Flying Fish by Rick310 - Model Shipways - 1/96

[Rick310]

Rich, I purchased the painting from a very good friend of mine who had been a marine antique dealer for 55 years.

He purchased the painting at an auction in Maine (Julia’s, no longer in business)

It was as originally mid-identified as a York.

Rick

[Jared]

The discussion on the previous page of this build log of the FF's bow / forcastle has been quite facinating and the research has been quite thoughtfull and eye opening.  Thanks to all of the contributors!

Edited Wednesday at 04:37 AM by Jared

[Rick310]

ClipperFan,

I found the article in the NRG journal written by Ben Lankford about how he developed the plans for the Flying Fish.  It’s September, 1980, #3. It is a fascinating read!

Not much is said about the WC/companionway, but he deliberately chose an older style windlass as more appropriate.  This is the same style seen on the model of Webb’s clipper Challenge at the Smithsonian in DC.

[ClipperFan]

@Rick310

thanks for sharing this Sept 1980 # 3 Nautical Research Journal article. If this is the full reference to her deck layout a surprising omission sticks out to me like a flashing neon light. There's no mention at all of the clear description of the forward forecastle doubling as accommodation for the crew below. If there was, it's not covered in the pages shared here. Since Ben Lankford refers to the Boston Daily Atlas more than once, it seems like he just missed this critical description of the Flying Fish prow: 

 

"She has a topgallant forecastle the height of the main rail [4 & 1/2 feet], and in the wings are companions, which lead to the sailor's quarters below; and before [not aft] the companions are water closets [two not one], and along the sides, lockers, etc. The accommodations for the crew [below] occupy the angle of the bow, are lofty, well lighted, and ventilated."

 

Italics added by me for emphasis as are words in brackets. How Ben Lankford misinterpreted this section escapes me. But current plans for Flying Fish are completely at odds with Duncan McLean's description. Here again is my logic for a completely alternative interpretation based upon McLean's words, the context of his phrases and some common sense.

First, Flying Fish had the lowest topgallant forecastle height of any of McKay's thirty odd clipper ships. 4 & 1/2 feet is the upper deck height of her forecastle. Decks were 3 & 1/2 inches thick, meaning the forecastle deck height underneath would have been 4 feet, 2 & 1/2 inches. Question: how does this height compute with McLean's description of "lofty, well lighted and ventilated" crew's quarters? Consider too, all other accommodations have heights of roughly 7 feet. So why stuff a windlass and crew's quarters into an area which is practically a crawl space? McLean specifically notes that "in the wings are companions, which led to the sailor's quarters below". That implies ladders leading down to a space 3 feet below, creating a similar ceiling 7 feet tall. Now twin water closets down below being before the companions makes sense along with lockers, etc. for use of sailors down below. To provide for this space suggests that the aft forecastle bulkhead must have been enclosed, not open as current Flying Fish plans call for. Second, where do you fit the windlass? Wouldn't the most sensible arrangement be to mount it below too? This gives far better working space crew as well. Third, to make accommodations lofty, well lighted and ventilated means most likely the aft forecastle bulkhead had some windows as well as some sort of ventilation. This alternative arrangement fits the Boston Daily Atlas description precisely and has the added benefit of leaving a much cleaner working space between the foremast and the topgallant forecastle. 

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:08 PM by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

35 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@Rick310

thanks for sharing this Sept 1980 # 3 Nautical Research Journal article. If this is the full reference to her deck layout a surprising omission sticks out to me like a flashing neon light. There's no mention at all of the clear description of the forward forecastle doubling as accommodation for a watch of the crew below. If there was, it's not covered in the pages shared here. 

I'm still apt to believe that the typical forecastle of British clippers was relied upon when they concluded the W/C's were to be outside the forecastle proper.....and not within as McLean describes.  Full height Topgallant forecastles even drawn my Campbell...show a forward bulkhead with windows and companionways.

 

Rob

[Rick310]

Rob, I have to agree with you on that.

However, Ben Langford states that one of his references was the Challenge model in the Smithsonian.  The plans for that model where developed by Howard Chapelle, and it has the WC as depicted on the Flying Fish.

I have 2 very old photos of the model.

Rob, I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is a precedent for that location on a contemporary American clipper ( May 1851)

Rick

[ClipperFan]

10 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Rob, I have to agree with you on that.

However, Ben Langford states that one of his references was the Challenge model in the Smithsonian.  The plans for that model where developed by Howard Chapelle, and it has the WC as depicted on the Flying Fish.

I have 2 very old photos of the model.

Rob, I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is a precedent for that location on a contemporary American clipper ( May 1851)

Rick

@Rick310

again, I wonder how much credance Chapelle and Lankford placed on Duncan McLean's words. Lars Bruzelius has a complete transcript of June 16th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas write-up of the new Webb extreme clipper Challenge. Her bulwarks including monkey rail were a mere 4 & 1/2 feet. Meanwhile, the height of her topgallant forecastle was at the main rail. That means the forecastle deck had to be lower than that. Most McKay monkey rails were 16-18 inches but, even if the monkey rail on Challenge was only 1 foot, that puts the height around 3 & 1/2 feet. The forecastle had a capstan on it and extended to the windlass. Abaft the windlass is a companion to the sailor's quarters. No surprise, just like Flying Fish, crew quarters in the forecastle are below. Since height of the Challenge two lower decks was 7 feet 8 inches, I suspect a drop to her sailor's quarters was 4 feet below the forecastle, resulting in accommodations of around 7 feet 6 inches. This tells me that much like Flying Fish was described, Challenge also had a fully enclosed aft forecastle bulkhead. In addition, forecastle of Challenge was equipped with 4 plate glass air ports and was otherwise well lighted and ventilated. Her windlass was described as being strongly secured, of the latest patent, with ends which could be  ungeared from the body. This description sounds exactly like that equipped on Stag Hound launched six months earlier. Rob and I concluded it's a perfect match to Emerson-Walker's patented windlass. Before the foremast is a double lever winch, for hauling the chain cable up, or for any other heavy work. Question: up from where? Could it be that, similar to Stag Hound the windlass on Challenge was also secured below? Her chain lockers are abaft her foremast, on the lower deck, and the pipes through which the chains pass are covered by the fore part of the galley. 

I haven't had a chance to see the Challenge model you shared here or to read Chapelle's description. I'd love to see more of this model. Meanwhile, here's a link to the entire Duncan McLean article:

 

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-06-16).html

Edited 21 hours ago by ClipperFan
name correction

[rwiederrich]

The Challenge was a Webb designed clipper. However McKay was a clipper visionary. I would not use  w Webb design to validate a McKay design.  Especially when Duncan McLean describes her in such detail with having an ample, airy, well lit space for a shift of men to bunk.  
And no other clipper of the era had Naval Hoods either.  Proof , we can not use what others did to conclude what McKay did.  He worked to his own tune, setting records and building what no other designer would dare.  
 

Donald McKay’s one of a kind clipper fleet is my evidence.

Just in case you wanted to know how I feel about it?🧐👍

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

5 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Rob, I have to agree with you on that.

However, Ben Langford states that one of his references was the Challenge model in the Smithsonian.  The plans for that model where developed by Howard Chapelle, and it has the WC as depicted on the Flying Fish.

I have 2 very old photos of the model.

Rob, I’m not disagreeing with you, but there is a precedent for that location on a contemporary American clipper ( May 1851)

Rick

The Challenge has the same winches on her bits that Chapelle drew for the Staghound.   
Intetesting

[ClipperFan]

8 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

The Challenge was a Webb designed clipper. However McKay was a clipper visionary. I would not use  w Webb design to validate a McKay design.  Especially when Duncan McLean describes her in such detail with having an ample, airy, well lit space for a shift of men to bunk.  
And no other clipper of the era had Naval Hoods either.  Proof , we can not use what others did to conclude what McKay did.  He worked to his own tune, setting records and building what no other designer would dare.  
 

Donald McKay’s one of a kind clipper fleet is my evidence.

Just in case you wanted to know how I feel about it?🧐👍

 

Rob

@rwiederrich

my intent for sharing Duncan McLean's article has nothing to do with McKay's now proven uniquely genious navel hood, cutwater bow design. When I read @Rick310 describe the Challenge forecastle to support the open forecastle design, I found the McLean write-up on her. I had no idea what I would find. In my first read of this large, 3 decker NY, Webb design I quickly learned that, similar to Stag Hound, Flying Cloud and Flying Fish her topgallant forecastle height was at the main rail. Stag Hound and Flying Cloud both had their main rail height at 5' while Flying Fish was 4 & 1/2'. Webb's extreme clipper Challenge had a bulkhead height of 4 & 1/2' including her monkey rail. That means her forecastle height had to be at least a foot lower. All four vessels had crew accommodations in their forecastle bows. We've concluded in the case of all 3 McKay clippers that the crew quarters were 3' below. So then the aft forecastle bulkhead had to be enclosed to provide a safe environment for sailors. Now, the exact same description applies to the Webb clipper as well. Again, the model is inaccurate as compared to the McLean description. Even her light blue waterways do not match the green color described in the article. There's no mention of where water closets were located so they could just as easily have been located below, along with her windlass. It's looks more and more like Chapelle relied on the Cutty Sark deck layout and just disregarded the McLean write up. Here's the sections which cover this area.

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

It's looks more and more like Chapelle relied on the Cutty Sark deck layout and just disregarded the McLean write up.

Mike told me Chapelle had no peer review concerning his drawings and many items he includes or eliminates can be suspect.  Unlike Chapelle...we cross reference and compare, historically what McKay did, or most likely did....based on his actual practices.   I completely agree, Rich.  Somethings fishy with this model....and Chapelle's drawing/design for it..

 

Rob

Edited 16 hours ago by rwiederrich

[Rick310]

Bingo!!!  Rob and Rich, I totally agree!  Everyone has relied on Chapelle as gospel.  Who knows what he knew.  Is the deck layout on the Challenge model based loosely on a description with generic items such as the winch, capstans. Wc, added because all ships would have had this equipment with no real evidence that this was specific to the Challenge?  Including the design of the forecastle.

My understanding is that the genus of both McKay and Webb, was the design of the body plans, specifically that part from the planksheer down as that would determine all the qualities of that particular ship, speed, cargo capacity, handling characteristics, ect.  Everything above was somewhat generic to all ships.  He certainly would have designed the forecastle and aft cabin.  If I’m not mistaken, Mc Kay left the rigging up to Her captain Edward Nickolas on the Flying Fish.

I’m not sure how involved McKay or Webb would have been with the finish carpenters when it came to deciding the moldings, carved knees, cabin interiors ect.He probably trusted them and left it up to them to do a good job.

Makes me wonder how many clipper ship models that we see are just generic models that someone named a particular ship?

Rick

[rwiederrich]

25 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Bingo!!!  Rob and Rich, I totally agree!  Everyone has relied on Chapelle as gospel.  Who knows what he knew.  Is the deck layout on the Challenge model based loosely on a description with generic items such as the winch, capstans. Wc, added because all ships would have had this equipment with no real evidence that this was specific to the Challenge?  Including the design of the forecastle.

My understanding is that the genus of both McKay and Webb, was the design of the body plans, specifically that part from the planksheer down as that would determine all the qualities of that particular ship, speed, cargo capacity, handling characteristics, ect.  Everything above was somewhat generic to all ships.  He certainly would have designed the forecastle and aft cabin.  If I’m not mistaken, Mc Kay left the rigging up to Her captain Edward Nickolas on the Flying Fish.

I’m not sure how involved McKay or Webb would have been with the finish carpenters when it came to deciding the moldings, carved knees, cabin interiors ect.He probably trusted them and left it up to them to do a good job.

Makes me wonder how many clipper ship models that we see are just generic models that someone named a particular ship?

Rick

Exactly.  McKay built Staghound completely...her masts. yards and rigging as well.  And as you suggest.....most clippers used similar deck features and equipment.  With that being said, however, McKay's ingenious pre-thought spilled over into deck features on his clippers.  So many have been previously mentioned here and elsewhere. So to think his deck designs might be different is not outside reality.  Duncan McLean's own overwhelmed remarks and acknowledgements of what a *Perfectly* provisioned vessel should look like, was expressed many times when describing a McKay vessel.  His own words, such as *Ingenious, skillfully executed, masterfully provided, well equipped....only reinforces the fact, that McKay used extraordinary skill and foresight in fashioning his vessels with modern and ingenious structures.  His attention to provide for his workers comfort was just as prevalent for providing for the men who would sail his vessels.

 

One note to remember:  McKay permitted his captains to be involved in rigging decisions, but he had overall control.....because the rigging design, in most cases fully effected the sailing characteristics of the hull.  No matter how well the hull was designed...if coupled with inadequate, or faulty masting, yarding, or sail plans....the entire vessels performance and reputation was in jeopardy.

McKay, wasn't down with that.

 

Rob

Edited 14 hours ago by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Mike told me Chapelle had no peer review concerning his drawings and many items he includes or eliminates can be suspect.  Unlike Chapelle...we cross reference and compare, historically what McKay did, or most likely did....based on his actual practices.   I completely agree, Rich.  Somethings fishy with this model....and Chapelle's drawing/design for it..

 

Rob

Rob,

It's a shame too because Chapelle did some beautiful illustrations. It makes me wonder if Howard ever had a chance to read the Boston Daily Atlas article? With such easy availability to all of these highly detailed articles through the internet, it's a challenge to see if these were tougher to locate and read in the 60s. If they were located, they unfortunately weren't given much credence. Ben Lankford definitely referenced the Boston Atlas article more than once, yet he apparently missed the entire passage referring to Flying Fish having twin companions in the wings of the topgallant forecastle leading to crew accommodations below. Now it appears the same mistake was possibly first initiated on the Chapelle Challenge. The more I carefully read context and visualize actual descriptions of these masterful vessels, the more I'm surprised to discover how inaccurate current plans and models are as compared to what I've read! Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how cavalier treatment of deck arrangements on clipper ships were in comparison to modeling historic military vehicles. Can you just imagine the reaction if someone put twin tails on a B-17 Flying Fortress? Yet I have a 1930s book on how to build a model of the Sovereign of the Seas which gives modelers multiple figurehead options, including a female mermaid and a fiddlehead but none of which includes her original merman one actually installed!

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Despite many successes with clippers, McKay's fortunes declined.  Was that because all the profits went 'back into the business'?  I suppose he could have saved more along the way to provide for his old age.  Some text from his life post 1875 is copied below:

 

Soon he found it useless to continue and reluctantly closed his yard and moved with his family to a farm in Hamilton, Massachusetts. Here he struggled to make a living from the ground and on September 20, 1880, died almost in poverty after a brilliant career that should have brought him great wealth and high honor.

 

Donald McKay, Master Shipbuilder - U.S. Naval Institute

[rwiederrich]

36 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

It's a shame too because Chapelle did some beautiful illustrations. It makes me wonder if Howard ever had a chance to read the Boston Daily Atlas article? With such easy availability to all of these highly detailed articles through the internet, it's a challenge to see if these were tougher to locate and read in the 60s. If they were located, they unfortunately weren't given much credence. Ben Lankford definitely referenced the Boston Atlas article more than once, yet he apparently missed the entire passage referring to Flying Fish having twin companions in the wings of the topgallant forecastle leading to crew accommodations below. Now it appears the same mistake was possibly first initiated on the Chapelle Challenge. The more I carefully read context and visualize actual descriptions of these masterful vessels, the more I'm surprised to discover how inaccurate current plans and models are as compared to what I've read! Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how cavalier treatment of deck arrangements on clipper ships were in comparison to modeling historic military vehicles. Can you just imagine the reaction if someone put twin tails on a B-17 Flying Fortress? Yet I have a 1930s book on how to build a model of the Sovereign of the Seas which gives modelers multiple figurehead options, including a female mermaid and a fiddlehead but none of which includes her original merman one actually installed!

I agree...I find the errors passed down to be unfortunate.    It's easy to sell something to a person ignorant of that something.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

26 minutes ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Despite many successes with clippers, McKay's fortunes declined.  Was that because all the profits went 'back into the business'?  I suppose he could have saved more along the way to provide for his old age.  Some text from his life post 1875 is copied below:

 

Soon he found it useless to continue and reluctantly closed his yard and moved with his family to a farm in Hamilton, Massachusetts. Here he struggled to make a living from the ground and on September 20, 1880, died almost in poverty after a brilliant career that should have brought him great wealth and high honor.

 

Donald McKay, Master Shipbuilder - U.S. Naval Institute

Donald McKay was a naval architect visionary.  However, that seems to be limited to the clipper design.  When other yards were quickly converting to steam ship building and design, McKay held his ground.  The loss of several of his ships that he alone paid for, contributed to his financial failure...along with the demise of sailing vessels, outpaced by new steam ships.  Webb, went on to be a very successful steam ship builder...others too.

 

Unfortunately, McKay was a victim of his own dedication.  His brilliant career did bring him great wealth and high honor.  It was his stubborn lack of vision for the future of iron steam ships that brought him low.  It was his own choices....not the advent of a superior vessel.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

4 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

I agree...I find the errors passed down to be unfortunate.    It's easy to sell something to a person ignorant of that something.

 

Rob

@rwiederrich at first, I thought the only omission was the unique McKay bow treatment, now as we get more in-depth into studying actual descriptions of these vessels, I am stunned how casually inaccurate commercial plans are in comparison to the real ships themselves. Just using plain common sense shreds a lot of these blatant inaccuracies. Now the question is this: how willing would producers of these plans and modeling kits be to revising them to reflect these many discoveries???

[ClipperFan]

2 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Donald McKay was a naval architect visionary.  However, that seems to be limited to the clipper design.  When other yards were quickly converting to steam ship building and design, McKay held his ground.  The loss of several of his ships that he alone paid for, contributed to his financial failure...along with the demise of sailing vessels, outpaced by new steam ships.  Webb, went on to be a very successful steam ship builder...others too.

 

Unfortunately, McKay was a victim of his own dedication.  His brilliant career did bring him great wealth and high honor.  It was his stubborn lack of vision for the future of iron steam ships that brought him low.  It was his own choices....not the advent of a superior vessel.

 

Rob

@Snug Harbor Johnny and @rwiederrich the sad reality was that Donald McKay stubbornly persisted in his devotion to sail alone. Why that was is a bit of a mystery. The big tragedy was that in the end when he was cold, Donald McKay resorted to cutting up and using his precious, one-of-a-kind builder 's models of all of his ships as firewood.... That must have been heartbreaking.

[rwiederrich]

24 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich at first, I thought the only omission was the unique McKay bow treatment, now as we get more in-depth into studying actual descriptions of these vessels, I am stunned how casually inaccurate commercial plans are in comparison to the real ships themselves. Just using plain common sense shreds a lot of these blatant inaccuracies. Now the question is this: how willing would producers of these plans and modeling kits be to revising them to reflect these many discoveries???

That sound like it might be a monumental task.  Profits are all these big model kit manufacturers are thinking about.  Still, it wouldn't hurt to at least inform them of the blatant errors, they allow in their so called scale model kits.  Revell didn't make any corrections to their Thermopylae kit.  Not sure they even make that kit any longer.

Still...the expensive wooden kits might make the change if they are concerned about accuracy.  Maybe *close* is good enough?🤥

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

25 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@Snug Harbor Johnny and @rwiederrich the sad reality was that Donald McKay stubbornly persisted in his devotion to sail alone. Why that was is a bit of a mystery. The big tragedy was that in the end when he was cold, Donald McKay resorted to cutting up and using his precious, one-of-a-kind builder 's models of all of his ships as firewood.... That must have been heartbreaking.

I'm sure that it was.....however, when you're cold, nostalgia and pride gather close to the warmth....of the fire.

 

Rob(Doing my bit to clear the lofting floor of shavings to reveal the truth)

Edited 11 hours ago by rwiederrich

[Rick310]

Rich, Rob, after reading your comments earlier today, I sat down to read the September issue of the NRG. And lo and  behold the editorial talks about Chapelle and his reluctance to divulge his sources for the drawing he did!  The article questions if he really knew the layout of the ships he drew and what does that mean going forward!  Are we just perpetuating errors that we have conveniently assumed were correct especially if they came from Chapelle?

WOW!!

Rick

[rwiederrich]

53 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Rich, Rob, after reading your comments earlier today, I sat down to read the September issue of the NRG. And lo and  behold the editorial talks about Chapelle and his reluctance to divulge his sources for the drawing he did!  The article questions if he really knew the layout of the ships he drew and what does that mean going forward!  Are we just perpetuating errors that we have conveniently assumed were correct especially if they came from Chapelle?

WOW!!

Rick

After Michael Mjelde told me specifically that Chapelle never had peer reviews of his data and drawings.   I began questioning the validity of them when things look wrong. 

[ClipperFan]

9 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I'm sure that it was.....however, when you're cold, nostalgia and pride gather close to the warmth....of the fire.

 

Rob(Doing my bit to clear the lofting floor of shavings to reveal the truth)

Rob,

The point I was making was that Donald McKay, pre-eminent designer of inspirational record breaking clipper ships was impoverished in his later years. Tragically, his destitution was so severe that he couldn't even afford to secure decent firewood to heat his home. As a result, he couldn't even spare destruction of dozens of the finest now priceless heirloom builder's ship models ever created. What an immeasurable loss to posterity.

 

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, Rick310 said:

Rich, Rob, after reading your comments earlier today, I sat down to read the September issue of the NRG. And lo and  behold the editorial talks about Chapelle and his reluctance to divulge his sources for the drawing he did!  The article questions if he really knew the layout of the ships he drew and what does that mean going forward!  Are we just perpetuating errors that we have conveniently assumed were correct especially if they came from Chapelle?

WOW!!

Rick

@Rick310 Wow, just wow! Please share that editorial with us. I've always admired the beautifully illustrated Chapelle plans but had no point of reference to compare his layouts to. As a result of years of concentrated research into recreating a historically accurate Glory of the Seas Rob and I have developed keen insights into the descriptions of these ships. The first time I corresponded with author Michael Mjelde I was concerned about insulting his work. He couldn't have been nicer or more encouraging about our efforts. Years later I learned he began his dedicated research into McKay's splendid clipper decades ago. Yet he was genuinely humble enough to recognize and admit that he had made errors in his plans of the ship. He then generously shared documents and historic images to help us in our exhaustive investigation. It now appears he is the exact opposite of the apparent example Chapelle demonstrated. When we began our research we all agreed that our "North Star" would be devotion to facts as best we could develop them. More than once, we had to revise our plans as more accurate information was revealed. But we always remained true to that conviction. I feel the same way about researching accurate layouts of any ship, regardless if it's a McKay vessel (my favorites) or others like Nightingale or Challenge. The facts are there, we just need to have the patience to read them and follow them intelligently. That and be fully willing to admit when a mistake was made and implement corrections as they're warranted.