Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I've moved the subject of building a hull model of the Medium clipper built by Donald McKay in 1869 to its own log.  I didn't want it to become confusing with my 1/96 version...which is in the sail and yard stage.

Within a small group of focused Glory admirers it has motivated us to(with much study and application) correct and redraw some blatant design errors that were found in her contemporary drawings commissioned by Mike Mjelde and published in his book about the Glory of the Seas.  Recent discovered photographic evidence, coupled with previously published imagery has caused those of us who are passionate about her to redraw her profile including these new changes.

 

I will be building her in 1/75 scale...quite a large hull from what I am accustomed to building....but non the less impressive in stature and availability of detail.  She will be built plank on bulkhead style and even that will be modified..where as I will be using pre-machined strips of clear pine...almost veneer like. 2"wide by 3ft long by 1/16" thick variable.   This material easily conforms to the shape of the hull and can be cut and manipulated to cover her entirely.

I will follow the method I used when I built the Great Republic.

 

I have already purchased the 3/16" maple plywood and will be gluing the precut bulkhead templets to it soon.

 

Here are some images of the drawings and the templets and overall profile....NOTE...I will be making other changes to her stem and cutwater as I go...which I will draw upon the profile so as to follow the corrections that have been made.  I want to also thank several members for aiding me in my quest and who also share in the love of the Glory of the Seas....member Clipperfan and member Vladimir Wairoa.  Your assistance is and own personal passion is much appreciated.

 

A Disclaimer for all who may be watching and who are purists in their own right.....I am a crude...lazy....modeler and will most likely use techniques and methods/materials that are overtly unorthodox......please forgive me now and allow me my ranting and miss-steps.

IMG_9514_JPG_50dbffb66df58d3b73c6735618c3aca9.jpg

IMG_9515_JPG_203fe210e4bda0bb7165e49cf78b639a.jpg

IMG_9516_JPG_924ecf36568cb62d274aa00a9cb57e3c.jpg

IMG_9517_JPG_561457ced1f7e74cddfe0a00625c327c.jpg

IMG_9518_JPG_dc78c5eb3bb26d1fdd2bac5d237591aa.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you gentlemen.  Pat..as you know I have been working on the Glory in 1/96, utilizing a heavenly modified Revell Cutty Sark hull....but it just never hit the spot..the deadrise was waaay off and so was the sheer and stem.  I think I did well enough to pass her off...but to the discriminating eye she just wasn't correct.......so I am embarking on building a hull model of her in a bit larger scale.

 

Here are some some pics of the templates and gluing the stem to the keel....

 

Rob

 

IMG_9520.JPG

IMG_9527.JPG

IMG_9528.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to make, on the table saw, a grooved wood base to rest the keel in at the level of the bulkheads termination...so they all can sit at the same level and I can add them as I cut them...plus it will hold the hull vertical as it is being constructed.

This *framing* process will be tricky because I will be placing bulkheads and then temporarily laying some veneer planks to verify the proper hull convexity and curvature before permanently securing them.  The drawings are rudimentary and are going to be slightly modified as I proceed.

 

I'm barrowing from my telescope mirror making days...when I tested the mirror on a reflection stand a process known as *Comparative analysis*.  I will rely upon photographs for comparative measurements.  Many ship builders used a process of thirds and fourths.  Where portions of the ship equaled other portions of the ship or distances and lengths of structures were 3 times as long or shorter then other structures.  It creates a sort of symmetry to the ship.  Values that can be measured and replicated.  Kinda like reverse engineering....but with images.

 

Fun stuff for sure.

 

Rob 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, 40" is 101.6 cm (centimeters & millimeters are more accurate, being smaller & broken into 10ths) 265' (Glory's length from knightheads to taffrail, translates into 3.83 cm to 1'. If I use 38 mm it results in a total length of 39.64". Let me know if that's close enough to meet your goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, 40" is 101.6 cm (centimeters & millimeters are more accurate, being smaller & broken into 10ths) 265' (Glory's length from knightheads to taffrail, translates into 3.83 cm to 1'. If I use 38 mm it results in a total length of 39.64". Let me know if that's close enough to meet your goals.

39.64" is what I came up with too....I just rounded it up to make it an even number for ease of conversation and interpretation.  This scale meets my goal...for sure.

 

Thanks...

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As discussed, I reworked Glory's bow, shortening her prow substantially, while angling her figurehead to more accurately reflect the 1907 image. Her Goddess Athene remains 90", the arch supporting her is now between 8 - 9 feet. Her Chainlink Bobstays now mount much higher above her waterline, reflecting her 1869 PEM launch image. This appears to approach the Bow more accurately but the beauty of her prow still remains elusive. I think moving to a larger scale might make it easier to achieve.

One other factor I noticed while looking at the waterline fade of the 1907 dockside image is the slight possibility of some "Hogging" occurring. There appears to me at least to be a reverse curve around the center of the vessel. It's a natural occurrence of wooden vessels. It's why their masts are constantly reduced in height, to lessen strain which leads to this phenomenon. Being 38 years old at the time of this photo, it wouldn't surprise me. It means that I need to attempt to incorporate the graceful continuous curve she reveals at her much earlier San Franciso Wharf image and the broadside of her fitting out. 

20200819_184910.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, thanks for your compliments on my Clipper Flying Cloud sketch. I built Revell's Flying Cloud as a youth and loved her lofty sail plan, which always impressed me as being so beautiful. Even as a kid, it puzzled me how her winged angel figurehead wouldn't fall off, since it was just sort of tacked on.

Now I realize that all published images of McKay's Clippers (Except Great Republic, which had indepth illustrations of her) only show the Stem. For some reason, the entire advanced structures of Cutwater, Carved Arches and Naval Hoods have all been excluded. Interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glory's underwater Hull where the Stem joins the Keel looked a little dumpy and nothing like the sharp, crisp line clearly visible in her 1869 PEM launch. I've reworked that area to match that section more closely. Next step will be to get a more accurate reproduction at 1/2 the ultimate scale Rob intends to build her at. Each time I intend to refine her so that we can reproduce this vessel in her ultimate glory.

20200819_202838.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man she is looking great...your corrections are doing the trick.

I worked on cutting out the first two bulkheads..1 and 2 anf

d fared them out.  1 is glued in place on the keel/stem but the rest will be left mobile so I can make adjustments and corrections.  I wanted to get everything going so I could see 3D and actually make corrections or additions now as she is being built.  Everything is baseline and can be modified if need be.  The *beak* of hood is deliberately short so the actual member can fit over.

 

Moving along.

 

Rob

IMG_9529.JPG

IMG_9530.JPG

IMG_9531.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Man she is looking great...your corrections are doing the trick.

I worked on cutting out the first two bulkheads..1 and 2 anf

d fared them out.  1 is glued in place on the keel/stem but the rest will be left mobile so I can make adjustments and corrections.  I wanted to get everything going so I could see 3D and actually make corrections or additions now as she is being built.  Everything is baseline and can be modified if need be.  The *beak* of hood is deliberately short so the actual member can fit over.

 

Moving along.

 

Rob

IMG_9529.JPG

IMG_9530.JPG

IMG_9531.JPG

woohoo . fantastic. did you incorporate more angled less straight  bow angle Rob? I will start my own somewere around winter. i need break after cutty. meanwhile i take first row seat. happy continuation.V. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did...and also followed ClipperFan's drawings as well.....   I purposely left things straighter then I would like so I have some material to remove if need be....it is always easier to remove material then to add material.

 

The trick is making sure I cut the bulkheads with the proper bulwark height for the forecastle and the main deck.  Its noted on the drawing...but if you are not careful to notice it...well...you could cut the frame off or cut it too short.  As you can see the first two bulkheads show the bulwarks frames very short(as they should be), but when I get to bulkhead 4..there takes a great change in bulwark frame height...since at this point the gunwale is over 6ft tall and needs to reflect that.

I hope to cut out a couple more bulkheads this afternoon.

 

Rob

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, while seeking for a way to dramatize the impact of perspective distortion, I reviewed various images of the dramatically sharp Bow of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer. It now occurs to me that it looks remarkably similar to Glory's Bow, both in the sharp projection and the quick sloping sheer. McKay's Clipper appears to be just a little more modest but only slightly. I'm curious what you think.

20200820_182235.jpg

20200820_182517.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, comparing this section of Glory's Hull (top from 1907 San Pedro dockside & bottom from 1869 fitting out when just launched) it appears that there is a noticeable break in her sheer, about a third of the way from the prow of the white lifeboat on her deck. It's where the gradual slope goes up and then back down. The Main Shrouds interfere the view but the lower part of the Hull at this same section also seems to have a reverse curve too. When compared to her smooth, unbroken sheer in 1869, the defect, subtle as it is, becomes more apparent. Obviously at 38 years old, she's still serviceable in 1907 but for our purposes of reconstructing her original appearance, it means that other earlier images take on more significance in getting her graceful sheer accurate.

20200820_195524.jpg

20200820_195705.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, while seeking for a way to dramatize the impact of perspective distortion, I reviewed various images of the dramatically sharp Bow of the US Navy's Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer. It now occurs to me that it looks remarkably similar to Glory's Bow, both in the sharp projection and the quick sloping sheer. McKay's Clipper appears to be just a little more modest but only slightly. I'm curious what you think.

20200820_182235.jpg

20200820_182517.jpg

What I find interesting about this comparison and the lower image of Glory....is that you can actually impress upon your perceptions what is not actually there.  If I base my opinion on solely what I see and do not couple my understanding on what I know...then I can come away with an entirely different view point.  If I gather from what I do know about the entrance of Glory's bow, I would know that where the double bobstays connect to the hull the cutwater is nearly vertical or close to it in comparison to the destroyer, which has an extreme sweeping entry.  If I can cognitively remove the distortion of the crane just behind her bowsprit, knowing that, that distortion is contributing to a false impression of her stem lines, I can begin to see her actual proportions.  Locating her figurehead and deducing the location and shape of her cheek plates(hoods)... and the inclination of her stem and planking line, I can conclude the actual dimensions of her bow.

 

In essence I am forcing my eyes to disregard what they think they see and combine the knowledge of what they MUST see....based on actuality.

 

We do this all the time in astronomy...when calculating celestial structures while looking through a distorted atmosphere.

 

Great subject by the way...it at least causes us to become critical thinkers and enables us to deduce fact from a sea of inaccurate information.

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, comparing this section of Glory's Hull (top from 1907 San Pedro dockside & bottom from 1869 fitting out when just launched) it appears that there is a noticeable break in her sheer, about a third of the way from the prow of the white lifeboat on her deck. It's where the gradual slope goes up and then back down. The Main Shrouds interfere the view but the lower part of the Hull at this same section also seems to have a reverse curve too. When compared to her smooth, unbroken sheer in 1869, the defect, subtle as it is, becomes more apparent. Obviously at 38 years old, she's still serviceable in 1907 but for our purposes of reconstructing her original appearance, it means that other earlier images take on more significance in getting her graceful sheer accurate.

20200820_195524.jpg

20200820_195705.jpg

Yes.... optical illusions can play an enormous role in our perceptions of what we think we see.  In this particular case, I would defer to the clearer, less processed image of her fitting out.  Because we have other clear images of her that would concur and lend credence to the actuality of that image.  The former image, though it is of the Glory, is suspect, because of other distortions we have already recognized.  If we understand spacial distortions and those found in the optics of the period, such as spherical, choma and chromatic aberrations....(Not to mention the poor quality of the image), we can then again disregard these distortions for what we know to actually be the truth.

 

I don't believe the Glory suffered from any severe *Hogging*.  McKay, in his design of her, not only included iron cross banding in its prevention, but he also added extreme internal cross bracing with wood structures as well.  She was overly reinforced against hogging.  I do have an image of Dashing Wave in Seattle and she was severely Hogged.

 

I'm sticking with the clearest and most optically accurate images we currently have of her...and utilizing an acquired acuteness for being able to distinguish proportions based upon comparative analysis, I think I can give  a real good college try at building an accurate representation.   Of course I'll need to rely also upon a copious amount of self assuredness too and faith in God.

 

Your input in these matters has been instrumental.

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh...one other observation I failed to mention.  Since the Glory was of a *Medium* clipper design, McKay would have desired to increase her entrance and exit buoyancy(the real cause of Hogging).  So to do this, her entrance would have been more vertical, allowing for a more rotund entry underwater.  A sweeping bow would lessen her forward buoyancy, not to mention her cargo carrying ability.  The opposite can be said about perceptions of her entry if one looks at her dockside view when she was being converted into a cannery.  Her entry looks nearly vertical.

I cut out and added 2 more bulkheads, but had to leave on an errand and didn't get any images.  Bulkhead 5 is the one where she transitions to the main deck from her forecastle deck.

 

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, this doubles scale of first plan and is half way to ultimate scale. First effort was 1mm=1', this is 2mm=1', final will be double to 4mm=1'. 24cm Keel of original is 9 & 1/2 inches, 27 & 1/2cm Taffrail to Naval Hood Tip is 11 & 3/4 inches. Keel on new sketch is double, 19 inches. Doubling that gives a Keel of 38 inches, Taffrail to Naval Hood Tip 55cm & 23 & 1/2 inches. That should mean the ultimate length would be around 47" Taffrail to Naval Hood Tip (just behind figurehead) not including Bowsprit or Gaffsail Boom.

20200822_174730.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun, I took a shot of the original sailplan next to the 1/2 scale one. It's hard to imagine how the full scale one will dwarf both. A challenge I'm finding is to stay true to the graceful sheer of the vessel as I can see it in the many images now available. 

20200822_182216.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back at Staples, I enlarged the 1907 San Pedro dockside shot breaking the image into 3 equal sections. These were all printed on Ledger sized paper, 12" ×17". Stern and Midsection fill almost entire page, Bow itself is about 7" to Knightheads. That's roughly 41". Taking into account the white borders, this should be very close to Rob's full scale. Which means this will be a very large replica indeed. Remember, this is primarily the Hull above the waterline. There's slightly more craft below the waterline and her Masts all tower above the Hull. I'm determined to do Donald McKays beautiful last Clipper justice. 

20200823_173351.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...