rwiederrich

Rich....I completely agree with your assessment.  We have talked these issues through plenty of times before.  It is difficult when builders have simply followed their models plans, and we come along.

No disrespect to any builder...for sure, but it is nice to lead builders in the right direction when these issues are found out early....before the damage is done.  I praise Jared and others on their builds...not on the poor drawings they have followed.

It boils down to research.  I pray we can encourage others to notice the errors and correct them before they get too far along.  On the other hand...they are doing good with what they got.

Just trying to help...as you are.

Rob

Have you been following the changes that have been recently discovered about the McKay naval hoods and cutwater?  Kits today are misrepresenting the bow of McKay clippers...and they are sorely inaccurate.

I hope you have seen the info, Clipperfan has amassed on the subject.

Good build.

Rob

Wonderful job....I hope you have been following the threads on the newly realized McKay cutwater and naval hoods..... and forecastle changes to the plans of these models.  Most manufacturers get it all wrong, making their models sorely inaccurate.

Good build.

Rob

And so it begins....  Rigging stays, backstays and headgear.  Standing rigging is the strength of the framework that holds the masting, to which the sails are energized.  A world, all in of itself....

Good job!

Rob

Still waiting on the bulkheads to arrive.  Any day now friends....

Rob

One simple rule I try to always follow:  Always pre-rig all your blocks on the mast (that means some homework),  rig your mast off model(If you can), work from stern to stem(this allows you room to work all around the mast without bumping the next mast,  work  from  bottom up( this permits you the freedom from not having to work within a hole of rigging...you have room above),  work from inside-out (nothing is worse then when you have to go inside the rigging envelope to add something deep within, that you missed),  You must always be  thinking 4th dimensional.  Height, depth, breadth, time.  Of course, you can never forget the component that binds it all together, and that is, how much detail are you going for?   Now, one item I modify, and that is, the bottom -up issue.  I never add the main yards until I have completed the shrouds.  They're just in the way.  I actually add them last on my mast builds.  One last thought....building your masts off hull works the best because you can simply rotate the mast to work on it from all sides, adding blocks...rigging, and such, then when all your individual yard and sail lifting/control lines are in place...you can glue the mast directly in...and then begin to belay all your lines.

I treat each mast as a single unit...it makes for better organization, and it created each mast job into its own little project...breaking up the whole thing into smaller pieces.  Which is good for the psyche' .   Treating each mast as its own project, helps the entire project move along nicer. IMHV.

Rob

The anniversary is a great reason to make her hull completion a goal.  

On 10/16/2024 at 4:50 PM, ClipperFan said:

Rob, I hope the 2nd set is for me. I'm ready to contribute my fair share to get a copy. Just let me know who I owe what. Knowing that next year (just a few months away now) is the 175th Anniversary of the launch of Stag Hound, I can't think of a better tribute than to see her realized by Rob. Even if he just gets her hull completed.

Vlad is sending your copy to me (from what I understand), and I'll pop it off to you.

As you are probably aware...McKay launched his ships with simple stub masts....so if I can pull off just finishing her hull by years end...I'll have launched her as was the prototype.  On her 175 Anniversary.  We'll just have to see.  No one knows the future..

Rob

Fantastic work Rick.  She is moving along nicely now.

I find it kinda funny, that, apart from most builders, I always build my masts entirely, individually.  One at a time.   Everyone has their own method.   Reflecting on my Great Republic build....I began with the foremast and worked back.  Realizing that, this technique caused more problems for me...when adding the sails.  I reversed this method on Glory of the Seas...and starting from the mizzen, worked out so much better.  I didn't have to work around previous work.  I could work straight on and over the hull.

Yeah....you have a point....the solid hull kits, require that you cut out all the parts.....so in essence, you are practically Sudō scratch building.

Great job.

Rob

53 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Rich, Rob, after reading your comments earlier today, I sat down to read the September issue of the NRG. And lo and  behold the editorial talks about Chapelle and his reluctance to divulge his sources for the drawing he did!  The article questions if he really knew the layout of the ships he drew and what does that mean going forward!  Are we just perpetuating errors that we have conveniently assumed were correct especially if they came from Chapelle?

WOW!!

Rick

After Michael Mjelde told me specifically that Chapelle never had peer reviews of his data and drawings.   I began questioning the validity of them when things look wrong. 

25 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@Snug Harbor Johnny and @rwiederrich the sad reality was that Donald McKay stubbornly persisted in his devotion to sail alone. Why that was is a bit of a mystery. The big tragedy was that in the end when he was cold, Donald McKay resorted to cutting up and using his precious, one-of-a-kind builder 's models of all of his ships as firewood.... That must have been heartbreaking.

I'm sure that it was.....however, when you're cold, nostalgia and pride gather close to the warmth....of the fire.

Rob(Doing my bit to clear the lofting floor of shavings to reveal the truth)

24 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich at first, I thought the only omission was the unique McKay bow treatment, now as we get more in-depth into studying actual descriptions of these vessels, I am stunned how casually inaccurate commercial plans are in comparison to the real ships themselves. Just using plain common sense shreds a lot of these blatant inaccuracies. Now the question is this: how willing would producers of these plans and modeling kits be to revising them to reflect these many discoveries???

That sound like it might be a monumental task.  Profits are all these big model kit manufacturers are thinking about.  Still, it wouldn't hurt to at least inform them of the blatant errors, they allow in their so called scale model kits.  Revell didn't make any corrections to their Thermopylae kit.  Not sure they even make that kit any longer.

Still...the expensive wooden kits might make the change if they are concerned about accuracy.  Maybe *close* is good enough?🤥

Rob

26 minutes ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Despite many successes with clippers, McKay's fortunes declined.  Was that because all the profits went 'back into the business'?  I suppose he could have saved more along the way to provide for his old age.  Some text from his life post 1875 is copied below:

 

Soon he found it useless to continue and reluctantly closed his yard and moved with his family to a farm in Hamilton, Massachusetts. Here he struggled to make a living from the ground and on September 20, 1880, died almost in poverty after a brilliant career that should have brought him great wealth and high honor.

 

Donald McKay, Master Shipbuilder - U.S. Naval Institute

Donald McKay was a naval architect visionary.  However, that seems to be limited to the clipper design.  When other yards were quickly converting to steam ship building and design, McKay held his ground.  The loss of several of his ships that he alone paid for, contributed to his financial failure...along with the demise of sailing vessels, outpaced by new steam ships.  Webb, went on to be a very successful steam ship builder...others too.

Unfortunately, McKay was a victim of his own dedication.  His brilliant career did bring him great wealth and high honor.  It was his stubborn lack of vision for the future of iron steam ships that brought him low.  It was his own choices....not the advent of a superior vessel.

Rob

36 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

It's a shame too because Chapelle did some beautiful illustrations. It makes me wonder if Howard ever had a chance to read the Boston Daily Atlas article? With such easy availability to all of these highly detailed articles through the internet, it's a challenge to see if these were tougher to locate and read in the 60s. If they were located, they unfortunately weren't given much credence. Ben Lankford definitely referenced the Boston Atlas article more than once, yet he apparently missed the entire passage referring to Flying Fish having twin companions in the wings of the topgallant forecastle leading to crew accommodations below. Now it appears the same mistake was possibly first initiated on the Chapelle Challenge. The more I carefully read context and visualize actual descriptions of these masterful vessels, the more I'm surprised to discover how inaccurate current plans and models are as compared to what I've read! Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how cavalier treatment of deck arrangements on clipper ships were in comparison to modeling historic military vehicles. Can you just imagine the reaction if someone put twin tails on a B-17 Flying Fortress? Yet I have a 1930s book on how to build a model of the Sovereign of the Seas which gives modelers multiple figurehead options, including a female mermaid and a fiddlehead but none of which includes her original merman one actually installed!

I agree...I find the errors passed down to be unfortunate.    It's easy to sell something to a person ignorant of that something.

Rob

25 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Bingo!!!  Rob and Rich, I totally agree!  Everyone has relied on Chapelle as gospel.  Who knows what he knew.  Is the deck layout on the Challenge model based loosely on a description with generic items such as the winch, capstans. Wc, added because all ships would have had this equipment with no real evidence that this was specific to the Challenge?  Including the design of the forecastle.

My understanding is that the genus of both McKay and Webb, was the design of the body plans, specifically that part from the planksheer down as that would determine all the qualities of that particular ship, speed, cargo capacity, handling characteristics, ect.  Everything above was somewhat generic to all ships.  He certainly would have designed the forecastle and aft cabin.  If I’m not mistaken, Mc Kay left the rigging up to Her captain Edward Nickolas on the Flying Fish.

I’m not sure how involved McKay or Webb would have been with the finish carpenters when it came to deciding the moldings, carved knees, cabin interiors ect.He probably trusted them and left it up to them to do a good job.

Makes me wonder how many clipper ship models that we see are just generic models that someone named a particular ship?

Rick

Exactly.  McKay built Staghound completely...her masts. yards and rigging as well.  And as you suggest.....most clippers used similar deck features and equipment.  With that being said, however, McKay's ingenious pre-thought spilled over into deck features on his clippers.  So many have been previously mentioned here and elsewhere. So to think his deck designs might be different is not outside reality.  Duncan McLean's own overwhelmed remarks and acknowledgements of what a *Perfectly* provisioned vessel should look like, was expressed many times when describing a McKay vessel.  His own words, such as *Ingenious, skillfully executed, masterfully provided, well equipped....only reinforces the fact, that McKay used extraordinary skill and foresight in fashioning his vessels with modern and ingenious structures.  His attention to provide for his workers comfort was just as prevalent for providing for the men who would sail his vessels.

One note to remember:  McKay permitted his captains to be involved in rigging decisions, but he had overall control.....because the rigging design, in most cases fully effected the sailing characteristics of the hull.  No matter how well the hull was designed...if coupled with inadequate, or faulty masting, yarding, or sail plans....the entire vessels performance and reputation was in jeopardy.

McKay, wasn't down with that.

Rob

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

It's looks more and more like Chapelle relied on the Cutty Sark deck layout and just disregarded the McLean write up.

Mike told me Chapelle had no peer review concerning his drawings and many items he includes or eliminates can be suspect.  Unlike Chapelle...we cross reference and compare, historically what McKay did, or most likely did....based on his actual practices.   I completely agree, Rich.  Somethings fishy with this model....and Chapelle's drawing/design for it..

Rob

5 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Rob, I have to agree with you on that.

However, Ben Langford states that one of his references was the Challenge model in the Smithsonian.  The plans for that model where developed by Howard Chapelle, and it has the WC as depicted on the Flying Fish.

I have 2 very old photos of the model.

Rob, I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is a precedent for that location on a contemporary American clipper ( May 1851)

Rick

The Challenge has the same winches on her bits that Chapelle drew for the Staghound.   
Intetesting

The Challenge was a Webb designed clipper. However McKay was a clipper visionary. I would not use  w Webb design to validate a McKay design.  Especially when Duncan McLean describes her in such detail with having an ample, airy, well lit space for a shift of men to bunk.  
And no other clipper of the era had Naval Hoods either.  Proof , we can not use what others did to conclude what McKay did.  He worked to his own tune, setting records and building what no other designer would dare.  
 

Donald McKay’s one of a kind clipper fleet is my evidence.

Just in case you wanted to know how I feel about it?🧐👍

Rob

6 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

ta daaaa

im now holding in my hands our stag hound coutouts. 2 sets. 

sending it fastest/but relatively cheap way to US tomorrow. 

Rob has all  the details. 

 

no need to reimburse. this is courtesy of  friendship/ and your generosity by sending me books etc... although no real friendship can be bought by money , anyway   

 
Vladimir 

So very much appreciated Vlad.  Your work can not be praised any higher....     And in 3~4 weeks, they will arrive and I can begin the hull......I'm so excited.

Rob

35 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@Rick310

thanks for sharing this Sept 1980 # 3 Nautical Research Journal article. If this is the full reference to her deck layout a surprising omission sticks out to me like a flashing neon light. There's no mention at all of the clear description of the forward forecastle doubling as accommodation for a watch of the crew below. If there was, it's not covered in the pages shared here. 

I'm still apt to believe that the typical forecastle of British clippers was relied upon when they concluded the W/C's were to be outside the forecastle proper.....and not within as McLean describes.  Full height Topgallant forecastles even drawn my Campbell...show a forward bulkhead with windows and companionways.

Rob

She's looking wonderful...great job.  Clean and well constructed.

Rob

Well, there you go Jared.  she's coming along nicely...good work.

Rob

Gent’s.     
As far as the W/C’s go on McKay vessels….. you are missing one very large piece of the puzzle.  British clippers were small clippers. C/S was only 901 tons. And so was most British clippers. American clippers were nearly twice as large,   Many 2/3rds larger.   They had to put their W/C’s outside their forecastles for design and space issues.  
Those little boats couldn’t house them along with the windless and crew.   
American clippers had size on their side.   I feel since the C/S is the only clipper left to evaluate.   Model designers simply used her arrangement as their example.   Without doing real research.  
 

Rob

Indeed, I fully agree.  Rich, I suspect the companionway doors had a modest step up, to prevent water from easily pouring down the passageway.  6~10 inches....this offset allows the companion way slide roofs to nearly be resting on the forecastle deck...as you have depicted in your drawing.    This is similar to the example I had shown you presented on that old Thermopylae model forecastle deck...

Rob

Rick, your Flying Fish is just wonderful.  Clean, sharp, and very well executed.   In our small groups 15 year study of McKay's final clipper, Glory of the Seas....we discovered many construction practices McKay employed in just about all of his clippers.  His innovative designs were for the most part, heavily guarded secrets at the time.  Rich is pointing out a simple overlooked detail, I discovered, that will make construction much easier when the time comes.  We've made many of these discoveries and the intention is to pass along these observations, to aid future model builders....correct issues in plans that did not have the data we have uncovered with the great aid of our friend Michael Mjelde.

Rob