Flying Fish by gak1965 - FINISHED - Model Shipways - 1:96

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Directional change of the plates...from oblate oblong to more of a straight line curve....if that makes sense?

 

Rob

Rob, that makes sense, is there a specific formula to determine the gore line, possibly based on length vs depth? 

[rwiederrich]

15 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, that makes sense, is there a specific formula to determine the gore line, possibly based on length vs depth? 

I’m not sure, but it is generally based upon the hull design.   It’s curves and  depth of hull.   

[gak1965]

5 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Directional change of the plates...from oblate oblong to more of a straight line curve....if that makes sense?

 

Rob

What Rob said. I'm going to cut the ends of the plates at the gore line so that it will leave an uncoppered section that follows the tape, and then the Tamiya tape line will become the first line of plates in the next row with a changed direction

Edited August 25, 2021 by gak1965

[gak1965]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I’m not sure, but it is generally based upon the hull design.   It’s curves and  depth of hull.   

The plans had the gore line marked, which I assume was Ben Lankford's (probably excellent) assessment of where to put it. Transferring it from the side views to the three dimensional object would be a pain, so I located the line on the stem and stern and laid the tape out so that it would flow naturally, thinking that such a flow was the whole point of the change of direction. It looks consistent with the plans, but since they are just guesses anyway, it seemed good enough for me.

[rwiederrich]

Here are a couple of images of the gore lines and the transition from one group to another.  
 

There are three groups of plates on my Glory of the Seas

[gak1965]

Well, a brief note. We were at Mystic Seaport and the Charles W. Morgan was out of the water on blocks getting some restoration work, including, it appears, its copper. Here are a couple of pictures of the ship on blocks and her copper. 

 

First, the whole ship.

 

 

Her copper, fore and aft. I note that in contrast to the way it was described in the Fish instructions, the lower layers seem to overlay the upper belts.

 

 

I also note that the copper is cut around the gudgeon, rather than being mounted on top of the copper. This makes sense, but I hadn't thought about it looking at models.

 

Other observations. The foremast chain plates have backing links, the main and mizzenmast do not. The mizzen is smaller, so that makes sense, but why is the fore different? Extra strain from the jibs? The man at the museum didn't know.

 

 

If you want to look at the Morgan's spars, now us the time. They are out for all to examine in forensic detail.

 

 

And, I got a copy of this book!

 

 

George K

Edited August 29, 2021 by gak1965

[rwiederrich]

On 8/28/2021 at 9:38 PM, gak1965 said:

Well, a brief note. We were at Mystic Seaport and the Charles W. Morgan was out of the water on blocks getting some restoration work, including, it appears, its copper. Here are a couple of pictures of the ship on blocks and her copper. 

 

First, the whole ship.

 

 

Her copper, fore and aft. I note that in contrast to the way it was described in the Fish instructions, the lower layers seem to overlay the upper belts.

 

 

I also note that the copper is cut around the gudgeon, rather than being mounted on top of the copper. This makes sense, but I hadn't thought about it looking at models.

 

Other observations. The foremast chain plates have backing links, the main and mizzenmast do not. The mizzen is smaller, so that makes sense, but why is the fore different? Extra strain from the jibs? The man at the museum didn't know.

 

 

If you want to look at the Morgan's spars, now us the time. They are out for all to examine in forensic detail.

 

 

And, I got a copy of this book!

 

 

George K

Wonderful 

That Richard McKay book is a must for any serious library. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

On 8/28/2021 at 9:38 PM, gak1965 said:

Other observations. The foremast chain plates have backing links, the main and mizzenmast do not. The mizzen is smaller, so that makes sense, but why is the fore different? Extra strain from the jibs? The man at the museum didn't know.

Interesting that the fore chainplates use *Preventer plates*, Or backing links as you call them....but during her 1920 refurb she did retain all her fore, main and mizzen preventer plates...they must have been removed or misplaced because of damage or some other mishap.

 

Rob

[gak1965]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Interesting that the fore chainplates use *Preventer plates*,

Rob

 

Good to get the right name. The term I used came off the Model Shipways plans for the Constitution

[gak1965]

Coppering is complete. These first two photos show how I used the tape on the gore line to define the point where to stop the copper so that the next row above the gore line will sit neatly.

 

And here is a view from above showing the starboard side mostly completed and the port side approaching the gore line.

 

 

Once the second band of plates was begun, I put another line of tape on the ship with the tape centered over the load water line. It was there so I could copper up to the tape, have decent overlap, and still have a small amount of the black paint showing when I put the cap row into place.

 

 

Finally, two views of the coppered hull, port and starboard.

 

 

I used the kit supplied tape to cover the keel, figuring that the extra width wasn't a major issue, and used narrower (3/16"), black backed Venture tape that I got from a stained glass supply store for everything else as it was much closer to scale. The Venture tape is much better tape than the kit supplied tape. If I do another MSW kit, I'm throwing out the kit supplied tape as soon as I open it up.

 

Next steps will be the rudder (so I can be done with copper), and the coamings that support the after deck house on the main deck (the only ones that I didn't install prior to planking). 

 

As always, thanks for looking in and the likes! Special thanks to Rob for his method which I adjusted to fit my needs.

 

George K.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2021 by gak1965

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

neatly done,  beautiful ! 

[rwiederrich]

Looks wonderful George.  The modified technique expedited what would have been a much longer, arduous process.  One which you tackled and accomplished very well.

 

Great job.  One small project down.....another awaits.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

On 8/30/2021 at 12:57 AM, rwiederrich said:

Wonderful 

That Richard McKay book is a must for any serious library. 
 

Rob

George K, 

To truly appreciate the full beauty of Richard McKay's publication, do yourself a favor and get ahold of an original 1928 GP Putnam's book "Some Famous Sailing Ships and Their Builder Donald McKay."

There are 10 gloriously beautiful full color paintings, all protected by rice paper like tissue, 48 other illustrations and greater in-depth writing. Best of all, if you shop carefully, First Edition copies, even signed are really not that expensive. Believe me, I have both copies, there's a world of difference.

[gak1965]

The Dover edition that I picked up at Mystic (which is listed as an unabridged version of the 1928 text) is renamed for reasons that I don't understand. It has the diagrams and paintings, but at significantly reduced size and resolution, and only 4 of the illustrations are reproduced in color (2 each on the inside front and back covers). It's a nice start and has a lot of useful descriptive information.

 

George K 

[ClipperFan]

14 hours ago, gak1965 said:

The Dover edition that I picked up at Mystic (which is listed as an unabridged version of the 1928 text) is renamed for reasons that I don't understand. It has the diagrams and paintings, but at significantly reduced size and resolution, and only 4 of the illustrations are reproduced in color (2 each on the inside front and back covers). It's a nice start and has a lot of useful descriptive information.

 

George K 

George K, meanwhile I forgot to compliment you on your excellent coppering job on "Flying Fish" for which I apologize. I'm looking forward to the beautiful progress you're making on your ship.

Dover is a great book. I really enjoyed it myself. Later I learned about Richard McKay's original publication with the different title. Being an artist myself, I enjoyed the added rare full color paintings and there's more specifics, including fascinating references in the original. Since it was widely published, decent copies are still available for 20 bucks. I thought you might appreciate knowing.

[mbp521]

George, 

 

Just catching up on your build. Beautiful job on the coppering!

 

Are you planning on chemically aging the copper or letting it naturally tarnish? One of the things that I found that using the tape for coppering instead of gluing individual plates on is that you don't have to worry about the excess glue seeping through the joints and having to clean that all up. It never fails that when cleaning the glue from the plates that the cleaning rag eventually snags a corner or two of the plates and bends them out of shape. Once this happens, it is next to impossible to hide the crease in the copper. Also the tape allows the tarnishing to come out a lot more even than the plates, if you happen to miss a glue spot. I let mine naturally tarnish from handling and it produced a nice brownish patina, somewhat like on old penny.

 

-Brian

[gak1965]

23 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

George K, meanwhile I forgot to compliment you on your excellent coppering job on "Flying Fish" for which I apologize. I'm looking forward to the beautiful progress you're making on your ship.

Dover is a great book. I really enjoyed it myself. Later I learned about Richard McKay's original publication with the different title. Being an artist myself, I enjoyed the added rare full color paintings and there's more specifics, including fascinating references in the original. Since it was widely published, decent copies are still available for 20 bucks. I thought you might appreciate knowing.

Thank you and I appreciate the insight into the original version! If you are ever in Portland, it's worth stopping at Powell's books, as they frequently have wonderful used editions of books on sailing ships. Last time I was there (my younger daughter was in college in Portland until she transferred last year) I came this close to buying a copy of a three volume history of clippers published around 1920. Still not sure why I didn't, but water under the bridge as it were.

 

FWIW, I am the antithesis of an artist, which is why I enjoy looking at so many of the builds on this site. I remain in awe of the people that can create such beautiful effects with paint or other drawing material, and I find it a useful inspiration, something to swing for, even if I don't reach those standards. At least they focus me to strive for my best.

 

Warm regards,

George K

[gak1965]

21 hours ago, mbp521 said:

George, 

 

Just catching up on your build. Beautiful job on the coppering!

 

Are you planning on chemically aging the copper or letting it naturally tarnish? One of the things that I found that using the tape for coppering instead of gluing individual plates on is that you don't have to worry about the excess glue seeping through the joints and having to clean that all up. It never fails that when cleaning the glue from the plates that the cleaning rag eventually snags a corner or two of the plates and bends them out of shape. Once this happens, it is next to impossible to hide the crease in the copper. Also the tape allows the tarnishing to come out a lot more even than the plates, if you happen to miss a glue spot. I let mine naturally tarnish from handling and it produced a nice brownish patina, somewhat like on old penny.

 

-Brian

 

Thank you. And definitely going to let it patina. Not the least of which because it will disguise the obvious fact that it isn't the color of Muntz metal. I thought about the spray paint option, but chickened out.

[gak1965]

Just a brief update (it's been a crazy couple of weeks without much time to build). Rudder removed, shaped, sanded and coppered:

 

 

5 hinges made and rudder attached to hull:

 

 

The gap between the rudder and the hull is a bit more than I would prefer, but it was a tradeoff between having some detail in the hinges and having the rudder closer (I can't seem to make hinges that are much less thick). So, yes on the detail, let the chips fall where they may. 

 

Thanks for looking in!

 

Regards,

George K

[ClipperFan]

10 hours ago, gak1965 said:

Just a brief update (it's been a crazy couple of weeks without much time to build). Rudder removed, shaped, sanded and coppered:

 

 

5 hinges made and rudder attached to hull:

 

 

The gap between the rudder and the hull is a bit more than I would prefer, but it was a tradeoff between having some detail in the hinges and having the rudder closer (I can't seem to make hinges that are much less thick). So, yes on the detail, let the chips fall where they may. 

 

Thanks for looking in!

 

Regards,

George K

George K, details on your rudder look beautiful. As you mentioned, the gap between the stern post and rudder is more than ultimately desirable. You may want to ask Rob Wiederrich what approach he uses when he attaches his rudders. He's very inventive and may have a solution that you might like.

[gak1965]

So - a quick question to all you experts on McKay clippers, seeing as I am really having a bit of trouble converting the plans into a constructed structure on the poop. Below are two segments of the Fish's plans. The first shows the poop looking aft, the second shows side and above views of the transition from the poop to the main deck.

 

Okay - so what I do know - the overhead of the poop cabin extends over the main deck, where it has some decorative elements including an elaborate knee. So far so good. Where I am confused is this. If you look at the aft facing view, you can split the area into three segments, two half height sections toward the bulwarks and a center section that is full height. If I read the set of diagrams, it would indicate that the half height segments are built up from the coaming to the edge plank on the poop, with the edge plank overhanging the bulkheads that make up those half height sections (i.e. from aft to forward, you have the forward side of the bulkhead and then the forward side of the poop edge plank. The center, full height section appears to sit completely forward of the edge plank on the poop, which suggests that it is pushed out slightly compared to two half height sections. And it may require a wider coaming at the center than at the edges (need to see exactly where the coaming sits when I install it).

 

 

Is that correct? That seems to be the configuration that is on Rob's @rwiederrich Glory of the Seas, and it seems to be a McKay feature, but thought I would put the question out to anyone that has build the Fish or done research on McKay clippers (e.g. @ClipperFan or @Vladimir_Wairoa).

 

Thanks in advance,

George K.

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, gak1965 said:

So - a quick question to all you experts on McKay clippers, seeing as I am really having a bit of trouble converting the plans into a constructed structure on the poop. Below are two segments of the Fish's plans. The first shows the poop looking aft, the second shows side and above views of the transition from the poop to the main deck.

 

Okay - so what I do know - the overhead of the poop cabin extends over the main deck, where it has some decorative elements including an elaborate knee. So far so good. Where I am confused is this. If you look at the aft facing view, you can split the area into three segments, two half height sections toward the bulwarks and a center section that is full height. If I read the set of diagrams, it would indicate that the half height segments are built up from the coaming to the edge plank on the poop, with the edge plank overhanging the bulkheads that make up those half height sections (i.e. from aft to forward, you have the forward side of the bulkhead and then the forward side of the poop edge plank. The center, full height section appears to sit completely forward of the edge plank on the poop, which suggests that it is pushed out slightly compared to two half height sections. And it may require a wider coaming at the center than at the edges (need to see exactly where the coaming sits when I install it).

 

 

Is that correct? That seems to be the configuration that is on Rob's @rwiederrich Glory of the Seas, and it seems to be a McKay feature, but thought I would put the question out to anyone that has build the Fish or done research on McKay clippers (e.g. @ClipperFan or @Vladimir_Wairoa).

 

Thanks in advance,

George K.

George K, now knowing how elaborately embellished "GLORY of the SEAS" front fascia is, my conclusion is this version is too simplistic. To check my suspicions I went back and took a closer look at the Vallejo Gallery's "Buttersworth" 'Flying Fish' oil painting. Not surprisingly the front fascia is much closer to Glory. When you consider that this spectacular work was commissioned by the owners, to celebrate her victory in the Great Deep Sea Derby, I would rely more on those images for accuracy.

[ClipperFan]

George K, from the Buttersworth "Flying Fish" oil, the Rear Carriage House looks very similar to Glory's with a couple differences, there are two not four windows and while Glory had two seperate doors, "Flying Fish" appears to have two centrally mounted doors. The windows are shaped practically the same as Glory's. 

The front fascia elaborately decorated and flush with the poop deck. The Overhang is probably 3' and supported by two elaborately carved brackets. For some reason, instead of having a complete turned rail surrounding the Carriage House deck, there's a short iron rail which appears to be painted yellow. The rest of the house sides would have carved embellishments in between the windows which would most likely have been square. We also have undeniable proof that the Rear of this House was subtly narrowed compared to the front.

Edited September 27, 2021 by ClipperFan

[gak1965]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

We also have undeniable proof that the Rear of this House was subtly narrowed compared to the front.

 

That is good to know as it comports with both my interpretation of the plans, and with the way I built the coamings for the house (the bend is subtle but is there).

[ClipperFan]

George K In case you can't see the additional close ups of the painting I described, here's a section and edited to focus on the Rear House. It appears that there's not two but one single door with two arched windows on either side, separated by ornate panelling. In addition there appears to be some gingerbread work that surrounds the entire lower level of the upper roofline. There's a wealth of modeling information. For instance, you can also see there's some neat panelling along the upper level of the bulwarks too. 

[Roger Pellett]

I am dimly aware that there is more than one version of the Model Shipways Flying Fish Kit (depending on the kit’s age).  In the late 1970’s or early 1980’s Model Shipways completely redrew the kit’s drawings.  If my memory is correct the work was done by Ben Langford.  

 

When these revised drawings were finished, an article was published in the Nautical Research Journal.  It should still be available from the NRG office.  This article should allow you to see the sources used and assumptions made; information rarely available to the kit builder.

 

Roger

[gak1965]

58 minutes ago, Roger Pellett said:

I am dimly aware that there is more than one version of the Model Shipways Flying Fish Kit (depending on the kit’s age).  In the late 1970’s or early 1980’s Model Shipways completely redrew the kit’s drawings.  If my memory is correct the work was done by Ben Langford.  

 

When these revised drawings were finished, an article was published in the Nautical Research Journal.  It should still be available from the NRG office.  This article should allow you to see the sources used and assumptions made; information rarely available to the kit builder.

 

Roger

That makes sense. There must be at least four variants, as the plans I have (all amazing and all by Ben Lankford) are comprised of 6 sheets; four (including the sheet with the deck plans) are labelled 1979, revised 1982, and two are labelled 1993. The latter are the POB construction sheets, and I presume they were replaced/added when the Fish kit switched from solid hull to POB.  

 

I'll try the NRG and see what is there. Plenty I can do elsewhere on the ship while I figure this out 

[gak1965]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

George K In case you can't see the additional close ups of the painting I described, here's a section and edited to focus on the Rear House. It appears that there's not two but one single door with two arched windows on either side, separated by ornate panelling. In addition there appears to be some gingerbread work that surrounds the entire lower level of the upper roofline. There's a wealth of modeling information. For instance, you can also see there's some neat panelling along the upper level of the bulwarks too. 

I was looking at the construction of the chain plates (which appear to be similar to the ones on the Charles W Morgan (i.e. they are functionally a loop of iron pressed together in a long thin shape) -useful information as I'm considering building them that way.

 

 

 However, I don't see any deadeyes on the shrouds or the chain plates, unless they've been served over. Would anyone have served over the deadeyes and the lanyards?

Edited September 27, 2021 by gak1965

[ClipperFan]

On 9/27/2021 at 1:36 PM, gak1965 said:

That makes sense. There must be at least four variants, as the plans I have (all amazing and all by Ben Lankford) are comprised of 6 sheets; four (including the sheet with the deck plans) are labelled 1979, revised 1982, and two are labelled 1993. The latter are the POB construction sheets, and I presume they were replaced/added when the Fish kit switched from solid hull to POB.  

 

I'll try the NRG and see what is there. Plenty I can do elsewhere on the ship while I figure this out 

George K

This is a copy of a Nautical Research Journal article. It's a tracing of the McKay Clipper "Flying Fish" taken from Bergen Sjøfortsmuseum, Norway. In the accompanying article, it gives the provenance of the original McKay Clipper ship's lines as being an authentic original production of Donald McKay himself. I've forgotten which journal number this comes from but the cover article is about solving confusion over the original 1700s Frigate USS Constellation vs the Civil War vessel of the same name. So the cover has two ship's lines of the USS Constellation.

I first shared this post #515 in our 1869 "GLORY of the SEAS" research which supports the idea that Glory was a melding of "Flying Fish" lines but with much flatter half floor for massively increased carrying capacity. I thought you might appreciate seeing this authentic ship's lines.

[gak1965]

On 9/30/2021 at 4:54 AM, ClipperFan said:

They are indeed beautiful ships. It would be great to see a real one, I've seen the Cutty Sark and the Star of India, but they are later and hybrid or iron construction, so not quite the same thing....