ClipperFan
-
Posts
2,119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by ClipperFan
-
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)
-
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.
Our Emblem ®
