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

[rwiederrich]

20 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, to my knowledge, the only method to correct hogging in wooden ships is to place them in Dry Dock, lay the keel on wooden piers full of sand and once the dock is drained completely, gradually drain sand out of the piers to allow weight of the ship to naturally straighten out the keel. Mike told to me in an email that she had a 16" inch hog, according to dry docking records which was corrected when she was repaired and repainted weeks earlier. My suspicion that this was the Dry Dock location is based mainly on those long skinny logs floating by her Starboard side in the lower picture on page 227. I can find no other logical explanation for those to be there. I have no confirmation of that. 

Good news....Mike did tell me she had a 16" hog...and that could only be determined if as you said....she was in drydock.  Good work.  As I told Mike....I never knew she was hogged...that could be one reason why she may appear to be more raked in her bow and stem then she actually was.   I've seen pics of Dashing Wave when she had a severe hog.

 

Rob

Edited March 10, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Good news....Mike did tell me she had a 16" hog...and that could only be determined if as you said....she was in drydock.  Good work.  As I told Mike....I never knew she was hogged...that could be one reason why she may appear to be more raked in her bow and stem then she actually was.   I've seen pics of Dashing Wave when she had a severe hog.

 

Rob

A few years ago, when it was still available online as a pdf file, I saved a copy of the hogging diagram of Glory done by a naval engineer; probably the same report Mike's referring to. From what I remember of it, most of the hogging was towards the rear third of the ship. If anything the Bow was more severely verticle which would also affect Bowsprit steeve.

That brings us back to relying on published descriptions and exact dimensions at the time of her launch, which fortunately are quite detailed. According to the article's writer, most likely the same Duncan MacLean of the Boston Daily Atlas. "Her bow has a bold, dashy rake" He adds that Glory had "a seven foot sheer which is graduated her whole length with sufficient spring towards the ends to lend an air of lightness and buoyancy to her general outline." 

In a more detailed description of McKay's Extreme Clipper "Staghound" Duncan MacLean describes that her Bow was 5 feet higher than her Stern. Considering that Glory was specifically designed to traverse some of the most challenging seas on the planet, rounding Cape Horn where two great opposing ocean currents collide, Atlantic and Pacific, it makes sense that Glory's Hull would have a somewhat higher Bow to take on those seas.

About the best option I can see is to use Glory's figurehead as a measuring device and estimate as closely as possible her height at her Bow. The closest Hull estimate I can make is at her Starboard loading dock. Getting a closer look from the clearest image so far in the Peabody "Poseidon" book, I now count 10 strakes from her waterline to the bottom of the docking port, 4 strakes make up the side and 7 more to get to lower main molding. That's 21 strakes in total, each being 6 1/2" that's just about 12'. Closest observation of the height to the Monkey rail molding is 6 1/2 feet (comparing height of her figurehead to upper molding). That brings her height to about 18 1/2' or so above her waterline at the Docking Port. Add in 22' waterline to keel and she's 40 1/2' at this point. Her lowest point of sheer is around the center of her Main shrouds, my best observation from her 1900s San Francisco Dock image. Michael Mjelde published the Main Mast dimension as 40' in his cross-section. Adding 7' to that brings an estimated Bow height of 25'. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

15 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

"Her bow has a bold, dashy rake" He adds that Glory had "a seven foot sheer which is graduated her whole length with sufficient spring towards the ends to lend an air of lightness and buoyancy to her general outline." 

What exactly could he mean by *Bold, dashy rake*?     A 7 foot sheer defined as a 7 ft curve to her deck from aft to forward prow.....*Sufficient Spring* can be subjective, as well as *air of lightness and buoyancy*.    All these descriptive portions can be misconstrued if not understood fully by the reader.  Correct?

 

Rob 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

With each strake BBC eing 6 1/2" that brings her height to about 18 1/2' or so above her waterline. Since her lowest point of sheer is around Main shrouds, I estimate Bow height at 24'.

Great deduction.  Utilizing other means I was able to conclude also that her bow was estimated to be 25', close to your estimation.  If you compare that her copper line was 22' from keel foot...you can note that the distance from that line to her monkey rail is slightly longer.......25'.

 

My 1/8" redraw of her stem shows this.  She is roughly what we deduced....24'~25"

 

Mike told me that 22 degrees is the angle of her bowsprit....but not sure if that is derived from true horizontal or from her sheer angle at the bow....which you suggest is 7ft above her sheer at mid deck.  This would significantly alter the angulation of her bowsprit.  Also....A point Mike pointed out.....if this angle is derived from her 1869 launching image or from her 1907 image where she suffered from hogging.

 

2 points to consider.

 

 

Rob

Edited March 10, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:41 PM, rwiederrich said:

What exactly could he mean by *Bold, dashy rake*?     A 7 foot sheer defined as a 7 ft curve to her deck from aft to forward prow.....*Sufficient Spring* can be subjective, as well as *air of lightness and buoyancy*.    All these descriptive portions can be misconstrued if not understood fully by the reader.  Correct?

 

Rob 

Rob, a downside to MacLean's "airy fairy" language is that while he does give a distinctive impression of what he's seen, it's long on praise and woefully short on details we're searching for. That being said, by researching other vessels McKay built, some more specifics come to light. That's why I've gone back to "Staghound" and other Clippers to fill in the blanks as best as I can. Case in point, I believe MacLean gave far more specifics to "Staghound" since she was an entirely new model and the largest merchant vessel in the world. While her sheer was 2 1/2 feet, her Bow was specifically described as being 5 feet higher than her Stern. We have to "guesstimate " Stern height, gradually bring it down 2 1/2' and then it's 5' higher at the Bow. If we assign a modest 3' height to her Stern, that puts "Staghound's Bow a minimum of 8'.

While it's more challenging to do this with "Glory of the Seas" I believe we can get very close by a similar process. In this case, my choice of scenes is the 1877 San Francisco dock image. Her graceful sheer is obvious and distinctive. I estimate her Stern to be about 3' higher than the lowest portion of her Hull at the center of the Main Shrouds.

Another complication Michael Mjelde explained to me is the alternate approach used to correct the hogging of Glory's keel. Instead of the more complex 'sanding & settling' method employed by the US Navy to restore "Old Ironsides" those who repaired Glory simply added shims to the uneven sections of her Hull in order to even out her keel. As I understand that method, in essence they were permanently altering her Hull to accomodate the flexing of her keel.

I have to admit having an issue with the 22.30 degree steeve. My basis is that historically not one of McKay's other Clipper Ships had a documented steeve of such a high angle of inclination. Actually "Staghound" again had a documented steeve of 4 1/2" to 1', 20.60 degrees. Every other vessel I've found had a more modest steeve of 4" to 1' 18.40 degrees. Meanwhile a steeve of 22.30 degrees requires 4.91" to 1' which just doesn't match anything else McKay has done. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by ClipperFan
added info, date corrected from 1900s to 1877

[rwiederrich]

3 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, a downside to MacLean's "airy fairy" language is that while he does give a distinctive impression of what he's seen, it's long on praise and woefully short on details we're searching for. That being said, by researching other vessels McKay built, some more specifics come to light. That's why I've gone back to "Staghound" and other Clippers to fill in the blanks. which while her sheer was 2 1/2 feet, her Bow was specifically described as being 5 feet higher than her Stern. 

Difficulty with comparing McKay designs is that he never, if rarely duplicated a design....unless it was with his sister ships.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Difficulty with comparing McKay designs is that he never, if rarely duplicated a design....unless it was with his sister ships.

 

Rob

Rob, it's a well known fact that all of McKay's vessels were described as not being duplicates of each other. However, his building and construction techniques remained the same. That's probably why I struggle so much with a 22.30 Bowsprit steeve. It's not a workable number in inches to feet. To get that requires an odd 4.91 inches to 12 inches. None of the other McKay ships have anything like that. Meanwhile, if (again that's if) Glory's resting "on an even keel" after her Dry Dock repairs, as she seems to be in the lower photo on page 227 and the fresh, sharp new extreme close up side image, than her Bowsprit steeve is most likely 20.60 degrees, or 4 1/2 inches to the foot. I've just sent the same email to Mike too to get his impressions.

[rwiederrich]

20 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, it's a well known fact that all of McKay's vessels were described as not being duplicates of each other. However, his building and construction techniques remained the same. That's probably why I struggle so much with a 22.30 Bowsprit steeve. It's not a workable number in inches to feet. To get that requires an odd 4.91 inches to 12 inches. None of the other McKay ships have anything like that. Meanwhile, if (again that's if) Glory's resting "on an even keel" after her Dry Dock repairs, as she seems to be in the lower photo on page 227 and the fresh, sharp new extreme close up side image, than her Bowsprit steeve is most likely 20.60 degrees, or 4 1/2 inches to the foot. I've just sent the same email to Mike too to get his impressions.

Good deducing.......  Getting closer day by day.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

 

58 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Good deducing.......  Getting closer day by day.

 

Rob

Rob, thanks for the compliment. As we gradually nail down all the specifics of McKay's last Clipper with the generous help of Michael Mjelde foremost authority on "Glory of the Seas" I personally feel like we will finally have the most exhaustively researched recreation of a McKay Clipper in history. This is getting very exciting.

[rwiederrich]

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

 

Rob, thanks for the compliment. As we gradually nail down all the specifics of McKay's last Clipper with the generous help of Michael Mjelde foremost authority on "Glory of the Seas" I personally feel like we will finally have the most exhaustively researched recreation of a McKay Clipper in history. This is getting very exciting.

Indeed it is getting exciting.  One item I'm trying to get over is not to step on Mike's feet.  meaning.... every time we conclude error in his original drawings it makes me feel as if we're betraying him in some weird way.  Yeah, I know that is all in my head, but I've been a fan of Mike's for over 10 years, marveled in his historical accuracies, and I respect him greatly.   We are plowing up new ground here and it is odd to think we are pushing it further then he originally did.  When I couldn't imagine being able to do that.

 

It is a wonderful thing to know that even Mike feels he didn't go far enough and that we are joining along side him with our own energies...undergirding his research and efforts.  Which is extensive to say the least.   I hope his shipwright friend in Australia will be willing to redraw hull plans based on what we have uncovered.

 

Great work.

 

Rob

[druxey]

Gentlemen all; a fascinating thread of discussion and informed guesswork. Hopefully you are narrowing in on a more definitive solution, but there are always the tantalising unknowables.

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, druxey said:

there are always the tantalising unknowables.

Druxey...the above mentioned *Unknowable's* can be,(By the modeler), interpreted as a beneficial aspect.  The general viewing public, will, in most cases, not even be aware of any discrepancies.....and for that matter, even skilled knowledgeable modelers  can be ignorant of such minor details as well....especially if we are talking about a vessel that has much ambiguity associated with its design details.

 

In both camps I am free from discriminating eyes.

 

Rob 

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Druxey...the above mentioned *Unknowable's* can be,(By the modeler), interpreted as a beneficial aspect.  The general viewing public, will, in most cases, not even be aware of any discrepancies.....and for that matter, even skilled knowledgeable modelers  can be ignorant of such minor details as well....especially if we are talking about a vessel that has much ambiguity associated with its design details.

 

In both camps I am free from discriminating eyes.

 

Rob 

Rob,

I too am impressed at the sheer humility of Michael Mjelde as we literally dissect work that has been published and in circulation since 1970. I think it gives me even more respect for Mike (the name he wrote me that he's s most comfortable with) in his willingness to actively collaborate with us in order to more accurately reconstruct Glory's true appearance. 

As for our way forward. Just like Donald McKay was a naval engineer, my feeling is by adhering as closely as possible to a scientifically valid approach to recreating Glory's dimensions, we too should be able to capture her true beauty.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Gentlemen,

my thought... actually Mr. Mjelde was pretty on the money in all !!! perspective angles of outer object proportion ...vertical lines and horizontal (sprayline) .... lines, which is astonishing achievement. seems  only cheeks to be prolonged....and ....tip or whatever it is called curvature to be little more agressive....well i am learning to draw in these vector programs.....I am astounded how just slight outmove from original line can dramatically change the shape... or distort or whatever....

i played with dock photo we drawn final conclusion compared to Mr. Mjeldes book plan.

stem and spray angle is my take , so feel free...probably should be straight not tiny bit curved. If butt of the ship is correct according Mr. Mjelde drawings I can have my own reference, so I can build her for myself. one thing to consider. I would love to have 22 bulkheads not 19 as it seems too little to be sufficient....

your knowledge and utmost effort has one effect of me gentlemen...on one side it is necessary to portray her faithfully, but it can have discouraging impact on oneself, thinking, whatever I do it will be critisized. well, probably there should be one plan with authority of all of you folks, ...but its normal. I am looking atm at my plan of flying fish from model shipways and sighing i wish Glory was such meticulously done for crafters. bear in mind I am novice in american clippers, never built any andthis probably plays understandable part in these lines....im not used to those shapes as Rob is or whoever.... so I am hard thinking of building flying fish first before I jump into glory despite core of her is laid out. at the same time it would take probably 2 or more years to complete it and I know myself i would regret not trying glory......these are just mine inner thoughts to be outspoken I know Rob is machine worker but rest of us would approach it differently. I know it is  joined effort of many of you to get her together piece by piece and truly much was achieved. probably my impatience play here....I can try after MrMjelde design with  the changes and it can be pretty much spot on...but i am just not that self assured not seeing sheer shape from the top atm...i dont know we are there yet just Michaels top side view...I know it will probably never be the plan i long for and many will always rely on your knowledge and advice...it goes without saying...

but I would like to have sheerstrake profile set...etc..well these are just thoughts sorry to spam it with length....my pessimism is rather unjustified it should be otherwise...

suppose I am soaked in Richard philosophy a bit...perfectionism... i have to brush it off a bit

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Im a bit hard on you today

 

little moving on again...do we know shape of the tip is this rounded please ?

is it corroborated with photos or described in books? I assume there wont be photo taken from above there was not such cameras at that time....and there isnt any photom of the foredeck in books 1 &2. I hope more light will shed Rob& Richard regarding this..

from my obervation. but Not only tip....entire sheerline of the bow looks to me pretty un extreme clipperish - comparing to extreme sharp arrows of flying fish and cutty sark for example. maybe this shape is well described in books or Mr. Mjelde or you have pretty clear reason for it to be...Thank you all..

V.

 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I too am impressed at the sheer humility of Michael Mjelde as we literally dissect work that has been published and in circulation since 1970. I think it gives me even more respect for Mike (the name he wrote me that he's s most comfortable with) in his willingness to actively collaborate with us in order to more accurately reconstruct Glory's true appearance. 

As for our way forward. Just like Donald McKay was a naval engineer, my feeling is by adhering as closely as possible to a scientifically valid approach to recreating Glory's dimensions, we too should be able to capture her true beauty.

Rich, personally I think Mike is relieved to know that 2 or 3 more minds are corroborating with him when it comes to the finer details.  His sole research has uncovered so many personal and historical aspects of the vessel.  A true accomplishment.  The devils in the details.  Hashing them out is a true relief I think.  It would be an entirely different matter if Mike felt his original computations and depictions were cut in stone and beyond contestation.

 

*Capturing* her true beauty scientifically is far easier then trying to capture her beauty based upon McKay's *impressions* or emotional feelings of what a perfect bow of his last clipper should look like.   

 

Rob

Edited March 12, 2021 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Gentlemen,

my thought... actually Mr. Mjelde was pretty on the money in all !!! perspective angles of outer object proportion ...vertical lines and horizontal (sprayline) .... lines, which is astonishing achievement. seems  only cheeks to be prolonged....and ....tip or whatever it is called curvature to be little more agressive....well i am learning to draw in these vector programs.....I am astounded how just slight outmove from original line can dramatically change the shape... or distort or whatever....

i played with dock photo we drawn final conclusion compared to Mr. Mjeldes book plan.

stem and spray angle is my take , so feel free...probably should be straight not tiny bit curved. If butt of the ship is correct according Mr. Mjelde drawings I can have my own reference, so I can build her for myself. one thing to consider. I would love to have 22 bulkheads not 19 as it seems too little to be sufficient....

your knowledge and utmost effort has one effect of me gentlemen...on one side it is necessary to portray her faithfully, but it can have discouraging impact on oneself, thinking, whatever I do it will be critisized. well, probably there should be one plan with authority of all of you folks, ...but its normal. I am looking atm at my plan of flying fish from model shipways and sighing i wish Glory was such meticulously done for crafters. bear in mind I am novice in american clippers, never built any andthis probably plays understandable part in these lines....im not used to those shapes as Rob is or whoever.... so I am hard thinking of building flying fish first before I jump into glory despite core of her is laid out. at the same time it would take probably 2 or more years to complete it and I know myself i would regret not trying glory......these are just mine inner thoughts to be outspoken I know Rob is machine worker but rest of us would approach it differently. I know it is  joined effort of many of you to get her together piece by piece and truly much was achieved. probably my impatience play here....I can try after MrMjelde design with  the changes and it can be pretty much spot on...but i am just not that self assured not seeing sheer shape from the top atm...i dont know we are there yet just Michaels top side view...I know it will probably never be the plan i long for and many will always rely on your knowledge and advice...it goes without saying...

but I would like to have sheerstrake profile set...etc..well these are just thoughts sorry to spam it with length....my pessimism is rather unjustified it should be otherwise...

suppose I am soaked in Richard philosophy a bit...perfectionism... i have to brush it off a bit

 

 

Vladimir...  your work is wonderful...especially with the cad.  I agree...with your assessment...Mike was not far off...just in minor details and slight measurement issues.

Rich points out one clear fact about a *good* reference.  The figurehead is 7.5 ft long...this drawing is drawn to the scale of 1/8"= ft/   So if you measure the figurehead out to scale...you can therefore use that to make all other measurements.

 

With that info in hand lets take a look at what you've drawn.  Your proportions are not far off but it appears your naval hood is a bit elongated and the stem beneath it is not thick enough compared to the thickness of the hood.  Take a look at the new very clear image we all got of the figurehead/bowsprit of Glory at her conversion.   If you can see...her hood is nearly the same thickness of the stem directly behind the figureheads feet.  The stem is actually slightly wider...not narrower as you have depicted.

 

Your work is wonderful and I can't say enough about your assistance.  We've discussed this before and about your own desires to build a Glory model as accurate as possible.  I'm with you.

 

But if we use the scale of her figurehead being 7.5 ft then we can deduce pretty closely many of her other measurements.  Establish the waterline of 22ft from the keel foot and you will then be able to properly relocate the bobstay plates.  By using her old images...along with what measurements we do know...we can get pretty close....I'm sure.

 

Did you ever compare your frame line drawings...the ones you drew, to the Australian shipwrights re-drawings of them......?   I wonder how different they truly are?

 

Great work...great effort!

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Im a bit hard on you today

 

little moving on again...do we know shape of the tip is this rounded please ?

is it corroborated with photos or described in books? I assume there wont be photo taken from above there was not such cameras at that time....and there isnt any photom of the foredeck in books 1 &2. I hope more light will shed Rob& Richard regarding this..

from my obervation. but Not only tip....entire sheerline of the bow looks to me pretty un extreme clipperish - comparing to extreme sharp arrows of flying fish and cutty sark for example. maybe this shape is well described in books or Mr. Mjelde or you have pretty clear reason for it to be...Thank you all..

V.

 

 

 

Vladimir.  Glory was not an extreme clipper like Cutty Sark or Flying Fish...she was a full bodied *Medium Clipper*.  More of a *DownEaster* then an extreme clipper.  She could be considered a prototype of the DownEaster design that came after the clippers.

 

But to get back to your point.  I think that Mike's original drawing might be a bit too blunt also.....but further analysis will need to be done.   My example that I built was based upon this bluntness...but with slight alterations.  I wanted to see what it looked like in 3D.

 

Thanks for bringing up still another issue we need to resolve.

 

Rob
 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

many thanks Rob,

 

With that info in hand lets take a look at what you've drawn.  Your proportions are not far off but it appears your naval hood is a bit elongated and the stem beneath it is not thick enough compared to the thickness of the hood.  Take a look at the new very clear image we all got of the figurehead/bowsprit of Glory at her conversion.   If you can see...her hood is nearly the same thickness of the stem directly behind the figureheads feet.  The stem is actually slightly wider...not narrower as you have depicted.

 

 

i had it wider but tried to fit it a bit to drawing. ill corect it accordingly and post. looking forward as discussions continue.... V. 

[rwiederrich]

On 3/10/2021 at 9:19 AM, ClipperFan said:

A few years ago, when it was still available online as a pdf file, I saved a copy of the hogging diagram of Glory done by a naval engineer;

Rich can you find that report?  I'd love to see it.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Im a bit hard on you today

 

little moving on again...do we know shape of the tip is this rounded please ?

is it corroborated with photos or described in books? I assume there wont be photo taken from above there was not such cameras at that time....and there isnt any photom of the foredeck in books 1 &2. I hope more light will shed Rob& Richard regarding this..

from my obervation. but Not only tip....entire sheerline of the bow looks to me pretty un extreme clipperish - comparing to extreme sharp arrows of flying fish and cutty sark for example. maybe this shape is well described in books or Mr. Mjelde or you have pretty clear reason for it to be...Thank you all..

V.

 

 

 

Vladimir,

Trying to get the prow of Glory completely accurate will involve some creative sleuthing. From my observations of her rather sharp Bow as can be seen in these images of her beached at Esquimalt and the close up of her Figurehead in 1900, it looks like her sharp Bow expands to a much fuller model midway between where her quarterdeck ends and the Foremast. To get an idea as to how sharp Glory was forward look at the last image, just around her lower right leg can be seen the word "Glory" of her Starboard sign board. If you were to visually carry that Starboard curve, almost a straight line, to its logical position opposite her Port counterpart, it clearly is a pointed entrance.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

25 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

Trying to get the prow of Glory completely accurate will involve some creative sleuthing. From my observations of her rather sharp Bow as can be seen in these images of her beached at Esquimalt and the close up of her Figurehead in 1900, it looks like her sharp Bow expands to a much fuller model midway between where her quarterdeck ends and the Foremast. To get an idea as to how sharp Glory was forward look at the last image, just around her lower right leg can be seen the word "Glory" of her Starboard sign board. If you were to visually carry that Starboard curve, almost a straight line, to its logical position opposite her Port counterpart, it clearly is a pointed entrance.

Thank you Richard. 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Thank you Richard. 

You're welcome, 

Vladimir. If you're looking for the best resource to reconstruct Glory's Bow, take a real close look at the crystal clear image of her Bowsprit and Figurehead from Seattle 1911. From published sources, her Bowsprit is 24' outboard and 34" in diameter. We can count 7 iron bands around her lower Bowsprit with 1 additional surrounding both her Jibboom above and Bowsprit below. Mike has confirmed that 3' distances between bands was a standard practice. The ends outside band #1 and band #7, making those distances 18" each. Glory's figurehead aligns perfectly in between band #3 & #4. Her head is exactly 7 1/2' from band #1 and 9' from her Bow. The Naval Hood tip is exactly under band #3 making it 18" away from Athene's head and Rob has calculated that her Hood is double the length of her Figurehead, making the distance 15'. From viewing many images it appears like the Hood is about 5' at its base and curves gracefully to its tip. Interestingly enough, the width of the Hood is smaller than the curved arch on which Athene mounts. This arch ends up being smaller than the Hood above when it terminates below at the Bow. It's really all quite a fascinating use of artwork and space. Meanwhile I measured the top of her Naval Hood's angle of inclination at 20 degrees. McKay's 1st Extreme Clipper "Staghound" is documented as having had a steeve of 4 1/2" rise to each 1' run, which translates neatly to 20.60 degrees.

We have come to an approximate height of 25' above her 22' Waterline and Rob has calculated her prow sweeps back 8 1/2 degrees from verticle as the great sweeping curve ends below her lower Bobstay mount. The Monkey Rail (which the Jibboom mounts inside) is most likely 18" and her Main Rail height is 5' making her Bulwarks 6 1/2'. It appears the damaged upper Quarterdeck Rail is about 1' above her Bulwarks. By using these figures it should be possible to reconstruct Glory's Bow quite accurately.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

17 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

You're welcome, 

Vladimir. If you're looking for the best resource to reconstruct Glory's Bow, take a real close look at the crystal clear image of her Bowsprit and Figurehead from Seattle 1911. From published sources, her Bowsprit is 24' outboard and 34" in diameter. We can count 7 iron bands around her lower Bowsprit with 1 additional surrounding both her Jibboom above and Bowsprit below. Mike has confirmed that 3' distances between bands was a standard practice. The ends outside band #1 and band #7, making those distances 18" each. Glory's figurehead aligns perfectly in between band #3 & #4. Her head is exactly 7 1/2' from band #1 and 9' from her Bow. The Naval Hood tip is exactly under band #3 making it 18" away from Athene's head and Rob has calculated that her Hood is double the length of her Figurehead, making the distance 15'. From viewing many images it appears like the Hood is about 5' at its base and curves gracefully to its tip. Interestingly enough, the width of the Hood is smaller than the curved arch on which Athene mounts. This arch ends up being smaller than the Hood above when it terminates below at the Bow. It's really all quite a fascinating use of artwork and space. Meanwhile I measured the top of her Naval Hood's angle of inclination at 20 degrees. McKay's 1st Extreme Clipper "Staghound" is documented as having had a steeve of 4 1/2" rise to each 1' run, which translates neatly to 20.60 degrees.

We have come to an approximate height of 25' above her 22' Waterline and Rob has calculated her prow sweeps back 8 1/2 degrees from verticle as the great sweeping curve ends below her lower Bobstay mount. The Monkey Rail (which the Jibboom mounts inside) is most likely 18" and her Main Rail height is 5' making her Bulwarks 6 1/2'. It appears the damaged upper Quarterdeck Rail is about 1' above her Bulwarks. By using these figures it should be possible to reconstruct Glory's Bow quite accurately.

 

wow Richard, your erudition is astounding, fantastic. Well, sometimes I try to keep up with vocabulary, rest aside, i will sure rely on your knowledge and advice guys, atm im properly redrawing Michaels original plan from the book. Its clon of it. Most in progress but seems i can have something of value by end of weekend. Feel free to comment on it etc... its all welcomed. its only fdraft of lasercut centerline to be...so it will go lower. bulkheads are pretty much done....center bulkhead shows her dashing full line ...oh there is mistake i have to remove forecastle extension from  bulkhead no 4 -  its only A plus first three. by the way I added so called A bulkhead in front of 1 that touches angle of flower hood in position and concluded its shape to follow 1 bulkhead observing same addition in flying fish plans...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

On 3/11/2021 at 8:58 AM, rwiederrich said:

Indeed it is getting exciting.  One item I'm trying to get over is not to step on Mike's feet.  meaning.... every time we conclude error in his original drawings it makes me feel as if we're betraying him in some weird way.  Yeah, I know that is all in my head, but I've been a fan of Mike's for over 10 years, marveled in his historical accuracies, and I respect him greatly.   We are plowing up new ground here and it is odd to think we are pushing it further then he originally did.  When I couldn't imagine being able to do that.

 

It is a wonderful thing to know that even Mike feels he didn't go far enough and that we are joining along side him with our own energies...undergirding his research and efforts.  Which is extensive to say the least.   I hope his shipwright friend in Australia will be willing to redraw hull plans based on what we have uncovered.

 

Great work.

 

Rob

Rob, Vladimir, Druxey and everyone else involved in this evolving project to accurately reconstruct Glory of the Seas". In his most recent email message to me this morning, Michael Mjelde finished his letter with this single standalone sentence, which I quote here verbatim:

 

"I admire you for the work that you, Rob and others are displaying."

Edited March 12, 2021 by ClipperFan
Word correction

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

7 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vladimir, Druxey and everyone else involved in this evolving project to accurately reconstruct Glory of the Seas". In his most recent email message to me this morning, Michael Mjelde finished his letter with this single standalone sentence, which I quote here verbatim:

 

"I admire you for the work that you, Rob and others are displaying."

You can mention our Gratitute to Michael in return.  his legacy keeps glory alive and interest of many myself included. 

[rwiederrich]

46 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

You're welcome, 

Vladimir. If you're looking for the best resource to reconstruct Glory's Bow, take a real close look at the crystal clear image of her Bowsprit and Figurehead from Seattle 1911. From published sources, her Bowsprit is 24' outboard and 34" in diameter. We can count 7 iron bands around her lower Bowsprit with 1 additional surrounding both her Jibboom above and Bowsprit below. Mike has confirmed that 3' distances between bands was a standard practice. The ends outside band #1 and band #7, making those distances 18" each. Glory's figurehead aligns perfectly in between band #3 & #4. Her head is exactly 7 1/2' from band #1 and 9' from her Bow. The Naval Hood tip is exactly under band #3 making it 18" away from Athene's head and Rob has calculated that her Hood is double the length of her Figurehead, making the distance 15'. From viewing many images it appears like the Hood is about 5' at its base and curves gracefully to its tip. Interestingly enough, the width of the Hood is smaller than the curved arch on which Athene mounts. This arch ends up being smaller than the Hood above when it terminates below at the Bow. It's really all quite a fascinating use of artwork and space. Meanwhile I measured the top of her Naval Hood's angle of inclination at 20 degrees. McKay's 1st Extreme Clipper "Staghound" is documented as having had a steeve of 4 1/2" rise to each 1' run, which translates neatly to 20.60 degrees.

We have come to an approximate height of 25' above her 22' Waterline and Rob has calculated her prow sweeps back 8 1/2 degrees from verticle as the great sweeping curve ends below her lower Bobstay mount. The Monkey Rail (which the Jibboom mounts inside) is most likely 18" and her Main Rail height is 5' making her Bulwarks 6 1/2'. It appears the damaged upper Quarterdeck Rail is about 1' above her Bulwarks. By using these figures it should be possible to reconstruct Glory's Bow quite accurately.

Good job Rich....now taking all these measurements and applying them to the images we can begin to make her materialize.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

25 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, Vladimir, Druxey and everyone else involved in this evolving project to accurately reconstruct Glory of the Seas". In his most recent email message to me this morning, Michael Mjelde finished his letter with this single standalone sentence, which I quote here verbatim:

 

"I admire you for the work that you, Rob and others are displaying."

When I read that email I was moved.   It is surely a work of love......combining skills sets from many dedicated folks.

Thanks everyone!

 

Rob 

[rwiederrich]

16 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

You can mention our Gratitute to Michael in return.  his legacy keeps glory alive and interest of many myself included. 

Vladimir....thank you for applying your computer drafting skills to aid in bringing Glory alive 3 dimensionally.  I can't wait till we have some rock solid plans.

Your beginnings are coming along nicely, though I think the rake of the stem needs to be a bit more inclined...more like 8.5 degrees from vertical. 

 

Sweet job for sure.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

22 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

 

wow Richard, your erudition is astounding, fantastic. Well, sometimes I try to keep up with vocabulary, rest aside, i will sure rely on your knowledge and advice guys, atm im properly redrawing Michaels original plan from the book. Its clon of it. Most in progress but seems i can have something of value by end of weekend. Feel free to comment on it etc... its all welcomed. its only fdraft of lasercut centerline to be...so it will go lower. bulkheads are pretty much done....center bulkhead shows her dashing full line ...oh there is mistake i have to remove forecastle extension from  bulkhead no 4 -  its only A plus first three. by the way I added so called A bulkhead in front of 1 that touches angle of flower hood in position and concluded its shape to follow 1 bulkhead observing same addition in flying fish plans...

 

 

 

 

 

Vladimir,

Before a commercially available 'Flying Fish' model became available, this fascinating authentic tracing of Donald McKay's Extreme Clipper 'Flying Fish' was published in a Nautical Research Journal magazine article. Look closely at the lower right corner, besides identifying this craft as 'Flying Fish' it identifies that this tracing originates from a Museum in, of all places Sweden.

It's documented that 'Flying Fish' had 4 1/2 Main Rail heights with a 16" Monkey Rail above that. These illustrations never include the Monkey Rail, nor do they illustrate the Naval Hoods which McKay's Clippers usually had too. 

I shared this because the Bow isn't a straight drop, it angles back in a graceful curve. Rob has calculated that Glory's Bow angles back at an 8 1/2' degree from 90 degrees verticle. Meanwhile, the commercially available 'Flying Fish' model, as impressive as it is, isn't accurate to the actual vessel in her Bow treatment. Her flying fish figurehead dangles precariously below in a way Donald McKay would never have done. 

The other image is of the "monster" Clipper 'Donald McKay'. British naval engineers actually took her lines when she was in Dry Dock, so these can be considered authentic. The pencil sketch of her masts, yards and sails are my conjectural work and can be disregarded. I've included this because this vessel is also considered a Medium Clipper. Look at her Bow and again there's no severely verticle prow. 

I'm beginning to suspect that due to her severe hogging (in 2 places towards her Foremast, there was 16' of distortion due to hogging) Glory's initial appearance has been marred.