rwiederrich

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

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

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

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

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

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.

To begin we need some drawing. We begin with Cappelle’s and we will correct any issues we discover as we research other material, such as writings of historical reporter. Duncan McLean. Vlad has already lent his expertise with CAD.

Here we go again. After doing some re-evaluating, I opted to put aside the clipper Donald McKay for now because the reused CS hull from Revell, just isn’t cutting it and the hull curves are just all wrong. Like the Glory of the Seas, I am going for full authenticity, even to the magnitude of correcting previously held and modeled errors, namely the lack of one of Donald McKay’s ingenious contributions to naval architecture….the Naval Hood. As before with Glory of the Seas, I will be employing the aid of my friends, Clipperfan, and Vladimir. Both have aid so much even up to this point. Behind the scenes, they and I have hashed out many issue. Much more is needed, but I’m not waiting to gain full understanding , So I’m beginning now with introductions and plans, so our MSW friends can benefit from our journey. We begin with some paintings and line drawings.

Looks good......real good. Rob

I’m sorry , I got it wrong. This image was taken after she was employed as a cadet training vessel. The port holes were added at the time she served as a cadet training ship. So this puts her a bit later then her barquentine time. You can see the addition and refurbishment of the main and mizzen masts. Rob

I agree completely. Why is it escaping so many that McKay openly and admittedly claimed he kept secret, several structural features. The Naval hood is one known significant one. But it’s like pulling teeth to get folks on board. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to get to the truth. Rob

Good job. I just happened to find this image of Cutty being refurbished the first time after her Aquisition from the Portugues. billboard closeup.

I always assumed, that after McKay revealed his first *Hood* design on.....say the Staghound....it would have become evident of this novel, ingenious, structure. And hence, encouraging others to *mimic8 McKay's design. Who truly knows the *INTERNAL* secrets...unseen by prying eyes. This clipper appears to have a *cheek*....not really a *hood* though. This clipper just has stem scrolling. Which I found typical.

You know....I've looked to see if any other clipper during that time had anything suggesting a *Naval Hood*....and I generally found nothing. The stem of American clippers had ornamentation....but rarely Have I seen an ornamental *cheeks*....or *Hoods* Notice the examples presented here. It appears in 1869 a *Hood* might be represented........other that the McKay clippers...I'm not sure what other vessels were identified to make this drawing significant....other than , Like I said.....McKay clippers.

Good Job........man that IS a big model. Rob

It would sure be refreshing to see a builder actually follow through and add the Naval Hoods to bolster the cutwater and make the stem factual. You've done an exhaustive study, coupled with much research...to verify the validity of these McKay structural marvels. They truly separate his ships from all the rest. He made sure of it. Duncan Mclean recorded it. Rob

Picking up where you left off will be fun. I'm wondering, will you be adding all the Portuguese additions...when she was the Ferriera? The fore deck access and the aft access at the poop cabin rear? Facing changes and railing changes to the forecastle? All the portholes added when she was a cadet training ship.......? Or are you looking to keep to her original configuration. I talked to you about all the differences one can encounter in a vessel's life span, when modeling her. Deciding what era you are focusing on will be definitive in her appearance. Rob

Sorry Keith for confusing you. I have to admit that an explanation is in order if the model I posted is correct.