Glory of the Seas 1869 by rwiederrich - Medium clipper - discontinued in lieu of new log

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

21 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

 

Vladimir...your desire to build a replica of the Glory is commendable...and will take some real research, even though Mjelde's book does cover her deck plan very well...the hull is left to the imagination.  This will rely on your observation skills, not to mention some deductive conclusions.  When I built the Glory...my desire at the time was to use an existing Revell Cutty Sark hull and modify it enough to correct the cutwater of the bow and correct the under emphasized gunwale...not to mention the correction of the forecastle and poop.   Correction of the deadrise could not be made with that plastic hull....so I simply accepted what I had.   but if I were to do it all over again...I'd find or develop plans for a heavy bodied Downeaster hull design.  Photographic images of the Glory's hull(as she is on the beach), and at her launching, shows she was of a fuller design....not the extreme clipper design of the Cutty Sark.

 

It can be done..but work and research will have to be employed.  I hope you look into it further.

 

Rob

Good day Rob thank you for your input , yes downeaster was the first what really came to my mind watching glorys body and Michael citation from jozrnals of that time trIng to describe  her . i will research on it further sure. many thanks and good luck with finishing yours Vlad 

[rwiederrich]

4 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Good day Rob thank you for your input , yes downeaster was the first what really came to my mind watching glorys body and Michael citation from jozrnals of that time trIng to describe  her . i will research on it further sure. many thanks and good luck with finishing yours Vlad 

 I might even consider building just a hull model of her....myself.  From draying I make and plank on bulkhead design.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

On 6/30/2020 at 7:52 PM, rwiederrich said:

 I might even consider building just a hull model of her....myself.  From draying I make and plank on bulkhead design.

 

Rob

Good day Rob, 

i tried some preliminary fun measuring and scaling with my typical method i digitalized  photographs took from the center of boat from Mjeldes book and started to observing upscaling and comparing them on monitor. I believe there is one probable most valuable one from observation when glory was dragged to shore with galcier fish etc paint on her photographed from behind angle. that is definitiely benchmark for stern curvature and belly shape. she is definitely not aggresive curvy , being 3 decker with such register tonnage, i found out she is indeed also a lot deeper than cutty sark. . exactly as you write , i have myself cutty plactic belly but complete plactic modification would not be posssible. firstly i thought myself to modify it similar way you do , and after taking measurements fro it....as you write Mjeldes deck installment is what i will rely on but even body vertical scheme is not precise from my observation of photographs. also after measuring scales his drawing is not precise as depth on hold is not in corelation  with numbers in his book. at least cheeks are proportionally incorrect on that drawing. what concerns me most at this first moment is forecastle curvature. i found half model of down easter from https://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbho-1/ships-shipbuilding/maines-down-easters but so far unsuccesful with plans. 

i am playing with idea of trying to model hull out of clay firstly just to see what i am up to  with visual  comparisons of downeasters and photographs ...will see. 

... this is vessel i am going after  - https://www.google.com/search?q=benjamin+f+packard+ship&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjNwsCW26zqAhXN4KQKHYK3AZkQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=benjamin+f+packard+ship&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQA1CJvzJY-dkyYPXbMmgAcAB4AIABxQGIAZ0PkgEEMC4xM5gBAKABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=1Nn8Xs2IFM3BkwWC74bICQ&bih=909&biw=768&prmd=imnv&rlz=1C9BKJA_enSK800SK800&hl=sk#imgrc=-hDlEJKIHEOQyM

[rwiederrich]

On 7/1/2020 at 12:06 AM, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Good day Rob, 

i tried some preliminary fun measuring and scaling with my typical method i digitalized  photographs took from the center of boat from Mjeldes book and started to observing upscaling and comparing them on monitor. I believe there is one probable most valuable one from observation when glory was dragged to shore with galcier fish etc paint on her photographed from behind angle. that is definitiely benchmark for stern curvature and belly shape. she is definitely not aggresive curvy , being 3 decker with such register tonnage, i found out she is indeed also a lot deeper than cutty sark. . exactly as you write , i have myself cutty plactic belly but complete plactic modification would not be posssible. firstly i thought myself to modify it similar way you do , and after taking measurements fro it....as you write Mjeldes deck installment is what i will rely on but even body vertical scheme is not precise from my observation of photographs. also after measuring scales his drawing is not precise as depth on hold is not in corelation  with numbers in his book. at least cheeks are proportionally incorrect on that drawing. what concerns me most at this first moment is forecastle curvature. i found half model of down easter from https://penobscotmarinemuseum.org/pbho-1/ships-shipbuilding/maines-down-easters but so far unsuccesful with plans. 

i am playing with idea of trying to model hull out of clay firstly just to see what i am up to  with visual  comparisons of downeasters and photographs ...will see. 

... this is vessel i am going after  - https://www.google.com/search?q=benjamin+f+packard+ship&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjNwsCW26zqAhXN4KQKHYK3AZkQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=benjamin+f+packard+ship&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQA1CJvzJY-dkyYPXbMmgAcAB4AIABxQGIAZ0PkgEEMC4xM5gBAKABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=1Nn8Xs2IFM3BkwWC74bICQ&bih=909&biw=768&prmd=imnv&rlz=1C9BKJA_enSK800SK800&hl=sk#imgrc=-hDlEJKIHEOQyM

 

Interesting thoughts.  I have a book with plans for the BFP..problem is the cutwater or the angle of the bow is not right for the Glory...plus the deadrize..the angle of the hull from the keel is far more extreme then is found on the Glory.  The Glory is considered to be in the design of the Downeasters...and a fore runner of said design...so has more the deadrise of the Champion of the Seas then the Packard.  The book *How to make a clipper ship model* has plans for the *Sovereign of the Seas*, which is again a fuller design the Packard.

 

Personally, I feel the Great Republic hull design is more in keeping with the Glory's design.  If one changes the spherical curvedbow to a sharper bow of the Glory and one removes the weather deck of the GR and installs a typical gunwale......you might have a very close replica of the Glory's hull design. 

One needs to combine the full body design of the Glory/GR with  less of an extreme design entry of the GR  and the Sovereign of the Seas.  More bow design like that of the Young America.

 

Fun stuff for sure.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Found this schooner up in Pt Townsend.   Pretty cool name .

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

41 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

 

Interesting thoughts.  I have a book with plans for the BFP..problem is the cutwater or the angle of the bow is not right for the Glory...plus the deadrize..the angle of the hull from the keel is far more extreme then is found on the Glory.  The Glory is considered to be in the design of the Downeasters...and a fore runner of said design...so has more the deadrise of the Champion of the Seas then the Packard.  The book *How to make a clipper ship model* has plans for the *Sovereign of the Seas*, which is again a fuller design the Packard.

 

Personally, I feel the Great Republic hull design is more in keeping with the Glory's design.  If one changes the spherical curvedbow to a sharper bow of the Glory and one removes the weather deck of the GR and installs a typical gunwale......you might have a very close replica of the Glory's hull design. 

One needs to combine the full body design of the Glory/GR with  less of an extreme design entry of the GR  and the Sovereign of the Seas.  More bow design like that of the Young America.

 

Fun stuff for sure.

 

Rob

Good evening Rob many thanks for your observations and points. You are true treasure of" to the point " remarks. Stem should not be a much problem i guess once I modify it to glorys almost straight line byt i agree whoke cutwater will ne most chalenging.  I have to look closer to it again - i picked BFP as typical downeaster. Regarding deadrise i have some interesting  observations Rob. I found a plan on internet in the book you are mentioning and guess what? I compared it to the plan from https://www.mysticseaport.org/benjamin-f-packard-cabin/

 

There is significant difference in drawing and this plan looks to me as flat down as could be. I scanned both plans and compared together clearly showing . I will post it here maybe tomorrow. I will check your observation with GR but i think even gunwale curvature of bfp looks similar to glory to me. Intetesting point with sovereign of the seas . I thought that was extreme clipper...maybe combinig entry of sovereign should be spot on as you write. Gonna see. Anyway i twll you  what i plan to do first. I am aboyt to me lets say 30 cm model of bfp with trying to midify cutwatdr - which will be mist dificukt task i guess. I fear stwrn less as it shows beautiful curvy lines thst are nit that hard ti get. Cutwater is definitely challenge as concave below and convex towards rail. Anyway i will show you anothe bfp plan what you will say and will discuss from there. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Good weekend  ahead,

here is my observation Rob, I took for granted midsection of mr. Mjelde from book Glory of the seas, and compared various midsections, trying to measure 1. curviness of midsection. left half of pictures are important of course _look from aft forewise. plaese ignore right side.

2. tried to observe depth versus Width proportionality and my experiment showed various interesting facts.

 

I wrote a namelist of every pic so you will understand quickly, i am sure im not presenting a tiny thing you are not aware of propbably more assuring myself i am heading right direction....

 

iterssting observation - deadrise of every following McKay ship was smaller and smaller - staghound 40 sovereign of the seasand GR  20 inches  and and glory only 8 and a half. almost flat. 

 

what i figured out - I discuss midsection only - which means with our effort to find a way to restore Glory only 1 possibly 2 single bulkheads. way too little sofar.. :))) but. interesting ones... you were spot on with GR body shape around deadrise and pretty much on with sovereign.

from the pics you can see various outcomes. As long as GR matches around curvatures at center - it does not match with corelation DEPTH - Width of ship..GR was rather width than tall.... this is not tragedy to  to say as it takes only toshorten bulkheads to bring center line of GR closer to ratio of Glory - more or less same lenght between height and width.

 

more. unfortunately i do not have sharper pic of BFPackard, and what i have shows only 10 bulkheads not 19or 20...way little to follow shape securely. but what i can say vurvature of center one is fine from deadrise and proportionality. speaking only about 1 bulkhead of course. i am taking it from this website. 

 

https://store.mysticseaport.org/ships-plans/benj-f-packard-full-rigged-ship-model.html

 

I compared Flying fish and cutty just out of curiosity...

 

so be it GR sovereing or even BFP - I am still just at the beginning.  but deadrise and midsection is definitely covered, hopefully we will discuss waterlines curvatures around aft and cutwater further on. that will be tougher i guess. 

good weekend.

V.

 

[rwiederrich]

You are doing a great work...exactly what I would do.  Amidship frames are quite evident in deadrise...I want to see what you do with the bow and convexity and concaved aspects of the bow comparisons...

 

Great job for sure.   Love it.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

.

 

[rwiederrich]

I see your #5 drawing comparison shows the Sovereign and the Glory with very close frame designs amidships.  This makes sense since the sovereign was known as the fastest clipper, holding several records for speed and miles traveled in a 24 hour period.  I can only assume Donald McKay desired to model Glory after a known successful design.  He did, however change the bow entry to more of a vertical incline then reduced as was the Sovereign.

 

Great work...I hope to glean from what you come up with.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I see your #5 drawing comparison shows the Sovereign and the Glory with very close frame designs amidships.  This makes sense since the sovereign was known as the fastest clipper, holding several records for speed and miles traveled in a 24 hour period.  I can only assume Donald McKay desired to model Glory after a known successful design.  He did, however change the bow entry to more of a vertical incline then reduced as was the Sovereign.

 

Great work...I hope to glean from what you come up with.

 

Rob

Good day Rob,

 

interesting remark with taking it from soverefing - as being sucessful . I did work a lot on this further capitol.  I  am thinking of bow being toughest so I am leaving that for last.

I posted earlier today but decided to erase it as I foumd one observation crucial aftr I posted and that one changed my assumings. 

I am about to continue now. Im glad Mr.McKay from avatar pic approved misection but bad thing is, that was easiest part. everything on will be a more tougher nut to crack.

 

I will try to make some assumprions based on observation, and I worked comparing 1: bulkheads plan together with photographies, and together with halfbreath plan. some observation i found by accident I believe are not short of surprising and shocking will try to put evidence and happy to hear concurs and remarks from you indeed.  

 

 I will try to resolve two important parts , leaving last - bow or cutwater entry for next last part.

 

1. curvature towards stern and stern profile

2. planksheer profile from the top , utmost important for width of all bulkheads.

 

I narrowed comparisons to two designs, sovereing and ! surprise surprise, - Balclutha. i will state later why.

 

lets start with 2. as it come up pretty easy and straightforward. surprisingly. everything commented in pics again , so no need to elaborate just to write outcome. you can see, both designs, pretty close match with Mr.Mjelde drawing of plansheer profile line from the top. which is pretty awesome.

 

now why I borrowed balclutha for comparison. i did find that ship by accident bwosing thru web - and its plan widely ans amazingly detailed free available on internet. put aside ship being longer than glory and midecenter being more agressive concave profile !she sits in water in waterline 1 almost with all belly. but look at Glory dragged ashore in famous glacier fish pic. almost same. It makes me to conclude that livingspirit on Glory still prudly sits in water hidden just in front of eyes of everyone, being english design :))) i would say 80 percent of her hull is glory.

 

 

now

 

when establishing sternprofile unfortunately we run into several unfortunate issue deceiving us to false conclusions that have to be taken to account wehen comparing

1. few famous photopgraps to start with. - glory dragged ashore with sign glacier fish etc.....showing stern fantastically  but  ! that pic was taken from very bottom posing camera up at approx 45 degrees angle - which pretty much shows us only few aspects from bottomview. its like people staring up aloft at 10 floor building. unfortunately we cannot grasp agressiveness of  concavity.

 

2. BW photo of sovereign - its horizontal pic but unfortunately, part around stern is not quite visible, but that can be seen from plan and various museum quality models pretty nicely.

 

3. Blaclutha. I took that one believing with planksheer and deadrise length being closer to glory - as deadrise close to Glory , and stern profile being round comparing with various pics and shallow design of butt bulkheads one for comparing with sovereign .....

 

Every ship even sovereign look more less same to glory when drown in water.... - simply way not enough to make critical assumption on design.

 

what i read out from bulkheads and how did I read them - 

 

I  observed penultimate bulkhead of sovereign and balclutha - 19 th and its position and corelation with stern profile /bulwark 20"/ and  oppsite one  - 17

.

 

looking at deceiving pic of glory dagged and sovereing, I would lean towards opininon that design of critical 19 th bulkhead is could be about this.

sovereing-  with sharper conave turn in miáddlke towards centerline, typical for MrMcKay design.

Balclutha - more less same but without deeperconcave turn passage in center of curvature.

 

i would say someting between these two could be wghere glory lies, but each of there two can be more less without criminal leanout from Glory design...

 

everything wrote in pics.

 

I am eagerly looking forward to your opinion.

it would be helpful if there was at least one good visible picture of Glory photographed lets say from harbour molo...not from bottomangle...

does some exist I dont know of? i have only those in glory book. bow is covered quite extensively. but stern is to be seen horizontally straight just from far away in the sea telling us little. Only one other important is when GLory is Tugged towards opesea I agree and my assumption is something between sovereingand balclutha - meaning little less curvature than sovereing. or Am i disillusional ?

happy read

vlad

-----------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

i start getting exhausted . but now more looking at Sovereign ship models and thinking of what you pointed out that McKay probably took her design as his fastest vessel when designing glory , im leaning to opininon that be it sovereing, balclutha 19 th bulkheqd being is still a bit flattwr than glory. that pic of glory from way bottom angle is just too misleading to be read from her..  just to change sovereing sharp stern to glorys round.  ... V.  i would say balclutha bottom with corrected /milded midsection and proportionally corrected rest and sovereing stern would do. plansheer profile fits both...

[rwiederrich]

Vladimir...you have done a wonderful thing, in your complete research.  Your comparisons are quite compelling.  My initial quandary concerning the Sovereign appears to be the more likely.  I say this with some reserve, however the Sovereign was built in 1852 at the height of McKay's design career.  Secondly she was slightly larger then Glory, at 2421 tons, compared to Glory's 2102 tons.   Knowing that McKay rarely used the same design, always trying to better the last...but with Glory, he was trying to make a final *push*, a final last statement of sailing perfection, and I can't but think he drew(In part) from what he knew worked in the past.....  As was his habit he did make slight changes in her design and model and Glory was a full bodied Medium clipper, where as the Sovereign was an extreme clipper design...and that distinction lies in her entry and exit....not so much in her rotund midship framing.

I think if the forward framing was bulked up to bring the flatness of the bottom farther forward and the entry of the concaved forward frames was filled out a bit you might have it.

 

Once a drawing is complete I would be more then interested in seeing it, if you go that far.

 

Great job.

 

Rob  

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Vladimir...you have done a wonderful thing, in your complete research.  Your comparisons are quite compelling.  My initial quandary concerning the Sovereign appears to be the more likely.  I say this with some reserve, however the Sovereign was built in 1852 at the height of McKay's design career.  Secondly she was slightly larger then Glory, at 2421 tons, compared to Glory's 2102 tons.   Knowing that McKay rarely used the same design, always trying to better the last...but with Glory, he was trying to make a final *push*, a final last statement of sailing perfection, and I can't but think he drew(In part) from what he knew worked in the past.....  As was his habit he did make slight changes in her design and model and Glory was a full bodied Medium clipper, where as the Sovereign was an extreme clipper design...and that distinction lies in her entry and exit....not so much in her rotund midship framing.

I think if the forward framing was bulked up to bring the flatness of the bottom farther forward and the entry of the concaved forward frames was filled out a bit you might have it.

 

Once a drawing is complete I would be more then interested in seeing it, if you go that far.

 

Great job.

 

Rob  

thank you for Your valuable insight for me Rob. yes indeed i am indeed heading towards my finall draw of bulkheads plan , showing you for sure. how about bow ? i would need your inside for sure. do you think it would be safe to use sovereign design of bow? i am novie in McKay design and it is quite complex comparing with simple one what eg cutty sar kshows. McKays ship have both convex and concave bow shape though. i will try to draw conclusion from there two sessions so far on bulkheads. cumminf up - combining length od deadrise being longer than svoereign as being flatter  , and midsection og glory. Vlad 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

i would need your inside for sure. do you think it would be safe to use sovereign design of bow?

If I were to make the drawing...I would draw out the Sovereigns bulkhead/frame plan excluding the sovereign's bow and incorporate a more harmonious bow that represents the Glory...probably by utilizing her images.  Sovereigns bow is more like that of the Lightning...sharp and curvey.  But the Glory bow or stem is more vertical, like Star of Empire/Chariot of Fame.   Kinda like Young America.

 

Couple those two elements and I think you might have something very close to what the hull of Glory looked like.

 

You're doing a great job.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

If I were to make the drawing...I would draw out the Sovereigns bulkhead/frame plan excluding the sovereign's bow and incorporate a more harmonious bow that represents the Glory...probably by utilizing her images.  Sovereigns bow is more like that of the Lightning...sharp and curvey.  But the Glory bow or stem is more vertical, like Star of Empire/Chariot of Fame.   Kinda like Young America.

 

Couple those two elements and I think you might have something very close to what the hull of Glory looked like.

 

You're doing a great job.

 

Rob

Amazing Rob thank you. 

I made  the draft in 1:65 scale, incorporated what we agreed on with sovereign lines and curvy stern but i used for the moment vertical  bow from balclutha combined with very radical curvy  end of flying fish as i have pretty plan. Measuring beam and depth, in scale.look how amazing all bulkheads are

 

Great so young america or star of empire, thanks. Im gonna to check it and will rework it . Look at the pic please, is it still very agressive upper bow ? I guess so. 

 

After i will post final sketch  and will work on final draft. And  Ship profile . Around autumn/ winter  i can start preparing workshop as i will need longer break after cutty. . 

 

We ressurected her Rob. How  thrilled i am.

Vlad. 

 

 

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

24 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Amazing Rob thank you. 

I made  the draft in 1:65 scale, incorporated what we agreed on with sovereign lines and curvy stern but i used for the moment vertical  bow from balclutha combined with very radical curvy  end of flying fish as i have pretty plan. Measuring beam and depth, in scale.look how amazing all bulkheads are

 

Great so young america or star of empire, thanks. Im gonna to check it and will rework it . Look at the pic please, is it still very agressive upper bow ? I guess so. 

 

After i will post final sketch  and will work on final draft. And  Ship profile . Around autumn/ winter  i can start preparing workshop as i will need longer break after cutty. . 

 

We ressurected her Rob. How  thrilled i am.

Vlad. 

 

 

 

 

 

Corrected. 

Reshaped. Stem being almost straight, first bulkhead short second of bow being slightly concave straight in middle and little convex at bottom as in pic and as described un journal when glory was launched. 

Vlad. 

 

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Even truer i suppose...

 

[rwiederrich]

Looks sweet.....now for some elevations and bulkhead spacing with the stem and stern for perspective........

Knowing the Glory's length and profile...it is a simple matter of combining these aspects to give us the profile.

Looking a bit further at your final rendering..she is looking very similar to the medium clipper Andrew Jackson...accept for the stem, which is a bit more rounded at the entrance of the vertical.

Here are some line drawings of several clippers so illustrate the cutwater and stem angle of the bow....disregard the deadrise where not applicable. 

[rwiederrich]

One thing I noticed and we might want to reconsider is the amount of curve of the frames forward.  If you notice the photo I posted of the Glory on her launching...with McKay in the picture....if you look closely at the pole shadow by the gangway forward...you can see the shadow of that pole against the hull and it clearly shows the greater curve extending up from the keel...….follow along the hull toward the stern and you will notice the additional shadows along her hull.  From keen deduction...it appears that Glory has a far more extreme curve amidships then even Sovereign.  With towering sides much like a man of war...that she had been described as having.

I think...if you see what I am seeing...you may also conclude that your drawing of her frames might need some adjusting to include these obvious differences.

Glory has a stem or bow shape mush similar to that of the Challenge...but becomes much fuller quite quickly like the Sovereign....but even more so.

 

Rob.

 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

5 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

One thing I noticed and we might want to reconsider is the amount of curve of the frames forward.  If you notice the photo I posted of the Glory on her launching...with McKay in the picture....if you look closely at the pole shadow by the gangway forward...you can see the shadow of that pole against the hull and it clearly shows the greater curve extending up from the keel...….follow along the hull toward the stern and you will notice the additional shadows along her hull.  From keen deduction...it appears that Glory has a far more extreme curve amidships then even Sovereign.  With towering sides much like a man of war...that she had been described as having.

I think...if you see what I am seeing...you may also conclude that your drawing of her frames might need some adjusting to include these obvious differences.

Glory has a stem or bow shape mush similar to that of the Challenge...but becomes much fuller quite quickly like the Sovereign....but even more so.

 

Rob.

 

Thank you Rob for great valuable comments and photos of various designs - you are like God of clippers :))  ! it is really helpful a lot as your observing and points were/ are keeping me on right path thank you ! perfect observation with the bow fullnes though! . I know what you mean and I think that was already incorporated  as I took (only) bow drom balclutha to consideration rather more than sovereign! just for that early and rapid extention more similar to glory to me than sovereign i hust did not stated it  and only upper gang curves from sovereign. nevertheless i can "rathe cautiously than proudly" state that draw is original and custom at the end before i somewhat worked on curves a little bit. be it very courageous statement :)) i will and cant wait to see outcome - built bulkheads how it plays. if further work on design pf few pf them will be needed (which i suppose.) i am working on profile plan now with caling and measuring. pretty much set on numbers. will post when done.  it is possible it may end up failure  but it is possible it may surprise us with wow.   

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

Glory of the Seas 1:65

Length / stern rail-  knightheads 124 cm. / 

 

[rwiederrich]

Your drawing is magnificent and at 1/65 makes is pretty significant.  I see you drew her with the chicken coop on the forward hatch and the boys cabin on the aft hatchway...to also include the gangway that let to its roof.  Splendid...what year would you place her at?

Upon further evaluation.....I noticed that the angle of the stem might be a bit too vertical.....This can be easily calculated by doing a vertical test from the image I posted of her(again).

 

To check the angle of the bow entry...first locate the anchor hanging from the port cathead in the image...now by using the shank body of the anchor as a plumbob....draw a line down through its center to the ground.  This will give you the actual plum or true vertical in the picture.  Now compare this vertical to the angle of the bow. This can be done by measuring the distance the stem is from the plum anchor and then measure from the stem down at keel level and again with the plum line from the anchor...from these two measurements you can devise the angle of difference...establishing with some accuracy the true stem angle.

 

You're doing a great job..... Here is a drawing of what I mean...you can see the angle is a bit greater then I think you may have.....

 

So excited.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

53 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Your drawing is magnificent and at 1/65 makes is pretty significant.  I see you drew her with the chicken coop on the forward hatch and the boys cabin on the aft hatchway...to also include the gangway that let to its roof.  Splendid...what year would you place her at?

Upon further evaluation.....I noticed that the angle of the stem might be a bit too vertical.....This can be easily calculated by doing a vertical test from the image I posted of her(again).

 

To check the angle of the bow entry...first locate the anchor hanging from the port cathead in the image...now by using the shank body of the anchor as a plumbob....draw a line down through its center to the ground.  This will give you the actual plum or true vertical in the picture.  Now compare this vertical to the angle of the bow. This can be done by measuring the distance the stem is from the plum anchor and then measure from the stem down at keel level and again with the plum line from the anchor...from these two measurements you can devise the angle of difference...establishing with some accuracy the true stem angle.

 

You're doing a great job..... Here is a drawing of what I mean...you can see the angle is a bit greater then I think you may have.....

 

So excited.

 

Rob

Rob I am not that familiar with deck setup , -   I see you drew her with the chicken coop on the forward hatch and the boys cabin on the aft hatchway...to also include the gangway that let to its roof.  Splendid...what year would you place her at?

 

i simply follow Mr. Mjelde drawing to her accomodations. i notice there is something like narrow gang or area going from the roof of poop halfdeck forewise but thats about it i did i know of. i observed your model and it seems a bit different setup from what Mr.Mjelde did draw. so she was not like that from start right ?  

 

ok i will narrow stem a little . i used amr.Mjelde drawing but not big deal. 

 

guess what@ i am really unpatient ****. i already cut 4 half bulkheads of stern part and glued them to some board to be able to see and chceck what we have done. it will be stuck firm tomorrow , so we will see the stern ALIVE. cant wait :)) 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

[rwiederrich]

Now check your angle based upon the angle devised from the photograph

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

i observed your model and it seems a bit different setup from what Mr.Mjelde did draw. so she was not like that from start right ?

Yes...I built her after much of her previous additions had been removed.  Mjelde shows these differences on his drawing of her deck features...where later and earlier additions were added or removed.  Glory had a colorful history, with many modifications....so modeling her with the helm cabin addition or with the boys cabin with its gangway to the roof addition or with her boats partly over her poop and over boat skids...mods,,,or when her boats were stored on top of the boys cabin.  So many phases to build her in.   It appears you drew her at the height of her modifications.

 

Love the test model for the stern.......

Doing the same for the bow might enlighten us to her full bodied entrance.

 

Great job for sure....  Did you see my correction and manner of deducing the bow issue?

Rob

 

[rwiederrich]

Vladimir..here is a rare image of her relatively close...when she was a canary.  Then a cold storage ship

[rwiederrich]

A fellow Glory hound drew this of her figurehead

[rwiederrich]

A rare image from her poop deck toward the main house...