ClipperFan

Rob, When it comes to deck width specifics, we really only know of two: her widest beam amidships was 40 feet and at 8 feet from the stern, her poop deck was only 24 & 1/2 foot wide. Other internal dimensions are a 13 foot wide central cabin with a 12 foot wide captain's cabin on her starboard side below the aft poop deck. Thinking that ship's layouts are usually balanced I figured the opposite port side first mate's cabin would also be 12 feet wide. That would total 37 feet beam at 44 feet from her stern. If my pure conjecture is correct, in 63 & 1/2 feet, she's only 3 feet wider. That's since her widest beam of 40 feet is 107 & 1/2 amidships. Of course, the first mate's cabin could be smaller and that could make the poop deck narrower. I don't know exactly where a 27' beam was derived from for the foreward bulkhead, just that it was the approximate dimension we arrived at for me to work with. It does drive home necessity of getting more specific deck dimensions to allow for effective scaling. It's precisely why I'm endeavoring to get more exact dimensions from sources available.

Rob, Beautiful clean installation. However, it brings up a different concern. We were working on the expectation that this area was 27' wide. Your build however implies a far narrower space, possibly a third less. Maybe 18-20' ?

@Jared these characters look quite authentic in their sailor garb. By the time they're painted, they will look really cool.

Rob, I'm amazed how delicately your canine figurehead completes your clipper Stag Hound bow. It's reminiscent of the old fashioned lions rampant on English ships of war. Congratulations on having the first replica to accurately capture the Stag Hound prow in her full original configuration.

@Kenchington Cornelius McKay, son of Donald wrote about the authenticity of his hand crafted 1:48th scale (4' 8 & 1/2") Stag Hound model in his letter to Captain Arthur H Clark when he turned this beauty over to him. His instructions were to add 4" bottom and 5" wales planking. He included that the keel should also be added. It was built in two sections and had a depth of 30" (not 39"). Cornelius also said this builders model was crafted from the vessel's molding lines as they were taken off the lofting floor. Besides this documentation, Hall in his exhaustive lists of specs for many if not all of McKay's clippers confirmed that Stag Hound had a lower keel of 30". These two documents are sufficient proof of her 30" lower keel.

Rob, I agree that there's no revising your Stag Hound build as far as she's gotten. That was not my intention at all. She's beautiful and impressive as she sits. This exercise is more for @Luis Felipe and any other person who wants to model her in the future. In addition, using Hall diagrams and other historic sources, I'm amassing a plan library of McKay vesselss including twin packets Star of Empire and Chariot of Fame, clippers Flying Cloud, Flying Fish, Sovereign of the Seas, James Baines, Lightning & Donald McKay.

Rob, to quote a term from my favorite SciFi media... you're proceeding at "warp speed." Beautiful progress. When both hulls are compared, it's clear why 1869 Glory of the Seas is referred to as a medium clipper while 1850 Stag Hound has always been called an extreme clipper. Stag Hound has such a lovely yacht like profile, yet Donald McKay never launched another extreme vessel with such a radically designed 40" half hull. In fact, beginning with Flying Cloud second extreme clipper of his California Fleet, he gradually flattened his floors until he finally arrived at the 8" half floor on Glory of the Seas.

@rwiederrich @Vladimir_Wairoa did terrific yeoman's work creating a Stag Hound bulkhead kit in the similar fashion he did so excellently for our completed Glory of the Seas project. Still, based on recent comparisons of Rob's model to statistical dimensions it appears like her deck profile is just a bit slim. So, I'm reapproaching this subject by reexamining plans we have available. The Hall fore and aft body and deck profile is easy to interpret as it's simply matching two halves. By flipping images it was easy to do. However, the Chappelle scan has proven to be a lot more problematic. Since it's taken from a two page book it is skewed in more than one way. Longitudinal lines have a slight "v" to them due to the curvature of the book. Vertical lines are also slightly raked at an angle as are the transverse lines in the hull and deck. These distortions could be the basis for an incorrect deck profile. Using a cell phone app, I've realigned all parallel lines to be true and almost all vertical lines as well, as accurately as possible. Now it remains to combine both fore and aft halves into a whole and create one full plan. At 1:96th scale a 266' long ship is 28 & 1/4th" between perpendiculars, knightheads (vertical line just behind prow) and stern taffrail. Her 40' beam at 1:96th scale is 5". Working with a revised set of prints properly aligned, I plan to create plans the ye olde fashioned way with precise measurements and referring closely to the Cornelius McKay model for her accurate sheer profile. I'm sharing my work here so if anyone wants to pursue this too, they're welcome to do so.

@rwiederrich Rob, A Father’s Day gift of a sort for you. From Monthtly Nautical Magazine Quarterly Review, April 1855 there's an article on the 5 year old McKay California Fleet clipper Stag-Hound. While she had the fastest times among other clippers for the seasons she sailed in. I found a confirming spec that her masts raked 1 & 1/4" each instead of the erroneous 1 & 1/2" printed in the Boston Daily Atlas. There are 2 errata in this article: it's inconceivable that her keel clear of the garboards was 39" as that would leave an impossibly thin 7" for her inner keel. The specs in the Hall lists her outer keel as 30" leaving a more sensible 16" inner keel. In Cornelius McKay's handwritten specs lists her bowsprit steeve as 4.2" (19.34° inclination) not the more aggressive 4 & 1/2" (20.56° inclination) of this article. As we've discussed, using multiple historic sources results in greater accuracy.

Rob, Happy Father's Day to you and all other dads too.

Rob, Once again we're proving the incomparable value of decent research. Your 50 years of model building prowess shines with this exciting Stag Hound build.

Rob, there's just something so beautiful about a black hull with muntz metal below. It's amazing how closely your Stag Hound resembles the Cornelius McKay model crafted nearly 175 years ago. It's a tribute to your modeling skills, Vlad's cgi work and my serendipity in getting many more images of the McKay hull.

@Jared When you finish your model, before mounting her in a case, consider taking these 8 particularly specific shots of your completed Flying Fish. Use a plain background with plenty of light so judges can see all details clearly. That way, when there's another NRG Photographic Model Competition you'll have your photo series ready to submit, should you wish to participate.

Rob, Just as long as you don't mount her atop "Snoopy's Doghouse!" 😉

Rob, at this scale it's the impression of scale rather than slavishly replicating every little detail that's more successful. As an artist, I love to look at paintings close up. I am constantly amazed at how images are created with simple brush strokes. In this case, less really is.... more.

Rob, being able to mass produce metallic plates with implied rivets is just brilliant. You solve a problem of doing tedious work with less than optimal results. Maintaining an accurate sense of scale is a critical discipline which rewards with spectacular results when done right.

@rwiederrich your clever shortcut using a clothes roller to fabricate straps of pseudo yellow metal plates like @Jaredalready said is an enormous time saver.

@druxey the problem as I understand it is that both of these fine models are now installed in cases. It apparently would require tearing down glass cases to move these two large models to be re photographed. Rob said there's not enough time to get that done. So do we use existing images or just forgo the contest? I feel the uniqueness and strength of both models are worth a try.

Rob, what blurry images are you referring to? I don't see anything blurry. Maybe a little dark but not out of focus.

@rwiederrich since cropping is allowed, I took off some white space on your first optional Glory of the Seas comparison photo (which I personally consider one of your best). Here are my 8 selections for your Great Republic in the same order as the ones selected for Glory of the Seas. You can explain in a short note for each submission that since both models are permanently mounted that these are the best angles you havea available. I have 1 suggestion for an optional but haven't yet been able to select 3 other optional photos for this second model.

Rob, I'll gladly do all preliminary submission work for you and then send it to you so all you have to do is pay online and submit application forms. I strongly feel like the strength of your beautiful model will overcome any inexactitudes of precise positions. I also feel this is bigger than just your model. This is a cumulation of over a decade of joint research, involving Michael Mjelde, his daughter Arina and an ultimate realization of intensive research begun 60 years ago by author Michael Mjelde. It's a way to finally display a real Donald McKay clipper in her true glory. Something you know we're both passionate about. In this case I firmly believe you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good ... 8 model photo positions (1) port midships abeam (2) starboard midships abeam (3) overall model from dead ahead (4) overall model dead astern (5) stern port quarter diagonal with deck (6) stern starboard qtr diagonal w deck (7) bow port quarter diagonal with deck (8) bow starboard qtr diagonal w deck 4 optional model photos (1) model with historic photo (2) starboard bow model with actual ship (3) port stern model with actual ship (4) Ariana, Michael and Rob with model Later on, I will share the same selections for your Great Republic

@MrBlueJacket Thanks for catching my dumb mistake. I would be mortified if anyone would be discouraged from submitting their model due this ridiculously wrong post. FYI: I have since corrected the mistake.

@rwiederrich @Luis Felipe @Vladimir_Wairoa to avoid any further confusion, I've attached pretty much all of the rules verbatim from the NRG website. As you can see, no one is expected to write any lengthy description of their work. The description CANNOT exceed 500 WORDS. A single line is acceptable, if that's all a person wants to write. In addition, all photos are submitted anonymously with no personal identification whatsoever. Essentially for 30 bucks per model, anyone can have their work evaluated by a 3 judge panel and afterwards be given personal critique.

D'oh! I can't believe I made that dumb mistake. It's been corrected. The correct phrase is "up to but no more than 500 WORDS" definitely not pages....

https://wetransfer.com is a free website specified in the NRG Photographic Model Ship Competition rules to upload model pictures. Use this email to upload photos: nrgphotocontest2025@gmail.com