rwiederrich

Those stories are harrowing.  Frozen hands, and feet...not to mention hungry and tired.  The life has been romanticized till all the reality of such labors has been forgotten. 

Rob

I believe so.  I plan on rigging her in this manner...without the Howes double topsails.  I want to keep that ginormous topsail to show how much sail had to be brought in when that monster had to be furled.

Sailors could loose and furl that sail several times in the course of a watch....and in the freezing rain, in the dead of night...it was a stinker.

It wasn't till the dawn of the Downeaster that the double topgallant came into practice.  So much easier on the crew if you have to drop and furl half the canvas.  Plus in many cases you didn't even have to furl the upper topsail but drop it so it hid in front of the lower topsail...eliminating its effectiveness.

Rob

Wonderful work....indeed.

Found another image of Cutty Sark during her refurbishment.

11 minutes ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Looking at the picture Rob posted and noting that the launch of the Staghound was in December of 1850, it did not appear to have a split topsail initially ... so was likely retrofitted by the mid 1850s.

Your right, not until late 1853~ mid 1854 did Many begin to accept and change to the Howes rigged double topsail.  McKay's Great Republic(1853), initially was rigged with the Forbes double topsail design...which Howes modified and improved.  Every McKay clipper after was rigged with Howes designed double topsails.

Rob

10 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

it's McKay's second clipper Flying Cloud which is still my favorite.

Well...I knew that...but Flying Cloud has been modeled to death.....I meant Staghound...which has of yet found good representation.  I meant she is the one you continually advertised as a favorite.

Any number of good clipper designs could have made Flying Clouds record times...given the right season...weather...tides...tenacious hard driving captain...etc..etc..   She just happens to be the right design,  put into the right conditions to pull it all off.

Rob

Preparing myself for the upcoming construction...I wanted to post another painting of Staghound.

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob, having such a valuable resource is really an incredible aid in getting an accurate model of Stag Hound. The very first of McKay's amazing line of legendary clippers, built and launched over a period of nineteen years. I'm surprised how rapidly this is developing in comparison to our Glory of the Seas project.

Without McKay’s model, we would be months at this, if not longer.  Glory’s saving Grace was Michael Mjelde himself.  
It makes me giggle to think we are working so hard on your favorite McKay clipper…….

I know why you’re so Passionate. 
 

Rob

I can't agree with your more Rich  McKay's model is the  bible for her actual dimensions.  Not withstanding the addition of planking and a keel.

Hammering out the details and we will be set to get bulkheads made....

Rob

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

exterior sheerline should be 1 foot above the deck. Once Rob concurs, it should be a simple matter of dropping 1 foot below that to locate the main deck. That's important since all mast placements are measured on that main deck line. Progress on realizing this beautiful ship is moving along surprisingly rapidly.

We have been working diligently to conclude the drawing of Staghound.  One correction needs to be remedied.  Staghound had 12" waterways molted to the deck frames and to complete the decking, 3.5" deck strakes were bolted to the deck frames as well.  This means the actual deck line is 8.5" below the sheer line or planksheer.  Vlad has done a magnificent job drawing out the lines, and as Rich has stated.....the true deck level must be attained before mast position can be finalized.

We are close to that point and a final drawing will be forth coming....just a few keel issues to resolve first.

Thanks for following along.

Rob

1 hour ago, Bill Morrison said:

I agree.  I once used paintings as a source for a model of HMS Victory.  The issue was concerned about the forecastle bulwarks in lieu of the cut-down examples on the ship today and in most depictions of the ship. I decided to go with the pre-1805 higher bulwarks as shown by Turner.  Is it right?  I don't know. I do know that nobody else knows for sure.  I was left with nothing but the artist's depiction.  There is also a model of HMS Victory as she was built, but the go with that would be overly incorrect. 

 

Anyway, I love your model ships. Your Great Republic was excellent.

 

Bill

Thanks Bill.  It's always nice to hear good things from other model builders.  Hey you built a pre 1805 version of Victory...was that when she was painted blue.  I recall, years ago a fellow built one in that fashion...quite beautiful actually.

Rob

55 minutes ago, FriedClams said:

Congratulations on starting a new project, Rob, and what a beauty she is.  I've popped in and out of your previous builds, but this will be first I've got in on from the beginning.  With your passion for clippers, I know this will be a great ride.  Good luck.

 

Gary

Thanks Gary.  The research has to be decided because all else that follows will be a waste of time, if I am to be as accurate as possible to the actual ship.

Again, thanks for coming along...

Rob

9 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Meanwhile, I did a quick scale sketch of the Stag Hound stern poop deck. With a 7' distance from her mizzenmast center, I'm exploring a possibility of an 8' square portico, recessed 4' with dual sliding door side entrances. Since the poop deck measures 30' across at the fore and it's 5' high, it makes sense from a safety viewpoint to have a rail on turned stanchions in front. With an elevation of 8' the portico would just clear the front railings. Counting 1' overhangs, there's a 10' square area, which would make for a nice overlook. I envision open rails on that area too, but it's just a thought. 

Here's a preliminary rough sketch on the back of an envelope (wide "V" line is the envelope). It's done at 1:96 scale, to give you an idea of how this arrangement would look. (dotted lines are the 32' long × 13' wide lower apartment outline)

Another approach would be to flush mount the portico with a front facing door. Since doors are 3' wide, to have a sliding door would mean a 9' square footprint, unless it's an ordinary door opening, than it could be a small 4-6' square. After all, it's a simple entrance to steps 3' downstairs to the lower apartments. Which one makes the most sense to you?

 

I agree with you fully.  I had concluded just the same. Because Chappelle's drawing shows space between the portico and the mizzen mast.  With a fife rail crammed between them.  His fife rail is three sided with a front with a horizontal bit. This design is all well and good for the fore and main...to affix the lower stays too...but not on the mizzen.  Your depiction affixes the fife rail to the head of the portico...leaving the front and sides of the rail exposed for pins.  Side doors make more sense ergonomically.  Freeing up the front for the mizzen fife.

The roof of the portico, could be just a roof....but, as you say, why not use it as a fore perch...surrounded by stanchions and a rail(Giving easy access to the gaff foot).  There needs to be a simple 2 rung step up from the house roof/poop deck to access it.

I like where we are going with this.  It makes sense and still is in line with Duncan McLean's description.

Rob

11 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

When I did my reconstruction, I kept all components to scale and in proportion identical to what we saw on Glory of the Seas. The only revision that I see necessary is to realign the cutwater taper to the Cornelius McKay bow profile.

I agree with this fully....and it too is my own conclusion.  It didn't fail me to notice Duncans brief description of the *Hood*.  And from all the research we have done...it is conclusive by the lack of such features on any drawing, that McKay did indeed keeps its identity and fabrication a close secret.  What other secret could he be referencing?  The age of the wood....or the pigment in his paint?😉

Apart from the main difference that Staghound was an extreme clipper and Glory was a medium clipper...doesn't change the concluded fact, that McKay developed an engineered construction practice, that made his vessels superior in form and robustness.  These practices did not and at the time of Glory's construction...McKay was desperately trying to use what worked in the past to propel him, once again into the future. But painfully knowing the end of the clipper had already passed....being overrun by the improved reliable steamship. We are magnificently blessed to have such a rich collection of images of Glory, whose structures can easily be translated to any of his other clippers.....Why, because the Naval hood was(to McKay), as important as the keel of the vessel. Or any other reinforcing structure.

Rob

40 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich

Rob,

Here's a contemporary image of a clipper ship with a headboard. From below it's clear this is more of a decoration than an integral extension of the ship, which is what naval hoods are. I have more to add which I'll do a little later.

 

1851 Daguerrotype of Clipper ship Seaman's Bride courtesy of H. Furlong Baldwin Library, Maryland Center for History 

I have that in my collection. Perfect example.  
 

Rob

Ok , here are my scribbles. I used both Vlads drawing and that of Crothers. I’m assuming Vlad’s is a replica of McKay’s.    I did this on the fly…..but it shows us the difference.  
Also, I reviewed Duncan’s observation that Staghound has no  headboards or trailboards.   That means she was nearly  *naked*.  I’m including several pics showing this and my renderings .

First, could have Donald Not included his famous hoods?  Or could it have been added, just not as pronounced as the typical headboard of the day, so Duncan didn’t recognize or mention it?

Lastly, the trail board typically flowed along the head of the stem, inserting into the howes hole.  McKay never followed that typical pattern of others.  
 

Now about the hood renderings on both prowes.  I think the Vlad rendering is the closest of these two…….with even yours being closest.  
 

Your thoughts?

Rob

Rich...From looking at Crother's moulded lines figure 1.5.. Where exactly  IS the load line?  Didn't Duncan say it was 10.5 forward and 12 something aft?  And I'm assuming that is at ballast.

So where is the copper line?   I would assume it would be in the neighborhood of 16~18ft.

I also drew a line from the stern post foot..across the drawing to the keel foot(or false keel) and to the stem.  You then have to follow around the drawing, 3 scale ft to form the cutwater.

I drew on the Crothers graph, these lines and then I added the hood, which follows(Or is part of) the planksheer.  Looking at where the monkey rail terminates(On the graph),you can quickly gather the details of the hoods own termination and where the bowsprit and jibboom originate.

Once I drew these fixtures in, I then could finalize the cutwaters projection to flow under the hood and form the seat for the stag figurehead.  which rests neatly beneath the fore section of the hood.

The addition of all these features...drastically changes the image of the McKay half model and all the line drawings we have.

From all this...we need to determine the location of the copper line.  Like I said, somewhere in the neighborhood of elevation lines 16~18ft.

Give it a look over and let me know what you think.  I'll post pics of my own drawing(scribble) when I get home. Comparing my drawings to yours...it looks like you were onto the right track. Our two drawings agree.  II did  the same with Vlad's composition and the stem lines are a bit more vertical.

Rob 

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I think we're both saying the same thing in different ways. The key point I'm making is that the most reliably accurate framing source, which is primarily what the McKay model represents is his resourceful build. He admits himself that the 30" keel has to be added. To me that by implication includes the stem which is an extension of the keel. As far as practice is concerned, I have never seen a half-hull model include the monkey rail. It's no big challenge to add those missing components. I've got to imagine when the bulkheads are drafted, you'll want that height included. 

Like we both say, Vlad can do amazingly quick work. He seems to really like the Crothers body plan which has all components included. I just want to be sure Crothers is reconciled with Cornelius's model. I just feel like Cornelius showed incredible forethought to construct an exact builder's model of McKay's inaugural Clipper just while she was being built! Come on! Seriously, how much more authentic do you want to get?

By the way, what do you think of the small, square portico now being 7' away from the mizzenmast center?

I’m in agreement. I figured 5’ but now we’re adding that 2deg offset …. Making it 7’

Rob

57 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob,

Agreed, Vlad is a wonder on the computer. You can let me know if you agree or not. My strong feeling is that the port broadside photo of the Cornelius McKay model is the single best hull realization of any source we've located. I'm going to see if my local printer can blow it up to 2' 4", equivalent to 1:96 scale dividing 225 ft overall by 8, considering 1:96 equals 1'  is 8". To that I would add 18" (3/16th" at 1:96th scale) on top for the monkey rail, counting on the main top rail being 5' from the deck. McLean describes bulkheads as being 6 & 1/2' high. Meanwhile, the keel is described as being 30" (5/16ths") deep. The stem would extend the same, then add cutwater and naval hoods with the running canine figurehead.

I saw that the Crothers plans include the monkey rail and keel. Vladimir's grid based profile looks very close to the Cornelius model but I can't tell if it matches exactly or not. It's also unclear if Vladimir's grid profile includes monkey rail and keel or if those items still need to be added. So far he hasn't replied to my questions. 

McKay’s model doesn’t include the monkey rail, nor the 3’ keel. I’m not sure Vlads drawing includes neither.  His drawing should only include the monkey rail. I hope he pipes in.  
 

Rob

1 hour ago, Bill Morrison said:

Rob,

 

I am currently working on an old plastic kit from Revell for my grandson.  It is their Stag Hound that contains many errors.  Most egregious is that the kit has quite a few other problems, including a deck house located by the forecastle.  Your pictures are a great resource!  Thanks!

 

Bill Morrison

Hi Bill. I have that model in my stash….just for memorabilia purposes.  I’m glad the images(painting)help. Sometimes they’re all we have.

Rob

39 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob,

That's not on Glory of the Seas. My conclusion is it's an error. Most likely due to it being installed on Cutty Sark. I would leave it off.

I agree.  It appears to be more of a British thing anyway.

Vlad is coming up with some nice drawings....it seams easier to correct others drawings....then to create them from scratch.  I think if it is OK with Vlad....I'll just get my laser cut bulkheads from him....if he approves.

Rob

Rich...are my eye playing tricks on me....is that an anchor billboard I see just aft of the cathead and capstan?   I was unaware McKay installed them on his clippers...or is this another error?

Thanks everyone.  Does anyone know how to move this thread to its proper location in vessels built in 1850?  I was premature…… probably because Glory of the seas was so long in the 1851-1900 section.   
 

Rob

I’m so sorry for putting this log in the wrong year section. I had a lapse of memory. 
 

Rob

Poor Donald McKay.   She gets to be set aside. 😢

I know both men will jump in with their contributions.  
 

For me it meant cleaning and preparing the shop for a new build.