ClipperFan
-
Posts
1,961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ClipperFan
-
George, the Cutwater attaches to the Stem and definitely extends the prow outwards considerably. The Naval Hoods mount directly to the Bow of the Hull and taper to a point a little further out and terminate just above the Cutwater. In the case of Glory, as seen from a 1900s view of her figurehead and Bow, both devices end just about the rear edge of Bowsprit iron band #3. There's actually a 4th band #2 but it ties both the inner Jibboom and Bowsprit together. Distance from the Hull to band #1 is 18", then each band is 3' apart, which makes the Naval Hoods about 7 & 1/2' outwards. Since "Flying Fish" has an 18' inboard Bowsprit vs Glory's 24' one, to keep proportions similar I divided 7 & 1/2' by 24' to get a ratio of .3125 (just under a third of the Bowsprit length, as can be seen in the Broadside of Glory's Bow close up, courtesy of Michael Mjelde). Multiplying that ratio times 18' results in 5.625 or 5' 7 & 1/2". That would put the Fish's Naval Hoods just 10" beyond 3" wide iron band #2 (18" to band #1, then 3' between bands #1 and #2 for a total of 4 & 1/2' then 13" beyond to get 5' 7 & 1/2".
- 602 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Flying Fish
- Model Shipways
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, fire engine red is too bright and actually detracts from the overall look of your impressive miniature. If you look at the Walters oil, if anything, the iron bands look like they might be painted vermilion, a much darker maroon red. Maybe tone it down with a bit of burnt sienna too and see how that looks. If anything, it should be much more realistic. Other than toylike red, those masts look really beautiful and impressively authentic, although a coat of darkening lacquer varnish would also help enhance the beauty of the wood.
-
George, Here's a quick sketch of how McKay's Clipper "Flying Fish" would most likely have appeared with her naval hoods and cutwaters installed and more realistic carved lifelike flying fish figurehead. You can easily see how more ornate and elegant this prow looks in comparison to the sort of pathetic bare stem with tacked on figurehead of the kit. As I mentioned earlier, Boston Daily Atlas publicist Duncan MacLean commented how this rugged arrangement would be able to endure the most damaging waves of the toughest seas and remain mainly intact.
- 602 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Flying Fish
- Model Shipways
- (and 2 more)
-
George, I found this tracing of McKay's original "Flying Fish" plan from a Museum in Norway. I've also included a sketch idea for more realistic flying fish figurehead. If you look at the images of "GLORY of the SEAS" you'll see that in addition to the stem in the illustration (typically all that's included in these ship's plans) there's a cutwater with naval hoods overlapping just above. The figurehead usually mounts to the tip of the cutwater just below the naval hoods, which are substantial devices incorporated into McKay Clipper Ship Bows. This structure, which McKay jealously guarded was most likely reinforcements to endure tough battery of Cape Horn seas, some of the mightiest on the planet. Unfortunately neither cutwaters nor naval hoods are incorporated in any McKay models: "Flying Cloud", "Sovereign of the Seas" and "Flying Fish" none include these fascinating nautical components in their model kits. I will do an illustration of how "Flying Fish" would have most likely appeared with a complete bow. Since she wasn't much different in construction than "Flying Cloud" it's very likely her prow was quite similar. You can decide what, if anything you want to use of this information.
- 602 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- Flying Fish
- Model Shipways
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your replicated composite masts. The latest process you describe, while labor intensive sounds like it will yield spectacular results. I'm making popcorn for the occasion! 😉
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, like the Biblical Israelites wandering in the wilderness, we took a meandering path but finally reached a form of enlightenment...
-
Rob, I just saw this question now. Only the composite lower sections of the 3 masts are affected. Since the Mizzenmast is already 3' higher, I'm recommending reducing that lower mast by 3' to keep everything consistent. The doubling dimensions are all unaffected, as are the rest of all other Mast components: Foremast, deck to top: 49' Mainmast, deck to top: 55' Mizzenmast, deck to top: 44' Doubling dimensions, top to Cap Foremast: 17' Mainmast: 17' Mizzenmast: 14' Total heights: deck to Cap Foremast: 66' Mainmast: 72' Mizzenmast: 58' I hope this clarifies everything.
-
Rob, another nagging detail I just remembered. Mizzenmast height, when adding Rear Carriage House height is actually 3' taller. That would then make the Mizzenmast 50' high, being a foot higher than the Foremast. If the calculation for the Mizzenmast height was actually supposed to be from Main deck below the House, that would make it 3' shorter. Simply subtract 3' off 5' to fix this.
-
Rob, I appreciate your even being willing to accept my recommendations after my latest incredible journey off the deep end of mathematical extreme calculations. To answer your question. In following the same dimensions of the mast heights from "Clipper Ship Captain" simply add 5' to the existing lower composite dimensions from deck to top: Foremast: 49' Mainmast: 55' Mizzenmast: 47' For complete height, solid top to cap: Foremast: 17' Mainmast: 17' Mizzenmast: 14' Totals combined, deck to cap: Foremast: 66' Mainmast: 72' Mizzenmast: 61' Again, thanks for hanging in there with me. I promise in the future to keep all non essential "numbers crunching" to myself until I'm fully confident it can be presented simply, logically and with minimal confusion.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, In hindsight, for all concerned, it would have been far better if I had kept all the zany calculations off this board and just presented findings. Back at post #2099 I explained the logic behind a case for a thicker backbone than just 7'. Utilizing the highly detailed example of "Stag Hound" described as having a 9' back bone and summary of a vessel of about the same size as Glory "Sovereign of the Seas" with an 11' back bone, I tallied up her individual components to arrive at 11'10" for the back bone of "GLORY of the SEAS." Notwithstanding my wandering calculations which even I admit were way off, I believe the logic for a thicker than 7' back bone is very sound. Especially when you consider Glory had the flattest floor of any McKay Medium Clipper, it makes sense her back bone would be more substantial. Keep it simple, I still recommend adding height to the lower masts. If odd inches don't make sense, which I agree, than I would add 5' (4'10" is the difference from 7' & 11'10") Foremast 61' + 5' = 66' (-17') = 49' Mainmast 67' + 5' = 72' (-17') = 55' Mizzenmast 56' +5'= 61' (-14') = 47' Finally, look at how thick the back bone is for the twin Packet Ships too.
-
Rob, here's the dimensions from deck to truck of all of Glory's lower masts, as taken from "Clipper Ship Captain" Appendix B, page 216. Foremast: deck to top 44', top to cap 17' total height: 61' (vs 76' 9 & 1/2") 15' 9 & 1/2" shorter, which is way too much of a difference Mainmast: deck to top 50', top to cap: 17' total height 67' (vs 79' 9 & 1/2") 12' 9 & 1/2" shorter, still too much Mizzenmast: deck to top 39' (actually 42' add 3' since mast mounts to deck of rear house, top to cap: 14' total height 56' (vs 70' 9 & 1/2") 14' 9 & 1/2" shorter, again ridiculous. Clearly my results are way off by an embarrassing magnitude. 😉 I originally thought these were about 4' higher, not these huge double digit numbers. Part of my miscalculation is not accounting for the 7' sheer. But even that doesn't explain these useless results. Reassesing I took a less complicated approach. Here's what we do know Foremast 91' - 61' = 30' below deck Mainmast 94' - 67' = 27' below deck Mizzenmast 85' - 56' = 29' below deck Knowing the entire deck height at the Mainmast is 33 & 1/2" we can subtract 27' for a result of 6' & 1/2". Meaning Michael Mjelde has estimated Glory's "back bone" to be 6' & 1/2" (which is about half the size of most of McKay's other large vessels. "Sovereign of the Seas" is documented as having an 11 foot back bone!) Actually if you look at his crossection of Appendix B page 213, he appears to show a 7' "back bone". To really simplify this, I think it would merely take this figure off of 9'5" to get a much smaller result of 2'5". That makes much more sense. This results in the following figures: Foremast: 63' 5" Mainmast: 69' 5" Mizzenmast: 58' 5" All this for a measly 2'5"..... Still I think the reasoning is sound while it may seem hard to follow. I'm going to go hide in a corner now.....
-
Rob, measurements MacLean gives for Glory in his 1869 description are for total height from base to truck: Foremast 91' Mainmast 94' Mizzenmast 85' Using a mounting point of 9'5" above keel, that's added to total height, resulting in: Foremast: 100'5" Mainmast: 103'5" Mizzenmast: 94'5" To get height above deck, subtract 23' 7 & 1/2" (difference between 9'5" and deck height) Foremast: 99' 17" - 23' 7 & 1/2" = 76' 9 & 1/2" Mainmast: 102' 17" - 23' 7 & 1/2" = 79 9 & 1/2" Mizzenmast: 93' 17" -23' 7 & 1/2" = 70 9 & 1/2" I'll check "Clipper Ship Captain" to see what Mike's dimensions are to compare to the dimensions I've arrived at.
-
Rob, as I concluded in an earlier post, Glory's masts were stepped onto a "back bone" of 9'5". That means you want to calculate the height of your masts as it they were mounted at that height above the keel. Since keel and shoe combined measured 29" 2'5", you subtract that from 9'5" and the result of 7' is the height of the masts from the internal measurement of the ship's hull. To correctly calculate the height, I suggest measuring up 9'5" from the very bottom of your vessel. That would be the true mounting point of your masts. Then measure the distance to the deck to account for the distance from the 9'5" height to your deck height, which should be the same as your lowest molded sheerline. Whether my sketch will match exactly your model, I can use it to illustrate my point.
-
Rob, Forecastle deck height has always mystified me. However, every single description I've read places that at the height of the main bulkhead. In Glory's case that's 5'. The only logical conclusion, which is supported by the MacLean description of "Flying Fish" (pointed out to Vladimir in an earlier post) is that the fore companion leads down to Sailor's lodging which is lofty. This is probably a 3' drop, giving 7 & 1/2' ceilings in "Flying Fish" which had 4 & 1/2' main bulkheads and 8' for Glory. I see no error in that area for either of you As for the Rear Carriage House. While we learned of the logical clearance of the walkways from the astern scene of Glory docked in Alaska, by the time that photo had been unearthed, that portion of your builds had already been done. I'm documenting that for all future modelers. It's logical that all of McKay's vessels would follow this pattern but now we have documented proof, that we lacked before. Finally, I want to reinforce my respect for your forthright honesty in reassessing the modeling challenges you've tackled in reproducing Glory's composite lower masts.
-
Rob, I quoted Mike's words and exclamation points exactly. It sounds like he was very excited with the couple of pics I sent. Next I will send some of Vladimir's latest build efforts too. I also encouraged Mike to look into our progress online, if he has the time. Currently he's revising a 1969 article he wrote on the Clipper "Dashing Wave".
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, in response to Mike's request for an update on model building progress, I sent him a couple images of your Glory build, were the Foremast railing and fore Companionway were included. These were both full length pics. I explained since Vladimir was still making some revisions, I was waiting to send updates on his progress. Mike sent the following reply: "I finally had a chance to look at the photos and all I can say is "very impressive" !!! I will look at them more detailed tomorrow."
-
Rob digging back in this thread, I found a much better image of the Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" which has almost no distortion to it. The second print is the Admiralty Lines taken off the Medium Clipper "Donald McKay" while she was in Dry Dock. The lines are authentic. Disregard everything in pencil, which were my inaccurate attempt to recreate the look of her from a famous print. Again note the curvilinear Stern which is very similar to the others. Since Glory was built in 1869 and all others were constructed about a decade earlier, there's still room for further softening of the Stern but at this point it's still conjecture.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, at 2,050 tons the twin Packet Ships "Star of Empire & Chariot of Fame" are 53 tons shy of Glory's 2,103. They're referred to as Packets since they were passenger, not merchant vessels. Some contemporary descriptions refer to them also as Medium Clippers. I do agree that Glory's stern does look more rounded when viewed at water level, as she is in the Standard Oil scene. The only definitive way to know for sure would be if a picture existed from the Mizzen mast looking directly down. Until then, we have to approximate as best we can.
-
Vladimir, until I relocate the previous image I uploaded, this will have to suffice. It's a tracing of "Flying Fish" from Bergen, Sjosfort Museum, Norway. This is reported to have been taken directly from McKay's sketch. The curvilinear Stern is clearly visible.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, thanks. I was thinking the same thing. This pretty much does match the curvilinear designation both from Crothers' American Clipper Ship book and the contemporary description by MacLean. There's one more ship's lines, I might have shared before. A tracing of the McKay Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" which shows both her profile and half deck view. Her Stern too is.... guess what? Curvilinear. I'm glad my Glory sketch finally arrived. It will be a thrill to see it properly framed and displayed.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, here's the best print available from Peabody-Essex Museum, Salem, of McKay's twin Packets "Star of Empire & Chariot of Fame" supposedly sketched by Donald McKay himself. What better reference could there be for the curvilinear Stern of a McKay Hull? While it's unfortunately not the best resolution, the rear Starboard view of Glory from the Standard Oil bulletin is almost the same angle as that of her beached at Endolyne. Major difference is that it's at water level instead which gives a good source to refer to her graceful curvilinear Stern.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, that's the advantage to having a group approach. One person sees what another misidentises or just misses. Since the contemporary article describes her Stern as being curvilinear, she definitely didn't have a fully rounded counter. Probably a bigger comparison is the difference between the flatter Wheelhouse roof profile versus her Stern. What really began this particular evaluation was my discovery of the wider, consistent walkways around her Rear Carriage House which also conforms to the curving rear section which even the "Flying Fish" plans got wrong.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, I've seen many large tall Ships on parade and docked. One consistent factor is how huge these vessels really are. Even relatively smaller square riggers like the Whaler Charles W Morgan require surprisingly more distance than you would expect to fit the entire vessel into a camera's frame. I've taken such pictures with ordinary cameras not equipped with a telephoto lens. Invariably I'm disappointed with the lack of discernible details as a result. Since you can see Glory's specific items quite distinctly, my conclusion is that this shot was done on a boat, with large professional camera on a stable platform, a telephoto lens taken from a great distance. It was most likely as a companion image for a contemporary newspaper article.
-
Rob, this oval really does match up closely with a good portion of Glory's stern from this angle. My interpretation was based on the observation of Glory's stern and Wheelhouse roof from the Alaska photo. Looking at this other scene it does appear that the Wheelhouse roof curve is less round than her Stern counter and poop deck railing. As a work in progress, it looks like another slight rounding rework of her Stern is in order.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
George K, I always appreciate it when modelers share their fascinating building techniques. There certainly appears to be some distinct advantages to your approach of building all the furniture on your model "in Situ". For one you'll be able to fit everything without surprises and should be able to more accurately keep everything to scale. Your choice of elegant cherrywood board with brass pedestals will definitely highlight your model nicely.
- 602 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- Flying Fish
- Model Shipways
- (and 2 more)
Our Emblem ®
