I didn't want it to become confusing with my 1/96 version...which is in the sail and yard stage. Within a small group of focused Glory admirers it has motivated us to(with much study and application) correct and redraw some blatant design errors that were found in her contemporary drawings commissioned by Mike Mjelde and published in his book about the Glory of the Seas. Recent discovered photographic evidence, coupled with previously published imagery has caused those of us who are passionate about her to redraw her profile including these new changes. I will be building her in 1/75 scale...quite a large hull from what I am accustomed to building....but non the less impressive in stature and availability of detail. She will be built plank on bulkhead style and even that will be modified..where as I will be using pre-machined strips of clear pine...almost veneer like. 2"wide by 3ft long by 1/16" thick variable. This material easily conforms to the shape of the hull and can be cut and manipulated to cover her entirely. I will follow the method I used when I built the Great Republic. I have already purchased the 3/16" maple plywood and will be gluing the precut bulkhead templets to it soon. Here are some images of the drawings and the templets and overall profile....NOTE...I will be making other changes to her stem and cutwater as I go...which I will draw upon the profile so as to follow the corrections that have been made. I want to also thank several members for aiding me in my quest and who also share in the love of the Glory of the Seas....member Clipperfan and member Vladimir Wairoa. Your assistance is and own personal passion is much appreciated. A Disclaimer for all who may be watching and who are purists in their own right.....I am a crude...lazy....modeler and will most likely use techniques and methods/materials that are overtly unorthodox......please forgive me now and allow me my ranting and miss-steps.

Wonderful...Yes even Campbell refers to the *Hood* as unique to *certain* clipper designers and was not supported by external knees as was found on some British clippers and some earlier American clippers(Cheek boards). It was as you described...large bolted and supportive of the bowsprit and the firm backing for the figurehead. Your rendering is becoming clearer and is(IMV) becoming closer to what she actually looked like....however, I still see a bit of an issue with your figurehead and stem dimensions. It appears the figureheads length is nearly as long as the stem is beneath her feet to the beginning of the planking. If you measure her length and compare it to the distance from her feet to the beginning of the hulls planking, you will see they are very close in length....meaning, your rendering of the stem length in your drawing is too long, thus your curve of the cutwater is to long. I compared this notion to all of her close up images. Her *beak* is too long. Also, If I may, it appears you also need to shorten or tighten the radius of the stem and keel junction. The Peabody image clearly shows that curve is sharper then in your rendering. Other then those two minor items, it appears you have captured and corrected the most glaring errors of her previously recorded profile....and you've done it superbly....if I must say. Her body height is much more closely resembling her images and her corrected sheer makes all the difference. I am well pleased(Not that, that matters). Rob

Good news Clipperfan. I'm seeing this too and it is clear seeing perspectives can vary...I'm noticing it ever more regularly as I study her from different eras and angles. Disregarding and including shadow distortions can be problematic as well. Your 40" rendering would be magnificent to have...it would be a great aid. Your reference to Naval Hoods I'm assuming are referencing her *cheek plates*? Ornamental carving on the Glory was found on her stem and on the cheeks...that were mounted just above the Howes hole and forward to just ahead of the figure. On your 1911 dockside image of her, the ornamentation on the stem knee has apparently fallen off. Again...thank you for your exemplary contributions in these matters. I would be interested in anything you have worked on concerning the Flying Cloud as well. Thank you. Rob

Yeah...her entry is still very sharp so I will be making mods to the bulkheads as I lay them up on the keel. Currently, I have to clean up the wood shop a bit(been working on telescope stuff) before I glue the bulkhead sheets to the plywood...prior to cutting. I'm gonna do this exactly like I did the Great Republic. Once laid out and glued...I'll section off the bulkheads and then cut them out. During this time I will have to plain down the maple I will be using for the keel and stem and the bow sections. I will NOT be building this like the boys over in the Young America logs....They are building their fine models in exact manner as the prototypes. Not me...I'm a *Hack* modeler...all I'm concerned with is the end results. So what will the scale be if I make her 40" long? Around 1/75 I think. Over 3ft 4in. Rob

One last note...her original copper line might have been added to, to compensate for her greater cargo carrying capability, due to her *Medium* clipper distinction and more of a DownEaster distinction. Again, note the comparisons of both the Hyde and the Glory in similar positions....eerily similar...don't you think? Rob

You are getting so close. It appears your cheek plates are a bit elongated and lack the proper curve atop of the howes hole to just behind the figurehead underneath the bowsprit. Also...it still appears to need some hull height, because if you look at the Peabody photo, you can easily determine the distance from the mid hull opening(hatchway for long items) to the rail and the copper line. I think it needs to increase. Also it is clear the copper line on her launching and on the images of her at dockside getting fitted out for cannery service and being towed off are not the same. In the Peabody image the copper line appears to begin roughly 5 ft below the lower bobstay, but the fitting out image the copper line(Or what appears to be it) begins just under the lower stay. This discrepancy can contribute to the noticeable differences I see. Also if you were to measure the channels and chainplates thickness and translate that down the hull...you could easily fit at least three within the distance from the rail and the (Original) copper line. Rail to plankshear is the thickness of the channel/chainplate...but if you compare this to your drawing...it appears there is little room before you plunge past the waterline/copper line. Well, these are all minor details that can be worked out...but for the most part you have corrected what was surely erroneous dimensions and representations. I can't wait to make these corrections myself to my plans and then begin cutting out bulkheads and the keel members. I will be using custom planed and fitted maple for the keel and bow pieces. You've done a wonderful job! I'll probably start another thread to cover this build...don't want to incorporate this build with my current Glory log. Rob

Beautiful

I purchased the plywood for the bulkheads today, so I am going to cut them out and work the hull till it coincides with the imagery and what we have devised. In the Peabody image her keel is very thin compared to what we always construct on models. It will be fun to use images to aid in this construction.

One example is the Henry B Hyde. Glory has the swooping profile and rotund bottom and entry of the Hyde...but as mentioned earlier she is taller and has sides of a *warship*. I think these examples are evolutionary changes based upon the Glory's earlier *full bodied* Medium clipper design exampled by Donald McKay. Half of Glory's hull is above the copper line, unlike the Hyde's.

Of course everything is an estimate. but I estimate roughly a 1/4 of the hull is under water from the image I posted of her at the Glacier Fish Co. dock, using her bob stay location. If my rough calculations are remotely in the ball park, she had a very tall hull...like that of Star of Empire/Chariot of Fame . Even if one rudimentarily looks are her in the Peabody image, you can clearly see she had *warship* like sides. Her Deep sides and shallow deadrise is very reminiscent of DownEasters. I feel Clipperfan is on track with correcting her curves and noting her bow is far less blunt then previously imagined. Can't wait for some drawings. Rob

I love the new curves. But I think her hull is still taller. Note the two images I posted. Also note the distance from the top of the bob says to the rail at the root of the bowsprit. Then note that the distance from the bottom of the bob stays to the waters edge is roughly the same distance. Compare this overall distance to the launching image and you can see there is still plenty of hull under the water Just at the roll from vertical to the floor. This side height is what was described as her having a warship side profile. You new drawing is an improvement, but I think the hull still needs to be taller. Do you see what I’m talking about?