Vladimir_Wairoa

Fantastic pic Rob. thanks, rail bulwarks are visible, pump...

Wow great pics especially last one. I also found something. I read that in second book of her Mr.Mjelde publiced some plan of her. But i do not have that book. Regarding placing her,i am not focused when doung some things, i definitely want her with composite masts. For the reason i lts my first american design so i have to try it and for aesthetic reason it looks simply beautiful. So i will have to go earlier with her riming but i sas one pic im glory book from later time with composite mast so i will have to check on it. I accomodated stem angle to the plnaan. See photo. Maybe i will try two look at the 90 degrees lines it was already angled but i lined another more agressive one. Now to the fun part. Wood filler dried. I first checked trigonometry with single plank to make sure all bulkheads touches the plank and made little correcfion of 19 plank in middle after that all worked fine. I coukd checked roundness - wooden end is not finely done at the top though. I finally measured model prototype and checked measured on pla I will do same for bow one day definitely.so The moment of truth :)) . boston and sanfran journal of 1869 1870 writes: her stern is curvilinear finely formed and the run is long an clean and sets gracefully inti the fullness of fhe hull...i am staring at glory dragfed to shore in 1922 and pics....

Rob I am not that familiar with deck setup , - I see you drew her with the chicken coop on the forward hatch and the boys cabin on the aft hatchway...to also include the gangway that let to its roof. Splendid...what year would you place her at? i simply follow Mr. Mjelde drawing to her accomodations. i notice there is something like narrow gang or area going from the roof of poop halfdeck forewise but thats about it i did i know of. i observed your model and it seems a bit different setup from what Mr.Mjelde did draw. so she was not like that from start right ? ok i will narrow stem a little . i used amr.Mjelde drawing but not big deal. guess what@ i am really unpatient ****. i already cut 4 half bulkheads of stern part and glued them to some board to be able to see and chceck what we have done. it will be stuck firm tomorrow , so we will see the stern ALIVE. cant wait :))

Glory of the Seas 1:65 Length / stern rail- knightheads 124 cm. /

Thank you Rob for great valuable comments and photos of various designs - you are like God of clippers :)) ! it is really helpful a lot as your observing and points were/ are keeping me on right path thank you ! perfect observation with the bow fullnes though! . I know what you mean and I think that was already incorporated as I took (only) bow drom balclutha to consideration rather more than sovereign! just for that early and rapid extention more similar to glory to me than sovereign i hust did not stated it and only upper gang curves from sovereign. nevertheless i can "rathe cautiously than proudly" state that draw is original and custom at the end before i somewhat worked on curves a little bit. be it very courageous statement :)) i will and cant wait to see outcome - built bulkheads how it plays. if further work on design pf few pf them will be needed (which i suppose.) i am working on profile plan now with caling and measuring. pretty much set on numbers. will post when done. it is possible it may end up failure but it is possible it may surprise us with wow.

Even truer i suppose...

Corrected. Reshaped. Stem being almost straight, first bulkhead short second of bow being slightly concave straight in middle and little convex at bottom as in pic and as described un journal when glory was launched. Vlad.

Amazing Rob thank you. I made the draft in 1:65 scale, incorporated what we agreed on with sovereign lines and curvy stern but i used for the moment vertical bow from balclutha combined with very radical curvy end of flying fish as i have pretty plan. Measuring beam and depth, in scale.look how amazing all bulkheads are Great so young america or star of empire, thanks. Im gonna to check it and will rework it . Look at the pic please, is it still very agressive upper bow ? I guess so. After i will post final sketch and will work on final draft. And Ship profile . Around autumn/ winter i can start preparing workshop as i will need longer break after cutty. . We ressurected her Rob. How thrilled i am. Vlad.

thank you for Your valuable insight for me Rob. yes indeed i am indeed heading towards my finall draw of bulkheads plan , showing you for sure. how about bow ? i would need your inside for sure. do you think it would be safe to use sovereign design of bow? i am novie in McKay design and it is quite complex comparing with simple one what eg cutty sar kshows. McKays ship have both convex and concave bow shape though. i will try to draw conclusion from there two sessions so far on bulkheads. cumminf up - combining length od deadrise being longer than svoereign as being flatter , and midsection og glory. Vlad

i start getting exhausted . but now more looking at Sovereign ship models and thinking of what you pointed out that McKay probably took her design as his fastest vessel when designing glory , im leaning to opininon that be it sovereing, balclutha 19 th bulkheqd being is still a bit flattwr than glory. that pic of glory from way bottom angle is just too misleading to be read from her.. just to change sovereing sharp stern to glorys round. ... V. i would say balclutha bottom with corrected /milded midsection and proportionally corrected rest and sovereing stern would do. plansheer profile fits both...

Good day Rob, interesting remark with taking it from soverefing - as being sucessful . I did work a lot on this further capitol. I am thinking of bow being toughest so I am leaving that for last. I posted earlier today but decided to erase it as I foumd one observation crucial aftr I posted and that one changed my assumings. I am about to continue now. Im glad Mr.McKay from avatar pic approved misection but bad thing is, that was easiest part. everything on will be a more tougher nut to crack. I will try to make some assumprions based on observation, and I worked comparing 1: bulkheads plan together with photographies, and together with halfbreath plan. some observation i found by accident I believe are not short of surprising and shocking will try to put evidence and happy to hear concurs and remarks from you indeed. I will try to resolve two important parts , leaving last - bow or cutwater entry for next last part. 1. curvature towards stern and stern profile 2. planksheer profile from the top , utmost important for width of all bulkheads. I narrowed comparisons to two designs, sovereing and ! surprise surprise, - Balclutha. i will state later why. lets start with 2. as it come up pretty easy and straightforward. surprisingly. everything commented in pics again , so no need to elaborate just to write outcome. you can see, both designs, pretty close match with Mr.Mjelde drawing of plansheer profile line from the top. which is pretty awesome. now why I borrowed balclutha for comparison. i did find that ship by accident bwosing thru web - and its plan widely ans amazingly detailed free available on internet. put aside ship being longer than glory and midecenter being more agressive concave profile !she sits in water in waterline 1 almost with all belly. but look at Glory dragged ashore in famous glacier fish pic. almost same. It makes me to conclude that livingspirit on Glory still prudly sits in water hidden just in front of eyes of everyone, being english design :))) i would say 80 percent of her hull is glory. now when establishing sternprofile unfortunately we run into several unfortunate issue deceiving us to false conclusions that have to be taken to account wehen comparing 1. few famous photopgraps to start with. - glory dragged ashore with sign glacier fish etc.....showing stern fantastically but ! that pic was taken from very bottom posing camera up at approx 45 degrees angle - which pretty much shows us only few aspects from bottomview. its like people staring up aloft at 10 floor building. unfortunately we cannot grasp agressiveness of concavity. 2. BW photo of sovereign - its horizontal pic but unfortunately, part around stern is not quite visible, but that can be seen from plan and various museum quality models pretty nicely. 3. Blaclutha. I took that one believing with planksheer and deadrise length being closer to glory - as deadrise close to Glory , and stern profile being round comparing with various pics and shallow design of butt bulkheads one for comparing with sovereign ..... Every ship even sovereign look more less same to glory when drown in water.... - simply way not enough to make critical assumption on design. what i read out from bulkheads and how did I read them - I observed penultimate bulkhead of sovereign and balclutha - 19 th and its position and corelation with stern profile /bulwark 20"/ and oppsite one - 17 . looking at deceiving pic of glory dagged and sovereing, I would lean towards opininon that design of critical 19 th bulkhead is could be about this. sovereing- with sharper conave turn in miáddlke towards centerline, typical for MrMcKay design. Balclutha - more less same but without deeperconcave turn passage in center of curvature. i would say someting between these two could be wghere glory lies, but each of there two can be more less without criminal leanout from Glory design... everything wrote in pics. I am eagerly looking forward to your opinion. it would be helpful if there was at least one good visible picture of Glory photographed lets say from harbour molo...not from bottomangle... does some exist I dont know of? i have only those in glory book. bow is covered quite extensively. but stern is to be seen horizontally straight just from far away in the sea telling us little. Only one other important is when GLory is Tugged towards opesea I agree and my assumption is something between sovereingand balclutha - meaning little less curvature than sovereing. or Am i disillusional ? happy read vlad -----------------------------

.

Very nice !

Good weekend ahead, here is my observation Rob, I took for granted midsection of mr. Mjelde from book Glory of the seas, and compared various midsections, trying to measure 1. curviness of midsection. left half of pictures are important of course _look from aft forewise. plaese ignore right side. 2. tried to observe depth versus Width proportionality and my experiment showed various interesting facts. I wrote a namelist of every pic so you will understand quickly, i am sure im not presenting a tiny thing you are not aware of propbably more assuring myself i am heading right direction.... iterssting observation - deadrise of every following McKay ship was smaller and smaller - staghound 40 sovereign of the seasand GR 20 inches and and glory only 8 and a half. almost flat. what i figured out - I discuss midsection only - which means with our effort to find a way to restore Glory only 1 possibly 2 single bulkheads. way too little sofar.. :))) but. interesting ones... you were spot on with GR body shape around deadrise and pretty much on with sovereign. from the pics you can see various outcomes. As long as GR matches around curvatures at center - it does not match with corelation DEPTH - Width of ship..GR was rather width than tall.... this is not tragedy to to say as it takes only toshorten bulkheads to bring center line of GR closer to ratio of Glory - more or less same lenght between height and width. more. unfortunately i do not have sharper pic of BFPackard, and what i have shows only 10 bulkheads not 19or 20...way little to follow shape securely. but what i can say vurvature of center one is fine from deadrise and proportionality. speaking only about 1 bulkhead of course. i am taking it from this website. https://store.mysticseaport.org/ships-plans/benj-f-packard-full-rigged-ship-model.html I compared Flying fish and cutty just out of curiosity... so be it GR sovereing or even BFP - I am still just at the beginning. but deadrise and midsection is definitely covered, hopefully we will discuss waterlines curvatures around aft and cutwater further on. that will be tougher i guess. good weekend. V.

Good evening Rob many thanks for your observations and points. You are true treasure of" to the point " remarks. Stem should not be a much problem i guess once I modify it to glorys almost straight line byt i agree whoke cutwater will ne most chalenging. I have to look closer to it again - i picked BFP as typical downeaster. Regarding deadrise i have some interesting observations Rob. I found a plan on internet in the book you are mentioning and guess what? I compared it to the plan from https://www.mysticseaport.org/benjamin-f-packard-cabin/ There is significant difference in drawing and this plan looks to me as flat down as could be. I scanned both plans and compared together clearly showing . I will post it here maybe tomorrow. I will check your observation with GR but i think even gunwale curvature of bfp looks similar to glory to me. Intetesting point with sovereign of the seas . I thought that was extreme clipper...maybe combinig entry of sovereign should be spot on as you write. Gonna see. Anyway i twll you what i plan to do first. I am aboyt to me lets say 30 cm model of bfp with trying to midify cutwatdr - which will be mist dificukt task i guess. I fear stwrn less as it shows beautiful curvy lines thst are nit that hard ti get. Cutwater is definitely challenge as concave below and convex towards rail. Anyway i will show you anothe bfp plan what you will say and will discuss from there.

Hello, I continue tuning up here and there towards realism redesigned poop with proper base line and corner columns ets...with paneling...i shaped up figurehead a bit more to pronounce skirts waves ( needs to paint) and made a prototype of rail panels new look , i tried to mimic paneling with knife strokes, i guess its not worth hassling beyond that. It will take me few weeks to finish them anyway so i will keep silent for longer. Learning that patience is the rule. All done with one bloody sharp carving knife / walnut beast/ and steel liner. Holes with drill. What do you think folks? Thank you you for likes dislikes and whatever comments. Vlad

very nice Erik.

Good day Rob, i tried some preliminary fun measuring and scaling with my typical method i digitalized photographs took from the center of boat from Mjeldes book and started to observing upscaling and comparing them on monitor. I believe there is one probable most valuable one from observation when glory was dragged to shore with galcier fish etc paint on her photographed from behind angle. that is definitiely benchmark for stern curvature and belly shape. she is definitely not aggresive curvy , being 3 decker with such register tonnage, i found out she is indeed also a lot deeper than cutty sark. . exactly as you write , i have myself cutty plactic belly but complete plactic modification would not be posssible. firstly i thought myself to modify it similar way you do , and after taking measurements fro it....as you write Mjeldes deck installment is what i will rely on but even body vertical scheme is not precise from my observation of photographs. also after measuring scales his drawing is not precise as depth on hold is not in corelation with numbers in his book. at least cheeks are proportionally incorrect on that drawing. what concerns me most at this first moment is forecastle curvature. i found half model of down easter from https://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbho-1/ships-shipbuilding/maines-down-easters but so far unsuccesful with plans. i am playing with idea of trying to model hull out of clay firstly just to see what i am up to with visual comparisons of downeasters and photographs ...will see. ... this is vessel i am going after - https://www.google.com/search?q=benjamin+f+packard+ship&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjNwsCW26zqAhXN4KQKHYK3AZkQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=benjamin+f+packard+ship&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQA1CJvzJY-dkyYPXbMmgAcAB4AIABxQGIAZ0PkgEEMC4xM5gBAKABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=1Nn8Xs2IFM3BkwWC74bICQ&bih=909&biw=768&prmd=imnv&rlz=1C9BKJA_enSK800SK800&hl=sk#imgrc=-hDlEJKIHEOQyM

Different activity today. Sketches.

Good day Rob thank you for your input , yes downeaster was the first what really came to my mind watching glorys body and Michael citation from jozrnals of that time trIng to describe her . i will research on it further sure. many thanks and good luck with finishing yours Vlad

Your ant work is beautiful and interesting in many ways thanks for sharing it. i did make crucial miatakes on my path and i am not shy to admit it. why should i be? i dont like taking this hobby as some kind of competition in the moment i do passion and fun dies for me. im happy i can elarn from skilled ones but i think boat of everyone is just bwutiful in its own artisticalyl and technically way because everyone is different. fair wind to our cape horners Vlad

treacherous waters of horn - ghosts of cape horn- fantastic historical footages of clippers and downeasters

Jim , very beautiful paintings, thank you for sharing. it taeks ships out to sea where they belong , makes them alive. i love watching ship paintings.

perfect work English rebel. i envy. vlad