Young America 1853 by EdT - FINISHED - extreme clipper

[rwiederrich]

Yes nomenclature can be tough some times. Clipper packet or Medium clipper....? Guess it depends on what your rival prefers.

The YA was an extreme clipper..built for speed and not so much on capacity. Regardless.. .I am thrilled you are taking this ship on and for what ever reasons you have concluded are good to you.

 

Crothers, *The American Built Clipper Ships* has nice renderings of her figurehead and cheek details...and MacGreggor's  *British and American Clipper ships...has a nice scaled line drawing of her hull and her decks and sail plan.

 

Good luck and fair weather as you begin this wonderful build.

 

Rob

Edited September 9, 2013 by rwiederrich

[trippwj]

Ed -

 

As always, I am fascinated by the research and analysis that goes into each of your builds.  I also have a preference for Webb over McKay (just because).  Thanks for the detailed information you share on each of these!

[EdT]

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 4 - Webb’s Young America

Well, they say that every good plan eventually degenerates into hard work. The research and planning for the model has been fun, but now it is time to get down to business. That does not necessarily mean getting right into the workshop, although apart from the frame process tests discussed in Part 3, I do hope to start forming the keel in a week or two. Right now there is a ton of frame lofting to do and sometimes that can get tedious. With 80 frame pairs, totaling 160 frames, there are a lot of patterns to create. Please be patient.

In Part 3 I had intended to discuss Young America, and my choice of her as a subject, but I inserted the framing process work instead. So, I will discuss YA here while I take a break from lofting frames.

Webb
William H. Webb was widely regarded as the premier American shipbuilder of the mid-19th century period. His father Isaac Webb took over the New York shipyard of Henry Eckford in 1825 and operated it under the name of Webb and Allen until his death in 1840. During that time, 23 ships – from cutters to packets were built. In 1840 William Webb took over the yard. Over the next 30 years, 135 ships were built – packets, clippers, steamers, barks, ironclads, and of course, extreme clippers – 9 of them. Following Celestial and Gazelle, the third.of these was Challenge, launched in 1851. The purchasers single requirement was that Challenge should be the finest and fastest merchant ship in the world, regardless of cost. At 252’ feet she was the largest extreme clipper to be launched to that date. Comet at 241’ was launched two months later. There were four more before Young America in 1853 – the ship that Webb considered his masterpiece. He knew the extreme clipper era was ending and that YA was the last he would build. He went on to build many more ships through 1869. In later life Webb turned to philanthropy, starting a school of marine architecture for boys of limited means. To this day, tuition at Webb Institute is free to qualifying applicants.

Young America

Young America was named after a broad, popular cultural-political movement that flourished in pre Civil War America. The movement advocated democratic reform, free trade, expansion and similar themes. It was a largely urban, middle class movement that became associated with the Democratic party and Stephen Douglas. It paralleled similar movements in Europe.

Some design particulars:
~243’ long od, 43’2” extreme breadth, ~26’ depth of hold
1961 tons – old measure
20” floor deadrise (9 deg)
deadflat forward of midpoint 25’
swell of the sides (tumblehome) 20”
3 decks
circular stern
cost $140,000

Excuse the approximate numbers on her size. There seems to be a variety of measurements reported and due to lack of standardization, it is not always clear what they are. Fortunately the original offsets (see below) ensures that the model will be correct. Other features will be described and compared to other similar ships as they occur later in construction.

I include deadrise in this list because it was considered a key variable in improving speed. Of course as the angle of the floors increased, hold capacity decreased, so the pronounced deadrise of up to 20+ degrees that was employed on the early extreme clippers clearly emphasized speed over capacity in these ships. As the period advanced, bottom shapes became more flat, without an attendant loss of speed. At 9 degrees YA is a good example of the evolved design.

The key structural issue in these ships was the prevention of hogging – the downward deformation of the hull at the ends – sometimes to the point of failure. The problem occurred in wooden ships because of reduced buoyancy at the ends due to less hull volume at the bow and stern. The long length and the sharp entry and run aft in these ships severely aggravated the problem. The obvious solution was to increase hull strength by various means – huge keelsons, heavy inboard planking (called bilge keelsons), various forms of triangular bracing, anti-hogging chocks, diagonal iron lattice-work bolted to the frames, kneed pillars, and generally heavy construction - to the point of reducing hold capacity. Relative to the competition, Webb employed these features with a lighter touch, generally keeping scantlings smaller. He also employed some innovation in going to variable frame spacing with frames spaced further apart toward the ends of the hull where the smaller sections required less structure. This is said to have reduced the dead weight of the structure at each end by up to 25 tons – a substantial relief of the hogging strain effect. The long life of Young America (and others) is a testament to this good engineering.

Availability of data on Webb’s ships is limited to books of plans from his papers for some of his ships. Data for Challenge is fairly complete, since at her launch detailed descriptions were printed. For Young America, less original data is available.

Building a fully framed Young America would not be possible for me without the work of William L. Crothers, specifically his recently published (1997) The American Clipper Ship, Characteristics, Construction, Details. The book is a thoroughly researched tour de force on clipper ship construction. In it he has reproduced Webb’s original table of offsets for both Young America and Comet – essential for producing hull drawings. He has also included substantial basic scantling information for a variety of ships. Based on the assumption that Challenge, Comet and YA would all be similar in structural design, I believe an accurate framed model design can be made forYoung America. Having reached this conclusion, I made my choice to proceed. Crothers also published model plans for a number of ships under the name Sea Gull Plans. The plans for YA (1:96) do not include framing or structure, but will be useful for deck arrangements and rigging. I have also used his similar plans for Challenge and McKay’s Lightning for reference. I have acquired and studied a variety of other sources, but in the main, Crothers has nicely collected most of the useful data – and has usefully referenced his sources in detail.

Below is an image of the CAD body plan from Webb’s original table of offsets. This provides a good description of the hull shape. It is very different from my previous model of Naiad and ships of her type. The method of creating the body plan was also much different. Gone are the heights and breadths of rising, the circular sweeps and points plotted on diagonals. It is possible that a half hull model was made first and the waterline/butt line offsets taken from that to loft the ship. This was a common practice.

This body plan is a starting point for the frame lofting. It shows only profiles at primary station lines. To this drawing I have added all of the intermediate frame profiles as well as profiles between these to permit beveled frame patterns to be lofted. The intermediate profiles were plotted from points measured on a half breadth plan constructed from the original table. That body plan is shown below.



The cant frame profiles are not shown in this plan. The square frame lines are extremely close together, especially near midship. Fortunately, only the computer has to see them.  The diagonals on this plan were added only to set the height of the frame joints in fair lines. I do not believe the American builders paid too much attention to this, but it will make a neater model.

In addition, a table of scantlings is being progressively constructed from various sources.

 

As proof that there will really be a model starting soon, I have included the following photo of the old Naiad building board sporting the framing plan for YA. The shipway is just long enough.




Ed

[brad918]

Ed, this is extremely great to see a fully framed clipper ship being built and with your skills is sure to be another masterpiece.

 

I too am in the early construction phase of building the clipper ship Challenge 1851 by Webb. I have decieded to model a fully framed cross section at 1:48 to capture the framework of these beautiful ships. I obtained drafts from the Smithsonian at 1:48 scale and do agree with you that these large clippers would need a seperate building to be constructed in at that scale.  I think your choice of 1:72 scale will be perfect to capture the detail. You will find Crothers book invaluable during your build. I will pass along any info i have or come across on Young America. I will be following your build with great excitement.

 

Great Choice Ed!

 

Brad

[EdT]

Thank you, Brad and those who "liked" the last post.  I have started construction and should be posting some progress pictures soon.

 

Brad, good luck with your Challenge - a most amazing ship.  You are right about Crothers book.  It has been invaluable - along with several others.  I assume the Smithsonian plans you mention were Chapelle's?   They may be the ones that are printed - small size - in his The Search for Speed Under Sail - an excellent book.  Crothers also published very detailed plans for Challenge - two large sheets 1:96 under the name SeaGull Plans, now available from Taubman/Loyalhanna.  There is also a very thorough description - written by the reporter Duncan Maclean - reprinted in American Clipper Ships, Vol I by Howe and Matthews.  You may already be aware of these but I thought I would mention them.

 

Ed

[druxey]

We hoist a glass to you on the laying of your keel, Ed! And eagerly await your progress reports....

[brad918]

Ed, you are correct that the plans i have are indeed Chapelle's. I will check out the plans from Loyalhanna, i know the last ones i received from them on the Champion of the Seas were fairly poor quality, but maybe just a bad copy.

 

I have attached a rendering of a frame i derived from Crothers book. I am not sure if this was what Webb would have used on his ships or just a generic example of some clipper ships. I wondered if you too were stepping the thickness of the futtock's and top timbers on the square frames as you approach the rail ?  I assume this was done to reduce weight in the upper sections of the frame possible to prevent hogging?  Hopefully i am not too far off base as i have already completed 4 frames using this theory

 

Brad

 

 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

Fascinating Ed....just fascinating.  Your attention to detail is most impressive and I am sure will result in a magnificent model.

 

Can't wait. Have you built any other clippers....I'm getting the impression you have?

 

Rob 

Edited September 12, 2013 by rwiederrich

[Cuda1949]

Wow what a build looking forward to following along. As a side note I built a ship in the bottle of the Young America as one of my early builds. Still one of my favs.  Good Luck. I will be sitting in the front row observing your build.

 

Al previously from Philly PA

Edited September 12, 2013 by Cuda1949

[EdT]

Brad,

 

I could be wrong, but I do not believe the plans for Champion were by Crothers. The list of his plans for clippers that I have include: Challenge, Lightning, Black Hawk, Comet, Young America, Red Jacket. There are also another dozen or so non-clipper Sea Gull Plans. The plans I have of Crothers (Lightning, Challenge, YA) are excellent.

 

Yes, I do intend to reduce the sidings of the futtocks as they progress up. I would make the following comments on your rendering:

 

1) I do not believe that these ships (McKay or Webb) had a rising wood, or hogg, (like 18thC RN), on top of the keel, so there should be no notch at the bottom of the frame pair. The frame bolted directly to the keel. I believe the thickness of the floor over the keel on Challenge was 17 1/2". I would be interested if you had information to the contrary on this point.

 

2)The frame joints closest to the keel are the floor heads - the ends of the continuous horizontal piece whose center lies on the keel. In your picture it is behind the forward piece, whose joints are the next pair going upwards. These pieces are the lower (or first) futtocks. They are not one piece but join at the centerline atop the keel.

 

3) I believe there should be at least one more joint, in the timber above the lower futtock and perhaps another above the second futtock head on the back frame. I have placed five joints in the full frames at the diagonal lines shown in the body plan above. I gather, from what I have read, that American builders did not necessarily follow the rigid rules used by earlier, example 18thC RN, ships. They may have simply placed the joints in the frames to suit the timber availoable, keeping a minimum distance between joints, of course. So, my last point is speculation on my part. Locating joints on fair diagonal lines will make for a neater model and in the absence of hard data, that is the direction I am taking.

 

4) At your scale, you may wish to include the limber notches on either side of the keel on the undersides of the frames. These allowed entering water to flow to the pumps. You will see these on Crother's midsection for Challenge.

 

Also, it was common in earlier RN ships to reverse the position of the floors from the fore to the aft side of the frame pair at midship. The American clipper builders placed them all on the same side - and may not have been particular about which. The frame with the floor will be the higher frame - as you have shown - going up the the fancy/monkey rail. The other frame in the pair stops at the planksheer.

 

Let me suggest and encourage that you install bolts in your model. In a cross section this would add interest. Crothers is very thorough on bolts - size, type and placement.

 

Assuming I am correct, I hope this helps and doesn't cause rework. If it does, let me know and I will repost the picture of my Naiad rejected parts bin to make you feel better.

 

Rob, thank you. This is my first clipper.

 

Ed

Edited September 12, 2013 by EdT

[rwiederrich]

I have built many clippers...of course they were heavily modified from existing Revell Cutty Sark hulls which I used as my starting point.  Then by utilizing plans I rebuilt the hulls to the hulls of the ships I was building.  Then I scratch build the rest entirely...Unless some universal components could be recycled...I did so.

 

Your builds are entirely of a different breed.......entirely.  I can appreciate the willingness it must take to build every structural component from original plans in the manner and attention to detail as the original builder(Webb,etc)  However...I'm generally lazy and I don't like covering up what I spend hours(days) building...so I have fallen off the purist truck...into the external, *That looks just like her* crowd of builder.  All the while straying away from the time consuming hours of actually building her to be exactly like her......crowd.

 

I'm impressed and I hope to glean enormous amounts, no volumes..of information from you, during this build.

 

Rob 

[EdT]

Thank you, Al. I hope you find this interesting. It is a voyage of discovery for me, too.

 

Rob, what's nice about all this is that everyone can pursue it in their own way.

 

Ed

[michael mott]

Ed just caught this build and will be very interesting and educational following along. I too prefer the civilian types of vessels so am happy that you have chosen one for your next build.

 

Michael

[Jim Lad]

Ed,

 

You mention merchant ships not being built to strict rules like Royal Naval ships, but their builders had to follow the requirements of the major marine insurers if the ships eventual owners were to be able to insure their ships and cargoes.  It may be helpful for you to explore the role of classification societies in the U.S. at the time Young America was built.  In the British Empire at the time ships were built to Lloyds rules (whose first register had appeared in 1764), but as the American Bureau of Shipping didn't appear until 1862, I'm not sure what rules were followed in the U.S. when Young America was built.

 

Lloyds rules are quite specific as to the required construction methods and I assume that American insurers were equally finicky about how ships that they insured were built.

 

Just a thought.

 

John

[rwiederrich]

That's right Ed......that is what I love about this hobby.....everyone can approach building in the medium they prefer and to the extent they prefer...all because we enjoy the feeling of the build.

 

I'm enjoying this fully.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Great thought John...after lots of reading it appears insurers might have something to say about ship construction.....the ships/cargo they insure .

 

Rob

[EdT]

Thank you, John. You have raised a very good point. I probably should not have used the word rules. Accepted practices may have been a better term. I think I mentioned only two points.

 

I do not believe marine insurers mandated changing the position of floor timbers from the fore to the aft side of the frame pairs at midship. I believe this was a long standing Royal Navy practice, that offered no structural benefit, and according to Crothers, was not adopted by the American clipper builders. I am not sure that this was practiced other than by the RN - but I really do not know. To follow this practice, an additional standalone frame had to be inserted at midship to allow the switch without having aligned joints on adjacent frames. I believe this is the reason for the departure from normal room and space dimensions around the deaflat on RN ships - at least that is the case in the RN drafts that I have examined. Very awkward. I have not seen this irregularity in non-Navy ( eg East India) drafts.

 

As far as setting the frame joints on diagonals for the purpose of fair joint lines along the hull this appears to me to be another traditional practice - if indeed it was even practiced. I would expect there to be standards relating to offsetting of joints in a frame pair and that would of course have been followed - and is plain good construction.

 

During the period to the mid-1850's there was no governing standard on American merchant vessels - but I believe they invariably recieved normal top Lloyd's classifications. Some were registed in England. The first standards in America appeared in 1857 - the New York Marine Register - known as American Lloyds Universal. In 1867 the American Shipmasters Association promulgated further rules of classification to assist underwriters. The American Lloyds register appeared in 1870. I am not familiar with any of these documents.

 

There apparently were other time-honored English or European practices that were dispensed with by the American builders in favor of equally good, but more efficient methods - at least according to the sources I am using - for example, adding more bolrs and eliminating laboriously cut tables in scarph joints.

 

Young America was a early 19th century mindset as well as a clipper ship.

 

Anyway, I hope that clears up my meaning.

 

Ed

[rwiederrich]

Good clarity Ed.

 

Rob

[russ]

Ed:

You can download Lloyd's rules for building wooden ships.

 

Russ

[rwiederrich]

Just one more thought Ed..will you be building her in this fashion...like the antique model of the Thermopylae? 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

And this?

[brad918]

Ed, thank you for you comments. The plans i have of Champion from Loyalhanna are drawn from E. Hannon. I will seek the Crothers plans for Challenge.

 

I too agree the floor thickness is 17 1/2" on Challenge, i didnt see the floor size for YA however. As for the notch in the floor, i mainly used this to make sure my frames would have somthing to positively align them. Crothers did mention that the floor was sometimes cut into to a depth that lowered the seating of the floor to the bearding line, but as might be expected different yards adopted different procedures. I believe this is on page 148 of Crothers.

 

I do plan on installing the limber notches as you suggested, and i do have the first frame showing how it would have been bolted together. I am actually learning most of these scratch building techniques by referencing your Naiad book (great book by the way, can we expect one on Young America?  )

 

Brad

[EdT]

Thank you, Russ.  I will see if I can find any rules that were in effect here in the early 1850's.  So far, I have not come across any early documents.

 

Rob, thank you for the pics.  I had not seen these or this beautiful model.  Where is the model?  I have not made any decisions on how much framing to expose or decks to leave out yet and these pictures will help me think about that.

 

Brad, I did see Crothers note on the use of notches by some yards, but I was going by his midsections for Challenge and YA and did look at his midsections for McKay's ships in his book before responding to you yesterday.  There is much unknown here, so assumptions have to be made - as you have done.  I am using 17" for YA floor depth, just slightly less than Challenge - YA was slighlty smaller.  Crothers also used this depth on his plans for YA.  I will be making a lot of assumptions on YA's scantlings because no record has survived.  There is a good record of Challenge however.  I believe - with some support from Crothers -  that Comet, Challenge and YA were all pretty similar in timber sizes and were all structurally quite similar - for example, all had the strap iron lattice.  The first two were built at virtually the same time and were very successful in terms of structure, so it is logical to assume minimum change for YA.  But that is an assumption.   Also, at 1:72, some of these variations in scantlings become academic - a half-inch difference is only .007" - a few swipes of 120 grit paper.

 

In looking at the midsections in the book, I did notice that he shows 4 frame joints as opposed to the five I mentioned, however he shows five on his drawings for Challenge and YA.  This is a very minor point and a feature that I believe would have been decided at the yard based on timber available.  There would be no reson to make two pieces of these toptimbers if one suitable piece was at hand.  So, another assumption.

 

Cheers,

 

Ed

[tarbrush]

Hi Ed,

Brad asked a question that I have been wondering about as well, do you think you will be writing a book on this build?  I think it would invaluable.

[EdT]

Sorry, Brad, I missed that question.  Right now I am just hoping to enjoy the leisure of the build and the build log.  Any question of a book would be out there in the future.

 

Ed

[EdT]

Young America - extreme clipper 1853
Part 5 – Keel Structure
So, finally some real work and some pictures.

 

Young America’s keel was sided 16” by 31 inches deep.  The main body of the keel was two tiered.  The upper tier was 15” deep and the lower was 12” deep.  In all of these posts I will use the word “was” rather freely, since original scantlings lists do not exist.  “Was” will mean based on the best data and/or reasonable assumptions.  In general, I relied heavily on the more complete data for Challenge.  I think that extrapolation is a reasonable approach.  One builders sidings were not all that different from one ship to the next – unless the first was not successful.  Under the two main members is a 4” shoe – a sacrificial protective covering of the main members and boltheads..  This was installed just before launch by removing blocks under the keel slipping it in and fastening it.

 

I will not dwell on my sawmill operations.  These were well covered in the opening parts of the Naiad posts.  The first picture shows some blanks for the keel members and a piece of the swiss pear material from a few steps upstream in the process.

 

 

The pear was cut into the piece shown at the top from a roughly 2” thick by 12” wide by x feet long piece.  The planks were then cut to rough size on a bandsaw and reduced to final thickness (16”) on a thickness sander.  One edge was then planed straight using the small modeling plane at the top – so the final pieces could be accurately ripped to size.  The next picture showns all of the pieces needed to make the keel – cut to final width and depth.

 

 

The members were then cut to final length based on the drawing shown above.  Because of the large number of bolts through the actual keel, placement of joints relative to each other, masts, etc., the lengths had to be laid out carefully beforehand to avoid interferences.  I did this on the drawing for the model, even though many of the invisible bolts will not be installed.  The next picture shows a typical joint of the type used in the top two tiers.

 

 

The joints are hook scarphs with wedge driven into the center.  They are identical except for size to the larger keelson scarph shown on the drawing.  That view shows the typical bolting for one of these joints.  It also shows one large bolt through the keel for each floor and another longer bolt through the entire keel/keelson centered on the frame timbers aft of the floors.  The next picture shows one of the lower tier joints being glued.

 

 

Darkened Titebond wood glue is used to give a subtle highlighting to the joints.  The two parts were clamped with light pressure, the wedge shown was driven through to make the ends butt, and finally the clamps were fully tightend.  Excess glue was washed off with clean water – hence the darkened area.

 

With the lower tier fully assembled, the upper tier was added on piece at a time as shown in the next picture.

 

 

To keep the final two-tier assembly straight, a straightedge and the flat top of the shipway was used to clamp the pieces.  Waxed paper was used underneath to prevent gluing to the shipway.  The next picture shows some joints in the final three layer structure.

 

 

 

The final picture shows the assembled keel lying on the shipway drawing.  It is an actual 37” long.  Full length keels make for pretty boring photos, but here it is.

 

 

The next step will be to form the rabbet on either side of the top – at least partially.  The top corners of the final rabbets are quite sharp and fragile and will be subject to damage during erection of the frames.  However, I want to cut at least some of the rabbet now so water stops can be inserted before framing,  but after the bulk of the rabbet has been scraped out.  This will be discussed further in the next parts.

 

Ed

[ianmajor]

Ed,

 

...and so it begins. I am going to enjoy this.

[sonicmcdude]

And I find the new build log..   And is a nice clipper... nice start ... keep the pictures coming Ed!

[Jim Lad]

Nice to see the keel laid, Ed.

 

John

[druxey]

And so it really begins! This is going to be an enjoyable spectator sport.