ClipperFan

@rwiederrich my intent for sharing Duncan McLean's article has nothing to do with McKay's now proven uniquely genious navel hood, cutwater bow design. When I read @Rick310 describe the Challenge forecastle to support the open forecastle design, I found the McLean write-up on her. I had no idea what I would find. In my first read of this large, 3 decker NY, Webb design I quickly learned that, similar to Stag Hound, Flying Cloud and Flying Fish her topgallant forecastle height was at the main rail. Stag Hound and Flying Cloud both had their main rail height at 5' while Flying Fish was 4 & 1/2'. Webb's extreme clipper Challenge had a bulkhead height of 4 & 1/2' including her monkey rail. That means her forecastle height had to be at least a foot lower. All four vessels had crew accommodations in their forecastle bows. We've concluded in the case of all 3 McKay clippers that the crew quarters were 3' below. So then the aft forecastle bulkhead had to be enclosed to provide a safe environment for sailors. Now, the exact same description applies to the Webb clipper as well. Again, the model is inaccurate as compared to the McLean description. Even her light blue waterways do not match the green color described in the article. There's no mention of where water closets were located so they could just as easily have been located below, along with her windlass. It's looks more and more like Chapelle relied on the Cutty Sark deck layout and just disregarded the McLean write up. Here's the sections which cover this area.

@Rick310 again, I wonder how much credance Chapelle and Lankford placed on Duncan McLean's words. Lars Bruzelius has a complete transcript of June 16th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas write-up of the new Webb extreme clipper Challenge. Her bulwarks including monkey rail were a mere 4 & 1/2 feet. Meanwhile, the height of her topgallant forecastle was at the main rail. That means the forecastle deck had to be lower than that. Most McKay monkey rails were 16-18 inches but, even if the monkey rail on Challenge was only 1 foot, that puts the height around 3 & 1/2 feet. The forecastle had a capstan on it and extended to the windlass. Abaft the windlass is a companion to the sailor's quarters. No surprise, just like Flying Fish, crew quarters in the forecastle are below. Since height of the Challenge two lower decks was 7 feet 8 inches, I suspect a drop to her sailor's quarters was 4 feet below the forecastle, resulting in accommodations of around 7 feet 6 inches. This tells me that much like Flying Fish was described, Challenge also had a fully enclosed aft forecastle bulkhead. In addition, forecastle of Challenge was equipped with 4 plate glass air ports and was otherwise well lighted and ventilated. Her windlass was described as being strongly secured, of the latest patent, with ends which could be ungeared from the body. This description sounds exactly like that equipped on Stag Hound launched six months earlier. Rob and I concluded it's a perfect match to Emerson-Walker's patented windlass. Before the foremast is a double lever winch, for hauling the chain cable up, or for any other heavy work. Question: up from where? Could it be that, similar to Stag Hound the windlass on Challenge was also secured below? Her chain lockers are abaft her foremast, on the lower deck, and the pipes through which the chains pass are covered by the fore part of the galley. I haven't had a chance to see the Challenge model you shared here or to read Chapelle's description. I'd love to see more of this model. Meanwhile, here's a link to the entire Duncan McLean article: http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-06-16).html

@rwiederrich @Vladimir_Wairoa that's exciting news. I am so jazzed to see Rob start his "warp-speed" build. Meanwhile, even if you're not planning an immediate build, Vlad did you make a 1:72nd scale set for yourself? Rob, I hope the 2nd set is for me. I'm ready to contribute my fair share to get a copy. Just let me know who I owe what. Knowing that next year (just a few months away now) is the 175th Anniversary of the launch of Stag Hound, I can't think of a better tribute than to see her realized by Rob. Even if he just gets her hull completed. I just love the way Donald's son Cornelius McKay phrased it "The Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet." Her successful career, although sadly way too brief, did indeed lead to a fleet of some of the most spectacular, record breaking clippers the world has ever seen.

@Rick310 thanks for sharing this Sept 1980 # 3 Nautical Research Journal article. If this is the full reference to her deck layout a surprising omission sticks out to me like a flashing neon light. There's no mention at all of the clear description of the forward forecastle doubling as accommodation for the crew below. If there was, it's not covered in the pages shared here. Since Ben Lankford refers to the Boston Daily Atlas more than once, it seems like he just missed this critical description of the Flying Fish prow: "She has a topgallant forecastle the height of the main rail [4 & 1/2 feet], and in the wings are companions, which lead to the sailor's quarters below; and before [not aft] the companions are water closets [two not one], and along the sides, lockers, etc. The accommodations for the crew [below] occupy the angle of the bow, are lofty, well lighted, and ventilated." Italics added by me for emphasis as are words in brackets. How Ben Lankford misinterpreted this section escapes me. But current plans for Flying Fish are completely at odds with Duncan McLean's description. Here again is my logic for a completely alternative interpretation based upon McLean's words, the context of his phrases and some common sense. First, Flying Fish had the lowest topgallant forecastle height of any of McKay's thirty odd clipper ships. 4 & 1/2 feet is the upper deck height of her forecastle. Decks were 3 & 1/2 inches thick, meaning the forecastle deck height underneath would have been 4 feet, 2 & 1/2 inches. Question: how does this height compute with McLean's description of "lofty, well lighted and ventilated" crew's quarters? Consider too, all other accommodations have heights of roughly 7 feet. So why stuff a windlass and crew's quarters into an area which is practically a crawl space? McLean specifically notes that "in the wings are companions, which led to the sailor's quarters below". That implies ladders leading down to a space 3 feet below, creating a similar ceiling 7 feet tall. Now twin water closets down below being before the companions makes sense along with lockers, etc. for use of sailors down below. To provide for this space suggests that the aft forecastle bulkhead must have been enclosed, not open as current Flying Fish plans call for. Second, where do you fit the windlass? Wouldn't the most sensible arrangement be to mount it below too? This gives far better working space crew as well. Third, to make accommodations lofty, well lighted and ventilated means most likely the aft forecastle bulkhead had some windows as well as some sort of ventilation. This alternative arrangement fits the Boston Daily Atlas description precisely and has the added benefit of leaving a much cleaner working space between the foremast and the topgallant forecastle.

@Rick310 that interesting location detail isn't mentioned in the brief write ups I read. It did say she was still in service 46 years later. She somehow managed to evade ravages of Southern Civil War Privateers and her career brought her into the 1900s. The Ogilvy piece, which I have yet to locate online, is more useful for modeling details but the Fitz Henry Lane work is just gorgeous.

@Rick310 @rwiederrich we began our revolutionary investigation into the authentic appearance for Glory of the Seas 4 years ago. We didn't realize how critical navel hoods and cutwater components were to the unique McKay bow until months into our evaluation. If you look at the 1913 starboard bow pic of Glory of the Seas which has been shared previously, you'll note that the splash rail is cracked and damaged. Most of the lovely carved overlay on her cutwater is missing as well. This damage was most likely a result of her being struck by a steamship as she backed into her. Such rugged construction was noted by Duncan McLean in his evaluation of McKay's 2nd California Clipper Flying Cloud. He basically said her prow was virtually indestructible. These navel hood components are integral extensions of her prow and provided superior support to her bowsprit, figurehead and cutwater beneath. Rob and I are now doing our level best to share our discoveries with the greater modeling community so that the true beauty of McKay's genius can finally be realized. In fact, a portion of my 2nd Nautical Research Journal article now submitted covers this surprising discovery.

@rwiederrich @Rick310 FYI: 1854 clipper Golden Rule, Wm. Hitchcock & Co, Damariscotta, Maine was 185' long, beam 37', 23' depth of hold, 1,185 tons. In comparison 1851 California Clipper Flying Fish had a keel 202', length on deck between perpendiculars 210', overall length knightheads to taffrail 220', beam 40', 1,556 tons. Her keel was 17' longer, length on deck 25' more and overall length 35' longer, beam was 3' wider and she was 371 tons larger.

@Rick310 To give you an idea how challenging it would have been for JE Buttersworth and other contemporary artists to accurately capture a McKay clipper bow, I've attached a detail fore photo for Glory of the Seas docked at San Pedro, Calif in 1907. There's very little visible of the existing naval hoods or separate cutwater underneath. The only way to tell is to get a larger, more detailed image. We have others which show them. I wanted to give you an idea of how her aggressive prow looked even when individual details aren't clear.

@Rick310 You may be right. There's just a slight chance that Simeon Jones did command the clipper Flying Fish. I read that Captain Nickels commanded her on all but one outward voyage. There's not much available on El Bueno Suceso which is what she was renamed after being repaired in 1858. So maybe Captain Jones commanded her on that sole outward voyage or after she was repaired? More than one Real Estate listing refers to him commanding the clipper Flying Fish but the list from Barnstable does mention that it could have been another merchant vessel.

@Rick310 Late artist David Thimgan created one of the most beautiful paintings of Donald McKay's 4th extreme clipper and 3rd of the California Clipper Fleet. 1998 "The Clipper Flying Fish in San Francisco Bay" commemorates her first place finish in the Great Deep Water Derby of 1852-53. I've included a link to the 1st Dibs ad, which includes a description of the event. https://www.1stdibs.com/art/paintings/david-thimgan-clipper-flying-fish-san-francisco-bay/id-a_10984292/

@Rick310 It's occurred to me that I never answered your question about the original Flying Fish stanchion location. Both the JE Buttersworth and Chinese import painting are consistent in showing a partial metal rail only at the coach house fore. That means the surviving rails would have had to be the ones that surrounded her poop deck bulkhead. Their exact height is a bit deceptive. Since stanchions are inserted between upper and lower horizontal rails, they appear to be taller. There's plaques on the mansion, confirming "Longacre" being on the National Historic Register and authenticating ownership of the home by Simeon Jones, Capt: Flying Fish. About the only way I can conclude that these uniquely different stanchions came off the ship herself would have to that they were removed, possibly during a refit of some sort, before she sank.

@Rick310 First, thanks for sharing the entire Ogily piece. I agree in the case of Golden Rule she appears to have twin water closets just abaft her forecastle. You can also see her plain cutwater with what appears to be a golden dragon overlay for her figurehead. Note: lack of navel hoods, head or trailboards. Interestingly enough, I found the beautiful Fitz Henry Lane artwork you described but not the one you shared. Go Figure. I also searched for a detailed description of her to see how high her bulkheads were but so far have had no luck. To my knowledge, of all McKay California Fleet Clippers I've read about, Flying Fish had the lowest main rail height of 4 & 1/2' surmounted by a monkey rail of 16" for a total bulkhead height of 5'10". Meanwhile her 'tween deck height was 7'10". Concerns I have about the Lankford arrangement have to do with reconciling his layout with the Duncan McLean description. It's evident from the highly detailed specifications that McLean was supplied those from the McKay shipyard. That makes the Lankford layout virtually impossible. His forecastle is wide open with a windlass jammed inside what's effectively a crawl space. It makes no sense. Crew quarters are definitely described as being below. That being the case, why leave their lodgings unenclosed? Meanwhile, McLean clearly stated that she had two waterclosets before her dual companions. To leave them on the upper deck means somehow companions have to be aft of them. Do we double stack them one after the other? That wastes valuable space. A more logical setup is to enclose the forward forecastle bulkhead, place twin companions in the wings of this aft wall with ladders to 3' below. Place twin "heads" before or just ahead of those companion ladders down below. Since this is now an area that's at least 7' high, mount the windlass below where there's planty of room to work on it. Logically it all fits.

@Rick310 Emerson-Walker patented their iron geared windlass in 1850. From memory it was June or July of that year. Rob and I concluded that such heavy machinery would have been mounted further below both for better weight distribution and protection against elements. Once that decision's made, the rest falls in place. There are definitely accomodations for a watch of the crew. Since the windlass requires extra height, that necessitates dropping the floor. That then means the fore forecastle bulkhead must be enclosed. A lower deck also opens up room to provide crew's quarters as well. Since water closets are in the wings of the forecastle, it makes sense to have them lower and available for crew. In choosing to have a single companion opposite a single water closet, Ben Lankford chose to ignore the specific description provided by Duncan McLean for Flying Fish. I shared his short paragraph above. He wrote that there were twin companions with water closets before (not aft or opposite) of them. Both of the companions lead to crew quarters below. Before the companions are the water closets and lockers, etc. The entire description applies to the area below. Since the forecastle doubles as forward crew quarters, then the aft bulkhead would have to be enclosed. According to the description, her forecastle deck was 4 & 1/2' high. Where do you fit a windlass unless it's either completely outside or down below? Logically, it makes more sense to mount it below. As for Ben Lankford's design, maybe he didn't have access to the Boston Daily Atlas article. I just know his layout doesn't match the description. The first solid top picture I shared was of the Glory of the Seas. Since iron was used liberally in her construction, it's most likely her top brackets were reinforced iron. All I know for sure is that she had full length lubber's holes on all 3 solid tops. I'd love to see the entire Golden Rule piece, it looks quite impressive. I tried to find a full description of her but so far I haven't found anything other than that she's a Maine clipper launched in 1854.

@Jared those dowel masts look very durable. An added benefit will be that they also won't even flex when you rig them. That should result in a more accurate overall look to your replica. Great decision to select tougher wood to model those thinner spars.

Rob I intentionally copied the layout for those deck structures seen on Glory of the Seas. That includes doors on the aft portico of Stag Hound as well as her aft central companion. All windows are higher up for the same reason.

@Rick310 As you may already know, @rwiederrich @Vladimir_Wairoa @Luis Alvarez and I are working on realizing an accurate model of McKays Stag Hound the "Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet". Our evaluation of the Duncan McLean description of the patented windlass with gears led us to find the Emerson-Walker heavier geared windlass. Rob and I concluded such a weightier device would have been mounted further below. This area below the forecastle also provided accommodations for one watch of the crew. It was described as well lit, lofty and ventilated. We concluded that those accomodations were 3 feet below, identical to the arrangement of the Flying Fish you're currently building. Here's my illustration of the forward bulkhead. This differs dramatically from the commercially produced plans. There are windows to provide light and twin companions to ladders below. Before each companion, in the wings of the forecastle below are located twin water closets. In fact, stern water closets on Stag Hound were also located 3' below the 5' high poop deck. This differs substantially from your Flying Fish plans which show twin water closets aft of a single centrally mounted companion not before as the Boston Daily Atlas clearly describes of her. In fact, we relied on this description of the topgallant forecastle in our reconstruction of Stag Hound. Another reason this arrangement makes more sense is considering working height of the Flying Cloud, Flying Fish and Stag Hound forecastle decks. Flying Fish had a main rail height of 4 & 1/2' while the Stag Hound and Flying Cloud both had a topgallant forecastle height of 5'. Underneath the height would have been 3 & 1/2" less! That brings Flying Fish forecastle height below to 4' 2 & 1/2" and Stag Hound, Flying Cloud forecastle heights below to 4' 8 & 1/2". When you consider Donald McKay's 'tween decks all had 7' or taller heights, having such "crawl space" heights to work on a windlass and provide any sensible rest area for crew doesn't make sense. Dropping the floor 3' below solves this problem. That then means the aft forecastle bulkhead doubles as a stern wall for windlass and crew accommodations. In fact, we now believe whenever topgallant forecastle height is at the lower main rail, this would be the same set up for all of McKay's clippers. To be clear, I am not suggesting you tear down any of your current work. I'm just sharing our latest discoveries for any others who plan on constructing similar McKay clippers.

@Rick310 Congratulations on your retirement. I hope you had a great cruise vacation celebration. I love seeing your progress on your beautiful Flying Fish replica. In case it hasn't been pointed out before. Here's an issue of authenticity that your build plans have wrong. Both @rwiederrich and @Vladimir_Wairoa had to redo their solid tops because of this common mistake. Their Lubber's Hole entrances were way too small in comparison to the real thing on 1869 Glory of the Seas as pictured in the first page and 1843 Whaler Charles W Morgan in the second. The Lubber's hole is longer than commercial plans, which have a ridiculously small one. In reality, the opening goes clear from the fore curve bracket to the aft straight one. When you think about it, this makes more sense. Imagine trying to squeeze many crew through the tiny one provided for in your plans. It just isn't practical. Meanwhile real ones are far more useful for multiple crew to utilize. In addition you'll find it far easier to rig your shrouds as well.

@rwiederrich And here I thought you were just relishing my erudite writing. Instead you were torturing your overworked eyes all along.

@rwiederrich I did say it was long. Still, when Mike read it the only changes he recommended were a few reference corrections. I have a very solid 3rd installment devoted exclusively to Vladimir's build and I'm determined to submit that before the Jan 1st 2025 deadline. Next there's our Stag Hound project which I want to get a jump on. Next year is the 175th Anniversary of her December 7th 1850 launch. Donald McKay's incredible contribution to Boston's amazing fleet of California Clippers deserves to be recognized.

@Vladimir_Wairoa Thank God you're recovered from the damn Covid. That is great news!! For the record, I only sent my 3rd draft to you, in hopes of collaborating about your timeline for building, tearing down and rebuilding efforts. The delay in getting the 2nd article submitted earlier was in large part my journey of discovery of your amazing build. Once I realized how complex alone your construction process was, it became clear there has to be a 3rd article devoted exclusively to your replica. The 2nd article is a very long one but it just felt right to cover Rob's fascinating rigging process in depth. By the way Vlad, even though I have no immediate plans to build one, I still want to acquire a set of the Stag Hound bulkheads just like I did for Glory of the Seas. I don't want to miss out on having a set for Stag Hound. Just let me know the costs and I can pay you via Paypal or even mail you a check. @rwiederrich with the tight timeline of a handful of days I didn't have enough time to go through and select more of your finished images.

Rob, Check your emails. I sent both Microsoft Word document Google links to you. It's a long but I truly hope fascinating read. Without exaggeration, it's probably the most detailed recount of your systematic, highly organized rigging process ever written. There's tons of gorgeous photos accompanying it.

@rwiederrich, My 2nd Reconstructing Glory of the Seas article for the Nautical Research Journal draft was submitted on-time to meet their Winter 2025 issue. No guarantee it will appear in that one yet. By now you should have received both my final and then finished drafts. It was too late for @druxey to give it an editorial review. However, I learned how to use the internal Microsoft Word editor which gave me a 96%. Mike was nice enough to review my final draft and I made a handful of source corrections. One fascinating correction was the date of the San Francisco wharf scene is actually 1880 not 1877. Other than an honorable mention, @Vladimir_Wairoa had to be left out for a third promised installment. I have until December 31st this year to submit it and I fully intend to meet it. Vladimir's build is a fascinating journey of construction, tear-down and reconstruction. In the end he, as a relative novice to rigging a clipper ship, managed to create the most beautiful 1869 Glory of the Seas replica. Meanwhile, I included in the second article that Mike has declared your 1877 miniature to be the most accurate Glory of the Seas replica ever produced.

Rob, These are really impressive scenes. They all look like lovely picture postcards. Whoever took these photos has a real eye for gorgeous settings. Thanks for sharing these. I hope you have a lot more to come.

Basswood has a janka hardness of 410, degame is 1,940, yellow birch is 1,260 and inexpensive while boxelder is 720 which probably explains why your thinner masts keep snapping. https://www.precisebits.com/reference/relative_hardness_table.htm

@Jared It's got to be unnerving to be constantly concerned about snapping delicate spars. I wonder if there's a way that you could devise a temporary protective splint or jig device to minimize a chance of this happening? I think such an approach would be less potentially messy than a pre-application of super glue. Meanwhile, Rob has an excellent in-process description of his methodical systematic rigging approach in his most recent Glory of the Seas build log. He does multiple sub-assemblies, even on his yards before they're mounted to each mast. He uses alligator clamps to suspend each yard as he pre-rigs them. He does a similar thing with his mast, only putting them in a vise while assembling each one. Rob also leaves off the largest yard, the main or course sail until last. His build and rigging process starts with the mizzen and goes forward from there. He's also said, to prevent damage, he waits to install the jibboom until later too.