ClipperFan
-
Posts
1,961 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ClipperFan
-
Vladimir, One thing that might be causing confusion is how these vessels were measured. The length of the main deck between perpendiculars refers to the top deck which is below the Quarter deck at the Bow and Poop deck at the Stern. Taffrail to Knightheads measures the distance from the midpoint of the Stern rail to the two devices at the Ship's Bow where the Bowsprit goes between. The Ship's Bow itself, even the peak of the quarterdeck rail is slightly beyond that point. The two key ratios I compared with all of the McKay vessels I could find at least one accurate distance for were main deck length to keel and overall length to keel. Dividing Keel length by those two other lengths gave me the percentage results. While the main deck to keel ratio was identical for "Flying Fish" and "Glory of the Seas" that was not the case with the overall length. If "Glory of the Seas" had been built to the ratio of "Flying Fish" she would have the identical floor to keel of 250' to 240' but would have been 268' overall instead of 265'. You see the lovely smooth curve of "Flying Fish" compared to the somewhat awkward transition from curved to straight in your current Glory hull profile? That's one item I've been repeatedly emphasizing doesn't match the graceful Hull of Glory which can now be seen here, courtesy of Michael Mjelde's generosity. Getting that right will make a major difference.
-
Now that we're refocusing our efforts on her Bow, I thought it might be interesting to compare this 1907 "Glory of the Seas" Bow section with the profile of "Flying Fish" above the waterline. I see a very strong similarity.
-
Vladimir, now the challenge is adapting two different sizes as "Flying Fish" was significantly smaller than "Glory of the Seas". However it's clear both profiles are different and they should be practically identical based on their floor to keel ratios. Since we now have an authentic lines plan, we should be able to use "Flying Fish" as our Bow blueprint. Remember how I've been saying the curve of the Cutwater continues through both upper and lower Bobstay mounts? It looks like if you continued that curve it would probably be a match to the "Flying Fish" profile. Then the lower Stem to keel joint would be more flat, as seen in the Glory on the Ways scene. We should be almost there!
-
Vladimir & Rob, If anyone needs any full sized "Flying Fish" plans, I discovered an entire set that were buried amongst some other books I moved recently. I also reviewed the list of ships that were participants in the "Great Deep Sea Derby" of 1853. My initial reading was a bit short. In reality, the actual number of Clipper Ships that "Flying Fish" beat out was more than double my first number. It was 25 Clipper Ships, not 14! No wonder the owners commissioned Buttersworth to do such a large beautiful commemorative piece. This too gives more credence to the theory that McKay was inspired by "Flying Fish" in particular as his guideline to model "Glory of the Seas" by. Contemporary maritime newspaper descriptions of "Flying Fish" also say that she was sharper than even "Flying Cloud".
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
https://www.maritimeheritage.org/ships/deepSeaDerby.html Here's a list of the 14 'crack Clippers "Flying Fish" beat out to win the "Great Deep Sea Derby" including 3 other McKay built Extreme Clippers "Bald Eagle" "Sovereign of the Seas" and newly launched "Westward Ho!"
-
https://www.vallejogallery.com/item_mobile.php?page=item_page&id=487 Here's a link to Vallejo Gallery's write up on McKay's Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" which was the winner of the 'Great Deep Sea Derby." She set a swift pace of 92 days, New York to San Francisco beating out 14 other Clippers to do so. While she never beat "Flying Cloud's" phenomenal 89 day record, her runs on average were even faster than that fast sailing ship.
-
Rob, taking into consideration that Donald McKay was building a massive vessel entirely on speculation, literally as a last ditch effort to turn around his failing fortunes, it makes total sense that he would resort to a tried and true design. For that matter, Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" portrayed 'bolt upright' by Buttersworth was possibly the only McKay vessel to outright win a 'Great Deep Sea Derby' against over a dozen other 'crack Clippers in a race around the 'Horn. The two closest Clippers in design ratio are McKay's first pioneering Clipper "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" with the former being closest, being only 2' more conservative but the latter, only 3' more conservative having a more similar deck layout.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob & Vladimir, Post #510 has a tracing of "Flying Fish" actually taken from original lines done, believe it or not in a Museum in Sweden. From ratio comparisons, shorten "Stag Hound" profile by 2' and "Flying Fish" by 3' compared to their LOA and it's exactly the profile of "Glory of the Seas."
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, thanks for your kind words. After what feels like an eternity, I really get the sense we are so close to finally unveiling the fully authentic "Glory of the Seas" as she was originally was conceived. It really came as a surprise to me that the ratios of Medium Clipper "Glory of the Seas" was on a par with most of McKay's other vessels, even a little faster than his Extreme Clippers "Staghound" and "Flying Fish. I think the Medium category really has more to do with her carrying capacity than anything else.
-
Rob, I'm trying to follow a scientific method of evaluation as closely as possible, even to dispense my own bias. Besides being beautiful paintings, artists like Samuel Walter's and James Buttersworth were famous for their meticulous accuracy and often were commissioned by Ship's Captains and Owners. Historically, Donald McKay's ships all had short overhangs ("Staghound" had a 7' one). He did this intentionally to avoid the Stern shipping water in heavy seas. Besides, as I said due to holiday commitments, I couldn't finish my summary of Hull comparisons. Here are a few more: 1851 Extreme Clipper "Flying Fish" Keel 202' Length on deck 210' Length overall (LOA) 220' Ratio: keel to deck .96 Ratio: keel to LOA .92 1852 Clipper "Sovereign of the Seas" Keel 245 Length on deck 258' Length overall LOA 265' Ratio: keel of deck .95 Ratio: keel to LOA .93 1853 Twin Packet Ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" Keel 208' Length on deck 220' Length overall (LOA) unavailable Ratio: keel to length on deck .945 "Glory of the Seas" projected keel length in comparison to 250' deck & 265' LOA dimensions using all other ship ratios: "Staghound" Deck ratio .96 deck 250' keel 240' (0 difference) LOA ratio .92 LOA 265' keel 242' (+2' difference) "Flying Cloud" Deck ratio .92 deck 250' keel 231' (-9' difference) LOA ratio .89 LOA 265 keel 235' (-5' difference) "Flying Fish" Deck ratio .96 deck 250' keel 240' (0 difference) LOA ratio .92 LOA 265' keel 243' (+3'difference) "Sovereign of the Seas" Deck ratio .95 deck 250' keel 237' (-3' difference) LOA ratio .93 LOA 265' keel 245' (+5' difference) "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" Deck ratio .945 deck 250' keel 235' (-5' difference) LOA ratio: unavailable Rob, Comparing "Glory of the Seas" ratios, she's actually a little sleeker to "Staghound" and "Flying Fish" in LOA, while identical in deck to keel. "Sovereign of the Seas" has a slightly longer deck ratio but is a little more conservative in LOA to keel while the twin Packet Ships (illustrated by Donald McKay himself) are only 5' shorter in ratio. In fact the only Extreme Clipper with a noticeable variance was "Flying Cloud" whose LOA would have been 9' longer and whose keel would have been 5' shorter in comparison. Still when you're discussing a Ship that's 265' in length, even this isn't that dramatic and probably would have been difficult to notice. In summary, it still feels to me like we still have a little more work to do to get "Glory of the Seas" Bow accurate.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Happy Easter, guys Being still dissatisfied with our severely verticle Bow, I decided to evaluate the Bows of McKay's previous Clippers for comparison. The results I found are intriguing and make a compelling argument for a more angled Bow than we currently have. 1869 "Glory of the Seas" Keel 240' Length on deck 250' Length overall (LOA) 265' Ratio: keel to deck .96 Ratio: keel to LOA .905 1850 Extreme Clipper "Staghound" Keel 207' Length on deck 215' Length overall 226' Ratio: keel to deck .96 Ratio: keel to LOA .915 1851 Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud" Keel 208' Length on deck 225' Length overall 235' Ratio: keel to deck .92 Ratio: keel to LOA .89 I will add more results & images to support my theory a little later
- 3,560 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, somehow I missed this comment until now. Honestly, with each phenomenal, crystal clear image Michael Mjelde sends us, our comprehension of McKay's last Clipper comes more clearly into view. With your clarification of her bulwark heights, I think that can finally be nailed down to. It hadn't occurred to me that measured from inside, her Bulwarks are 6 1/2' but from outside, since her sheerline molding aligns at the top of the 1' waterways, they will naturally appear 15" shorter (3" for deck and 12" for waterways). If I remember correctly, those moldings were 7" which would bring that external drop to 8". So if we go 8" below the lowest sheerline molding, that would be the base of the 5' main rail bulkhead, to which would be added 18" monkeyrail with cap. As a result a 6 1/2 bulkhead would appear to be 5' 10". Am I finally getting it?
-
Vladimir, Rob Referring to post #691, I have added 2 images to highlight 2 continuing concerns I have about Glory's hull evolution. I think Vladimir is about 90% there. Instead of referring to measurements, I'll resort to relationships instead. Look closely at the Stern section drop it's all little deeper than what Vladimir has now. It appears to fit neatly into the area of the main rail between 2 short shelfs under and above the moldings. A thin line, just below main rail moldings can be seen on the McKay Hull sketch. It goes across the entire hull and seems to align perfectly with the bottom of the Naval Hoods. Rob has determined Hood depth to be 3 1/2'. My other bigger concern is with Glory's cutwater and stem which I strongly feel would be far more likely to match that of the McKay sketch too. That's the impression I get especially after seeing a more clear overall image of her Bow in Seattle. The curve of her Cutwater continues down thru both Bobstay mounts and then follows down at an angle.
-
Rob, These scenes are much lighter than what I've seen before, details are much better defined. I'm continually in awe of the very substantial construction of "Glory of the Seas" in every item. What also surprises me is how seeing rugged construction, so much more substantial than Duncan MacLean's somewhat simple description, helps me to perceive the intent of her designer. Glory's waterways for instance are described as being 12" square, yet this photo shows them being rounded along sides and top, which makes far more sense in a nautical vessel where hard edges could cause serious injuries. The total loss of such a magnificent vessel weighs heavily on me too. She was so well built. If only her successive owners had the foresight to maintain her yellow metal hull, they would have kept the damn toredo worm and successive rot at bay.... Had they done that, she surely could have made one final journey around Cape Horn to her home in Boston and we would have been able to see her proudly afloat today....
-
Rob, For sake of accuracy, it's beginning to appear like the best approach is to rebuild her from the inside out, starting from her keel upwards. The one area that gives me the most confidence in her exterior dimensions is at her docking ports. I counted 9 1/2 planks from waterline to bottom of the port, 4 to make the side and 7 up to the lower sheerline molding. Now knowing that the upper sheerline molding is bolted to the top of the 12" waterways on the main deck, which is 3" above main deck line, if we measure 5' up from that 15" drop we get her main rail height, then add 18" to top of that for a total of 6 1/2'. We know her 2 lower decks are 8'2" height, presumably above more 3" decks. She's described as having a 28 1/2 hold, with 22' coppered from false keel to her waterline. She should be coming along nicely.
-
Vladimir, I expressed your appreciation to Mike who's being so generous with these fantastic images which likely haven't been seen in decades. I was so impressed that I sent Mike a request for the rest of the vessel in this scene. Meanwhile, the stern shows that the turned rails aren't verticle. They cant outwards almost imperceptibly around the stern, appear to be most verticle along the Wheelhouse section and then cant inwards around the large Stern house. The monkeyrail below also appears to do the same. The main rail drop almost appears to Bow inward but it looks to me like it's an affect of the short shelf like area combined with double planksheer moldings. Most fascinating is the 3' - 4' area below which ends in a slight ridge. While it gave an initial appearance of being solely around her Stern, I now suspect it encircles the entire vessel but is far less noticable. In fact, it looks like it aligns perfectly with the lower end of the Naval Hoods. What surprised me was that this same feature can be seen on McKay's illustration of sister Packet ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" as seen here. Finally as first suspected, the graceful drop below this line curves slightly inwards as it drops to the rudder. In totality, this area of Glory is far more complex than first suspected.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, To summarize, upper main deck waterways were 1' square per the description in the 1869 newspaper article. Since they're above the 3" thick deck planks, they're actually 15" and that would be the same exterior location of the plank sheer moldings. So while the interior bulkhead was 6 1/2' (5 main rail height & 18" monkeyrail) exterior main rail would look 15" shorter than 5' making it appear externally as if it was 3' 9" with an 18" monkey rail above for a total apparent exterior height of 5'3" does that sound right? Or would added moldings bring it up to 6' on the exterior? I'm still trying to nail down the accurate dimensions to ensure how "Glory of the Seas" hull would look. I get the sense we're very close now. Your description of the internal construction was very helpful. The only other confusing discrepancy is MacLean's description of Glory's bulkheads being 6'. I almost wonder if he's expecting his readers to know he wasn't including moldings and cap rail dimensions in that statistic.
-
Rob, I borrowed your idea and matched 2 of your images to make a final one that shows "Glory of the Seas" completely from Bow to Stern.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob & Vladimir, I asked Mike for a better look at Glory's stern from the scene of her being towed to Alaska. Here's his original, facing down and a cropped version facing up. As I first noticed, her Stern is far more elegant and complex than earlier suspected. Her turned Rail stanchions, while appearing almost verticle seem to cant just slightly outward, as does the monkeyrail below, then her main rail looks like it bows slightly inward but I suspect it's due to the effect of her moldings. The area below that appears to bow out slightly. Rob can measure it. My best guess is about a 3 - 4 drop. Finally the rest of the Stern curves again just slightly inward as it drops gracefully to the rudder below. Far more complex than at first glance.
- 3,560 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- clipper
- hull model
- (and 2 more)
-
Rob, for the purpose of consistency, I'd say it's fairly safe to conclude that from the exterior, from the lowest sheer rail molding to the top of the main rail molding is 5' and from there to the top of the monkeyrail molding is an additional 18" for a consistent exterior bulwark height of 6 1/2'.
-
Rob, this particular vaguary has always troubled me. If the main rail and monkeyrail combined are described as being 6' yet visually bulwarks appear higher, then I'd say the moldings on top of the main rail and monkeyrail are not being counted. Adding them in would probably bring total bulwark height from deck to top of monkeyrail molding to 6 1/2'. Again, referring to earlier 1869 on the ways or even the 1877 scene, is there a reliable way to get an actual measurement, to be sure?
-
Vladimir, you're welcome for the picture. Rob has more accurate numbers than mine. He said from peak of cap rail to center of 1st notch is 9' from there to center of 2nd notch is 6' and 4' more to cathead center, for a total of 19'. One foot further than my guesstimate. Rob refers to the main rail & monkey rail being 6' high but I think he's not counting various moldings, which when you combine a 3 of those would put it at 6 1/2'.
Our Emblem ®
