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

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

My "eyeball" guesstimate was 18'. If I read your calculations correctly, I was off by 1'. 9' from point above Jibboom to center of 1st notch, 6' from center of 1st to 2nd notch and 4' to cathead center, equaling 19' in total. I'm still wondering about her bulwark height though. Has the damaged Bulwark brought your estimate down. I've read most of McKay's Clippers had 5' Main Rails, typically topped by 18" monkey rail for a total of 6 1/2'. Mike said he spoke with crew who were 6' tall and served on Glory. They told him standing by the bulwark, they could not see over the top. That's what leads me to believe her Bulwarks were over 6'. Your thoughts?

Rich...your *eyeball* guesses where pretty  close.  A 6ft bulwark can't be looked over easily by a standing 6ft person.  Eyeballs are at least 4" lower on your face then the top of your head which is where we measure our height.

However, the planksheer is above the level of the main deck and if you look at that image I posted of her at pier side with the large cutaway in her bulwark to access the main deck...you can see men standing there who are easily not available to look over the rail....since the average height would be roughly 5/8 ~ 5/10.  Now is that 6ft measured from deck or from atop the waterways, which could be 12" higher? 

You also caused me to think a bit harder about the bulwarks and my 6ft measurement is only taken for the forecastle rail...after the rail drops off just prior to the foremast it could be lower.  The planksheer or covering board sits on top of the 12~16 waterway.  The deck is below that..so a standing man could still not peer over the rail...even if the bulwark was only 5ft atop the planksheer and waterways.  Add the 18" to the monkey rail and you have your 6.5ft bulwark...not counting the planksheer and waterway.  The 6ft monkey rail at the forecastle is irrelevant to the main bulwark, because the main deck is fashioned lower within the hull.

 

The forecastle decking raises to the level of the main monkey rail...that is why there is that step-up rail fore the foremast .

 

Understand?

 

Rob

Edited March 29, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Whoa this is magnificent look at her from the very rare straight low position . Thanks for cathead calculation Richard i will accomodate those. V. 

Vladimir, you're welcome for the picture. Rob has more accurate numbers than mine. He said from peak of cap rail to center of 1st notch is 9' from there to center of 2nd notch is 6' and 4' more to cathead center, for a total of 19'. One foot further than my guesstimate. Rob refers to the main rail & monkey rail being 6' high but I think he's not counting various moldings, which when you combine a 3 of those would put it at 6 1/2'. 

[ClipperFan]

15 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...your *eyeball* guesses where pretty  close.  A 6ft bulwark can't be looked over easily by a standing 6ft person.  Eyeballs are at least 4" lower on your face then the top of your head which is where we measure our height.

However, the planksheer is the level of the main deck and if you look at that image I posted of her at pier side with the large cutaway in her bulwark to access the main deck...you can see men standing there who are easily not available to look over the rail....since the average height would be roughly 5/8 ~ 5/10.  Now is that 6ft measured from deck or from atop the waterways, which could be 3~6" higher?

 

Rob

Rob, this particular vaguary has always troubled me. If the main rail and monkeyrail combined are described as being 6' yet visually bulwarks appear higher, then I'd say the moldings on top of the main rail and monkeyrail are not being counted. Adding them in would probably bring total bulwark height from deck to top of monkeyrail molding to 6 1/2'. Again, referring to earlier 1869 on the ways or even the 1877 scene, is there a reliable way to get an actual measurement, to be sure?

[rwiederrich]

23 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob refers to the main rail & monkey rail being 6' high but I think he's not counting various moldings, which when you combine a 3 of those would put it at 6 1/2'

No actually..the 6ft measurement came from the distance from the top molding of the naval hood to the top of the forecastle rail.   THAT is 6ft.  However, as the forecastle deck moves aft and terminates the main deck is 6.5 ft below the main monkey rail.

 

I think I explained that in a later post.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

20 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

No actually..the 6ft measurement came from the distance from the top molding of the naval hood to the top of the forecastle rail.   THAT is 6ft.  However, as the forecastle deck moves aft and terminates the main deck is 6.5 ft below the main monkey rail.

 

I think I explained that in a later post.

 

Rob

Rob, for the purpose of consistency, I'd say it's fairly safe to conclude that from the exterior, from the lowest sheer rail molding to the top of the main rail molding is 5' and from there to the top of the monkeyrail molding is an additional 18" for a consistent exterior bulwark height of 6 1/2'. 

[ClipperFan]

Rob & Vladimir,

I asked Mike for a better look at Glory's stern from the scene of her being towed to Alaska. Here's his original, facing down and a cropped version facing up. As I first noticed, her Stern is far more elegant and complex than earlier suspected. Her turned Rail stanchions, while appearing almost verticle seem to cant just slightly outward, as does the monkeyrail below, then her main rail looks like it bows slightly inward but I suspect it's due to the effect of her moldings. The area below that appears to bow out slightly. Rob can measure it. My best guess is about a 3 - 4 drop. Finally the rest of the Stern curves again just slightly inward as it drops gracefully to the rudder below. Far more complex than at first glance.

 

[rwiederrich]

13 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, for the purpose of consistency, I'd say it's fairly safe to conclude that from the exterior, from the lowest sheer rail molding to the top of the main rail molding is 5' and from there to the top of the monkeyrail molding is an additional 18" for a consistent exterior bulwark height of 6 1/2'. 

I would tend to agree.  However, we have to look at the main deck from several perspectives.

Look at the image you just posted for Vladimir....Now I told you that the distance from the top molding of the naval hood to the top of the forecastle rail is 6ft...but do not be confused...for the top moldings(Of the naval hood) are the planksheer.  This sits on top of the waterways...the waterways sits on top of the main deck beams.

 

Now...follow the planksheer down the hull to just before the foremast channels.  Now... the lower channel sits just beneath the planksheer...but that is NOT the deck level.  The channel bolts firmly into the massive waterways and the hull frames.  Now if you recall the position of the waterways internally...and know that the deck is bolted to the deck timbers...and also knowing that the massive waterways 12"~16" was roughly 9"~13" above them(accounting for a 3" deck plank).  You can then see that at this point and back to(amidships)..the bulwarks was 6.5 ft high.

 

Compensating for diminishing perspective...I calculated the 6ft distance at the aft end of the forecastle rail to the top molding of the planksheer....then immediately took that measurement and laid it against the top of the monkey rail at the channel point and projected down and sure enough, I came up with roughly 6.5ft to the deck.   

The image of the fishermen on Glory's deck is a good source of info.  One man is standing next to the main pump and you can see his head is way below the flywheel top edge....and we know the flywheel was below the monkey rail.  So if you deduce that his head is far below the wheel and that the wheel is below the rail.....what conclusion can one make that the rail is at least 6.5 ft.  Based upon all the other info we have.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Rob

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob & Vladimir,

I asked Mike for a better look at Glory's stern from the scene of her being towed to Alaska. Here's his original, facing down and a cropped version facing up. As I first noticed, her Stern is far more elegant and complex than earlier suspected. Her turned Rail stanchions, while appearing almost verticle seem to cant just slightly outward, as does the monkeyrail below, then her main rail looks like it bows slightly inward but I suspect it's due to the effect of her moldings. The area below that appears to bow out slightly. Rob can measure it. My best guess is about a 3 - 4 drop. Finally the rest of the Stern curves again just slightly inward as it drops gracefully to the rudder below. Far more complex than at first glance.

 

wooow what a beautiful closeup photos of stern woohoo. 

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

I borrowed your idea and matched 2 of your images to make a final one that shows "Glory of the Seas" completely from Bow to Stern.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I borrowed your idea and matched 2 of your images to make a final one that shows "Glory of the Seas" completely from Bow to Stern.

Wonderful...

 

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

12 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I would tend to agree.  However, we have to look at the main deck from several perspectives.

Look at the image you just posted for Vladimir....Now I told you that the distance from the top molding of the naval hood to the top of the forecastle rail is 6ft...but do not be confused...for the top moldings(Of the naval hood) are the planksheer.  This sits on top of the waterways...the waterways sits on top of the main deck beams.

 

Now...follow the planksheer down the hull to just before the foremast channels.  Now... the lower channel sits just beneath the planksheer...but that is NOT the deck level.  The channel bolts firmly into the massive waterways and the hull frames.  Now if you recall the position of the waterways internally...and know that the deck is bolted to the deck timbers...and also knowing that the massive waterways 12"~16" was roughly 9"~13" above them(accounting for a 3" deck plank).  You can then see that at this point and back to(amidships)..the bulwarks was 6.5 ft high.

 

Compensating for diminishing perspective...I calculated the 6ft distance at the aft end of the forecastle rail to the top molding of the planksheer....then immediately took that measurement and laid it against the top of the monkey rail at the channel point and projected down and sure enough, I came up with roughly 6.5ft to the deck.   

The image of the fishermen on Glory's deck is a good source of info.  One man is standing next to the main pump and you can see his head is way below the flywheel top edge....and we know the flywheel was below the monkey rail.  So if you deduce that his head is far below the wheel and that the wheel is below the rail.....what conclusion can one make that the rail is at least 6.5 ft.  Based upon all the other info we have.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Rob

 

Rob,

To summarize, upper main deck waterways were 1' square per the description in the 1869 newspaper article. Since they're above the 3" thick deck planks, they're actually 15" and that would be the same exterior location of the plank sheer moldings. So while the interior bulkhead was 6 1/2' (5 main rail height & 18" monkeyrail) exterior main rail would look 15" shorter than 5' making it appear externally as if it was 3' 9" with an 18" monkey rail above for a total apparent exterior height of 5'3" does that sound right? Or would added moldings bring it up to 6' on the exterior? I'm still trying to nail down the accurate dimensions to ensure how "Glory of the Seas" hull would look. I get the sense we're very close now. Your description of the internal construction was very helpful. The only other confusing discrepancy is MacLean's description of Glory's bulkheads being 6'. I almost wonder if he's expecting his readers to know he wasn't including moldings and cap rail dimensions in that statistic.

[ClipperFan]

21 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

wooow what a beautiful closeup photos of stern woohoo. 

Vladimir,

I expressed your appreciation to Mike who's being so generous with these fantastic images which likely haven't been seen in decades. I was so impressed that I sent Mike a request for the rest of the vessel in this scene.

Meanwhile, the stern shows that the turned rails aren't verticle. They cant outwards almost imperceptibly around the stern, appear to be most verticle along the Wheelhouse section and then cant inwards around the large Stern house. The monkeyrail below also appears to do the same. The main rail drop almost appears to Bow inward but it looks to me like it's an affect of the short shelf like area combined with double planksheer moldings. Most fascinating is the 3' - 4' area below which ends in a slight ridge. While it gave an initial appearance of being solely around her Stern, I now suspect it encircles the entire vessel but is far less noticable. In fact, it looks like it aligns perfectly with the lower end of the Naval Hoods. What surprised me was that this same feature can be seen on McKay's illustration of sister Packet ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" as seen here. Finally as first suspected, the graceful drop below this line curves slightly inwards as it drops to the rudder. In totality, this area of Glory is far more complex than first suspected.

Edited March 31, 2021 by ClipperFan
More accuracy

[rwiederrich]

11 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

To summarize, upper main deck waterways were 1' square per the description in the 1869 newspaper article. Since they're above the 3" thick deck planks, they're actually 15" and that would be the same exterior location of the plank sheer moldings. So while the interior bulkhead was 6 1/2' (5 main rail height & 18" monkeyrail) exterior main rail would look 15" shorter than 5' making it appear externally as if it was 3' 9" with an 18" monkey rail above for a total apparent exterior height of 5'3" does that sound right? Or would added moldings bring it up to 6' on the exterior? I'm still trying to nail down the accurate dimensions to ensure how "Glory of the Seas" hull would look. I get the sense we're very close now. Your description of the internal construction was very helpful. The only other confusing discrepancy is MacLean's description of Glory's bulkheads being 6'. I almost wonder if he's expecting his readers to know he wasn't including moldings and cap rail dimensions in that statistic.

Again...I think, 6ft might have been a generality, or was based off the waterway...not the deck itself.

 

Here is a simple picture showing the structures of the bulwark on a typical wooden clipper.  The waterway *Steps* up the bulwark from the deck level.  the main rail ends at the pin rail and the monkey rail sits on top of that.  From what images we have of Glory's bulwarks..it appears she uses this similar design...where as, some clipper designs, added the pin rail below the rail cap....placing the pin rail lower to the deck...but images show the pin rail high, or at the main rail level(probably part of the main rail cap) on Glory.  And the extra height(18") extends up to the monkey rail.

 

If you measure the bulwark from the outside of the hull...the molding trim or planksheer is above the internal deck.  Because it rests ON the waterway....and again, the lower channel rests BELOW that, bolting into hull frames and the waterway.  So you can't get an accurate bulwark height from externally unless you know these internal structures.  

So if McClean says the main rail is 5ft...is that from the deck level or the waterway?  From the deck...coupled with the 18" extension to the monkey rail makes 6.5ft.  If on the other hand he claims the bulwark is only 6ft...then he must be excluding the addition of the waterway

 

Rob

Edited March 31, 2021 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

I expressed your appreciation to Mike who's being so generous with these fantastic images which likely haven't been seen in decades. I was so impressed that I sent Mike a request for the rest of the vessel in this scene.

Meanwhile, the stern shows that the turned rails aren't verticle. They cant outwards almost imperceptibly around the stern, appear to be most verticle along the Wheelhouse section and then cant inwards around the large Stern house. The monkeyrail below also appears to do the same. The main rail drop almost appears to Bow inward but it looks to me like it's an affect of the short shelf like area combined with double moldings. Most fascinating is the 3' - 4' area below which ends in a slight ridge. While it gave an initial appearance of being solely around her Stern I now suspect it encircles the entire vessel but is far less noticable. It looks like it's on the same line as the lower end of the Naval Hoods. What surprised me was that this same feature can be seen on McKay's illustration of sister Packet ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" as seen here. Finally as it first impressed me, the graceful drop below this line curves slightly inwards as it drops to the rudder. In totality, this area of Glory is far more complex than first suspected.

 

[rwiederrich]

As seen on the Glory...you can identify the main rail and pin rail and the monkey rail....18" above.

Notice the waterway below and the deck.

Edited March 31, 2021 by rwiederrich

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

I expressed your appreciation to Mike who's being so generous with these fantastic images which likely haven't been seen in decades. I was so impressed that I sent Mike a request for the rest of the vessel in this scene.

Meanwhile, the stern shows that the turned rails aren't verticle. They cant outwards almost imperceptibly around the stern, appear to be most verticle along the Wheelhouse section and then cant inwards around the large Stern house. The monkeyrail below also appears to do the same. The main rail drop almost appears to Bow inward but it looks to me like it's an affect of the short shelf like area combined with double planksheer moldings. Most fascinating is the 3' - 4' area below which ends in a slight ridge. While it gave an initial appearance of being solely around her Stern, I now suspect it encircles the entire vessel but is far less noticable. In fact, it looks like it aligns perfectly with the lower end of the Naval Hoods. What surprised me was that this same feature can be seen on McKay's illustration of sister Packet ships "Star of Empire" & "Chariot of Fame" as seen here. Finally as first suspected, the graceful drop below this line curves slightly inwards as it drops to the rudder. In totality, this area of Glory is far more complex than first suspected.

this is fascinating . seeing plan drawn by McKay himself - i was about to think from photo itself that rail seem to be angled...so it is confirmed though... i cant keep up with you folks, i didnt have time lately hopefully around weekend i will ne able to sit behind the desk. ...also with bulwarks, there is ton of stuff i have to measure remeasure....again. one question to ask folks, where is beam to be measured? at the widest part of hull - underwater included? at that would be widest though...thank you. V. 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Again...I think, 6ft might have been a generality, or was based off the waterway...not the deck itself.

 

Here is a simple picture showing the structures of the bulwark on a typical wooden clipper.  The waterway *Steps* up the bulwark from the deck level.  the main rail ends at the pin rail and the monkey rail sits on top of that.  From what images we have of Glory's bulwarks..it appears she uses this similar design...where as, some clipper designs, added the pin rail below the rail cap....placing the pin rail lower to the deck...but images show the pin rail high, or at the main rail level(probably part of the main rail cap) on Glory.  And the extra height(18") extends up to the monkey rail.

 

If you measure the bulwark from the outside of the hull...the molding trim or planksheer is above the internal deck.  Because it rests ON the waterway....and again, the lower channel rests BELOW that, bolting into hull frames and the waterway.  So you can't get an accurate bulwark height from externally unless you know these internal structures.  

So if McClean says the main rail is 5ft...is that from the deck level or the waterway?  From the deck...coupled with the 18" extension to the monkey rail makes 6.5ft.  If on the other hand he claims the bulwark is only 6ft...then he must be excluding the addition of the waterway

 

Rob

Rob, 

For sake of accuracy, it's beginning to appear like the best approach is to rebuild her from the inside out, starting from her keel upwards. The one area that gives me the most confidence in her exterior dimensions is at her docking ports. I counted 9 1/2 planks from waterline to bottom of the port, 4 to make the side and 7 up to the lower sheerline molding. Now knowing that the upper sheerline molding is bolted to the top of the 12" waterways on the main deck, which is 3" above main deck line, if we measure 5' up from that 15" drop we get her main rail height, then add 18" to top of that for a total of 6 1/2'.

We know her 2 lower decks are 8'2" height, presumably above more 3" decks. She's described as having a 28 1/2 hold, with 22' coppered from false keel to her waterline. She should be coming along nicely.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, 

For sake of accuracy, it's beginning to appear like the best approach is to rebuild her from the inside out, starting from her keel upwards. The one area that gives me the most confidence in her exterior dimensions is at her docking ports. I counted 9 1/2 planks from waterline to bottom of the port, 4 to make the side and 7 up to the lower sheerline molding. Now knowing that the upper sheerline molding is bolted to the top of the 12" waterways on the main deck, which is 3" above main deck line, if we measure 5' up from that 15" drop we get her main rail height, then add 18" to top of that for a total of 6 1/2'.

We know her 2 lower decks are 8'2" height, presumably above more 3" decks. She's described as having a 28 1/2 hold, with 22' coppered from false keel to her waterline. She should be coming along nicely.

It's all about deduction...from what we DO know.  Check out the images I posted in post #705

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

19 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

It's all about deduction...from what we DO know.  Check out the images I posted in post #705

 

Rob

Rob,

These scenes are much lighter than what I've seen before, details are much better defined. I'm continually in awe of the very substantial construction of "Glory of the Seas" in every item. What also surprises me is how seeing rugged construction, so much more substantial than Duncan MacLean's somewhat simple description, helps me to perceive the intent of her designer. Glory's waterways for instance are described as being 12" square, yet this photo shows them being rounded along sides and top, which makes far more sense in a nautical vessel where hard edges could cause serious injuries. 

The total loss of such a magnificent vessel weighs heavily on me too. She was so well built. If only her successive owners had the foresight to maintain her yellow metal hull, they would have kept the damn toredo worm and successive rot at bay.... Had they done that, she surely could have made one final journey around Cape Horn to her home in Boston and we would have been able to see her proudly afloat today....

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

14 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

She was so well built. If only her successive owners had the foresight to maintain her yellow metal hull, they would have kept the damn toredo worm and successive rot at bay.... Had they done that, she surely could have made one final journey around Cape Horn to her home in Boston and we would have been able to see her proudly afloat today....

Indeed.  If she could have been able to go home she might have had a good chance of surviving...such as the Cutty Sark.  Which by the way is a tiny little thing compared to Glory.

 

I agree...from my own research the waterways were rounded on their deck edge....possibly only beveled...but not square.  I've decided to not complete my version of Glory, but fabricate her replacement from the plans and drawings we come up with from these pages.  I just can't look at her fondly knowing all the blatant errors I made.  For my skill level at the time and my knowledge of her, I think I did just fine.  But it's like looking back at my first painting in second grade and wanting to display it as by best.

 

I'll keep it simple and stay 1/96.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Rob, Richard, folks,

i rely on your measures for sure, but i work differently  as i dont have knowledge of your caliber... by comparing distances.

 

i measured mold  to mold and it gives roughly 2x distance to copperline at 25ft for sure. photo is black but we can see approx  tip of rudder going to rudder hole,,, tjhat is mold to mold plus a bit i had measured it but forgot the numbers....

I can tell you folks, this is only inches discrepancies you play here....I looked at the draw again......there is no place to labor excessively as main  numbers doesnt allow to.....as LBP is provided and LOA is provided....you can either literary CUT OFF tip of bow if you want longer sleeker stern, or you can do vice versa if you want agressive bow and shorter stern. nothing else can be moved.......

 

yes can.....instead of 84 degrees stem angle we can go 86.....

 

or at back stern stem we can go from vertical to little leaning downwards....as we excluded these un Mckayish things.....i believe shape is pretty much established.....and I can quite comfortly have bulkheads cut....

 

i measured all over thoroughly and tried to update stern  and again measured bulwark heights and sheers watterway, depyth of hold......according last number provided.  I included planking exceeding behind sheer line mold as welll....I will now post pics with numbers... speaks for itself......

 

i measured bulwark again which gave me 6.12 FT....

 

to obtain 250 ft between perpendiculars....

and 265 overall, I shortened a tiny bit of forward tip to be less aggressive and used comparing distances measures so stern is now again different than before.....

 

what you say about stern shape now   folks ?

there is final pic as last one.....

@ Rob, I can send you folks bulkheads templates for the boat, but first i want to check them myself in hand to check  i drew them correctly...as I suppose this is testing phase for me

 

please underthand that I will never match your precision, truth be told im quite  thankfull that  Richard is kicking me into more precision...

 

as it helps it to shape it better but I would say at this point. I dont think it someone  would shape her differently placing all the shapes and measures at this point.....

 

 first  picture shows new more shallow angle of bottom of stern and original Michaels stern....

 

i can redone tip to more agressiveness forward as we had it before but i have to go back to more dull stern it makes.... 2 FT at the back or at the tip of forward rail....quite a lot to consider....

 

hope make sense

 

thanks

V.

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rob, I can send you folks bulkheads templates for the boat, but first i want to check them myself in hand to check  i drew them correctly...as I suppose this is testing phase for me

Please do Vladimir.......I'm assuming it will be in 1/96.....?

Beautiful drawings by the way......

 

Rob

Edited April 1, 2021 by rwiederrich

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

15 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Please do Vladimir.......I'm assuming it will be in 1/96.....?

Beautiful drawings by the way......

 

Rob

Thanks Rob, the beauty of it is that it is scaled by percentage..... variable. I created it in 1:20 measuring relative to 1:1 huge.  but no matter what program or simple picture viewer you open the bulkheads you can just adjust viewing percentage and voila you get scale you wish.......you need to know one reference scale only ....in 26 percent opened size it is 1/72 depending on where you measure the beam..... / widest point around middle=18.8 cm beam in 26 per cent opening  =44 ft in 1.1

 

opening and viewing at 19 per cent = 1:96 if you measure at the bulkheads exactly 14 cm...

19.5 per cent opened (but there needs to be program to count in half = 1:96 measured beam at widest -

20 per cent would be close but slightly more than 44 ft.

 

also all related pages are made in one program so it is all simply related....

same applied to centerbulkheads....just make sure you have it opened in same percentage size as bulkheads....its same measure....

same for ornaments page....

 

here you can see i finally managed to finish all bulkheads curved them and lowered as  waterway to be installed up is included...

I copied all exact design of built exactly after model shipways flying fish....it was painstaking work . just remember I diminished watterway for model making puropse by 2 mm. so instead of 8 mm in 1/72 it would be 5 mm waterway...

this is how they turned out. we can see and  feel the shape already...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[rwiederrich]

Wonderful...you have translated her into drawings very well.  I can see how you designed her similar to the Flying fish design.  With amidships open so you can add the bulwarks later.  Interesting.

 

Love it.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Wonderful...you have translated her into drawings very well.  I can see how you designed her similar to the Flying fish design.  With amidships open so you can add the bulwarks later.  Interesting.

 

Love it.

 

Rob

Thanks yes, i find their design best so far ive seen for clippers as it allows to install proper timberheads up on waterway and from ther rail also topgallant one. most authentic possible i woudl say on POB. 

[ClipperFan]

20 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Rob, Richard, folks,

i rely on your measures for sure, but i work differently  as i dont have knowledge of your caliber... by comparing distances.

 

i measured mold  to mold and it gives roughly 2x distance to copperline at 25ft for sure. photo is black but we can see approx  tip of rudder going to rudder hole,,, tjhat is mold to mold plus a bit i had measured it but forgot the numbers....

I can tell you folks, this is only inches discrepancies you play here....I looked at the draw again......there is no place to labor excessively as main  numbers doesnt allow to.....as LBP is provided and LOA is provided....you can either literary CUT OFF tip of bow if you want longer sleeker stern, or you can do vice versa if you want agressive bow and shorter stern. nothing else can be moved.......

 

yes can.....instead of 84 degrees stem angle we can go 86.....

 

or at back stern stem we can go from vertical to little leaning downwards....as we excluded these un Mckayish things.....i believe shape is pretty much established.....and I can quite comfortly have bulkheads cut....

 

i measured all over thoroughly and tried to update stern  and again measured bulwark heights and sheers watterway, depyth of hold......according last number provided.  I included planking exceeding behind sheer line mold as welll....I will now post pics with numbers... speaks for itself......

 

i measured bulwark again which gave me 6.12 FT....

 

to obtain 250 ft between perpendiculars....

and 265 overall, I shortened a tiny bit of forward tip to be less aggressive and used comparing distances measures so stern is now again different than before.....

 

what you say about stern shape now   folks ?

there is final pic as last one.....

@ Rob, I can send you folks bulkheads templates for the boat, but first i want to check them myself in hand to check  i drew them correctly...as I suppose this is testing phase for me

 

please underthand that I will never match your precision, truth be told im quite  thankfull that  Richard is kicking me into more precision...

 

as it helps it to shape it better but I would say at this point. I dont think it someone  would shape her differently placing all the shapes and measures at this point.....

 

 first  picture shows new more shallow angle of bottom of stern and original Michaels stern....

 

i can redone tip to more agressiveness forward as we had it before but i have to go back to more dull stern it makes.... 2 FT at the back or at the tip of forward rail....quite a lot to consider....

 

hope make sense

 

thanks

V.

 

 

 

[ClipperFan]

Vladimir, Rob

Referring to post #691, I have added 2 images to highlight 2 continuing concerns I have about Glory's hull evolution. I think Vladimir is about 90% there. Instead of referring to measurements, I'll resort to relationships instead. Look closely at the Stern section drop it's all little deeper than what Vladimir has now. It appears to fit neatly into the area of the main rail between 2 short shelfs under and above the moldings. A thin line, just below main rail moldings can be seen on the McKay Hull sketch. It goes across the entire hull and seems to align perfectly with the bottom of the Naval Hoods. Rob has determined Hood depth to be 3 1/2'.

My other bigger concern is with Glory's cutwater and stem which I strongly feel would be far more likely to match that of the McKay sketch too. That's the impression I get especially after seeing a more clear overall image of her Bow in Seattle. The curve of her Cutwater continues down thru both Bobstay mounts and then follows down at an angle. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by ClipperFan

[ClipperFan]

On 4/1/2021 at 9:11 AM, rwiederrich said:

Indeed.  If she could have been able to go home she might have had a good chance of surviving...such as the Cutty Sark.  Which by the way is a tiny little thing compared to Glory.

 

I agree...from my own research the waterways were rounded on their deck edge....possibly only beveled...but not square.  I've decided to not complete my version of Glory, but fabricate her replacement from the plans and drawings we come up with from these pages.  I just can't look at her fondly knowing all the blatant errors I made.  For my skill level at the time and my knowledge of her, I think I did just fine.  But it's like looking back at my first painting in second grade and wanting to display it as by best.

 

I'll keep it simple and stay 1/96.

 

Rob

Rob, somehow I missed this comment until now. Honestly, with each phenomenal, crystal clear image Michael Mjelde sends us, our comprehension of McKay's last Clipper comes more clearly into view. With your clarification of her bulwark heights, I think that can finally be nailed down to. It hadn't occurred to me that measured from inside, her Bulwarks are 6 1/2' but from outside, since her sheerline molding aligns at the top of the 1' waterways, they will naturally appear 15" shorter (3" for deck and 12" for waterways). If I remember correctly, those moldings were 7" which would bring that external drop to 8". So if we go 8" below the lowest sheerline molding, that would be the base of the 5' main rail bulkhead, to which would be added 18" monkeyrail with cap. As a result a 6 1/2 bulkhead would appear to be 5' 10".  Am I finally getting it?

[ClipperFan]

Happy Easter, guys

Being still dissatisfied with our severely verticle Bow, I decided to evaluate the Bows of McKay's previous Clippers for comparison. The results I found are intriguing and make a compelling argument for a more angled Bow than we currently have. 

1869 "Glory of the Seas"

Keel 240'

Length on deck 250'

Length overall (LOA) 265'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .905

 

1850 Extreme Clipper "Staghound" 

Keel 207' 

Length on deck 215'

Length overall 226'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .915

 

1851 Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud"

Keel 208'

Length on deck 225'

Length overall 235'

Ratio: keel to deck .92

Ratio: keel to LOA .89

 

I will add more results & images to support my theory a little later

 

 

 

[ClipperFan]

49 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Happy Easter, guys

Being still dissatisfied with our severely verticle Bow, I decided to evaluate the Bows of McKay's previous Clippers for comparison. The results I found are intriguing and make a compelling argument for a more angled Bow than we currently have. 

1869 "Glory of the Seas"

Keel 240'

Length on deck 250'

Length overall (LOA) 265'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .905

 

1850 Extreme Clipper "Staghound" 

Keel 207' 

Length on deck 215'

Length overall 226'

Ratio: keel to deck .96

Ratio: keel to LOA .915

 

1851 Extreme Clipper "Flying Cloud"

Keel 208'

Length on deck 225'

Length overall 235'

Ratio: keel to deck .92

Ratio: keel to LOA .89

 

I will add more results & images to support my theory a little later