ClipperFan
-
Posts
1,961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ClipperFan
-
Vladimir, Off and on since 2009 I've been living with Glory's stunning Grecian Goddess Athene. Here are 2 of my better sketches. The top is probably most accurate but she's a little too low. However, these were done many years before Michael Mjelde's magnificent images were shared with us. I'll get right on this. I'll endeavour to do one each in 1:72nd and 1:96th scale. At 1:72nd it will be 1&1/4" and at 1:96th it's 13/16th of an inch. Piece of cake!
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob,I saw both miniature figureheads years ago. Based on the limited knowledge available on Glory's figurehead, you did a credible job. I suspect because the Tartan McKay figurehead was less complicated in comparison, your effort was more refined. Both must have been quite a challenge considering their diminutive size. Meanwhile, Rob and Vladimir, here's a fascinating article on how a modern day replica of a full scale ship's figurehead is carved. What surprised me was the bread & butter use of laminates to form a rough outline of the whole. After 60 years of exposure to the elements, Scottish Clipper Ship 'Cutty Sark' Figurehead Witch 'Nannie Dee' of Robert Burns' famous poem "Tam O'Shanter" has developed dry rot and is getting a much improved replacement. This Witch will more closely resemble Hercules Linton's beautiful sketch. The existing figurehead was a copy of the Ship's Carpenter's version after her original one was lost at sea. With the advent of 3D printers, I was thinking if I could sketch enough images, maybe that's a solution which could be employed. Here's a link to the article: https://www.maritimawoodcarving.co.uk/maritima-commissions/the-cutty-sark/
-
Rob, keeping all elements to scale as much as realistically possible will help maintain a sense of the true massiveness of "Glory of the Seas." To do any less would only mar an overall impression of our efforts. I imagine it will be a combination of materials, whatever works best, to achieve the desired results. To do this, each item will need to be meticulously accurate. For example, at 1:96th scale, our 90" tall Athene figurehead will have to be 15/16ths of an inch! This is going to be real interesting....
-
Rob, here's the scale conversion calculator resource: https://www.inchcalculator.com/scale-calculator/ It's pretty neat. You can plug in any full sized dimension from a real ship and it will automatically convert it to any scale dimension chosen.
-
Rob, when it comes to scale accuracy, you're absolutely right. Oversized elements totally ruin an impression of actual size. 1:96 scale: 96' = 12", so 1" = 8', 1/2" = 4', 1/4" = 2', 1/8" = 1', 1/16" = 6'', 1/32" = 3'', 1/64" = 1 1/2". The Keel of Glory was 16" or 1' 4". Using an online calculator, 1:96th scale of 16" = 0.1667 which translates to 2". I'll find the link to share it.
-
Rob at 1:96th scale, 16" becomes 2". If you have enough of an indent into Bow, Keel and Stern, that should work.
-
Vladimir, Wow! That's such beautiful work. So, is your day job merely crafting violins? Between you and Rob I feel like a toddler amongst Gods, when it comes to modeling skills. I would love to see the 18th Century vessel you're modeling too.
-
Rob, I think we can all agree that Ed is an artisan whose productions will last for Centuries and would rightly be at home in any Museum like the Smithsonian. I'm impressed with your "Great Republic" and can't wait to see this 3rd effort of "Glory of the Seas."
-
Rob, I don't mean to insult your intelligence but Model Expo has all sorts of Ship modeling resources, including various strips of wood for planking.
-
Vladimir, At one time American Clippers were revolutionary concepts to the rest of the nautical world. For Centuries, literally Great Britain had a stranglehold Monopoly on shipping Tea from China. That business was the 'East India Tea Company.' They set what can only be called a leisurely pace. So leisurely in fact that every night they would take in all the sails and simply drift. When England finally revoked the Monopoly laws in the 1850s and allowed foreign competition, American Clippers brought Chinese Tea to market in a revolutionary short time. This stunned British Merchants which scrambled to catch up. Tragically USA's horribly cataclysmic Civil War destroyed America's dominance when Confederate Raiders destroyed so many of our fast sailing ships. America never recovered from that event. If you want to learn about the many incredibly beautiful American Clippers, Google 'Lars Bruzelius' for his magnificent resource of dozens of amazing American Clipper Ships which dwarfed their British counterparts.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, maybe you could ask Ed T who's done the magnificent "Young America" build, where he gets his supplies from.
-
Vladimir, you can make mine 1:96th too. This is just so incredibly exciting!
-
Rob, agreed about Glory's flat bottom. It appears that over the years, Donald McKay concluded that a slight drop in relative speed over what was effectively a three month journey around the toughest seas on the planet, a gain in carrying capacity more than outweighed that loss of a relatively few days. Which brings me back to Glory's Bow and underwater profile. From various photos, she appears to have had as sharp a prow as "Flying Fish" and "Staghound". This too would make sense because a sharp, aggressive prow is necessary to batter it's way through the mighty, powerful seas around Cape Horn. It's also apparent that Glory's 7' sheer is the largest one I've read about. Again having a higher Prow would also benefit in taking on those Seas and likely having a drier vessel. Besides which, pretty much all of McKay's vessels were famous for their swiftness, even his Packets.
-
Rob, Since I mentioned relative flatness as being the principal reason why "Glory of the Seas" is classified as a Medium Clipper vs others we're comparing, I looked up that specific metric for the following vessels. Here are the results: DEADRISE AT HALF-FLOOR "Staghound" 40" "Flying Cloud" 30" "Flying Fish" 20" "Glory of the Seas" 8 1/2"
-
Rob, As I double checked established ratios of the vessels we're discussing, I got a surprise. While Floor to Keel ratios of all 3 ships are identical .96% applying "Glory of the Seas" LOA to Keel ratio of .905 to "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" measurements for LOA to Keel gave the following amazing results: "Staghound" LOA: 226' actual, Keel 204.53' 2.47' SHORTER using Glory's ratio "Flying Fish" LOA: 220' actual, Keel 199.10' 2.90' SHORTER with Glory's ratio For comparison, to show how much SHARPER Glory's waterline to LOA was, here's the most Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud" using Glory's ratio: "Flying Cloud" LOA: 235' actual, Keel 212.68 4.68' LONGER with Glory's ratio Conclusion. My previous results were calculated EXACTLY BACKWARDS for "Glory of the Seas" vs "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" when it came to properly interpreting ratio comparisons. That means Glory's LOA to Keel ratio is actually slightly MORE AGGRESSIVE than either of those Extreme Clippers. By every metric I use, other than measurement of 'deadrise at half floor' which identifies a vessel's relative underwater 'roundness', I see Glory's ratio as being very aggressive vs some of McKay's most Extreme Clippers. I think you and Vladimir can be very comfortable with the direction we're going in finally resurrecting Donald McKay's last Extreme Medium Clipper.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, although I haven't done anything like this for many decades, I'm intrigued by a chance to get my own set of authentic "Glory of the Seas" bulkheads. Please let us know what you'd need to make it worth your while.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, As Michael Mjelde reminded me before, Duncan MacLean's descriptions cannot always be taken as 100% reliable. My sole source for Ship measurements have been his very descriptive Boston Daily News articles, all available online on Lars Bruzelius's website. However, when it came to the one chosen to write the most in-depth description of "The Great Republic" Donald McKay's largest vessel ever built, it was Duncan MacLean who was given the nod. So as a publicist, which is always how I've appreciated Mr MacLean's works, he must have been second to none. As for the most reliable source for vessel sizes and tonnage Mike told me that "admeasurement" which is how Ships were registered, is most accurate. In his 1st book "Glory of the Seas" registration is reproduced. She had a 240'2" keel admeasurement. Mike has also said the actual keel's length might have been 235' with the 5'2" difference made up by the curved Stem attachment. I would like to know your other resource for the 2050 ton weight for the twin Packets. You're also correct that these vessels don't match Glory's profile up to the waterline. That's why I identified "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" instead. Since the difference between those two was 1' and there was a verified tracing of "Flying Fish" available, I chose to recommend her as the closest resource to pattern Glory's Bow after.
-
Vladimir, I can't wait to see these! Especially if you were able to incorporate my last 3 suggestions, this should be the most accurate Hull yet!
-
Rob, nobody likes a "know it all." If I came across like that, I apologize. I didn't mean to belittle your observation. That wasn't my intent but when I read what was written it sure sounded like that.
-
Rob, "Star of Empire" was described as being 2,000 tons. "Chariot of Fame" was considered as a sister vessel to Star so it likely had the same tonnage. "Glory of the Seas" was described as being 2,102 tons, which would make her 102 tons heavier. While the LOA isn't described, we do know that these vessels had perpendicular Stems and Cutwaters with rakes of 12'. So a likely LOA was minimum of 239' (adding 7' Stern overhang & 12' beyond their 220' main floor) but that's pure conjecture. Probably the most significant difference in appearance between these Ships was Glory's 7' sheer vs Star and Chariot's's more modest 4' one.
-
Rob & Vladimir, I finally found a complete image of Donald McKay's twin Packet Ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" courtesy of Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA. If you look at the reverse "S" profile completed by the angel figurehead, you can see a strong resemblance to that of the 1907 "Glory of the Seas" at San Pedro.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Arina, welcome back! It's always nice to hear from you and your dad. Thank you for these wonderful images of such precious mementos. Please express my appreciation too, to your dad for his immense contributions to our evolving efforts to capture the ultimately accurate "Glory of the Seas". Your late brother was a talented wood worker. Let me say also that you can definitely add my name to the list of purchasers for your dad's next publication. I can't wait for "Down East Captain" to be released!
- 3,560 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, just to give you an idea of how subtile adjustments make for dramatically noticeable differences, I cropped your latest image to cut out visual interference. Now look at these two before and after images. Isn't it amazing? The final step will be to reconcile the slight bowsprit foreshortening. We know factually that it is 24' before the Cap and that Glory's figurehead is about 9' beyond her Bow. Her figurehead is too close in the 1907 scene which is a function of slight perspective foreshortening. The fact that we can see parts of the front of her Stern Carriage House and Wheelhouse also verifies this.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, isn't it remarkable how these small adjustments have such profound results. For example, did you notice how even the sheer looks less dramatic now? As for the two red lines. To me the outer one looks to be the more accurate. As for where we're heading, if we can accomplish it, as near to perfection as possible. Now you can easily follow the curve of the Cutwater as seen in the 1907 scene (it has nothing to do with "Flying Fish" Cutwater which would be based on the sharper bow profile).
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Vladimir, you're getting so close. This almost feels like that old fashioned kid's game of "hot and cold." I still get a sense that viewer bias or perspective distortion is still affecting our senses. For instance, notice the waterline and pylons behind Glory's Bow in the 1907 shot? It's off. The waterline is slightly tilted up from left to right. To get a clearer understanding look at the relatively short dark area on the left edge of the photo and compare it to the right side. See the difference? The right edge is noticeably higher, almost not quite double. Now if you look at the pylons below the pier just behind Glory's Bow, they aren't verticle, they also tilt slightly towards the left. What I'm driving at is, if you take these optical variances into consideration by say, laying a straight edge of paper to this tilted waterline and using a compass, get it to a true 90 degree angle, so that the pylons are verticle and the waterline is correct, you'll see that Glory's prow and Cutwater are actually a little more aggressive than even this image depicts.... I believe when we're finally done, our outline should match the 1907 Bow almost exactly, as it's the most accurate image we have. Of course, even this one is foreshortened slightly, as it's not a perfect broadside but very close. Finally, the curve of the Cutwater goes unbroken all the way up to the Figurehead Athene's feet. The beautifully carved archwork was actually bolted onto the Cutwater. Look closely at the impressive Port Side image that Michael sent us and you'll see what I mean. There's just a fraction of the gorgeous overlay left but you can see how it's attached to the Cutwater beneath.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
Our Emblem ®
