ClipperFan

Rob, Thanks for the compliments. I'm much more comfortable with this result than my previous efforts. It reminds me to keep in mind that we're actually working in three dimensions and not to ignore that fact. As for your conversation with Mike regarding the facts as supplied by Duncan McLean, I agree almost 100% in principle. Some mistakes have been uncovered but only by using one or two other reliable sources have we revised those specs. Three I can think of involve the upper depth of keel vs lower. In that case, Henry Hall's notes reinforced a more balanced division. Then there was the rake of the masts being reported as 4 & 1/2 per foot, when Cornelius McKay's handwritten notes confirmed it was actually 4.2" per foot. Finally there was the bowsprit seeve being 4 & 1/4" per foot and not 4 & 1/2" per foot, again confirmed by the same handwritten notes. My suspicion is that McLean probably got the notes correctly and somehow final reporting when printed included minor errors. It just reinforces that we have to constantly check and recheck these specifics to ensure final accuracy. I've also read McLean's descriptions of other clippers launched by Paul Curtiss, either of Boston or Newburyport which have just as much details as those of McKay's. Proof that Mr. McLean was in high demand for the beautiful clippers of his day.

Rob, Here's the revised aft fo'c'sle bulkhead with all changes you recommended: (1) both companions moved inward for better clearance below due to vessel's sharply inclined hull. (2) twin outer ladders now reside where companions were before. (3) splashrail height is down to 14" bringing total fo'c'sle bulkhead height to 32". While it's not in the sketch, I believe that iron safety rails with wires strung between them, like we saw on Glory of the Seas would be sensible to prevent a 5' fall risk, similar to that of the aft poop deck.

@Jared beautiful ratlines. I am impressed with the patience and persistence you display in this endeavor. You might want to get further away from your subject and then use the zoom feature on your cell phone to eliminate distortion. Personally, I love the bird's eye views of your impressive deck work.

@druxey Thanks for the compliment. Rob pointed out that I missed the sharp incline of the Stag Hound prow. It means where I placed companions doesn't leave enough room for internal ladders down below. I will relocate them to where the outermost set of windows are now. That frees up room for twin forecastle ladders up from the main deck for access above. We've also discussed splashrail height, lowering them to 14". That brings height to 32", same as poop deck rail height. I'm also considering making windows a little smaller, to be more in line with those seen on the front fascia of the rear coach house on Glory of the Seas.

Rob, Good catch! The perils of my not comprehending the sharp curvature of a vessel's prow. Point taken. Companions need to be moved inward. That opens up an outer area for twin ladders to then be mounted outside of relocated companions. This also opens up room downstairs for dual WCs. A couple other thoughts: Stag Hound is 39' shorter than Glory of the Seas I'm beginning to think maybe a 1' or 14" splashrail might make more sense than two 18" ones equalling 3'. An 18" monkey rail plus 1' splashrail equal 30", while plus 14" equals 32" (same as poop deck rails) I may narrow windows too, as they look like they're a bit large. Ladders now being outside companions, I'll put panels behind them. I appreciate your feedback.

@Rick310 my apologies for not replying sooner. I would definitely welcome the chance to meet and view the McKay Stag Hound model in person. It would be even more fun to view other works of art or models dedicated to Donald McKay.

@Jared Your ratlines look beautiful and authentic. That sewing method is brilliant. Afterwards, no one will know how these impressive shrouds were created.

Rob, Here's my mostly finished fore fo'c'stle bulkhead fascia. Getting the arches cleanly sketched free hand is frustrating. I should really use french curves before these could be considered ready for publication. When you consider how radically different this concept is to the standard open faced "stuffed" windlass underneath, I suspect this idea will generate quite a few discussions. Yet, this look is how I and Rob see Donald McKay's treatment for any of his clippers with a low main rail forecastle deck height. That includes obviously Stag Hound, Flying Cloud, Flying Fish and many others. Considering that, before he jumped into the California Clipper ships, McKay had extensive experience building Atlantic Packet ships, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that he knew how to create living areas in challenging spaces. This completely alternative concept is based on evaluating facts described by Duncan McLean and our discussions on windlass placement. Once it's accepted that an 1850 Emerson-Walters complex iron geared design was the "patented" version mentioned by McLean it sets up an investigation. Where do you mount such a heavier device? Top-heavy items are anathema to sailing ships. Just ask the crew of the Vasa. That necessitates relocating it below. Another advantage of such a choice is protecting the device from the elements. In addition, by dropping down just 3 feet, it now creates a lofty 8 foot high accomodation for one watch of the crew. According to McLean's Flying Fish description, this area was not only of a generous height, but it was well lit and ventilated too. So, there would have had to been windows in that ship's even lower 4.5 foot high forecastle bulkhead. And, again others have disagreed with this interpretation but it makes sense to me. Twin waterclosets are before the companions. Placing these just forward of the ladders to below just makes pragmatic sense. It meets all criteria of the Boston Daily Atlas description. Besides which, in Stag Hound down below is exactly where twin WCs are placed for use of the captain and all ranking officers. While these windows are on full display, I imagine there were probably protective storm shutters for bad weather. Companions are in the forecastle wings. I see these as having twin folding doors which both open simultaneously and have a sliding hatch above. Twin ladders could be mounted in front of the two molded areas so as not to block window views. Since there are no photos of these wonderful ships, almost all of this has to be conceptual. We are all doing our best to realize the most authentic appearance of Stag Hound based upon the best evidence we can uncover.

@gak1965 it probably has to do with the size of the vessel involved or possibly naval ship standard vs civilian ones. Charles W. Morgan isn't small but she's dwarfed by "Old Ironsides." I have no idea of size comparison with USS Niagara though. It's probably a matter of whether the continuing ratlines were needed to gain the lubber's hole. In the case of the one example I shared it looks like the distance to get to that opening is short enough. Personally, since clippers had such lofty masts, I'd err on the side of caution and take ratlines to the top.

@Jared while we're on fantasies, my preference would be to own the shipping firm. Then I'd just sit back and collect fat checks 😉

@Jared You're welcome. Honestly, I find the idea of hanging out upside down on them futtocks 40 feet in the air an intimidating thought. I'd probably squeeze my a-- into the shrouds through the lubber's hole until I got my sea legs.

@Jared Here's an excellent view of one of the shroud lines on the 1843 Whaler Charles W. Morgan. In her case the ratlines end at the junction of the futtock shrouds. I hope this image answers your question.

@Snug Harbor Johnny your comment about the captain of the Stag Hound being a Navy man due to the inner dog ears of tightly furled sails in the Buttersworth piece raised my curiosity. I learned that Cape Cod captain Josiah Richardson was her first commander. I haven't discovered who her following captains were yet to see if one actually had a Navy background. Captain Josiah Richardson was a lifelong sailor but didn't participate in the Navy. From the little I've read, he was a genuinely nice guy and selfless talent. This is a nice biography on him from Autumn 1995 Sea History magazine. If anyone can find a color reproduction of the beautiful Charles R Patterson Stag Hound portrait, I'd love to see it!

Rob, So that means all 3 skysail yards have already been sent down. Huge billowing portions are in reality upper halves of large single topsails. I could have sworn those were two seperate sails with the t'gallant yardarm hidden on top of the already reefed topsail below. This heightens dramatic impact of this scene, as you said this type of action really stresses out sails. Correct me again if I'm wrong. Isn't usual reefing procedure to pull up the sail from the bottom and reef it at several different reef points as conditions require?

Rob, This work by Buttersworth always impressed me that there's actually 5 yards depicted. It looks to me like there's 3 sails on fore and main. On fore it's the course, tops'l reefed to its lowest point, then t'gallant yard lowered all the way onto the tops'l while royal and skys'l are already furled tight and lowered. On the main, her course is already furled tight, tops'l reefed like fore and t'gallant dropped to take the wind out of her billowing sail, while royal and skys'l are furled tight and lowered. Mizzen's the same as the main. I read in the Time-Life description that all of this action is because of gale force wind and rain approaching from her fore starboard.

This second James E Buttersworth painting is at the Princeton University Art Museum and is 28.8" high × 35.9" wide. Here's a framed copy which allowed me to zoom in and see details clearer. Meanwhile, I took another look at the alternate Time-Life copy, lightened it a bit and edited it to focus on the ship. While sail positions are similar the details aren't. There's subtle differences. The odd poop deck turned rail extensions are gone and now they bracket the poop deck front instead. Interestingly enough, now there's a skylight before the mizzenmast instead. Apparantly, it seems like Buttersworth didn't have an exact description of the deck layout for Stag Hound so he must have guessed. Buttersworth remains one of my favorite maritime artists but he's not infallible. There's no indication of navel hoods or a noticeable cutwater, her staghound figurehead is barely visible and her hawse hole is overly large. Cutters and lifeboats are too skinny, there's a confusing turned rail extension which goes practically to her main shrouds while her poop deck ends back at the mizzen. Still, it's a lively piece which remains one of my favorites despite all these issues.

A Second Buttersworth Painting @Snug Harbor Johnny shared this fascinating topic with me through messenger. It was such a fascinating topic, I felt it was worth sharing with everyone. I have a feeling Johnny won't mind: https://modelshipworld.com/messenger/42109/

@rwiederrich It was quicker to modify my existing 44' poop deck to reflect the 7' wider profile than restart the poop deck bulkhead. Dividing 37' in-half results in 18 & 1/2' per side. Half of an 8' portico leaves 2 & 1/2' on each side (of the 13' wide x 32' deep great room beneath) for the first molded division. How the entire area breaks down is this: 2.75' molded area with twin pillars on each side, then 3 equal 3' windows with pillars bordering each side (9') and another 2.75' molded area. 4' + 2.75' + 9' + 2.75' = 18.5' per side x 2 sides = 37'. As I sketch this out, I will finalize specific break downs for the molded areas as well as windows. Meanwhile, attached is my revised 44' poop deck incorporating the latest changes we discussed. Starboard on top in the fore is the captains very generous 12' wide x 18' deep stateroom, then the 8' recess and an 8' estimated wide × 6 deep steward's state room, after which is a 6' estimated wide x 4 deep watercloset. On port side. For first mate, there's an 12' wide x 10' deep staterooom, next door is an 10 estimated wide x 8' deep stateroom, followed by an 8' recess and then an 8' estimated wide x 6' deep third mate's stateroom, followed by another 6' estimated wide x 4' deep watercloset. The last double berth apartment occupies the stern. Each room including now both waterclosets, have a deck prism centered above. Sole exception is the captain's which has two, placed exactly opposite those of the first and second mate's staterooms. Side light portholes correspond with prisms on all staterooms with exception of waterclosets which only have deck prisms. One last observation. Two foot wide ladders could be repositioned alongside both outer bulkheads over the molded panel area. That would then provide for all three widows to have clear views. It makes more sense to me, unless there's a pragmatic reason to have a small section of railing before ladder openings that I don't know about. Let me know then.

Rick310, When reading McLean's description of the forecastle, he mentions that companions in wings of the forecastle lead to the accomodations for one watch of the crew below. At minimum, to be accurate, waterclosets would likely have to be abutted to the forecastle wall with companions on their aft sides. That would at least follow the specific description of the Boston Daily Atlas article. It seems that peculiar arrangement is awkward as hell, so the privies were placed behind a single companion. An arrangement which also doesn't follow the McLean description. To me there are several problems with the current plans. First, a 4 & 1/2' high deck makes underneath 3 & 1/2" lower. Now it's at 4' 2 & 1/2" high. We know this to be a fact since Michael Mjelde shared a document which proved that underneath the forecastle deck on Glory of the Seas was precisely 5 feet 9 inches. How can anyone do routine maintenance on a windlass stuffed into such a crawl space? The only pragmatic solution is to mount the windlass 3' below. As for having forward privies down below for ordinary sailors, guess where they're located on Stag Hound for the captain and all officers? 8 feet below the poop deck... To me, it's actually more logical to locate the same privies 8 feet below for the forecastle as well. Finally, once it's established that you can't provide sufficient space for a watch of the crew with a 4 foot 9 inch ceiling and you provide accomodations for them 3 feet below, the aft opening to the forecastle must be walled off. And since the area was well lit, lofty and well ventilated, that means windows were also provided. That's how Rob and I are proceeding for the extreme clipper Stag Hound.

Rob, With Captain's starboard stateroom being 12' wide × 18' long, it makes the beam of Stag Hound at poop deck fore 37'. This calculation is based on a central 13' wide x 32' long great room, most likely a 13' x 20' salon and 13' × 12' pantry. The most sensible arrangement is another 12' wide × 18' set of port staterooms, probably 3 divided equally 6' × 12' for the First, Second and Third Mates. This leaves equal space for 8' recesses on each side. That leaves 6' on each side for 2 more staterooms, one for the Steward another for an unidentified officer. It pushes waterclosets beyond the 32' wall but there's still space available. I can fit three 2 & 1/2' wide windows in a row with two 2' wide cabinet molded solid ends. In between would be faux pillars and modest arches similar to the portico. This provides plenty of light for twin staterooms. One outermost window would be behind a ladder on each side. When portico facade is added, it creates a unified impression. Let me know what you think.

Rob, Until you reminded me, I forgot about the prestige associated with a Captain's advancement to the poop deck cabin. Since the center forward of the poop deck is occupieed by the 8' portico with side opening doors, I would think that area closest to there would be cabinet style panels. Since there's definitely windows and a ladder on each side to consider, I see an alternating arrangement of windows between panels. Is the captain's stateroom the one that's 12' x 18'? If so, then my dotted lines on the poop deck also have to be redone to reflect that on the starboard side. Would each of the 3 mates and steward have their own staterooms or would some be shared? The pantry must be where the smokestack's located too. As the saying goes "back to the drawing board."

Rob, That's another side affect of McLean's haphazard way of describing ship's components. He's actually moved back to describing the forward cabin abaft the foremast. The Captain's 12' × 18' stateroom actually overlooks the main deck from the starboard aft section of the forward cabin. I've read nothing that says there's windows in the forward poop deck bulkhead. That doesn't mean there weren't any just that none are identified.

Rob, No problem, sliding tops can be added and the entire face can be flat. Companions in the wings suggests to me that they would be outermost, most likely to provide greater space around the windlass below. I see twin ladders just inside the companions. Windows would altrrnate between cabinet style molded panels with each set apart by faux pillars like those seen on the Glory of the Seas coach house front fascia

Rob, From what I read and saw, it appears your forecastle ideas are based mostly on Aberdeen Tea Clipper Thermopylae. She's a lovely vessel but from what I see, her focstle bulkhead height is lower, which is why the single entrance companion makes more sense. Here's my thinking about using twin companions and twin ladders. As we've already seen from size comparisons of Glory of the Seas to Cutty Sark, the former dwarfs the latter by a substantial order of magnitude. As we both know, Stag Hound at her launch was the largest merchant ship in the world. From what I can tell, her forecastle bulkhead is about 30 feet wide. Having single companions and focstle ladders strikes me as causing a bottleneck for crew trying to utilize either source. Doesn't it make sense to make access easier by providing twin resources? It also follows the historic layout of Flying Fish the only ship where the placement of port and starboard companions is actually stated. Besides, if you had a single center mounted entrance to quarters below, would't that run into an issue with the patented windlass which also is centrally mounted? Maybe the idea of waterclosets being before the companions bothers you? In that case, I'll point out that McLean doesn't specify exactly how far ahead of the companions the "heads" are located from the ingress ladders, just that they're before them. What's your feeling about the idea of focstle bulkhead windows? Is it too much or does it make sense? If there are windows, my idea is to pattern the fascia after the forward one on the coach house in Glory of the Seas since the span is actually a little larger. It also seems to me that some sort of overhang makes sense to me, maybe just a foot, since bulkhead height is just 5'. However, if the focstle bulkhead is solid, then there's another problem to solve: how does light get 8' downstairs instead? I find the idea of a focstle skylight to be a bit fantastic. Your thoughts?

Rob, I've attached McLean's sort of running description of the one time he refers to crew accomodations being set up in a lower area underneath the focstle deck. This is for McKay's 4th extreme clipper Flying Fish which has the shortest main rail height of any McKay clipper I've ever read at 4 & 1/2' (54"). With a 16" monkey rail, it brings her total bulwarks height to 5'10" (70"). It's this very low main rail height which proves it's impossible to have crew accommodations on the main deck under the focstle. It also tells me that unless the entire windlass is outside of the focstle deck, it too must have been mounted 3' below on the crew quarters deck. I have no other goal then to be as faithful to what little documentation we have to accurately reproduce a McKay clipper, whether it's Stag Hound or any other one. As far as positions are concerned, I've learned from reading a lot of McLean descriptions is that he tends to describe arrangements backwards. By that I mean from aft forward. When reading his descriptions, I've learned it helps to have an agile mind in order to follow how he reverses directions pretty much continuously in the same article. This can lead to confusion of positions unless you visualize items as he describes them. I'll demonstrate using Flying Fish at first which describes both companions being "in the wings" of the forecastle with water closets before them (not after as current Flying Fish plans have them). Picturing this, it only makes sense if these water closets are 3' down below ahead of the companion ladders to downstairs. With the forecastle deck being mounted at the 4 & 1/2' main rail height, that means the windlass would have to be mounted below too. At the risk of overkill, using McLean's descriptions of the deck furniture on Stag Hound I'll demonstrate how he constantly reverses directions in his descriptions. As he describes the long house behind the foremast, he's basically describing fore to aft "abaft the foremast." He's consistent in describing the poop deck but begins reversing direction as he ends up describing the small square portico in the center of the fore poop deck. Watch now how he completely reverses from aft to fore as he describes the apartments 3' below the poop deck. He starts at the stern, actually behind the 32' x 13' great room or salon, that's where the largest apartment accommodation for two berths fit for a family resides. First impressions would lead you to conclude all these apartments are inside the 32' × 13' great room. Because McLean never clarifies that they actually surround that room's perimiter. But when he describes that each stateroom has its own decklight and sidelight, that's impossible unless one side is on an outer bulkhead wall. In this case, McLean describes each apartment's position from aft to forward, beginning with that large double berth apartment fit for a family. Now watch this: before this there's a watercloset on each side, then a state room, before that a recess of eight feet on each side, then two state rooms. To reinforce this conclusion, I've reposted my 44' Stag Hound poop deck illustration including dashed lines to show the correct positions of all of these apartment elements. I hope this answers your concerns satisfactorily.