Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[ClipperFan]

12 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Riiight.

 

While you're at it...can you tell me the length of the Stadhound.....much like Atheana?  7ft? or so?

 

Rob

@rwiederrich

Rob, what? You've never heard of negative space? As I said, that's the real impression I got from looking a photos of the front fascia. I'll look again. Still, even if they were projections, they would only be slight and wouldn't interfere with anything.

As for the figurehead, from memory it's supposed to be 7 feet. There's a scale on my original sketch so you can double check it.

[rwiederrich]

11 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@Luis Felipe good catch on those winches. Maybe Rob can let us know if these would have been installed on fore and main masts. That particular item isn't illustrated on the mizzen, so it makes me wonder if it had to do with the smaller yardarms on the mizzen?

Rich..it was I who noticed these on Chapelle's drawing.  Unlike British clippers that had large deck winches before the fore and main masts...American clippers tended to use other means to lift heavy items.  I'm gathering that these drawings of Champelle are something similar to the image I presented.   Makes sense.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

4 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich

Rob, what? You've never heard of negative space? As I said, that's the real impression I got from looking a photos of the front fascia. I'll look again. Still, even if they were projections, they would only be slight and wouldn't interfere with anything.

As for the figurehead, from memory it's supposed to be 7 feet. There's a scale on my original sketch so you can double check it.

Your drawing did not include the fife rail from the front....and its insertion into the portico.  I was wondering if that would interfere with the pillars?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

26 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Your drawing did not include the fife rail from the front....and its insertion into the portico.  I was wondering if that would interfere with the pillars?

 

Rob

Rob,

The front view only shows the rail itself, since the turned rail stanchions are a few feet away, there wasn't enough room to illustrate them. Side view is where you would see them too.

[rwiederrich]

3 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

The front view only shows the rail itself, since the turned rail stanchions are a few feet away, there wasn't enough room to illustrate them. Side view is where you would see them too.

Oh no, not the railing itself...but the mizzen fife rail or pin rail.  Did you draw a forward image with the fife pin rail in place showing where it inserts into the portico front...and possibly where you might include those pillars?

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Oh no, not the railing itself...but the mizzen fife rail or pin rail.  Did you draw a forward image with the fife pin rail in place showing where it inserts into the portico front...and possibly where you might include those pillars?

 

Rob

@rwiederrich

to be honest, it was late last night that I decided to pause work and share my progress. As a result. I forgot to include the mizzen fife rail front view. I did mention the sketch was "in progress." My apologies for the confusion 

[ClipperFan]

Just now, ClipperFan said:

 

@Luis Felipe

Thanks for this find. Most of it is a duplicate of the Boston Daily Atlas with some added observations. Maybe I missed it but I didn't find a mention of the 6 ft fore rake of the stem or 2 ft aft rake of the sternpost. That added 2 feet in the stern, makes a difference of the poop deck front being an accurate 7 feet away from the mizzenmast instead of an inaccurate 5 feet away. Meanwhile Rob and I discussed a 

39" vs 30" outer keel projecting clear of the garboards. Since the total depth of keel, including shoe is described as being 46" then a 39" outer keel means the inner one would have to be a mere 7"! That simply doesn't make sense. However, an external 30" keel leaves room for a 16" inner one. I also reviewed all handwritten notes by Henry Hall and found no mention of a 39" keel.

The body plan in this article looks very close to other body plans. On the other hand, bow and stern appear too stylized. Contrast them to the Cornelius McKay model, which is far more precise, in my observation.

 

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, Luis Felipe said:

Als o, I try to compare the lines of the several references, pls forgive my poor use of digital tools. The lines are those of the Monthly Nautical Magazine, Chapelle,  & Crotters. More or less the lines somehow coincide.

 

@Luis Felipe

you and @Vladimir_Wairoa are both working on the same project and doing beautiful computer work. I noticed that an overlay of the McKay model is missing. So I've re-posted Vlad's overlay of that Cornelius McKay Stag Hound model bow. We've determined it's the most accurate rendition of this ship. That's due to historic provenance provided by McKay's own son. He confirms that his large 4' 8 & 1/4ths" 1:48th scale hull model was built from his father's mould lines directly off the lofting floor as the ship herself was under construction. Missing on his model is a 30" lower keel and 18" upper monkey rail, as well as an 18" splashrail. While a drawing done by Cornelius also exists, which might have a body plan too, I have yet to find it. Thanks again for your helpful contributions!

[druxey]

I read that at 16" wide (sided). Two pieces: upper 20" high (moulded) and the lower 12"high. Total 32".

[ClipperFan]

13 minutes ago, druxey said:

I read that at 16" wide (sided). Two pieces: upper 20" high (moulded) and the lower 12"high. Total 32".

@druxey

That can't possibly be the 1850 extreme clipper Stag Hound as it's settled fact that her keel was actually moulded 46". The vessel you're reading about is a much smaller ship with a 14" shallower keel. 

I repeatedly go back to the December 21, 1850 Boston Daily Atlas article, written by publicist Duncan McLean. It's obvious from the wealth of construction specifics that they were supplied to him directly by his close friend Donald McKay and his shipyard. 

 

"Her depth of keel is 46 inches, dead rise at half floor 40 inches, rounding of sides 4 inches, and sheer 2 feet 6 inches."

Later in the same article, McLean repeats this fact:

"Her keel is of rock maple and oak, in two depths, which, combined with the shoe moulds 46 inches and sides 16."

 

Thanks to the Cornelius McKay letter, we know the exterior depth of keel was 30" as he specifically says that's the precise dimension which should be added to his fine model. That leaves 16" for the internal keel.

We've determined a 39" keel must be a transcription error as that leaves only an impossible 7" for internal keel. 

[rwiederrich]

Good work everyone.  
 

We’ll I began making chips,…….we’ll small chips. I carved the Staghound figurehead.  Here are some pics

[druxey]

Ah! "...with the shoe moulds 46 inches..." that/those are the false keel(s). So, 46 - 32 = 14". Not unreasonable to have a double false keel in  7" thicknesses.

[ClipperFan]

10 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Good work everyone.  
 

We’ll I began making chips,…….we’ll small chips. I carved the Staghound figurehead.  Here are some pics

@rwiederrich

Rob,

Wow! now THAT'S a Stag Hound!! So, to be 7 scale feet, that's 7/8ths inches long. Amazing carving at such a tiny scale. I can't wait to see her in gilded gold.

[ClipperFan]

9 hours ago, druxey said:

Ah! "...with the shoe moulds 46 inches..." that/those are the false keel(s). So, 46 - 32 = 14". Not unreasonable to have a double false keel in  7" thicknesses.

@druxey

Now you have me even more curious. If you don't mind, can you share the source you're getting these figures from? It sounds like you're saying the outer keel was 32" including double false keels of 14" total, making her outer keel 18" (+ 14" double shoes; false keels) for a total 32" beyond garboards and her inner one 14" for a combined total of 46"? Everything I've found refers to a 39" keel beyond garboards, yet still maintains 46" total. That would make the inner one 7" which I find too thin. Handwritten notes by Hall (shared excerpts of; including sobco.com site link) show no such 39" outer keel mentioned. That leads me to conclude the Cornelius McKay stipulation of 30" to be most reasonable. 32" only adds 2" but I'd just like to know the source of those figures.

Edited 44 minutes ago by ClipperFan
additional information