ClipperFan
-
Posts
1,917 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ClipperFan
-
Rob, When my son Mark saw your scratch built gin block sitting on FDR's face inside the dime, he exclaimed "Oh my God, that's so miniscule! How does he make something so.... tiny?" So, Rob.... How you make such tiny gin blocks? He also asked what are they for? -
Rob, I'm almost done on the revised forecastle deck sketch for Mike. Seeing the size of just this fore section of Glory of the Seas (it goes as far back as 38' of the large house behind her foremast) again reinforces how seriously large your model is. Then when I think of Vladimir's even larger one..... you both are creating such impressively beautiful tributes to McKay's final Clipper Ship.
-
Rob, Mainmast height is just incredible. Your detail work is second to none. I especially appreciate those teenie, tiny gin blocks. Amazing!
-
Rob, by now you know of my vivid imagination. It's not much of a stretch to think of you asleep at night. Meanwhile an entire crew of miniature shipwrights and riggers are furiously at work all night. The following morning, you post pictures of their work and take credit as if it was your own! Of course that's just too much "Disney" for reality. But you get my drift. Your work and I know it's entirely you, is more akin to miniature ship construction than mere modeling. I continue to be in awe of your results.
-
Rob, Not one bit. The Stag Hound ratios were precisely what I used to illustrate mast placements. Other than the forecastle deck, the mast distances are from center to center.
-
Here's the logic I used to calculate Glory's mast placements. First I calculate ratios of all elements specifically listed by MacLean in his description of McKay's first Extreme Clipper Stag Hound which had a length of her main deck between perpendicilars of 215'. Dividing each figure by this LOD gave me the following ratios as follows: stem to foremast: 50' ratio .2325 fore to mainmast: 67' ratio .3116 main to mizzenmast: 56' ratio .2604 mizzen to sternpost: 42' ratio .1973 Assigning these ratios to Glory's 250 LOD gave me the following results: stem to foremast: 58' fore to mainmast: 78' main to mizzenmast: 65' mizzen to sternpost: 49' Repeating this exercise with Flying Fish which had an LOD of 210' gave me the following numbers: stem to foremast: 52' ratio .2476 fore to mainmast: 62 ratio .2952 main to mizzenmast: 52' ratio .2476 mizzen to sternpost: 44' ratio .2095 Using these ratios, I again calculated Glory's mast distances: stem to foremast: 62' fore to mainmast: 74' main to mizzenmast: 62' mizzen to sternpost: 52' Before I discovered the actual distance of Glory's forecastle listed as 35', I used this same process to calculate it based on a 30' forecastle of Flying Cloud. Here are those results, based on her 235' LOA: forecastle: 30' ratio: .1276 Using Glory's 265' LOA resulted in: forecastle: 34' (1' shy of actual length) I mistakenly told Mike that I used the ratio results of Flying Fish but when I reviewed the large sketch, it revealed that I actually had used those of Stag Hound. Glory of the Seas mast distances: forecastle: 35' (Boston Daily Atlas) stem to foremast: 58' fore to mainmast: 78' main to mizzenmast: 65' mizzen to sternpost: 49'
-
Rob, Vladimir, Mike was generous enough to send me a personally autographed copy of his second publication Clipper Ship Captain. He's such a caring fellow. Since he was still recuperating, his wife actually mailed it. How thoughtful that he wanted to keep his commitment even while recovering from a health issue. Meanwhile I stumbled on another issue where our recreation corrected another unforced error of the original. Mast spacing was very carefully calculated by Mike using the same 1869 fitting out scene in Boston Harbor. As before, nothing was done to take into consideration the rear facing angle of the massive ship to the cameraman. That means the masts, all of them are shifted slightly forward. It's a delicate line to walk but I think I'm doing it with as much diplomacy possible. Since there is no published spread for the masts of Glory of the Seas I made reference to two other Clipper ships for which there are: Stag Hound & Flying Fish. Calculating the ratios of each measurement gave sensible results to keep proportions equal. Accuracy of this process was confirmed when the ratio for Glory's forecastle predicted 34'. That's before I rediscovered her actual forecastle was specified as being 35' in the MacLean article. This issue has come up since Mike requested I draw Glory's fore section incorporating the slimmer bow lines that Vladimir drew. Now I'm realizing to be fair, due to having to respace her masts, the entire deck arrangement needs to be redone to include these corrected mast distances. Since I'll be tracing her hull from the foremast back, it's just a matter of getting the entire new sketch done before the July 1st deadline.
-
George, Thanks for giving us such a painstakingly detailed explanation of your creative process, addressing this particular step of your build. I can understand why this was a slow developing facet of your Flying Fish construction. Your methodical approach requires much patience, knowing that the end result achieved can only be done so by not rushing things. It shows too in the finished product. One suggestion about lighting for your photos. Raising your light source above reflective surfaces should get rid of the harsh bounce back in these particular pics. Then having your lighting in front of your subject matter should avoid creating backlighting (which is great for Bella Lugosi dramatic effect in horror films). I really appreciate seeing overall pics of a complete model, as well as including the entire lovely long bowsprit. As far as your question about the use of hearts in rigging, have you consulted any of the rigging books on that topic? Masting & Rigging:The Clipper Ship & Ocean Carriers by Harold Underhill. Then there's the new bible on Clipper Ship construction: The American Built Clipper Ship 1850-1856 Characteristics, Construction, Details by William L Crothers. Finally, maybe our master builders EdT and Rob Wiederrich can give you their insights.
-
Rob, That gives me much more respect for the ship's boys. Another going for men at such a young age is the inherent fearlessness that seems to come with youth.
-
Rob, looking at your mainmast shroud rigging, it occured to me that the uppermost yardarms on each mast have no ratlines upon which to climb. That's where the "Jacob's Ladder" comes into play. It's literally a single man ratline, very much like a rope ladder which ascends to the final highest sails. All I can think of is that man, it must have required balls of steel to clamber up those ropes in a windblown, roaring sea during an icy driving rain with the deck pitching some 100 feet below. It's your continuous meticulous build of this magnificent Clipper that fires my imagination. She must be quite impressive to see in person!
-
Rob, Seeing the towering mainmast in comparison to the mizzen is just so impressive. I continually imagine how incredible it must have been to see such lofty spars in person. The realistic work you continuously produce allows my imagination to see this all so easily. The wonder continues.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Druxey, that's fascinating and very illustrative. It also appears in the upper distorted picture, the vessel's keel also appears to be just slightly concave. I would appreciate any insight you can share on whatever camera lens distortion you can see in the two 1869 Glory of the Seas images that we've been discussing as of late. One is of her on the ways; the other is her fitting out in Boston Harbor. They may have distortions but my untrained eye can't see them.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, Your right. "Forced perspective" is another term for this tricky phenomena. I guess unless you've walked for a couple hours around one of these magnificent Tall Ships you just can't appreciate how dramatically their appearance changes. I've done this way back in the Summer of 2001 when the Parade of Tall Ships came to New London and they were all docked where you could see them up close. My ever patient wife then put up with my craziness as we raced up the East Coast to catch that same impressive group of ships as the entered Boston Harbor just passing Castle Island. It was hot, bright cloudless day and my wife has very fair skin which burns easily. So tolerated it long enough for me to get some spectacular shots and then we had to leave. Over the years, I've re-experienced this forced perspective event dozens of times. Countless times I've viewed the Whaler Charles W. Morgan, the much smaller Sail Training Ship Joseph B. Conrad, even the Gloucester Schooner L.A. Sutton. When the replica Schooner Amistad was under construction at the Mystic yard, I saw her up on the stocks. Later I saw her on the water. My first boarding of the Whaler was as far back as 1968 with the Boy Scouts in a driving rain during a Fall 'Noreaster. She was still a Full Rigged Ship, with painted gun ports, all 4 transom windows and fancy carved stern. Besides these Mystic Seaport vessels, I've walked around the USCG Eagle.In fact it's become so routine to me that it never occurred that others may not have had this experience like I have had. Meanwhile another scientifically valid approach I used was to compare relative swiftness of a great many of Donald McKay's Packet & Clipper Ships. By generation ratios of each vessels keel to length between perpendiculars as well as keel to overall length. What I discovered proved very illuminating. Besides Flying Cloud which had the sharpest ratio and she was classified as an Extreme Clipper, Glory of the Seas had an even faster ratio than both Extreme Clippers Stag Hound and Flying Fish! Results were all posted on your blog. I will find them and give the entire list to Mike and Russ. I'm very confident in the conclusions we as a group have arrived at.
-
Rob, Your right. "Forced perspective" is another term for this tricky phenomena. I guess unless you've walked for a couple hours around some of these magnificent Tall Ships you just can't appreciate how dramatically their appearance changes. I've done this way back in the Summer of 2001 when the Parade of Tall Ships came to New London and they were all docked where you could see them up close. My ever patient wife then put up with my craziness as we raced up the East Coast to catch that same impressive group of ships as they entered Boston Harbor just passing Castle Island. It was a hot, bright cloudless day and my wife has very fair skin which burns easily. She tolerated it long enough for me to get some spectacular shots and then we had to leave. Over the years, I've re-experienced this forced perspective event dozens of times. Countless times I've viewed the Whaler Charles W. Morgan, the much smaller Sail Training Ship Joseph B. Conrad, even the Gloucester Schooner L.A. Dutton. When the replica Schooner Amistad was under construction at the Mystic yard, I saw her up on the stocks. Later I saw her on the water. My first boarding of the Whaler was as far back as 1968 with the Boy Scouts in a driving rain during a Fall 'Noreaster. She was still a Full Rigged Ship, with painted gun ports, all 4 transom windows and fancy carved stern. Besides these Mystic Seaport vessels, I've walked around the USCG Eagle.In fact it's become so routine to me that it never occurred to me that others may not have had this experience like I have had. Meanwhile another scientifically valid approach I used, was to compare relative swiftness of a great many of Donald McKay's Packet & Clipper Ships. By determining the ratios of each vessels keel, to length between perpendiculars as well as keel to overall length. What I discovered proved very illuminating. Besides Flying Cloud which had the sharpest ratio and she was classified as an Extreme Clipper, Glory of the Seas had an even faster ratio than both Extreme Clippers Stag Hound and Flying Fish! Results were all posted on your blog. I will find them and give the entire list to Mike and Russ. I'm very confident in the conclusions we as a group have arrived at.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, there's a term I've been missing to describe the phenomenon associated with perspective distortion: "Compression." Artists employ this deliberately in order to create a three dimensional effect in a two dimensional painting. I'm amazed because in his latest email, Mike is referring to another marine architect with some fifty years experience who's repeating the exact same mistake Mike did back in the 70s, '92 and '97. I'm going to conduct a brief course in "foreshortening" to shed some light on this deceptive topic. "Foreshortening refers to the technique of depicting an object or human body in a picture so as to produce an illusion of projection or extension in space. The artist records, in varying degrees, the distortion that is seen by the eye when an object or figure is viewed at a distance or at an unusual angle - for example a body viewed from either the feet or the top of the head." (italics added for emphasis). Tate website: Art Term Foreshortening. "Foreshortening, method of rendering a specific object or figure in a picture in depth. The artist records, in varying degrees, the distortion that is seen by the eye when an object or figure is viewed at a distance or at an unusual angle." foreshortening l art - Encyclopedia Britannica (bold is actual article but again italics added for emphasis) "Foreshortening, A Guide on Foreshortened Drawings and Paintings Foreshortening Effects . Objects in the distance will appear more compressed and shorter than they are in reality . Objects that are closer to the viewer will overlap those behind . As objects recede into the background they will shrink in size" Taken verbatim from: Artincontext.org website (once more italics added for emphasis) Wish me luck, I'm about to attempt to educate lifelong Marine Architects on an effect that they may never have considered before. One thing for sure, nevermind her apparent verticle bow rake. Instead look at the severely shortened naval hood and cutwater which both look about half the length they should be. There the compression is clearly obvious. It's impossible that one object is affected and not another.
-
Pat, Rob knows about that. His current build was begun after he abandoned a previous one which was based mainly on the 1997 ship's lines published in Clipper Ship Captain. It was then that I interceded and made a strenuous case for a further review of newly revealed info. I guess it proves the old carpenter's adage "Measure twice, cut once!"
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, I just basically wrote the exact same conclusion to Rob. What really struck me, was when I paced a great distance to get Old Ironsides into full frame. She has a very lofty rig and incredibly long bowsprit. Without exaggeration it was about 100 feet or more before I could finally get her in full frame. Besides that, the USS Constitution is actually a smaller vessel than Glory of the Seas. That means the camera's viewpoint has to be nearly 400 feet away from the prow of that great ship. Not taking this perspective distortion into account lead precisely to the mistake which has misled Michael since 11/1/66! We have set the record straight.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Pat, this may be coming out of left field somewhat but have you thought of looking at the English built Confederate Raider CSS Alabama? The reason I bring it up is because it was constructed 6 years later in Birkenhead. Due to the notorious nature and US Civil War significance of this vessel, there should be much more specific details on her, which might help you in your research. Just a thought.
-
Rob, I'm revising my large 1:96th scale (1" = 8') pencil illustration of the entire Glory of the Seas hull to correct some minor discrepancies (rear quarter davit placements for instance). At the same time it will be sufficiently darkened to better show up on print. Mike likes the idea of demonstrating evolving understanding of Glory's true appearance over the years. There will now be Appendix I: Mike's original 1970s deck and profile arrangements, the 1997 sheer and profile plan and Appendix II: Ron Haug's/Michael Mjelde's revised plan and Richard Jones's hull profile based on all info developed with significant help from Michael Mjelde. As far as credit goes, rest assured, since Mike is now asking for my assistance and in effect taking our lead, I have no doubt full credit will go to all parties involved, including your very careful calculations Rob, which have been instrumental in arriving at the point we're at today. My best guess is that you and I Rob, have been pursuing the same goal to properly reveal McKay's final Clipper for the past 12 to 15 years. Meanwhile Mike's been at it for over 60 years....
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, It's not Mike I'm concerned about. He sees this as an evolving greater comprehension of the authentic appearance of Glory of the Seas over 60 years of evolving understanding based on new subject matters previously unavailable. In a way, I'm gradually explaining to him that, in good measure, at least from what I can see, Ron Haug's been refining her hull based in large part on the same mistakes. Getting Ron to recognize that previous efforts have all continued to incorporate the same "perceived perspective distortion" is the more interesting challenge. From previous correspondence Ron has considered McKay's final Clipper Ship more of a throwback to his old bluff bowed Packet Ships of the 1840s. I have been explaining to pretty much everybody, based upon all the new evidence we have uncovered with Mike's generous input, that Glory was far more like an evolutionary predictor of the great Maine Downeasters of the 1880s.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, my thoughts exactly. I just emailed those precise conclusions to Mike. He's going to revise Ron Haug's 2021 lines impression based upon our latest findings. I enumerated all the many differences we discovered in order to help him comprehend how off Ron's latest effort was to our own modeling results. This should get really interesting now.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, Vlad Wow! I just received a new pdf attachment from Mike along with detailed explanations, background to how the 1970 sail plan & later 1992 revision sheer & profile plans were developed. Mike told me that in 1966 for $3.00 (about 10 gals of gas today) he secured a lines plan from Mariners Museum, Newport News, VA. Apparently that plan must have been somewhat vague as it's what he used to create his general arrangement for the 1970 book. While the deck arrangement is excellent the profile is off. Mike confirmed to Rob in their Jan get together last year, he made use primarily of the 1869 Glory of the Seas fitting out scene. Since a pdf file can't be shared, I took a pic with my cell phone after making a print. Significantly, there's no indication that Mike was even aware of perspective distortion. That also means the waterline profile was entirely conjectural too based upon the same erroneous information. Take a look.
-
Rob, thanks for your clarification. I agree that determining this portion of Glory of the Seas is quite challenging. I think the real proof of the accuracy of our research is the results derived from it. Both of your incredibly accurate models compare very well with the actual vessel herself. I also concur that perceived perspective distortion has been a nagging concern that has bedeviled our research all along. It all boils down to this intriguing question: how do you accurately recreate dimensions of a flat yet three dimensional photo back to two dimensional plans to recreate that same image back into three dimensions? I'm going to follow my instincts, using previous McKay vessels as my guide to come up with the most balanced design possible. Look at the Donald McKay's bow for instance. Her lines were taken off by the British when she was in dry dock, so there's no doubt in accuracy. There's a lovely coherence to the transition of her cutwater to her form below the waterline. In addition, my late discovery of the insulation ad also supports my suspicion of the beautiful form of McKay's final Clipper. My sense is, I'll probably end up very close to what you've chosen. I must admit that even my large sketch from last year still appears to have a bit of a jarring severely verticle angle of incidence below the waterline too.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, Vladimir, I misread Mike's email today. He asked for two 1:96th scale drawings by the end of next week. Somehow I read it as the weekend. I committed to get it done by this weekend. Vlad, if you didn't see my message, I'm looking for your original print pictured on page 1, lower right side. I need to sketch it at 1:96th scale. Meanwhile, Rob thanks for sending the print you made with the compass arcs and inclination degrees. Not to sound dense but I'm still trying to reconcile two conflicting conclusions for the same angle of inclination for Glory's lower waterline hull profile. At one point you said it was 7 degrees. Then that was revised to 8.5 degrees. Your latest illustration appears to revert back to 7 degrees again. Please give me one specific number so I can work on Mike's drawing tomorrow. Thanks. Oh, by the way Vlad, I added a passage to the article with a description of the naval hood and cutwater carvings. Both of your digital illustrations and my sketch opposite them are included. Thanks for reminding me of those crucial elements. It ties together the entire prow description very neatly now. Guys, I made a suggestion to Mike to add his original 1970 sketch to the 1992 one, my 2021 hull sketch and Ron Haug's plan that Mike's now working on correcting. It would show an evolving comprehension of the true appearance of Glory of the Seas based upon additional information that's been developed. No matter what, it will be ready and submitted to meet this July 1st deadline.
-
Rob, it occurs to me that since you've been model making so long, you're utilizing improvised construction jigs without even realizing you're doing it. Case in point, converting the front end of a drawer as an improvised construction source. Sheer brilliance.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
Our Emblem ®
