Flying Fish by Jared - Model Shipways - 1:96

[ClipperFan]

2 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Sometimes, stumbling across knew data, that was in plain sight counts as *measuring* twice.......

 

Rob

@rwiederrich knowing how much additional work my mistake cost you and @Vladimir_Wairoa I was mortified to discover it was just a matter of not carefully reading everything thoroughly the first time. Now, to me "measure twice" means to be sure nothing's been missed.

[Jared]

Given how many design errors you have all discovered in the fore section of the plan, I am apprehensive to find out the accuracy of the rest of the model's build plans 😳.  Hopefully they are not going to be an issue.

 

On the positive side this kit has been an excellent educational tool, both for honing fine boat building scratch-building skills and making me really appreciate how the art of tall ship building evolved.  

 

 

[rwiederrich]

54 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich knowing how much additional work my mistake cost you and @Vladimir_Wairoa I was mortified to discover it was just a matter of not carefully reading everything thoroughly the first time. Now, to me "measure twice" means to be sure nothing's been missed.

Rich...it was just as much my mistake as it was yours.  I knew visually the Forecastle looked too low...coupled with the original main rail issue.....I just looked at it incorrectly.  And that, in of itself, is part of the problem.  Knowing better but allowing your own bias or laziness to get in the way.   I know, now, what pitfalls to avoid...since we cut our teeth on Glory of the Seas.  In these adventures, I expect you to be clear and honest...throw a rock at me, if need be, to get my attention, If you think something is out of place historically.   We can always discuss it....as we have done in the past.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Jared said:

Given how many design errors you have all discovered in the fore section of the plan, I am apprehensive to find out the accuracy of the rest of the model's build plans 😳.  Hopefully they are not going to be an issue.

 

On the positive side this kit has been an excellent educational tool, both for honing fine boat building scratch-building skills and making me really appreciate how the art of tall ship building evolved.  

 

 

Ships are balanced....thus we must look at them balanced.  If something looks wrong, stop and evaluate...educate yourself on the trueness of the design.  Don't just go for it....not unless you don't care.

Taking into consideration how long it takes to build one of these guys....it's best, to take the extra step and make sure, or you will suffer the agony of having to look at your incorrect model for the rest of your life and continually telling/reminding yourself, *I should have just fixed it when it was easier*.    You've already taken the first step of admission.  No need to beat yourself up over it.  She is still something to be proud of... indeed.

 

Rob

Edited Thursday at 07:24 PM by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

@Jared

It still baffles me how such supposedly careful research, even involving NRG could possibly get so many details wrong. Her bowsprit is listed as being 18' outboard, with each iron band being 3' apart, there should be 6 bands for 5 each 3' spaces, with 18" going into the bow and 18" before her cap. From plans, it appears the bowsprit is about 3' short. Jibboom is 20' inner, 15' outer and 5' end for a total of 40' outside an 18" cap. Total should be 59'6". Other than appearing a bit short, Model Shipways plans I found contradict the plans you shared as the bowsprit diameter remains consistent. They state that they're based on tracing of original plans in the Sjøfortsmuseum, Bergen, Norway. 

The first major disagreement I have with her erroneous bow treatment is a complete lack of any support for her flying fish figurehead awkwardly tacked onto her bare stem. It completely misses unique McKay navel hoods and elegantly curved cutwater which even the Buttersworth oil profile portrays. Donald McKay introduced his revolutionary bow with Stag Hound his "Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet." That's how McKay's son Cornelius described her. Duncan McLean went into more detail evaluating these devices on McKay's Flying Cloud. His record breaking second California Clipper. It defies logic that McKay would abandon this for his fourth clipper but his third California Clipper. 

I've attached the Norway tracing, more natural flying fish figureheads, an overlay of the tracing to show how her bow would have really appeared. This also move the hawes hole further down, just below the base of the navel hood. Even the Butterworth's piece shows a more pronounced bow than just a bare stem. The first of three Model Shipways plans refers to the Norway tracing and admits use of the Boston Daily article as well. 

This is where I also differ greatly with their interpretation. McLean very clearly states that her topgallant forecastle provides lofty, well lit and ventilated accomodations for crew below. There are also twin companions in the wings leading to those quarters below. Before, meaning ahead of those companions are waterclosets for use of the crew. That places the waterclosets below, just ahead of companionway ladders. Since her total bulkhead height, including monkey rail was 5'10" how can you possibly stuff a windlass into such a short space? Forecastle height was set at the 4'6" main rail height, surmounted by a 16" high monkey rail. Since her decks were 3 & 1/2" thick, that makes space underneath maximum 4' 2 & 1/2". Meanwhile, to provide a sheltered area for the crew beneath, the entire forecastle bulkhead must be enclosed. This alternate plan from Stag Hound and Flying Cloud would look very similar, but for Flying Fish it would be 6" shorter. This also eliminates both wing structures outside the forecastle and places her windlass below out of sight. Spacing of masts are precisely described: 52' stem to foremast center, 62' to mainmast center, 52' to mizzenmast center and 44' to sternpost. All masts rake alike at 1 & 1/4ths" per foot. While not specifically described, her bowsprit steeve was most likely 4" to the foot, identical to that of her earlier sister California Clipper Flying Cloud. All specs are listed in McLean's detailed article.

The longhouse abaft the foremast is described as being 33' long, 15' wide and 7' high. From Michael Mjelde's descriptions, these are internal dimensions. Configuration of the aft coach house is accurate for the outline which conforms with her outer bulkheads, leaving clear working space for crew. There's no evidence that a raised central companion existed. It's most likely the coach house height was 7' with a slightly curved roof. Since poop deck height was at main rail height, it would have been 2'6" above the poop deck. The offset port side aft companion is correct according to Michael Mjelde's plans. Mounting it in the center interferes with the aft deck companion while being offset to port doesn't. Another significant difference is a more ornate front fascia as portrayed in the Buttersworth oil. This is confirmed by pictures of the quite ornate fascia on Glory of the Seas coach house.

Lastly, lubber's holes in solid tops are longer and wider than plans. All of these revisions are completely in line with all specifics as provided by Duncan McLean.

 

Edited yesterday at 11:44 AM by ClipperFan
corrections

[Jared]

Thanks  @ClipperFan for all this detailed information and your evaluation of it all.  Interestingly, the Model Shipways drawings you attached  are not the same as the ones that came with my newer Model Shipways Flying Fish kit.  Offhand I cannot say how close the two sets are measurements wise.  Its hard for me to compare from the small size and resolution of the drawings you attached and the need to see a scale bar on the earlier plans.  I do note one obvious difference in the locations of the ships boats.

[ClipperFan]

8 hours ago, Jared said:

Thanks  @ClipperFan for all this detailed information and your evaluation of it all.  Interestingly, the Model Shipways drawings you attached  are not the same as the ones that came with my newer Model Shipways Flying Fish kit. Offhand I cannot say how close the two sets are measurements wise.  Its hard for me to compare from the small size and resolution of the drawings you attached and the need to see a scale bar on the earlier plans.  I do note one obvious difference in the locations of the ships boats.

@Jared

I didn't remember that these plans were from the solid hull version and not the plank on bulkhead one. This one dates back to 1953 and is from Model Shipways, Bogota, NJ. I selected these since they refer to the Norway plans, so that should match up. There are scales, they're just not identified very clearly. However, at the base of the Norway tracing you'll see call outs with spacing. It's hard to see but it looks like the scale is written as 1/4th" = 1' in the lower right corner, which would make it 1:48th scale. It makes sense, since that's the identical scale which Cornelius McKay crafted his impressive Stag Hound builder's hull model. Then, on the 1st sheet of the Model Shipways hull plan, there's a similar scale identified as 1/8th" = 1' making it 1:96th scale. I would be curious to see how your plans compare to these.

Edited yesterday at 11:52 AM by ClipperFan
additional information

[Rick310]

Jared, these are the original plans for the Flying Fish and predate the revised plans by Ben Lankford.  He wrote about the revision in the NRG journal in 1980(?).

Rick

[Jared]

That was my understanding.   I have not read the NRG article.  Thanks.