ClipperFan

While we're discussing the current, somewhat confusing keel depth, I will make a case, both for using the Cornelius McKay model as our premiere resource and for using his specific recommendations of additional feature dimensions to realize full accuracy of Donald McKay's inaugural extreme clipper. Here's the excerpt of the letter McKay's son gave to Captain Arthur H Clark upon presenting him with his precious artifact. Besides his over 4 foot model, he mentioned that there was a drawing too. Anybody out for sleuthing? To complete her full 'rotundity' as Cornelius refers to it, he recommends adding 4 inches to bottom planking and 5 inches to her wales. To which, he also mentions add 30 inches to her keel which is built in two depths. My interpretation for these instructions is that Mr. McKay was describing exact dimensions to realize the full aspects for the basic hull of Stag Hound. So I would set exterior keel depth at 30 inches, believing the two depths he mentions are the shoe (false keel) and keel outside her hull. Second reason why I put full faith in the McKay model is our most authentic source to replicate Stag Hound is the force of his own words describing actions he took. Here we have a precise replica of a ship as she was in the process of construction. Not only that, lines were all literally taken off those on the moulding loft floor. Add in this was professionally crafted (referred to as an only correct "builder's model" in existence) by the builder's own son! To me, this is a gift from the past.

While we're discussing location of the main deck, I noticed another important feature from the 1922 port broadside photo of Glory of the Seas beached at Endolyne, sadly awaiting her fiery end. Unlike practically all clipper ship models I've seen, if you look very closely, you'll see her decks are level, not pitched. First look at her forecastle enlargements. Note how the base of her sprayrail is level while the sprayrail itself increases in height slightly as it runs from aft to fore. That's easiest to see when looking at the starboard bow shadow. Now look at her stern. See how both coach house and wheelhouse roofs are also both level? Now, look at the outer rail on turned stanchions. Look carefully at the port side of the wheelhouse. Ever so slightly, the rail raises up from fore to aft while the sidewall of the Wheelhouse remains level. This is most noticeable by comparing the port wheelhouse wall at fore and then at aft. It's subtle but definitely there. From an engineering perspective, this makes more sense. Captains and crew spend months, even years aboard these vessels as their only homes. So it's more comfortable on level decks for them. We've now concluded that the main deck of Stag Hound was 8 & 1/2 inches below her sheerline. I didn't realize that the waterway was sunk 3 & 1/2 inches below the main deck planking. So now, as long as Rob and Vlad agree with me about her level decks, we can locate her main deck from which all distances of her masts are then taken: 50 feet from inside the front stem to foremast center; 67 feet from foremast center to mainmast center; 56 feet from mainmast center to mizzenmast center and finally 42 feet from mizzenmast center to inside of the sternpost.

@Vladimir_Wairoa Feels this is the finished Stag Hound profile. Her overall length is 226 feet and her keel is 207 feet, precisely as she's described in The Boston Daily Atlas. We're still working on her 215 feet length between perpendiculars, from inside her front stem to inside her rear sternpost. To accomplish that requires locating her main deck, which is 6 & 1/2 feet below the top of the monkey rail. With 1 foot internal waterways, 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.

@druxey the 1881 Henry Hall profile aligns just about perfectly with the Cornelius McKay model, except for a slight deviation in the prow profile. I kept everything to scale for the reconstruction of the original McKay Stag Hound bow. @Vladimir_Wairoa using his computer wizardry has overlayed the McKay profile on the Hall profile. You can see the only correction is to slightly revise the bow, which can be easily done.

@rwiederrich Rob, Thanks for that compliment. When I saw Seaman's Bride in Crothers illustrations it reminded me of a picture I'd seen before, although it wasn't a daguerrotype. However, I can see a significant weakness in the headboard, trailboard bow as opposed to the innovative McKay version. The very openess of the former arrangement leaves itself vulnerable to structural damage by a rogue wave. Duncan McLean made quite a bold statement in his introduction to Stag Hound. A person could be forgiven for attributing his glowing praise as pure hyperbole. But what if it wasn't an exaggeration but an honest scientific evaluation instead? It's beginning to make more sense now, when taking into account this unusual bow extension: "This magnificent ship has been the wonder of all who have seen her. Not only is she the largest of her class afloat, but her model may be said to be the original of a new idea in naval architecture." 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?

@rwiederrich Rob, Here's a contemporary image of a clipper ship with both headboards and trail boards, exactly as the Crothers illustration describes. From below it's clear that the headboard is more of a decoration than an integral extension of the ship. There are old fashioned open frames between the headboard and stem. The cutwater has a trail board, which is a beautiful embellishment but not as substantial as the unique McKay bow. That's why I'm so convinced he wanted to keep manufacture of it secret. Again, you want to avoid the trap of misunderstanding McLean's emphasis on lack of decorations. As we discussed before, Scottsmen like McKay and his friend McLean put more focus on seaworthiness than superfluous decorations. However brief though, McLean actually does mention that Stag Hound was equipped with both naval hoods and cutwaters. It's just two sentences and if you blink and you'll miss it: "An idea of its sharpness may be formed from the fact that, at the load displacement line (as the cutwater is tapered to an angle), a flat surface applied to the bow, from its extreme, would show no angle at the hood ends. Her bow commences at the cutwater, and swells from that point in unbroken curvature." Not until his description of Flying Cloud McKay's second extreme clipper, does McLean introduce the more clarifying term navel [sic: naval] hoods. But to me, his description of the Stag Hound clipper is identical to Flying Cloud with the exception of the word "naval." 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. 1851 Daguerrotype of Clipper ship Seaman's Bride courtesy of H. Furlong Baldwin Library, Maryland Center for History

@rwiederrich Rob My tracing of the 1881 Henry Hall online illustration used 1 verticle line = 8'. When I printed it out, serendipity, each line is precisely 1" apart, printed out at 1:96th scale! Using a ruler, the copper line is exactly at the 16' line (2"). Horizontal line 7 on the Hall lines. Line 8 is possibly when the ship is fully laden. Vladimir's computer overlay of my drawing and what I figure is the Cornelius McKay half-hull model shows that I was very close. It will be no problem to revise the sketch to match the Cornelius McKay profile. In fact, it appears like it's just the bow profile that needs to be corrected. The image is reversed since I originally traced the print from the back. I've posted Vladimir's overlay from both port and starboard views. Seeing how accurate this is, it looks like I'm already a third of the way to getting an accurate hull.

@rwiederrich Rob While I haven't heard back from Vlad yet, I'm sure he won't mind if I share his work here. Vladimir's source for these vessel's line all come from Crothers' "The American Built Clipper Ship 1850-1856." This is developing amazingly quick. At this point, Vlad appears to be relying heavily on the impressive lines of Crothers. It's hard to tell from these plans which appear remarkably close to the Cornelius model. Since McKay's son built his Hull replica directly from moulding loft lines, as they were being laid out for the actual construction of the vessel herself, I want to adhere as precisely as possible to that source. I only hope Vlad concurs.

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?

Bill, Depending on how clever you want to be, the Revell Stag Hound can be built into a pretty little model. Since you mention that silly little forecastle house, I'm pretty sure you've ditched it by now. Rob and Vlad learned the hard way that the forecastle deck mounts atop the monkey rail not the main top rail. The only rail surrounding the deck is the splash rail. It's actually possible to created the cutwater and naval hoods by using flash around the sails. There's plenty of that light, white plastic to spare. It all depends on how invoved you want to get.

@rwiederrich Rob, I thought of something else too. McLean states that the rear sternpost has a 2' rake. Adding that in with a 7' overhang beyond the sternpost would push the front of the poop deck back an additional 2'. Instead of being 37' forward of the sternpost, that makes it 35'. Since the mizzenmast center is 42' from the sternpost, it would now be 7' ahead of the poop deck. Now there's enough space for a small square portico entrance to the stern apartments 3' below. Does this make sense to you?

@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" (2 & 1/16ths") 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.

@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.

@hof00 Harry, My intent is just to assist modelers in their objectives to create a more accurate version of the ship they're working on. As far as doing actual modeling myself. I never progressed beyond plastic models. I am constantly impressed with wooden construction capabilities of craftsmen like yourself. When fashioning a McKay bow, the other component to remember is the cutwater below the naval hoods. This important component is what gives McKay's clipper ships like Flying Cloud their yacht like appearance. On the real vessel, her trumpet bearing, winged angel figurehead has her feet attached to the cutwater, while a large, hidden iron bar mounted her to naval hoods above. She was about 7 feet long and projected about 8 feet out with the cutwater. I hate to make your modeling efforts even harder but at 1:96th scale, she'll be 7/8ths of an inch projecting out another inch with the cutwater. Tiny, for sure. By having such a small figurehead in scale makes the rest of your ship larger in comparison. The anchor hawse hole is much lower than on your plans as it exits below the naval hoods. Since the height of the exterior molding between lower planksheer and upper mainrail is 4 feet, a foot above the inner deck due to her foot high inner waterways, the rear of the naval hood curving triangular shape is 3 & 1/2 feet, depth of the cutwarer below would be 2 feet.

@druxey Thanks for the Latin course. I had to use a translation app just to find out it simply means "with a grain of salt" or "don't take literally." Actually, Chappelle's plans are quite close in profile to the Cornelius model. Spacing for masts and deck fittings appear to be slightly off but that could also be due to some distortion from challenges in scanning a thick book. The thing that has always baffled me is this. Why have such an apparently cavalier treatment of McKay's clipper ships always been given by a commercial modeling industry? Whenever I saw a McKay clipper it always bugged me how plain the bow was. In addition, it made me uncomfortable to see how awkward figureheads looked, just tacked on below a bowsprit. It makes me wonder, Lars Bruzelius did his copywrite for his website in 1999. Before that, were Boston Daily Atlas articles that hard to locate? Now we've learned that my suspicions were right all along. Every McKay model has been wrong. A plain stem was not how he designed his revolutionary clippers. In fact, after looking at dozens of other big American clippers, we've learned that one of Donald McKay's closely guarded secrets, which nobody else copied, was his complex prow structure. Cutwaters extended the stem. They were in turn then thoroughly bolted through on both sides by durable naval hoods, really an extension of the graceful hull. As a comparison, Rob shared an image of the prow of the bark Amy Turner. Typical clippers had a simple cutwater to which a figurehead was mounted. This in no way resembles the unique McKay bow. As we develop Stag Hound it will become clear how much of an advantage this rugged prow was. That will just be one of the exciting features as we finally realize McKay's first beauty.

@rwiederrich The last Stag Hound hull and sail plan I shared comes from David MacGregor's 1973 publication "Fast Sailing Ships 1775 - 1875 Their Design and Constructiom"

@Jared Nicely done. She looks real clean, neat and tidy.

@rwiederrich Of course, we all noticed that compared to the Chappelle plans, the Cornelius model looks a little slim. Reading the son's letter he revealed that the 30" keel has to be added below. I know for a fact too, that the uppermost monkey rail is not included on half-hull models. That adds 16-18" on top. Which would then make her appearance more full. Here's where @Vladimir_Wairoa added in his computer imagery talents. He created profiles of the Chapelle lines and compared them to both Hall and Cornelius. It's clear that the Chappelle hull is a little short vs the Cornelius model. That's most likely due to Chappelle plans being scanned from a book where part in the center bends in. As we proceed, that will be fixed.

@rwiederrich Afterwords, I found the large, precisely carved "half-hull" model, crafted by McKay's own son Cornelius, taken from moulding lines directly off the lofting floor as Stag Hound was being built! There's no more authoritative source than a direct descendant of Donald testifying as to the historical authenticity of his own creation honoring his father. Even more fascinating is that the image with excerpt of a letter originated in a 1928 publication by another relative, Richard McKay in his encyclopedic book "Some Famous Sailing Ships and Their Builder Donald McKay." Two profiles are very similar with an exception being the authentic model has a more vertical underwater prow. Next step is to redraw ship and bow accurately using the McKay model.

@rwiederrich While researching bow structure for Glory of the Seas I stumbled on the exact same description of the elusive naval hoods and cutwater overlapping the stem for the bow of Stag Hound! Using plans online from the "Report on the Ship-Building Industry in the United States 1884" by Henry Hall, I sketched this 1:96th scale reconstruction of her surprisingly beautiful yacht like prow. The image is reversed since I traced the lines.

@rwiederrich Rob, I wouldn't worry about the technicality. If someone knows, I'm sure they'll share the "how to." Meanwhile, here's more of the images we shared privately before to get your build log up to date. First 5 are lightened up lines from Howard I Chappelle's 1967 publication "The Search For Speed Under Sail", including Vladimir's computer matched plans. Last is a first edition book cover, for anyone unfamiliar with this comprehensive work. Chappelle's works are beautiful but still unfortunately inaccurate (slightly off topic but another bone I have to pick, besides her completely plain bow, is the ridiculously small rear coach house on Sovereign of the Seas. "She has a full topgallant forecastle, a large house amidships and a spacious trunk cabin, in two divisions, built into a half poop deck, with steerage room abaft." The Boston Daily Atlas, June 19, 1852. The line "steerage room abaft" says that this was a large cabin which occupied the entire poop similar to Flying Fish which preceeded this vessel, yet every model I've seen has that tiny small cabin instead! Back to the current topic.) So when constructing scratch built replicas, in order to get accurate results, I've learned it's quite essential to compare actual historical descriptions by Duncan McLean in The Boston Daily Atlas to other purported sources. Regardless, we still plan on referring to Chappelle's deck layout but getting it faithful to the December 20, 1850 details.

@rwiederrich Rob, To help others avoid pitfalls of incorrectly modeling Stag Hound based on erroneous plans, I'm sharing this evaluation we made of a beautifully crafted but wildly inaccurate model. Most likely due to a lack of accurate information and misinterpretation of another's description of a half-poop deck, EB Douglas drafted these Stag Hound clipper plans in 1922. Hull form looks very close to Howard Chappelle's lines and sailing rig is very similar to David Macgregor's. Too bad Mr Douglas apparently had no access to Duncan McLean's far more accurate description, which included the fact that the Stag Hound poop deck was 44' long, "half" the size of others. That, and typical of all McKay models, the bow is plain. Nothing at all like the real ship which had complex naval hoods and cutwaters overlapping her stem, which augmented her sharp prow.

@rwiederrich since I see you've already laid out the Chappelle lines from his book "The Search for Speed Under Sail" I will endeavour to keep up with your remarkably swift construction pace. Meanwhile I'm going to share another inspiring work of this magnificent McKay first. This one's titled "Stag Hound in the Tea Trades" by Cape Cod artist Frank Vining Smith. He really captures her lean lithe hull and very lofty rig in a beautiful ocean setting.

Rob,. No need to apologize, I just wanted you to know it was misplaced so you could correct it. I apologize if I embarrassed you.