Glory of the Seas 1869 by rwiederrich - FINISHED - 1/96 - medium clipper

[rwiederrich]

27 minutes ago, BANYAN said:

I admire your openness (about errors) and work ethic to get it right Rob.

 

cheers

 

Pat

Well Pat, I can correct the mast issue…….but the other issues are what they are.  
 

With that said, it was the idea of making a true to reality hull of Glory…… and that was the original intent.   These minor(I call them minor), elements are not deal breakers in the least.   Only true Glory geeks would make them so, and even then it’s not the end of the world.  
 

Thanks for the continued confidence.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, Forecastle deck height has always mystified me. However, every single description I've read places that at the height of the main bulkhead. In Glory's case that's 5'. The only logical conclusion, which is supported by the MacLean description of "Flying Fish" (pointed out to Vladimir in an earlier post) is that the fore companion leads down to Sailor's lodging which is lofty. This is probably a 3' drop, giving 7 & 1/2' ceilings in "Flying Fish" which had 4 & 1/2' main bulkheads and 8' for Glory. I see no error in that area for either of you 

As for the Rear Carriage House. While we learned of the logical clearance of the walkways from the astern scene of Glory docked in  Alaska, by the time that photo had been unearthed, that portion of your builds had already been done. I'm documenting that for all future modelers. It's logical that all of McKay's vessels would follow this pattern but now we have documented proof, that we lacked before.

Finally, I want to reinforce my respect for your forthright honesty in reassessing the modeling challenges you've tackled in reproducing Glory's composite lower masts.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

31 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Height of the fore deck has always mystified me. Every single description I've places that at the height of the main bulkhead. In Glory's case that's 5'. The only logical conclusion, which is supported by the MacLean description of "Flying Fish" (pointed out to Vladimir in an earlier post) is that the fore companion leads down to Sailor's lodging which is lofty. This is probably a 3' drop, giving 7 & 1/2' ceilings in "Flying Fish" which had 4 & 1/2' main bulkheads and 8' for Glory. I see no error in that area for either of you 

As for the Rear Carriage House. While we learned of the logical clearance of the walkways from the astern scene of Glory docked in  Alaska, by the time that photo had been unearthed, that portion of your builds had already been done.

 

I don't want to find a rare colorized image of her some day....that will probably blow everyone away.

 

I'm sorry I haven't put any work into Glory for a week or so.  We watched the 5 grandbabies last weekend(I took Friday off), and this week has been delivery of gravel...grading..cleaning up foot deep piles of leaves and.....well...I barely had the time to go to the bathroom.

 

However...I will go and get the dowel material needed and I will work(I took this Friday off) all day on the lower masts, getting them cut, turned and chapeled.  I hope to *bust them all out.

Once done...I will follow the construction process I used building the mast of the Great Republic.  All done off model.

 

Thanks, for your continual encouragement.  Generally I do not have a second set of eyes(3 sets in this case), keeping the details fervently in front of the construction process.....checking(double checking) accuracy.

 

Now that the construction of the hull, deck furniture, houses is all complete.....I can settle back into the routine of constructing her masts and spars and the miles upon miles of rigging that will be necessary to make her complete.  These items are not so much ship specific, so my experiences in fabricating them will make this job relaxing.

 

Rob

Edited November 9, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

Rob, as I concluded in an earlier post, Glory's masts were stepped onto a "back bone" of 9'5". That means you want to calculate the height of your masts as it they were mounted at that height above the keel. Since keel and shoe combined measured 29" 2'5", you subtract that from 9'5" and the result of 7' is the height of the masts from the internal measurement of the ship's hull. To correctly calculate the height, I suggest measuring up 9'5" from the very bottom of your vessel. That would be the true mounting point of your masts. Then measure the distance to the deck to account for the distance from the 9'5" height to your deck height, which should be the same as your lowest molded sheerline. Whether my sketch will match exactly your model, I can use it to illustrate my point.

[rwiederrich]

19 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, as I concluded in an earlier post, Glory's masts were stepped onto a "back bone" of 9'5". That means you want to calculate the height of your masts as it they were mounted at that height above the keel. Since keel and shoe combined measured 29" 2'5", you subtract that from 9'5" and the result of 7' is the height of the masts from the internal measurement of the ship's hull. To correctly calculate the height, I suggest measuring up 9'5" from the very bottom of your vessel. That would be the true mounting point of your masts. Then measure the distance to the deck to account for the distance from the 9'5" height to your deck height, which should be the same as your lowest molded sheerline. Whether my sketch will match exactly your model, I can use it to illustrate my point.

I thought the mast measurements were from deck level for the lower masts?

 

That is all I really need......right?  My calculations from my last build, gave the mast length from Deck level to top cap of the doubling.

 

Rob

Edited November 9, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

Rob, measurements MacLean gives for Glory in his 1869 description are for total height from base to truck:

Foremast 91' 

Mainmast 94'

Mizzenmast 85'

 

Using a mounting point of 9'5" above keel, that's added to total height, resulting in:

Foremast: 100'5"

Mainmast: 103'5"

Mizzenmast: 94'5"

 

To get height above deck, subtract 23' 7 & 1/2" (difference between 9'5" and deck height) 

 

Foremast: 99' 17" - 23' 7 & 1/2" = 76' 9 & 1/2"

Mainmast: 102' 17" - 23' 7 & 1/2" = 79 9 & 1/2"

Mizzenmast: 93' 17" -23' 7 & 1/2" = 70 9 & 1/2"

 

I'll check "Clipper Ship Captain" to see what Mike's dimensions are to compare to the dimensions I've arrived at.

[rwiederrich]

53 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, measurements MacLean gives for Glory in his 1869 description are for total height from base to truck:

Foremast 91' 

Mainmast 94'

Mizzenmast 85'

 

Using a mounting point of 9'5" above keel, that's added to total height, resulting in:

Foremast: 100'5"

Mainmast: 103'5"

Mizzenmast: 94'5"

 

To get height above deck, subtract 23' 7 & 1/2" (difference between 9'5" and deck height) 

 

Foremast: 99' 17" - 23' 7 & 1/2" = 76' 9 & 1/2"

Mainmast: 102' 17" - 23' 7 & 1/2" = 79 9 & 1/2"

Mizzenmast: 93' 17" -23' 7 & 1/2" = 70 9 & 1/2"

 

I'll check "Clipper Ship Captain" to see what Mike's dimensions are to compare to the dimensions I've arrived at.

Good mathin.......

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, here's the dimensions from deck to truck of all of Glory's lower masts, as taken from "Clipper Ship Captain" Appendix B, page 216.

 

Foremast: deck to top 44', top to cap 17' total height: 61' (vs 76' 9 & 1/2") 

15' 9 & 1/2" shorter, which is way too much of a difference

Mainmast: deck to top 50', top to cap: 17' total height 67' (vs 79' 9 & 1/2")  12' 9 & 1/2" shorter, still too much

Mizzenmast: deck to top 39' (actually 42' add 3' since mast mounts to deck of rear house, top to cap: 14' total height 56' (vs 70' 9 & 1/2") 14' 9 & 1/2" shorter, again ridiculous. 

 

Clearly my results are way off by an embarrassing magnitude. 😉

I originally thought these were about 4' higher, not these huge double digit numbers. Part of my miscalculation is not accounting for the 7' sheer. But even that doesn't explain these useless results. 

 

Reassesing I took a less complicated approach. Here's what we do know

 

Foremast 91' - 61' = 30' below deck

Mainmast 94' - 67' = 27' below deck

Mizzenmast 85' - 56' = 29' below deck

 

Knowing the entire deck height at the Mainmast is 33 & 1/2" we can subtract 27' for a result of 6' & 1/2". Meaning Michael Mjelde has estimated Glory's "back bone" to be 6' & 1/2" (which is about half the size of most of McKay's other large vessels. "Sovereign of the Seas" is documented as having an 11 foot back bone!) Actually if you look at his crossection of Appendix B page 213, he appears to show a 7' "back bone".

To really simplify this, I think it would merely take this figure off of 9'5" to get a much smaller result of 2'5". That makes much more sense.

This results in the following figures:

Foremast: 63' 5"

Mainmast: 69' 5"

Mizzenmast: 58' 5"

 

All this for a measly 2'5"..... Still I think the reasoning is sound while it may seem hard to follow. I'm going to go hide in a corner now.....

[rwiederrich]

5 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, here's the dimensions from deck to truck of all of Glory's lower masts, as taken from "Clipper Ship Captain" Appendix B, page 216.

 

Foremast: deck to top 44', top to cap 17' total height: 61' (vs 76' 9 & 1/2") 

15' 9 & 1/2" shorter, which is way too much of a difference

Mainmast: deck to top 50', top to cap: 17' total height 67' (vs 79' 9 & 1/2")  12' 9 & 1/2" shorter, still too much

Mizzenmast: deck to top 39' (actually 42' add 3' since mast mounts to deck of rear house, top to cap: 14' total height 56' (vs 70' 9 & 1/2") 14' 9 & 1/2" shorter, again ridiculous. 

 

Clearly my results are way off by an embarrassing magnitude. 😉

I originally thought these were about 4' higher, not these huge double digit numbers. Part of my miscalculation is not accounting for the 7' sheer. But even that doesn't explain these useless results. 

 

Reassesing I took a less complicated approach. Here's what we do know

 

Foremast 91' - 61' = 30' below deck

Mainmast 94' - 67' = 27' below deck

Mizzenmast 85' - 56' = 29' below deck

 

Knowing the entire deck height at the Mainmast is 33 & 1/2" we can subtract 27' for a result of 6' & 1/2". Meaning Michael Mjelde has estimated Glory's "back bone" to be 6' & 1/2" (which is about half the size of most of McKay's other large vessels. "Sovereign of the Seas" is documented as having an 11 foot back bone!) Actually if you look at his crossection of Appendix B page 213, he appears to show a 7' "back bone".

To really simplify this, I think it would merely take this figure off of 9'5" to get a much smaller result of 2'5". That makes much more sense.

This results in the following figures:

Foremast: 63' 5"

Mainmast: 69' 5"

Mizzenmast: 58' 5"

 

All this for a measly 2'5"..... Still I think the reasoning is sound while it may seem hard to follow. I'm going to go hide in a corner now.....

63.5, 69.5, 58.5

 

Riiight.  
 

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

63.5, 69.5, 58.5

 

Riiight.  
 

 

Rob

Rob, In hindsight, for all concerned, it would have been far better if I had kept all the zany calculations off this board and just presented findings. Back at post #2099 I explained the logic behind a case for a thicker backbone than just 7'. Utilizing the highly detailed example of "Stag Hound" described as having a 9' back bone and summary of a vessel of about the same size as Glory "Sovereign of the Seas" with an 11' back bone, I tallied up her individual components to arrive at 11'10" for the back bone of "GLORY of the SEAS." Notwithstanding my wandering calculations which even I admit were way off, I believe the logic for a thicker than 7' back bone is very sound. Especially when you consider Glory had the flattest floor of any McKay Medium Clipper, it makes sense her back bone would be more substantial. 

Keep it simple, I still recommend adding height to the lower masts. If odd inches don't make sense, which I agree, than I would add 5' (4'10" is the difference from 7' & 11'10")

 

Foremast 61' + 5' = 66' (-17') = 49'

Mainmast 67' + 5' = 72' (-17') = 55'

Mizzenmast 56' +5'= 61' (-14') = 47'

 

Finally, look at how thick the back bone is for the twin Packet Ships too.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, In hindsight, for all concerned, it would have been far better if I had kept all the zany calculations off this board and just presented findings. Back at post #2099 I explained the logic behind a case for a thicker backbone than just 7'. Utilizing the highly detailed example of "Stag Hound" described as having a 9' back bone and summary of a vessel of about the same size as Glory "Sovereign of the Seas" with an 11' back bone, I tallied up her individual components to arrive at 11'10" for the back bone of "GLORY of the SEAS." Notwithstanding my wandering calculations which even I admit were way off, I believe the logic for a thicker than 7' back bone is very sound. Especially when you consider Glory had the flattest floor of any McKay Medium Clipper, it makes sense her back bone would be more substantial. 

Keep it simple, I still recommend adding height to the lower masts. If odd inches don't make sense, which I agree, than I would add 5' (4'10" is the difference from 7' & 11'10")

 

Foremast 61' + 5' = 66' (-17') = 49'

Mainmast 67' + 5' = 72' (-17') = 55'

Mizzenmast 56' +5'= 61' (-14') = 47'

 

Finally, look at how thick the back bone is for the twin Packet Ships too.

OK......As much as I dooly appreciate all the fine mathematical wizardry, and how much sincere thought went into factoring in keel and backbone dimensions, which directly contribute to mast total length....and how much I am amazed at your dizzying intellect in compiling all this rich data,

basically I'm a simple man...and a simple length for each mast from the deck to the mast cap would suffice for my simple purposes.

 

I gather that the actual length of the masts (from deck to mast cap) are now 49', 55', and 47' respectfully.......is that correct?

 

Rob(Not to be disrespectful in any way)

[ClipperFan]

28 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

OK......As much as I dooly appreciate all the fine mathematical wizardry, and how much sincere thought went into factoring in keel and backbone dimensions, which directly contribute to mast total length....and how much I am amazed at your dizzying intellect in compiling all this rich data,

basically I'm a simple man...and a simple length for each mast from the deck to the mast cap would suffice for my simple purposes.

 

I gather that the actual length of the masts (from deck to mast cap) are now 49', 55', and 47' respectfully.......is that correct?

 

Rob(Not to be disrespectful in any way)

Rob, I appreciate your even being willing to accept my recommendations after my latest incredible journey off the deep end of mathematical extreme calculations. To answer your question. In following the same dimensions of the mast heights from "Clipper Ship Captain" simply add 5' to the existing lower composite dimensions from deck to top:

Foremast: 49' 

Mainmast: 55' 

Mizzenmast: 47'

For complete height, solid top to cap:

Foremast: 17'

Mainmast: 17'

Mizzenmast: 14'

 

Totals combined, deck to cap:

Foremast: 66'

Mainmast: 72'

Mizzenmast: 61'

 

Again, thanks for hanging in there with me. I promise in the future to keep all non essential "numbers crunching" to myself until I'm fully confident it can be presented simply, logically and with minimal confusion.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, I appreciate your even being willing to accept my recommendations after my latest incredible journey off the deep end of mathematical extreme calculations. To answer your question. In following the same dimensions of the mast heights from "Clipper Ship Captain" simply add 5' to the existing lower composite dimensions from deck to top:

Foremast: 49' 

Mainmast: 55' 

Mizzenmast: 47'

For complete height, solid top to cap:

Foremast: 17'

Mainmast: 17'

Mizzenmast: 14'

 

Totals combined, deck to cap:

Foremast: 66'

Mainmast: 72'

Mizzenmast: 61'

 

Again, thanks for hanging in there with me. I promise in the future to keep all non essential "numbers crunching" to myself until I'm fully confident it can be presented simply, logically and with minimal confusion.

66', 72', and 61' is the actual length.  Round Banded portion and the square banded doubling portion?

The 5' addition that you added was that for the distance of the doubling portion or something else?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, another nagging detail I just remembered. Mizzenmast height, when adding Rear Carriage House height is actually 3' taller. That would then make the Mizzenmast 50' high, being a foot higher than the Foremast. If the calculation for the Mizzenmast height was actually supposed to be from Main deck below the House, that would make it 3' shorter. Simply subtract 3' off 5' to fix this.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, another nagging detail I just remembered. Mizzenmast height, when adding Rear Carriage House height is actually 3' taller. That would then make the Mizzenmast 50' high, being a foot higher than the Foremast. If the calculation for the Mizzenmast height was actually supposed to be from Main deck below the House, that would make it 3' shorter. Simply subtract 3' off 5' to fix this.

🤪

 

66' fore mast from deck, 72' main mast from deck, and 61-3=58' for mizzen from top of carriage house roof.

It's like extracting a tooth slowly......  We'll get there, but we're gonna feel a little pressure......

 

Thanks for all your help.

 

I'll use dead reckoning to determine the actual length of the doublings....based upon the known distance of 3" of distance between each mast band.

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Looking fwd to Robs mAsting rigging sails. Then glory Will shine in her spectacle from boots to the cap!

Im heading to my year put aside frigate along with winnie group. But eyeing here. V.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
Add

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

66', 72', and 61' is the actual length.  Round Banded portion and the square banded doubling portion?

The 5' addition that you added was that for the distance of the doubling portion or something else?

 

Rob

Rob, I just saw this question now. Only the composite lower sections of the 3 masts are affected. Since the Mizzenmast is already 3' higher, I'm recommending reducing that lower mast by 3' to keep everything consistent. The doubling dimensions are all unaffected, as are the rest of all other Mast components:

Foremast, deck to top: 49'

Mainmast, deck to top: 55'

Mizzenmast, deck to top: 44'

 

Doubling dimensions, top to Cap

Foremast: 17'

Mainmast: 17'

Mizzenmast: 14'

 

Total heights: deck to Cap

Foremast: 66'

Mainmast: 72'

Mizzenmast: 58'

 

I hope this clarifies everything.

[rwiederrich]

18 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, I just saw this question now. Only the composite lower sections of the 3 masts are affected. Since the Mizzenmast is already 3' higher, I'm recommending reducing that lower mast by 3' to keep everything consistent. The doubling dimensions are all unaffected, as are the rest of all other Mast components:

Foremast, deck to top: 49'

Mainmast, deck to top: 55'

Mizzenmast, deck to top: 44'

 

Doubling dimensions, top to Cap

Foremast: 17'

Mainmast: 17'

Mizzenmast: 14'

 

Total heights: deck to Cap

Foremast: 66'

Mainmast: 72'

Mizzenmast: 58'

 

I hope this clarifies everything.

That, right there my friend, is clear as crystal......

 

Thanks,

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

37 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

That, right there my friend, is clear as crystal......

 

Thanks,

 

Rob

Rob, like the Biblical Israelites wandering in the wilderness, we took a meandering path but finally reached a form of enlightenment...

[rwiederrich]

30 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, like the Biblical Israelites wandering in the wilderness, we took a meandering path but finally reached a form of enlightenment...

Like the Israelites, it was self inflicted…….and again, like the Israelites, only a remnant made it into the promised land.  Shedding off our wandering , we entered into Glory’s rest…… mmmmmmmm.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your replicated composite masts. The latest process you describe, while labor intensive sounds like it will yield spectacular results. I'm making popcorn for the occasion! 😉

[rwiederrich]

18 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your replicated composite masts. The latest process you describe, while labor intensive sounds like it will yield spectacular results. I'm making popcorn for the occasion! 😉

Hopefully I will take more images this time around.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Well here we go.  
 

I firstI took the wood over to the router table and cut in the four notches.

[rwiederrich]

Next I set up the mini table saw and began to cut the spacers

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

Next are several photos showing all of the chapel spacers glued into each mast . I will now take all the masts out and turned them on the lathe. 
 

First I sanded the high edges of, so as not to create undue stress while turning to the proper diameter.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

BeganTo finish the foremast I cut back the doubling and painted the chapeling and banded the mast and put it in place to take a look. 
 

Not sure I like the red.   I still have to oil the mast and apply a mat varnish finish. 
 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Looks good Rob.  The red is a little 'loud' but sure is distinctive - I don't think this appears 'in your face' and is acceptable, especially if you are putting a matt finish on.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[ClipperFan]

Rob, fire engine red is too bright and actually detracts from the overall look of your impressive miniature. If you look at the Walters oil, if anything, the iron bands look like they might be painted vermilion, a much darker maroon red. Maybe tone it down with a bit of burnt sienna too and see how that looks. If anything, it should be much more realistic. 

Other than toylike red, those masts look really beautiful and impressively authentic, although a coat of darkening lacquer varnish would also help enhance the beauty of the wood.

Edited November 12, 2021 by ClipperFan
misspelled word

[rwiederrich]

Stained and varnished. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Read several accounts in several of my historical books on clipper ships and many times captains would paint the bands bright red so I’m not sure what they meant by bright red, but I’m sure that it was meant to be distinct and make a point. I’m still evaluating if I want them bright red or red at all , I might just change them to be black , I’m not really sure if I like the look.

 

Rob

Edited November 12, 2021 by rwiederrich