Vladimir_Wairoa

Thanks Rich, maybe I unnoticed that photo Rich. Which one is it please?

Thanks Rob, i believe we pretty much fit handsomly . put it other way cross of our both in my opinion woudl be possibly ! epitome:) as mine miss a bit of essential roundness in counter ! where you recreated i would say perfect or identical copy or prototype thus its vice versa at the rail profile or deck. speaking of details... i just wanted also Rich understand one thing. even slight more sanding at execution can lead slightly other direction when building stern therefore i believe those little details. otherwise speaking of - that we had to at the same time MAKE sure looking at 3 dimensional aspect of stern ! ATTHE SAME time not 2 dimensianal like on pics - i believe we did fine considering complex 3dimensional asepct of stern. its shape is quite complicatec meeting varoius corners at different thickness - its different look at picure and draw conclusion and actually make one ! we had to watch also horizontal size of stern and entire roundness and rise of it. its easier to aepak than make! im glad you found it underestandable ( with my language etc...) in my opinion. V.

Recreation of stern and various observations. Folks, this will be quite a long post, with lots of pics so beware. I will try to be as much cohesive as possibly could with clear demonstration of every aspect of it. First explanation what made me go to this elaborative effort and so on. As Richard is heading to NRJ article, I wanted to point out certain aspect of our research and ! execution of our research. I believe honesty is a paving stone of every valuable research and I would be suspicious reading whatever text pointing out perfection or definite conclusions. Honest research is never definite in universities studies and leaves windows open for future research and so on. I am therefore very much interested in Richard article as its quite weight of responsibility and wisdom lying on his shoulders. However, I have no doubt knowing his experience and so on. I would not be happy reading something of definite apraisal as I will demonstrate our both slightly different execution than reasearch of sterns that wont escape notice of naked eye. are rather outcome of individual approach of our both are not last words in this resort - reminding we are not designing a kit. Hence I am thankful to Rich for his meticulous effort to watch evey slight bit but at the same time I would like to point out not to lost whole picture. I would be sad if this would turn out pessimistic as outcome is quite contrary. I will show recent model expo profesional plan of flying fish and its outreagous findings regarding stern and it will conclude rather compliment how thoroughly we dvelved in our painstaking research. observation 1. Im not that good with numbers but i like curves... we had 3 famous photos of stern / i would point our each of rather missleading than helpfus due shooting angle. its logic as noone would climb mast to take pic with bygone camera / impossible. Few paintings and one word of describtion at launch - CURVILINEAR. thats it. Speaking of whether stern is round seems to me quite strange as we need to establish defining Authority. If we had better pics I would challenge article from 1869 newspaper. I believe we shouldnt as its given ship data written by that time PROS taken from McKay himself. Therefore Curvilinear .... observation 2. I take for granted what Crothers describes as curvilinear in his american clipper "bible" please note what slight moving curve leads to oval or round. - its not that easy to spot by untrained eye and notable rather by comparing actual curve than by eye.....its quite shockingly difficult to see difference but little can be enough move from curvilinear....but round as Mr. shipwright says? definitely nope. pic below / 3. Actual comparison. Please dont mix counter with shape of deck or rail. i will come to that later. now we speak about counter that defines stern and from where poop cabin is build up. I outlined Crothers definition of Curvilinear shape and compared to our glory Michaels and plan of Flying fish by model expo. results are quite interesting. we need to remember we didnt have agreed on plan on paper how stern would look like. as we both individually built our sterns as natural outcome of bulkheads - [probably we should as it will be uniform but isnt it nicer to see execution of two differnt eyes on same theme? its quite interesting how small curve shape of goose liner matches round of curvilinear shape / not surprising as those natural curvatures of mathematics and tools were used at that time we speak of.... 4. actual comparisons. my glory. at this point I dont have Robs from that period of build unfortunately. from observatin I believe its even truer than mine. I dont have pic but Michaels haf counter in book matches as well. 5. now comparing complete stern curvatures at deck level. first itneresting observation. I came to conclusion that Crothers portrays McKays stern curvatures something as his sign / many show pretty much same characteristicall overall notable shape / few from the book here.... 6. comparing deck level curvature of mine glory Robs glory Michael glory , model expo flying fish. michaels - Very accurate with Crothers flying fish of moel expo - note how drastic outway from curvilinear. extreme. I must note - was there something like Mckay halfmodel to portray such extremity that creators relied on ? at counter level its even more extreme look flying fish at counter ! i wouldnt say its authentic unless i see half model . its extreme work of model expo. mckay wouldnt took such stern of flying fish to portray glory... finale & my concllusion. I pic mine and Robs execution of stern at deck level. its obvious what implies. Mine reached slightly towards wider - flying fish of model expo. Robs reaching more to rounder feel than middle prototype of crothers and Michael. again kudos to michael drawing but mind you. These are pretty slight derailing of details of very solid sterns toward what we call curvilinear. both. remember we dont have photo and what I oserve paintings lean toward extreme portrayal - as model expo flying fish. photo of alaska canmery rather to rounder . and very photo from the back implied thgere is solid straight line in thge middle saying its not round stern. speaking if commertial plan like flying fish derails as much...we did splendid ourselves. so that is my conclusion. thanks for patience. maybe it helps Rich with his article somehow as well. for me interesting observation indeed. mine Robs

Congrats to this milestone Matt. You took your time and patience with those angled narrowing strakes. Pretty awesome. V.

Thats perfect Rob, pretty sufficient, very nice. V.

i meant upside down of this exact view but its not probably necessary. counter of stern is visible from other pics.

good idea Rich.:) this view Rob

not from water level Rob, stright down from the top if possible .like if you were sitting on mizzen mast looking down .... and same exact opposite stright up from bottom hull side im doing ineteresting comparison of various Mclays ships Crothers and ours glory as well. thanks much

Rob could you please post pic of stern from vertical position ? from the top. and aso turned around from bottom vertical if possible so I can see counter stern ...I do some interesting study and would be helpful i fail to find one such from vcertical directly. with masts it wont be possible anymore......Thanks V.

sweet progress Rob. it will be really beautifull with all miniboats in place. not speaking when she starts up with rope.

Thanks much for compliments Brian. She is naked finished at this point, even though figurehead needs replace. must be bigger. i wanted her portray as at launch.

I am with you Rob !

Ah Well thats tiny bit.ibelieve je IS more than Happy with what goes behind. Fullness of body I underscore Richs words Rob. By the way I am about to make second attempt as figurehead goes - having it made larger. There IS always place for corrections of something which IS part of every work. Im railing off some modelers nature - not showing mistakes. Its natural part of life. Ať least i view IT that way matter fear I stop in eyes of "masters" i dont really care a slightest bit...

Thanks for daring comment John, im glad you like her. i still male some corrections though as probably changing masts to composite ones as originally adding some ladders and so on. but wont make lifeboats etc...highly apreciated advices, all considered...well lets see how it all turns out...all good. V.

Naval hood error? did i miss something? thanks for previous comments Folks, looks im still commited to oher as I uplifted rear companionway to the height of rail. ill post the pic soon. im thinking of updating masts to composite ones as well. will see :))) Im really looking forward enormously for how Rich puts it into NRJ. great stuff indeed. Keep looking at Robs from now on.