Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[ClipperFan]

56 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

McKay’s model doesn’t include the monkey rail, nor the 3’ keel. I’m not sure Vlads drawing includes neither.  His drawing should only include the monkey rail. I hope he pipes in.  
 

Rob

Rob,

I think we're both saying the same thing in different ways. The key point I'm making is that the most reliably accurate framing source, which is primarily what the McKay model represents is his resourceful build. He admits himself that the 30" keel has to be added. To me that by implication includes the stem which is an extension of the keel. As far as practice is concerned, I have never seen a half-hull model include the monkey rail. It's no big challenge to add those missing components. I've got to imagine when the bulkheads are drafted, you'll want that height included. 

Like we both say, Vlad can do amazingly quick work. He seems to really like the Crothers body plan which has all components included. I just want to be sure Crothers is reconciled with Cornelius's model. I just feel like Cornelius showed incredible forethought to construct an exact builder's model of McKay's inaugural Clipper just while she was being built! Come on! Seriously, how much more authentic do you want to get?

By the way, what do you think of the small, square portico now being 7' away from the mizzenmast center?

[ClipperFan]

@rwiederrich Rob 

While I haven't heard back from Vlad yet, I'm sure he won't mind if I share his work here. Vladimir's source for these vessel's line all come from Crothers' "The American Built Clipper Ship 1850-1856." This is developing amazingly quick. At this point, Vlad appears to be relying heavily on the impressive lines of Crothers. It's hard to tell from these plans which appear remarkably close to the Cornelius model. Since McKay's son built his Hull replica directly from moulding loft lines, as they were being laid out for the actual construction of the vessel herself, I want to adhere as precisely as possible to that source. I only hope Vlad concurs.

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I think we're both saying the same thing in different ways. The key point I'm making is that the most reliably accurate framing source, which is primarily what the McKay model represents is his resourceful build. He admits himself that the 30" keel has to be added. To me that by implication includes the stem which is an extension of the keel. As far as practice is concerned, I have never seen a half-hull model include the monkey rail. It's no big challenge to add those missing components. I've got to imagine when the bulkheads are drafted, you'll want that height included. 

Like we both say, Vlad can do amazingly quick work. He seems to really like the Crothers body plan which has all components included. I just want to be sure Crothers is reconciled with Cornelius's model. I just feel like Cornelius showed incredible forethought to construct an exact builder's model of McKay's inaugural Clipper just while she was being built! Come on! Seriously, how much more authentic do you want to get?

By the way, what do you think of the small, square portico now being 7' away from the mizzenmast center?

I’m in agreement. I figured 5’ but now we’re adding that 2deg offset …. Making it 7’

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Rich...From looking at Crother's moulded lines figure 1.5.. Where exactly  IS the load line?  Didn't Duncan say it was 10.5 forward and 12 something aft?  And I'm assuming that is at ballast.

So where is the copper line?   I would assume it would be in the neighborhood of 16~18ft.

 

I also drew a line from the stern post foot..across the drawing to the keel foot(or false keel) and to the stem.  You then have to follow around the drawing, 3 scale ft to form the cutwater.

 

I drew on the Crothers graph, these lines and then I added the hood, which follows(Or is part of) the planksheer.  Looking at where the monkey rail terminates(On the graph),you can quickly gather the details of the hoods own termination and where the bowsprit and jibboom originate.

Once I drew these fixtures in, I then could finalize the cutwaters projection to flow under the hood and form the seat for the stag figurehead.  which rests neatly beneath the fore section of the hood.

 

The addition of all these features...drastically changes the image of the McKay half model and all the line drawings we have.

 

From all this...we need to determine the location of the copper line.  Like I said, somewhere in the neighborhood of elevation lines 16~18ft.

 

Give it a look over and let me know what you think.  I'll post pics of my own drawing(scribble) when I get home. Comparing my drawings to yours...it looks like you were onto the right track. Our two drawings agree.  II did  the same with Vlad's composition and the stem lines are a bit more vertical.

 

Rob 

Edited July 16 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...From looking at Crother's moulded lines figure 1.5.. Where exactly  IS the load line?  Didn't Duncan say it was 10.5 forward and 12 something aft?  And I'm assuming that is at ballast.

So where is the copper line?   I would assume it would be in the neighborhood of 16~18ft.

 

I also drew a line from the stern post foot..across the drawing to the keel foot(or false keel) and to the stem.  You then have to follow around the drawing, 3 scale ft to form the cutwater.

 

I drew on the Crothers graph, these lines and then I added the hood, which follows(Or is part of) the planksheer.  Looking at where the monkey rail terminates(On the graph),you can quickly gather the details of the hoods own termination and where the bowsprit and jibboom originate.

Once I drew these fixtures in, I then could finalize the cutwaters projection to flow under the hood and form the seat for the stag figurehead.  which rests neatly beneath the fore section of the hood.

 

The addition of all these features...drastically changes the image of the McKay half model and all the line drawings we have.

 

From all this...we need to determine the location of the copper line.  Like I said, somewhere in the neighborhood of elevation lines 16~18ft.

 

Give it a look over and let me know what you think.  I'll post pics of my own drawing(scribble) when I get home. Comparing my drawings to yours...it looks like you were onto the right track. Our two drawings agree.  II did  the same with Vlad's composition and the stem lines are a bit more vertical.

 

Rob 

@rwiederrich

Rob 

My tracing of the 1881 Henry Hall online illustration used 1 verticle line = 8'. When I printed it out, serendipity, each line is precisely 1" apart, printed out at 1:96th scale! Using a ruler, the copper line is exactly at the 16' line (2"). Horizontal line 7 on the Hall lines. Line 8 is possibly when the ship is fully laden. Vladimir's computer overlay of my drawing and what I figure is the Cornelius McKay half-hull model shows that I was very close. It will be no problem to revise the sketch to match the Cornelius McKay profile. In fact, it appears like it's just the bow profile that needs to be corrected. The image is reversed since I originally traced the print from the back. I've posted Vladimir's overlay from both port and starboard views. Seeing how accurate this is, it looks like I'm already a third of the way to getting an accurate hull.

 

Edited July 16 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

Ok , here are my scribbles. I used both Vlads drawing and that of Crothers. I’m assuming Vlad’s is a replica of McKay’s.    I did this on the fly…..but it shows us the difference.  
Also, I reviewed Duncan’s observation that Staghound has no  headboards or trailboards.   That means she was nearly  *naked*.  I’m including several pics showing this and my renderings .

 

First, could have Donald Not included his famous hoods?  Or could it have been added, just not as pronounced as the typical headboard of the day, so Duncan didn’t recognize or mention it?

 

Lastly, the trail board typically flowed along the head of the stem, inserting into the howes hole.  McKay never followed that typical pattern of others.  
 

Now about the hood renderings on both prowes.  I think the Vlad rendering is the closest of these two…….with even yours being closest.  
 

Your thoughts?

 

Rob

Edited July 16 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Ok , here are my scribbles. I used both Vlads drawing and that of Crothers. I’m assuming Vlad’s is a replica of McKay’s.    I did this on the fly…..but it shows us the difference.  
Also, I reviewed Duncan’s observation that Staghound has no  headboards or trailboards.   That means she was nearly  *naked*.  I’m including several pics showing this and my renderings .

 

First, could have Donald Not included his famous hoods?  Or could it have been added, just not as pronounced as the typical headboard of the day, so Duncan didn’t recognize or mention it?

 

Lastly, the trail board typically flowed along the head of the stem, inserting into the howes hole.  McKay never followed that typical pattern of others.  
 

Now about the hood renderings on both prowes.  I think the Vlad rendering is the closest of these two…….with even yours being closest.  
 

Your thoughts?

 

Rob

@rwiederrich

Rob,

Here's a contemporary image of a clipper ship with both headboards and trail boards, exactly as the Crothers illustration describes. From below it's clear that the headboard is more of a decoration than an integral extension of the ship. There are old fashioned open frames between the headboard and stem. The cutwater has a trail board, which is a beautiful embellishment but not as substantial as the unique McKay bow. That's why I'm so convinced he wanted to keep manufacture of it secret. 

Again, you want to avoid the trap of misunderstanding McLean's emphasis on lack of decorations. As we discussed before, Scottsmen like McKay and his friend McLean put more focus on seaworthiness than superfluous decorations. However brief though, McLean actually does mention that Stag Hound was equipped with both naval hoods and cutwaters. It's just two sentences and if you blink and you'll miss it:

"An idea of its sharpness may be formed from the fact that, at the load displacement line (as the cutwater is tapered to an angle), a flat surface applied to the bow, from its extreme, would show no angle at the hood ends. Her bow commences at the cutwater, and swells from that point in unbroken curvature."

Not until his description of Flying Cloud McKay's second extreme clipper, does McLean introduce the more clarifying term navel [sic: naval] hoods. But to me, his description of the Stag Hound  clipper is identical to Flying Cloud with the exception of the word "naval."

When I did my reconstruction, I kept all components to scale and in proportion identical to what we saw on Glory of the Seas. The only revision that I see necessary is to realign the cutwater taper to the Cornelius McKay bow profile.

 

1851 Daguerrotype of Clipper ship Seaman's Bride courtesy of H. Furlong Baldwin Library, Maryland Center for History 

Edited July 17 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

40 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich

Rob,

Here's a contemporary image of a clipper ship with a headboard. From below it's clear this is more of a decoration than an integral extension of the ship, which is what naval hoods are. I have more to add which I'll do a little later.

 

1851 Daguerrotype of Clipper ship Seaman's Bride courtesy of H. Furlong Baldwin Library, Maryland Center for History 

I have that in my collection. Perfect example.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I have that in my collection. Perfect example.  
 

Rob

@rwiederrich

Rob,

Thanks for that compliment. When I saw Seaman's Bride in Crothers illustrations it reminded me of a picture I'd seen before, although it wasn't a daguerrotype. However, I can see a significant weakness in the headboard, trailboard bow as opposed to the innovative McKay version. The very openess of the former arrangement leaves itself vulnerable to structural damage by a rogue wave. Duncan McLean made quite a bold statement in his introduction to Stag Hound. A person could be forgiven for attributing his glowing praise as pure hyperbole. But what if it wasn't an exaggeration but an honest scientific evaluation instead? It's beginning to make more sense now, when taking into account this unusual bow extension:

"This magnificent ship has been the wonder of all who have seen her. Not only is she the largest of her class afloat, but her model may be said to be the original of a new idea in naval architecture."

Meanwhile, I did a quick scale sketch of the Stag Hound stern poop deck. With a 7' distance from her mizzenmast center, I'm exploring a possibility of an 8' square portico, recessed 4' with dual sliding door side entrances. Since the poop deck measures 30' across at the fore and it's 5' high, it makes sense from a safety viewpoint to have a rail on turned stanchions in front. With an elevation of 8' the portico would just clear the front railings. Counting 1' overhangs, there's a 10' square area, which would make for a nice overlook. I envision open rails on that area too, but it's just a thought. 

Here's a preliminary rough sketch on the back of an envelope (wide "V" line is the envelope). It's done at 1:96 scale, to give you an idea of how this arrangement would look. (dotted lines are the 32' long × 13' wide lower apartment outline)

Another approach would be to flush mount the portico with a front facing door. Since doors are 3' wide, to have a sliding door would mean a 9' square footprint, unless it's an ordinary door opening, than it could be a small 4-6' square. After all, it's a simple entrance to steps 3' downstairs to the lower apartments. Which one makes the most sense to you?

 

Edited July 17 by ClipperFan
grammar correction

[rwiederrich]

11 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

When I did my reconstruction, I kept all components to scale and in proportion identical to what we saw on Glory of the Seas. The only revision that I see necessary is to realign the cutwater taper to the Cornelius McKay bow profile.

I agree with this fully....and it too is my own conclusion.  It didn't fail me to notice Duncans brief description of the *Hood*.  And from all the research we have done...it is conclusive by the lack of such features on any drawing, that McKay did indeed keeps its identity and fabrication a close secret.  What other secret could he be referencing?  The age of the wood....or the pigment in his paint?😉

Apart from the main difference that Staghound was an extreme clipper and Glory was a medium clipper...doesn't change the concluded fact, that McKay developed an engineered construction practice, that made his vessels superior in form and robustness.  These practices did not and at the time of Glory's construction...McKay was desperately trying to use what worked in the past to propel him, once again into the future. But painfully knowing the end of the clipper had already passed....being overrun by the improved reliable steamship. We are magnificently blessed to have such a rich collection of images of Glory, whose structures can easily be translated to any of his other clippers.....Why, because the Naval hood was(to McKay), as important as the keel of the vessel. Or any other reinforcing structure.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

9 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Meanwhile, I did a quick scale sketch of the Stag Hound stern poop deck. With a 7' distance from her mizzenmast center, I'm exploring a possibility of an 8' square portico, recessed 4' with dual sliding door side entrances. Since the poop deck measures 30' across at the fore and it's 5' high, it makes sense from a safety viewpoint to have a rail on turned stanchions in front. With an elevation of 8' the portico would just clear the front railings. Counting 1' overhangs, there's a 10' square area, which would make for a nice overlook. I envision open rails on that area too, but it's just a thought. 

Here's a preliminary rough sketch on the back of an envelope (wide "V" line is the envelope). It's done at 1:96 scale, to give you an idea of how this arrangement would look. (dotted lines are the 32' long × 13' wide lower apartment outline)

Another approach would be to flush mount the portico with a front facing door. Since doors are 3' wide, to have a sliding door would mean a 9' square footprint, unless it's an ordinary door opening, than it could be a small 4-6' square. After all, it's a simple entrance to steps 3' downstairs to the lower apartments. Which one makes the most sense to you?

 

I agree with you fully.  I had concluded just the same. Because Chappelle's drawing shows space between the portico and the mizzen mast.  With a fife rail crammed between them.  His fife rail is three sided with a front with a horizontal bit. This design is all well and good for the fore and main...to affix the lower stays too...but not on the mizzen.  Your depiction affixes the fife rail to the head of the portico...leaving the front and sides of the rail exposed for pins.  Side doors make more sense ergonomically.  Freeing up the front for the mizzen fife.

 

The roof of the portico, could be just a roof....but, as you say, why not use it as a fore perch...surrounded by stanchions and a rail(Giving easy access to the gaff foot).  There needs to be a simple 2 rung step up from the house roof/poop deck to access it.

 

I like where we are going with this.  It makes sense and still is in line with Duncan McLean's description.

 

Rob

[FriedClams]

Congratulations on starting a new project, Rob, and what a beauty she is.  I've popped in and out of your previous builds, but this will be first I've got in on from the beginning.  With your passion for clippers, I know this will be a great ride.  Good luck.

 

Gary

[rwiederrich]

55 minutes ago, FriedClams said:

Congratulations on starting a new project, Rob, and what a beauty she is.  I've popped in and out of your previous builds, but this will be first I've got in on from the beginning.  With your passion for clippers, I know this will be a great ride.  Good luck.

 

Gary

Thanks Gary.  The research has to be decided because all else that follows will be a waste of time, if I am to be as accurate as possible to the actual ship.

Again, thanks for coming along...

 

Rob

[Bill Morrison]

On 7/15/2024 at 6:22 PM, rwiederrich said:

Hi Bill. I have that model in my stash….just for memorabilia purposes.  I’m glad the images(painting)help. Sometimes they’re all we have.

 

Rob

I agree.  I once used paintings as a source for a model of HMS Victory.  The issue was concerned about the forecastle bulwarks in lieu of the cut-down examples on the ship today and in most depictions of the ship. I decided to go with the pre-1805 higher bulwarks as shown by Turner.  Is it right?  I don't know. I do know that nobody else knows for sure.  I was left with nothing but the artist's depiction.  There is also a model of HMS Victory as she was built, but the go with that would be overly incorrect. 

 

Anyway, I love your model ships. Your Great Republic was excellent.

 

Bill

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, Bill Morrison said:

I agree.  I once used paintings as a source for a model of HMS Victory.  The issue was concerned about the forecastle bulwarks in lieu of the cut-down examples on the ship today and in most depictions of the ship. I decided to go with the pre-1805 higher bulwarks as shown by Turner.  Is it right?  I don't know. I do know that nobody else knows for sure.  I was left with nothing but the artist's depiction.  There is also a model of HMS Victory as she was built, but the go with that would be overly incorrect. 

 

Anyway, I love your model ships. Your Great Republic was excellent.

 

Bill

Thanks Bill.  It's always nice to hear good things from other model builders.  Hey you built a pre 1805 version of Victory...was that when she was painted blue.  I recall, years ago a fellow built one in that fashion...quite beautiful actually.

 

Rob

Edited July 17 by rwiederrich

[druxey]

re: Post #35: The fact that waterlines fall exactly 8' 0" apart is a nice confirmation of correct plan scale.

[Bill Morrison]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Thanks Bill.  It's always nice to hear good things from other model builders.  Hey you built a pre 1805 version of Victory...was that when she was painted blue.  I recall, years ago a fellow built one in that fashion...quite beautiful actually.

 

Rob

Unfortunately, I have never seen the Victory in that configuration.  I have painted one model of Le Soleil Royal in blue, but there are quite a few paintings of her as such. It is a striking version.

 

Bill

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, druxey said:

re: Post #35: The fact that waterlines fall exactly 8' 0" apart is a nice confirmation of correct plan scale.

@druxey

the 1881 Henry Hall profile aligns just about perfectly with the Cornelius McKay model, except for a slight deviation in the prow profile. I kept everything to scale for the reconstruction of the original McKay Stag Hound bow. @Vladimir_Wairoa using his computer wizardry has overlayed the McKay profile on the Hall profile. You can see the only correction is to slightly revise the bow, which can be easily done.

[ClipperFan]

@Vladimir_Wairoa

Feels this is the finished Stag Hound profile. Her overall length is 226 feet and her keel is 207 feet, precisely as she's described in The Boston Daily Atlas. We're still working on her 215 feet length between perpendiculars, from inside her front stem to inside her rear sternpost. To accomplish that requires locating her main deck, which is 6 & 1/2 feet below the top of the monkey rail. With 1 foot internal waterways, exterior sheerline should be 1 foot above the deck. Once Rob concurs, it should be a simple matter of dropping 1 foot below that to locate the main deck. That's important since all mast placements are measured on that main deck line. Progress on realizing this beautiful ship is moving along surprisingly rapidly.

 

Edited July 18 by ClipperFan
additional information

[rwiederrich]

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

exterior sheerline should be 1 foot above the deck. Once Rob concurs, it should be a simple matter of dropping 1 foot below that to locate the main deck. That's important since all mast placements are measured on that main deck line. Progress on realizing this beautiful ship is moving along surprisingly rapidly.

We have been working diligently to conclude the drawing of Staghound.  One correction needs to be remedied.  Staghound had 12" waterways molted to the deck frames and to complete the decking, 3.5" deck strakes were bolted to the deck frames as well.  This means the actual deck line is 8.5" below the sheer line or planksheer.  Vlad has done a magnificent job drawing out the lines, and as Rich has stated.....the true deck level must be attained before mast position can be finalized.

 

We are close to that point and a final drawing will be forth coming....just a few keel issues to resolve first.

 

Thanks for following along.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

While we're discussing location of the main deck, I noticed another important feature from the 1922 port broadside photo of Glory of the Seas beached at Endolyne, sadly awaiting her fiery end. Unlike practically all clipper ship models I've seen, if you look very closely, you'll see her decks are level, not pitched. First look at her forecastle enlargements. Note how the base of her sprayrail is level while the sprayrail itself increases in height slightly as it runs from aft to fore. That's easiest to see when looking at the starboard bow shadow. Now look at her stern. See how both coach house and wheelhouse roofs are also both level? Now, look at the outer rail on turned stanchions. Look carefully at the port side of the wheelhouse. Ever so slightly, the rail raises up from fore to aft while the sidewall of the Wheelhouse remains level. This is most noticeable by comparing the port wheelhouse wall at fore and then at aft. It's subtle but definitely there. From an engineering perspective, this makes more sense. Captains and crew spend months, even years aboard these vessels as their only homes. So it's more comfortable on level decks for them. 

We've now concluded that the main deck of Stag Hound was 8 & 1/2 inches below her sheerline. I didn't realize that the waterway was sunk 3 & 1/2 inches below the main deck planking. So now, as long as Rob and Vlad agree with me about her level decks, we can locate her main deck from which all distances of her masts are then taken: 50 feet from inside the front stem to foremast center; 67 feet from foremast center to mainmast center; 56 feet from mainmast center to mizzenmast center and finally 42 feet from mizzenmast center to inside of the sternpost.

Edited July 18 by ClipperFan
additional information

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

We have been working diligently to conclude the drawing of Staghound.  One correction needs to be remedied.  Staghound had 12" waterways molted to the deck frames and to complete the decking, 3.5" deck strakes were bolted to the deck frames as well.  This means the actual deck line is 8.5" below the sheer line or planksheer.  Vlad has done a magnificent job drawing out the lines, and as Rich has stated.....the true deck level must be attained before mast position can be finalized.

 

We are close to that point and a final drawing will be forth coming....just a few keel issues to resolve first.

 

Thanks for following along.

 

Rob

While we're discussing the current, somewhat confusing keel depth, I will make a case, both for using the Cornelius McKay model as our premiere resource and for using his specific recommendations of additional feature dimensions to realize full accuracy of Donald McKay's inaugural extreme clipper. 

Here's the excerpt of the letter McKay's son gave to Captain Arthur H Clark upon presenting him with his precious artifact. Besides his over 4 foot model, he mentioned that there was a drawing too. Anybody out for sleuthing?

To complete her full 'rotundity' as Cornelius refers to it, he recommends adding 4 inches to bottom planking and 5 inches to her wales. To which, he also mentions add 30 inches to her keel which is built in two depths. My interpretation for these instructions is that Mr. McKay was describing exact dimensions to realize the full aspects for the basic hull of Stag Hound. So I would set exterior keel depth at 30 inches, believing the two depths he mentions are the shoe (false keel) and keel outside her hull. 

Second reason why I put full faith in the McKay model is our most authentic source to replicate Stag Hound is the force of his own words describing actions he took. Here we have a precise replica of a ship as she was in the process of construction. Not only that, lines were all literally taken off those on the moulding loft floor. Add in this was professionally crafted (referred to as an only correct "builder's model" in existence) by the builder's own son! To me, this is a gift from the past.

[rwiederrich]

I can't agree with your more Rich  McKay's model is the  bible for her actual dimensions.  Not withstanding the addition of planking and a keel.

 

Hammering out the details and we will be set to get bulkheads made....

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I can't agree with your more Rich  McKay's model is the  bible for her actual dimensions.  Not withstanding the addition of planking and a keel.

 

Hammering out the details and we will be set to get bulkheads made....

 

Rob

@rwiederrich Rob, having such a valuable resource is really an incredible aid in getting an accurate model of Stag Hound. The very first of McKay's amazing line of legendary clippers, built and launched over a period of nineteen years. I'm surprised how rapidly this is developing in comparison to our Glory of the Seas project.

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

While we're discussing location of the main deck, I noticed another important feature from the 1922 port broadside photo of Glory of the Seas beached at Endolyne, sadly awaiting her fiery end. Unlike practically all clipper ship models I've seen, if you look very closely, you'll see her decks are level, not pitched. First look at her forecastle enlargements. Note how the base of her sprayrail is level while the sprayrail itself increases in height slightly as it runs from aft to fore. That's easiest to see when looking at the starboard bow shadow. Now look at her stern. See how both coach house and wheelhouse roofs are also both level? Now, look at the outer rail on turned stanchions. Look carefully at the port side of the wheelhouse. Ever so slightly, the rail raises up from fore to aft while the sidewall of the Wheelhouse remains level. This is most noticeable by comparing the port wheelhouse wall at fore and then at aft. It's subtle but definitely there. From an engineering perspective, this makes more sense. Captains and crew spend months, even years aboard these vessels as their only homes. So it's more comfortable on level decks for them. 

We've now concluded that the main deck of Stag Hound was 8 & 1/2 inches below her sheerline. I didn't realize that the waterway was sunk 3 & 1/2 inches below the main deck planking. So now, as long as Rob and Vlad agree with me about her level decks, we can locate her main deck from which all distances of her masts are then taken: 50 feet from inside the front stem to foremast center; 67 feet from foremast center to mainmast center; 56 feet from mainmast center to mizzenmast center and finally 42 feet from mizzenmast center to inside of the sternpost.

Rob explained to me that this conclusion of mine was misguided. I took a look at another illustration of the twin Packet ships Star of Empire & Chariot of Fame drawn by Donald McKay himself. (courtesy of Peabody-Essex Museum, Salem, MA)  It includes an internal view of these ship's hulls, including her pitched floors. Conclusive proof that my conclusion was exactly wrong. I so hate when that happens... 🙂

Rob further clarified that due to severe hogging, the bow and stern would both flatten out.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob, having such a valuable resource is really an incredible aid in getting an accurate model of Stag Hound. The very first of McKay's amazing line of legendary clippers, built and launched over a period of nineteen years. I'm surprised how rapidly this is developing in comparison to our Glory of the Seas project.

Without McKay’s model, we would be months at this, if not longer.  Glory’s saving Grace was Michael Mjelde himself.  
It makes me giggle to think we are working so hard on your favorite McKay clipper…….

I know why you’re so Passionate. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Without McKay’s model, we would be months at this, if not longer.  Glory’s saving Grace was Michael Mjelde himself.  
It makes me giggle to think we are working so hard on your favorite McKay clipper…….

I know why you’re so Passionate. 
 

Rob

@rwiederrich

Rob, I must admit to being emotionally connected to the lovely Stag Hound ever since I saw the beautiful John Steel painting on the Revell box top. He's one of my favorite artists. It takes quite a talent to portray a ship with such bad deck placement as a house where a forecastle should be and yet make it completely believable.

However, it's McKay's second clipper Flying Cloud which is still my favorite. But having that authentic model by Cornelius McKay just makes an opportunity to finally recreate McKay's very first clipper an easy decision. Plus it has the extra benefit of never having properly been done before. I'm really getting excited to see how quickly this is all coming together. 

Edited July 19 by ClipperFan
grammar correction

[rwiederrich]

Preparing myself for the upcoming construction...I wanted to post another painting of Staghound.

[rwiederrich]

10 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

it's McKay's second clipper Flying Cloud which is still my favorite.

Well...I knew that...but Flying Cloud has been modeled to death.....I meant Staghound...which has of yet found good representation.  I meant she is the one you continually advertised as a favorite.

Any number of good clipper designs could have made Flying Clouds record times...given the right season...weather...tides...tenacious hard driving captain...etc..etc..   She just happens to be the right design,  put into the right conditions to pull it all off.

 

Rob

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

  Looking at the picture Rob posted and noting that the launch of the Staghound was in December of 1850, it did not appear to have a split topsail initially ... so was likely retrofitted by the mid 1850s (see below).  I also note that in the very first picture shown in this topic, sails are furled with 'clews to the mast' in Navy fashion ... Rob noted elsewhere that commercial ships positioned the 'mouse ears' (dangling clews) near the end of the yards, or perhaps a quarter to a third of the way from the end.

 

In 1841 an American, Captain Forbes, devised a means of dividing this Sail horizontally into 2 parts. The doubling of the Lower & Top Masts was made longer than usual and an extra Yard was added below the Cap which could then be raised or lowered on its Parral between the Cap and the Top.  Above this, the now shortened Topsail was lowered to the Cap as before. This was the origin of the Double Topsail, later to be followed by the Double Topgallant.  Donald McKay fitted this Arrangement on the famous Great Republic. This simple Division of the Sail was easier to work, and quicker, than the old Single Topsail as the Upper Topsail Yard could be Lowered from the Deck and its Sail then fell in front of the Lower portion and was blanketed by it, the men then going aloft to Furl it.

Another American Shipmaster, Captain Howes, next brought out an improvement on this arrangement in 1853. In his version, the new Lower Topsail Yard was fixed to the Lower Mast Cap with a movable Crane and was additionally supported by an Iron Bar from the Top.  It would not move Up or Down, however.  The Upper Topsail on its still Hoisting Yard had its foot cut without any Roach and was Laced directly to the Jackstay on the Lower Topsail Yard without any gap, thus presenting an appearance as of a Single Topsail.  The Upper Sail could be lowered quickly, thus saving the arduous task of Reefing as with the Single Topsail, although it still had to be Taken-in & Furled.  This was but a step from the true Double Topsail 1st adopted in British Clippers in 1865 with the Ariel, whereby the 2-Sails were separate Entities, with a slight gap between them.  In Howes‘ Rig, when the Upper portion was Furled on its own Yard, its foot was still Laced to the Lower Yard. With the true Double Topsails, however, the Upper was Furled completely on its own Yard.  Occasionally some Captains still Laced their Upper Topsails down as close as possible to the Lower Yards.  The Double Topsails & Double Topgallants were the arrangements that persisted until modern times.

Aside

 

 

Edited July 19 by Snug Harbor Johnny