Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob,

As I read it, poop deck height is 5 feet. The additional 18 inch monkey rail surrounds the ship's hull but not the front of the poop deck. Outer turned stanchions should be 10", rail above 4" added to 18" monkey rail brings total height to 32". As far as I know, that's standard height for safety rails. Meanwhile, since the poop deck front lacks a monkey rail, as does the portico roof, those turned stanchions would, of necessity be taller at 28", plus 4" rail on top for 32". Makes sense now?

Riiiight. 
 

Thanks bro. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

56 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Riiiight. 
 

Thanks bro. 
 

Rob

Rob,

You're welcome, I think (?) Did my explanation clarify the issue or are there still doubts?

[ClipperFan]

@Luis Felipe

Early this morning, @Vladimir_Wairoa messaged us that he had done 1/2 of the Stag Hound bulkheads and the rest would follow soon. Just tonight he told us that the rest of the bulkheads were done and shared a few more of his results. He asked specifically for your response. In case you haven't seen his progress yet, here's what Vlad shared with us. I've tried to keep these in the same order that Vlad did. In all fairness to him, I brought up a couple concerns I still had with the sheer plan as it related to what I call our "gold standard." That's still the 1:48th scale Stag Hound model constructed by Donald's own son Cornelius. It was derived right from actual mould lines taken from the lofting floor. And that's while the ship herself was under construction. Personally, I have never heard of such an event happening before! It implies that Donald McKay himself must have known about Cornelius' intentions. He then gave him full access to the lofting floor in order to accomplish this.  Cornelius mentions a drawing he did which accompanied his model given to Captain Arthur H Clark. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to locate it. So, we have a photo of an exact replica of Stag Hound to authenticate her sheer lines. But there's no such body plan to accompany it. Vlad has been doing unenviable yeoman's work on his computer. He has cobbled together several body plans in order to create the best prototype for bulkheads. Vladimir's relied on sources from an 1881 Hall plan, 1967 Chappelle lines and a most recent, more highly detailed Crothers body plan. 

My concerns are from a perspective of a non-modeler and I readily admit this. Rob and Vlad have reassured me that their final version will match the McKay model. But here's where I still see room for slight improvement. As computer plans exist right now, keel and stem depth both appear to be larger than statistics show. As an artist, this troubles me. Rob and Vlad say as experienced modelers, this is adjusted during their builds and I have nothing to be concerned about. After seeing both of their spectacular Glory of the Seas builds, I trust them. In answer to my other concern, as to how closely the sheer profile matches the McKay model, Vlad was kind enough to accomodatecme. He's shown an overlay in gray of the Cornelius model to his computer plans. They are impressively close, as can be seen by the image. I told him that the foot curve of the McKay version appears to be more subtle than the Crothers line. The bigger variance is the stern. I must admit that the one weakness in the McKay hull picture is the stern. It  appears to be smaller than other plans of Donald McKay. For example, take authentic lines of Flying Fish. Still, the model's rear stern rake is slightly different. Yet again, we're working off a photo of the model too. So Rob's excited to proceed and I'm about 99% there too. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30 by ClipperFan
grammar correction

[rwiederrich]

10 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

You're welcome, I think (?) Did my explanation clarify the issue or are there still doubts?

No...I got it.  I drew the main rail and monkey rail onto your new drawing and then added the new stern rail up to your forward poop rail.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

13 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

No...I got it.  I drew the main rail and monkey rail onto your new drawing and then added the new stern rail up to your forward poop rail.

 

Rob

Rob,

While working on fore and aft portico profiles, it occurred to me that my arches are more pronounced than those Michael Mjelde did for the Glory of the Seas coach house front fascia. I'll finish those sides with a more modest arch and see which looks best, then share results here when I'm done.

[rwiederrich]

13 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Outer turned stanchions should be 10", rail above 4" added to 18" monkey rail brings total height to 32"

I recalculated my stanchion dimensions for the outer rail...and I think I need to get more drastic.   From what you are reminding me....I need those stanchions to be 10".  That is under an 1/8" of an inch.

That is going to be itty bitty....I mean REAL itty bitty.

I might be forced to change the design a bit to permit them to have some strength.  I'll experiment tonight and when I come up with something....I'll then remake all 50 stanchions...to the new minimalistic dimensions.

 

Oh boy

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

While working on fore and aft portico profiles, it occurred to me that my arches are more pronounced than those Michael Mjelde did for the Glory of the Seas coach house front fascia. I'll finish those sides with a more modest arch and see which looks best, then share results here when I'm done.

I talked to Mike the other day and he said, "Bill Crothers' work is probably the most complete study we have of Staghound."  We didn't discuss his errors. 

He is, however interested in our progress.

 

Rob    

[rwiederrich]

On 7/28/2024 at 9:51 AM, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Please give me few days guys to make out bulkheads. all should be finished this week. 

Vlad, I talked to Mike this week and he asked, "Did Vlad ever get to drawing a lines plan for Glory based on his research?"

 

His address is:   mjmjelde38@cs.com    If you want to reply

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I talked to Mike the other day and he said, "Bill Crothers' work is probably the most complete study we have of Staghound."  We didn't discuss his errors. 

He is, however interested in our progress.

 

Rob    

Rob,

What I wonder about is why Bill Crothers didn't make use of the existing authentic 1850 builder's model by Cornelius McKay. Do you think it's possible that he wasn't aware of it since it can only be found in the 1928 publication "Some Famous Sailing Ships and Their Builder Donald McKay" by his relative Richard McKay? It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have known about this encyclopedic book about all of McKay's ships but I suppose it's possible.

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I recalculated my stanchion dimensions for the outer rail...and I think I need to get more drastic.   From what you are reminding me....I need those stanchions to be 10".  That is under an 1/8" of an inch.

That is going to be itty bitty....I mean REAL itty bitty.

I might be forced to change the design a bit to permit them to have some strength.  I'll experiment tonight and when I come up with something....I'll then remake all 50 stanchions...to the new minimalistic dimensions.

 

Oh boy

 

Rob

Rob,

I didn't mean to make your life more difficult when I gave you those dimensions. Here's actual outer stubbier turned stanchions from an enlarged Glory of the Seas detail. I now wonder if the kind of out of place iron railing ending might have been originally encased in wood at some point. The other photos are of actual turned rail stanchions taken off the McKay clipper Flying Fish by her captain Simeon Jones. He has his Home, still intact, in Barnstable, Cape Cod, Mass. By their slender build and height, they must have at one time been mounted to her coach house. It strikes me that they're too tall to have surrounded the poop deck. These might have been similar to ones on Stag Hound as Flying Fish was launched just a couple years later. They're closer together than Glory of the Seas which launched 17 to 19 years after these two clippers.

[rwiederrich]

45 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

What I wonder about is why Bill Crothers didn't make use of the existing authentic 1850 builder's model by Cornelius McKay. Do you think it's possible that he wasn't aware of it since it can only be found in the 1928 publication "Some Famous Sailing Ships and Their Builder Donald McKay" by his relative Richard McKay? It's hard to imagine that he wouldn't have known about this encyclopedic book about all of McKay's ships but I suppose it's possible.

Mike went on further to say, "Did you  know that he published  his last two books on freighting ships and spars when he was over 100 years of age?  I believe that he passed away about ten years  ago at the age of almost 103."

Either Crothers knew and just didn't think it reliable.....or, as you put it...wasn't aware of it.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

43 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

I didn't mean to make your life more difficult when I gave you those dimensions.

Not more difficult....but more accurate.  The stanchions must be around 10~12 scale inches to keep the rail height at a reasonable 32" on the poop deck.  All other stanchions are reliant on themselves to maintain that same dimension of 32".  I've got a couple tricks up my sleave.....I may use metal instead.😉

 

I've been doing a lot of study how I am going to affix the fantail rail to the stanchions this time.  I'm going to do it differently than I did with Glory.  Plus my rail will be moulded on both inside and outside with greater detail.  Similar to the image of Glory's rail cap.   I hope to take the opportunity to correct things I didn't pay much attention too on Glory.

 

Rob

Edited July 30 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Not more difficult....but more accurate.  The stanchions must be around 10~12 scale inches to keep the rail height at a reasonable 32" on the poop deck.  All other stanchions are reliant on themselves to maintain that same dimension of 32".  I've got a couple tricks up my sleave.....I may use metal instead.😉

 

I've been doing a lot of study how I am going to affix the fantail rail to the stanchions this time.  I'm going to do it differently than I did with Glory.  Plus my rail will be moulded on both inside and outside with greater detail.  Similar to the image of Glory's rail cap.   I hope to take the opportunity to correct things I didn't pay much attention too on Glory.

 

Rob

Rob,

That sounds amazing. It would be quite an accomplishment for you to exceed your Glory of the Seas standards.

[rwiederrich]

15 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

That sounds amazing. It would be quite an accomplishment for you to exceed your Glory of the Seas standards.

We’ll…. I surely thought I was being a stickler for detail……..but to be honest…..I could have done better.    
 

Now I built a jig to aid me in drilling precision holes in the rail for the stanchions that I’m remachinging  old white metal stanchions I had in my stash since I was a kid.   Been hauling them around for over 50 years. 
 

Im using my Mini lathe and mill.   Here is the railing being test fitted in the jig for drilling. 
 

Rob

Edited July 31 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Mike went on further to say, "Did you  know that he published  his last two books on freighting ships and spars when he was over 100 years of age?  I believe that he passed away about ten years  ago at the age of almost 103."

Either Crothers knew and just didn't think it reliable.....or, as you put it...wasn't aware of it.

 

Rob

Rob,

I never realized that Mr. Crothers was so active into his 100s. That's true passion for his subject matter. I need to get a bibliography of his works. Right now, I just have two. 

It's also just plain stunning that with his meticulously detailed investigation of all facets of ship building construction, that he completely missed what we now call McKay's "secret" navel hood, cutwater bow. It floors me that everybody up until us never recognized that unique feature. And yet, as we now see, it's been there right from the beginning...with Stag Hound.

[rwiederrich]

12 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I never realized that Mr. Crothers was so active into his 100s. That's true passion for his subject matter. I need to get a bibliography of his works. Right now, I just have two. 

It's also just plain stunning that with his meticulously detailed investigation of all facets of ship building construction, that he completely missed what we now call McKay's "secret" navel hood, cutwater bow. It floors me that everybody up until us never recognized that unique feature. And yet, as we now see, it's been there right from the beginning...with Stag Hound.

I would assume that since he wrote about and documented so many clipper models...and all of them were of similar design of stem....he could not help himself, but to overlook the naval hoods of McKay's design.

To him and so many others, it was just a unique trailboard of some kind.  This is just an educated guess....mind you. But one that seams most plausible.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

13 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

That sounds amazing. It would be quite an accomplishment for you to exceed your Glory of the Seas standards.

Well...Staghound has far less structures to build....then Glory of the Seas of 1877.    I'm hoping to put more detail into the skylight and the winches mounted on the fore and main fife rails.

One item I'm wrestling with is, did Staghound have the same double gin block lifts for the topsails, as is depicted in every kit of Flying Fish?  That means she would have double purchases on both starboard and port sides.  Probably why she had those winches mounted on her fife bits.

 

Anyway....I'm going to tackle a lot of small construction details differently than what I did on Glory.   

And I haven't decided if she will have sails furled or set either

 

Rob

Edited July 31 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

14 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

We’ll…. I surely thought I was being a stickler for detail……..but to be honest…..I could have done better.    
 

Now I built a jig to aid me in drilling precision holes in the rail for the stanchions that I’m remachinging  from old white metal stanchions I had in my stash since I was a kid.   Been hauling them around for over 50 years. 
 

Im using my Mini lathe and mill.   Here is the railing being test fitted in the jig for drilling. 
 

Rob

This is how I intend to precisely drill the pin rails as well.  Not by hand as was done on Glory of the Seas.

 

Rob

Edited July 31 by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I would assume that since he wrote about and documented so many clipper models...and all of them were of similar design of stem....he could not help himself, but to overlook the naval hoods of McKay's design.

To him and so many others, it was just a unique trailboard of some kind.  This is just an educated guess....mind you. But one that seams most plausible.

 

Rob

Rob,

I think what's led to this confusion is Duncan McLean's use of terms like "exceedingly plain" and "lacking head boards or trailboards." Such terms, whether intentional or not has most likely led maritime researchers to conclude the absolute plainness of McKay's bows. Who knows how things would have turned out for us if we had no bow pictures for Glory of the Seas? Then again, what did other researchers make of the terms "navel hood" and "cutwater?" Still, it baffles me how for literally 170 years, McKay's uniquely rugged prow treatment has remained a secret. Actually hiding in plain sight....

It's one of the revalations I cover in my second article, referring to our in-depth research into Glory of the Seas. She has proven to be the absolute "Rosetta Sone" of McKay's magnificent clippers.

Edited July 31 by ClipperFan
grammar correction

[ClipperFan]

@rwiederrich @Vladimir_Wairoa @Luis Felipe

Rob and I discussed deck lights described as being installed on Stag Hound. Actually, besides on the poop deck, these nautical ceiling prisms were also installed on the roof of the long house abaft the foremast. 

Whether you want to model these or not is up to you. They're not exactly huge. This authentic 1900s deck prism off a sailing ship is 4.5" wide x 4.75 deep. They're 6-sided (hexagonal). I would imagine besides being flush mounted they would probably have had some sort to round wooden moulding surrounding them. I also believe to provide maximum lighting, these little lights would have been centrally mounted for each individual apartment. Of course for the captain's 12' × 18' fore state-room, there could have been more than one, two maybe three. 

Edited July 31 by ClipperFan
word correction

[Rick310]

Rob, are you sure that Staghound had deck winches when first launched?  These seem to be a particular British item, per CS 1860’s.  I am not familiar with any American clipper ship with these types of winches built in the 1850’s.  Could these be a later addition?

The Flying Fish was reported by McLesn to have a well lit forecastle.  The plans show 2 rectangular lights on the main deck, right where the anchor chains run to the chain lockers.  I opted not to model them as they are speculation.

The Charles Morgan at Mystic Seaport has both octagonal and rectangular deck lights.

Rick

[rwiederrich]

28 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Rob, are you sure that Staghound had deck winches when first launched?  These seem to be a particular British item, per CS 1860’s.  I am not familiar with any American clipper ship with these types of winches built in the 1850’s.  Could these be a later addition?

Rick...the winches I am referencing are seen on Champelle's drawing of Staghound.  they are mounted on the fore and main fife rail bitts.  This would account for the ability for heavy lifting.....without the large iron winches the Brits used on their smaller clippers.  I posted this earlier....but I'll post it again for clarity of idea.  This winch system is mounted on a 3 master coastal schooner.  But the principal is sound.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

47 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

The Flying Fish was reported by McLesn to have a well lit forecastle.  The plans show 2 rectangular lights on the main deck, right where the anchor chains run to the chain lockers.

Ceiling prism lights were in use for many years prior to 1850's.  They were flush mounted and caulked.  I'm truly considering them on Staghound.  Maybe with a little location help from Clipperfan...I can be assured of a good representation.  They were only about 4~6" in circumference.  Side note:  The underground city in Seattle used them in the streets above...and you can still walk the streets and see the prisms on the sidewalks and in the underground, they actually work pretty well.

 

Rob

Edited July 31 by rwiederrich

[Rick310]

No doubt the principle of the winches is sound.  But I question if they were initially used on Staghound, why weren’t they used on McKays subsequent Clippers such as Flying Cloud or Flying Fish?  
Again, makes me wonder if they weren’t a later addition.

Rick

[rwiederrich]

I was considering the round design with metal flush mount flange.  

 

Rob

[Rick310]

Nice!!

Rick

[rwiederrich]

8 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

No doubt the principle of the winches is sound.  But I question if they were initially used on Staghound, why weren’t they used on McKays subsequent Clippers such as Flying Cloud or Flying Fish?  
Again, makes me wonder if they weren’t a later addition.

Rick

One thing we can be sure of.  McKay's secret *Naval Hood* was present on all of his clippers.....but nobody ever caught the *CLUE*.  This fact is beyond contestation at this point.  However.....Deck furniture between all of McKay's clipper changed with every model.  McKay.....never built the same model...always trying to improve.  He did return to some aspects and repeat himself....such as the hull design between the Great Republic and the Lightning.  Though different in size, quite similar in design.   Lightning and Donald McKay with their unique catwalk access across the mid decks from forecastle to poop.  What CAN be speculative, is deck furniture....ie....houses, porticos, carriage houses, access ways...and the like.  McKay seamed to experiment with many approaches....trying to satisfy crew and passengers comfort.

As far as the working equipment on board....little is known about what, if any deck winches McKay used on his clippers...(Apart from the Great Republic, which had more then 6 spider winches on her decks).

 

There has got to be some reason why Champelle drew them on his rendering of Staghound. Logic dictates their necessity....though some drawers of model plans thought otherwise.

 

I have a bit to go before I get to that point...but I'm still pressed to avoid them all together.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

57 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rick...the winches I am referencing are seen on Champelle's drawing of Staghound.  they are mounted on the fore and main fife rail bitts.  This would account for the ability for heavy lifting.....without the large iron winches the Brits used on their smaller clippers.  I posted this earlier....but I'll post it again for clarity of idea.  This winch system is mounted on a 3 master coastal schooner.  But the principal is sound.

 

Rob

Rob,

This question of winches mounted or not, sounds like a perfect topic to discuss with our author friend Michael Mjelde. If anyone would be most confident in such details, it has got to be him. After all, just like those pesky iron bollards, you wouldn't want to introduce something anachronistic on your replica.

[ClipperFan]

40 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

I was considering the round design with metal flush mount flange.  

 

Rob

Rob,

My preliminary Google search for 1900s era sailing ship deck prisms consistently resulted in the hexagonal green version I shared. The round prism you favor appears to me to be more modern.

[rwiederrich]

25 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

This question of winches mounted or not, sounds like a perfect topic to discuss with our author friend Michael Mjelde. If anyone would be most confident in such details, it has got to be him. After all, just like those pesky iron bollards, you wouldn't want to introduce something anachronistic on your replica.

True....good point.  Lets ask Mikey....😄  He'll ea....., I mean, .....Knows everything.

 

Not to be a rivet counter😜...but the iron ones are called Bitts my friend.

 

Rob(truth seeker)