Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

55 minutes ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Um,  I suppose a gang of Pirates could be considered navel 'hoods' ... 😉 

 

Witty tongue and cheek....I suppose they could if that tactic was used for changing the subject.  When one compiles all the facts.....one would wonder why then, when Duncan McLean says clearly that a patent windless was mounted under the forecastle, beneath her patented capstan.....that scale model drawers of her plans, always draw the standard wood windless at the edge of her forecastle deck....causing modelers to inaccurately model her forecastle and windless.......?   Now THAT is the true act of piracy....IMV.

 

Excerpt from Clipperfan:  "

Donald McKay jealously guarded his nautical design secrets. I believe he was so successful that one of his key components have been lost to Modeler's for centuries. Until now. Thanks to Michael Mjelde's generosity in sharing ultra rare Glory of the Seas photos, we now have incontrovertible proof of these rare structures. But you don't have to take my word for it. Here are excerpts from The Boston Daily Atlas write-up: "She has neither head nor trailboards, but forming the extreme, where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the naval hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel on the wing, with a trumpet raised to her mouth "... Later in his description of this largest merchant ship in the world, McLean observes the ruggedness of this unique bow structure: "Her hood ends are bolted alternately from either side, through each other and the stem so that the loss of her cutwater would not affect her safety or cause a leak." (italics added by me to emphasize specific components) Here's a link to the entire article:

http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/News/BDA/BDA(1851-04-25).html"

Edited yesterday at 04:54 PM by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

Another image of the clipper Amy Turned....showing no evidence of the famous, McKay *Hood*.  Notice how the stem is utterly unprotected, and vulnerable? 

 

 

[rwiederrich]

Further excerpts from Clipperfan:   " Another detail that commercial models get wrong is placement of the anchor chain hawse hole. That's due to the fact that they've completely missed inclusion of the devices I just enumerated, and which can be clearly seen here. What simply blows my mind is that this unusual prow arrangement has been on every McKay clipper, save one, the Great Republic since Donald McKay debuted his inaugural extreme clipper Stag Hound December 1850! Correct placement of this hawse hole is immediately below the base of the naval hoods, as can be clearly seen in this remarkable image. I sincerely hope these factual insights will enable you to create your most accurate Flying Cloud model that you desire".

 

[sob]

re: patented capstan & Flying Cloud

see https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/details/capstans.htm

in particular

"The Monthly Nautical Magazine of May 1855 says that Allyn's patent power capstans^[7] had been furnished to the Flying Cloud within “the past year”^[8], implying that the original capstans had been replaced. That leaves mahogany and brass, something McKay was using around the time he built the Flying Cloud, as the likely materials for the Flying Cloud’s original capstans.  "

[sob]

ps - the drawing in the 1853 McLean booklet on the Great Republic shows that the ship had wooden capstans

see http://www.sobco.com/ship_model/Great_Republic/Great_Republic_McLean_plate_6.pdf

 

the capstan itself

 

[sob]

ps - if someone is interested - the entry point for the McLean booklet on the Great Republic is

https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/Great_Republic/index.html

 

I posted a pdf of the booklet and pdfs of each of the drawings which claim to show details of the

construction of the ship and was published about the same time was the ship was built (and before

she burned) Since I have found no evidence that McLean was a draftsman I assume the drawings were

done by someone under the supervision of McKay himself.

[rwiederrich]

16 hours ago, sob said:

re: patented capstan & Flying Cloud

see https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/details/capstans.htm

in particular

"The Monthly Nautical Magazine of May 1855 says that Allyn's patent power capstans^[7] had been furnished to the Flying Cloud within “the past year”^[8], implying that the original capstans had been replaced. That leaves mahogany and brass, something McKay was using around the time he built the Flying Cloud, as the likely materials for the Flying Cloud’s original capstans.  "

Yes...she most likely had the same wood and brass capstans as Staghound on her main deck....but Staghound had a double action patent capstan for her forecastle....over her patent double action reversable windless in the topgallant forecastle.  It is said that both Flying Cloud and the Staffordshire were fitted out the same as Staghound.....with the most modern machines and mechanics.  These early models were well funded by McKay...so he spared no expense.

[sob]

agree about double acting capstan on forecastle

[rwiederrich]

16 hours ago, sob said:

ps - if someone is interested - the entry point for the McLean booklet on the Great Republic is

https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/Great_Republic/index.html

 

I posted a pdf of the booklet and pdfs of each of the drawings which claim to show details of the

construction of the ship and was published about the same time was the ship was built (and before

she burned) Since I have found no evidence that McLean was a draftsman I assume the drawings were

done by someone under the supervision of McKay himself.

Yes.....thank you, I have that booklet.  It was invaluable when I built my Great Republic.

[sob]

nice!

[rwiederrich]

This rendering of her yard and sail plan is highly suspect and  just inaccurate.  This drawing shows her after her rebuild.....with flying skysails and bulwarks and splash rail.  You can see them clearly.  No complete stanchioned railing around the weather deck.  Plus, when she was rebuilt...her eagle figurehead was replaced with a simple billet figurehead and gilded cheeks.  With all these glaring errors....why would Duncan McLean..draw this?  Why would he draw her with bulwarks...when he described her,.....he described her as she was first built.....he saw her in NY.    This is what she most likely looked like at her arrival to NY....prior to her burning.

 

   

Edited 5 hours ago by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

10 minutes ago, sob said:

nice!

Here, again in her case.

[sob]

my guess is that McLean did not do any of the drawings - I've not seen any reason to think he was a draftsperson

he was a good friend of McKay (it is said) and I've assumed the drawings in the booklet came from McKay or were commissioned by McKay.

The booklet was basically a advertisement for the ship and McKay so it seems quite likely that KcKay had a big hand in it - maybe McLean wrote the text (it is in his style) but I expect that McKay reviewed & approved the final text

[sob]

1:96 ?

[rwiederrich]

33 minutes ago, sob said:

agree about double acting capstan on forecastle

This is another issue Rich and I have with many drawings of Staghound , Flying Cloud, and Flying Fish.  They were all fashioned the same in the topgallant forecastle.  Most drawings show they were outfitted with the older wood capstans, mounted just under the edge of the forecastle deck.......HOWEVER.  the descriptions of these vessels clearly indicates the forecastle crew space was recessed 3ft below the main deck...to make room, in a weather tight space for their patent windlesses.....that were driven by their patent double action capstans on the forecastle deck.  this description is very clear concerning Staghound...and Flying Cloud was a near duplicate of Staghound, with minor differences.  this patent windless had to be protected from the elements, so it was within the recessed forecastle cabin.

 

[rwiederrich]

Similar to this....

[sob]

that sure would have taken up a lot of room in the forecastle which, according to McLean, housed a full watch of the crew

[rwiederrich]

21 minutes ago, sob said:

my guess is that McLean did not do any of the drawings - I've not seen any reason to think he was a draftsperson

he was a good friend of McKay (it is said) and I've assumed the drawings in the booklet came from McKay or were commissioned by McKay.

The booklet was basically a advertisement for the ship and McKay so it seems quite likely that KcKay had a big hand in it - maybe McLean wrote the text (it is in his style) but I expect that McKay reviewed & approved the final text

I'm sure the hull drawings have a McKay origin...but like I pointed out...her sparing profile is wrong.  McKay would not draw her as she was NOT built.  Good educational recourses though.

 

Rob

[sob]

note that he Emerson Walker company was founded in 1870 and patented a windlass the same year so that particular device

would not have been around in the 1850s when the McKay ships were built ( unless it was a different Emerson Walker (a US based one)

 

see https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Emerson,_Walker_and_Co

 

[sob]

Re: drawings in the Great Republic booklet - since the booklet was basically an add for McKay (as mentioned above) it

seems to me that it is highly unlikely that McKay was not in the approval process for the drawings

[rwiederrich]

16 minutes ago, sob said:

that sure would have taken up a lot of room in the forecastle which, according to McLean, housed a full watch of the crew

Indeed.  the forecastle deck was, set at the main rail....roughly 5.5ft above deck and with the 3ft recessed floor....giving ample room for bunking.  McLean states the topgallant forecastle was very spacious and amply lit.  Light could only come in way of forecastle bulkhead windows(on deck), and flush deck prismatic skylights(ceiling).  Rich and I have concluded the forecastle steps down just as the companion way does in the aft portico...down 3ft into the parlors below.  Here is a rendering of the forecastle bulkhead on deck with companionways(leading down) and ladders leading up to the forecastle deck.  This is for Staghound...and since Flying Cloud was of similar design and detailing....we concluded she too had as similar styling and function.

Edited 10 hours ago by rwiederrich

[sob]

here is another drawing of the EW windlass

[sob]

having the forecastle floor lower than the deck makes a lot of sense - having only 6 feet of headroom would be hard and would

only allow double bunks which might not be enough for a full watch

[rwiederrich]

12 minutes ago, sob said:

note that he Emerson Walker company was founded in 1870 and patented a windlass the same year so that particular device

would not have been around in the 1850s when the McKay ships were built ( unless it was a different Emerson Walker (a US based one)

 

see https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Emerson,_Walker_and_Co

 

We concluded it was a Walker *type* of patented windless.  there were several other *types* that functioned in a similar fashion.  I posted this image to show the arrangement.

A double action capstan, works with a double action windless.

[rwiederrich]

4 minutes ago, sob said:

having the forecastle floor lower than the deck makes a lot of sense - having only 6 feet of headroom would be hard and would

only allow double bunks which might not be enough for a full watch

It would be actually over 8ft.

[sob]

at this point it would take too much work to drop the visible windlass in my Flying Cloud so it will just have to represent the common opinion of how the windlass was placed

 

[rwiederrich]

14 minutes ago, sob said:

Re: drawings in the Great Republic booklet - since the booklet was basically an add for McKay (as mentioned above) it

seems to me that it is highly unlikely that McKay was not in the approval process for the drawings

I agree with your assessment.  However, the drawing is in error.  That drawing does not depict the GR as she was first built by McKay.  It is an amalgamation of her original and rebuilt profiles.  That is just a fact. I don't know any other way to put it.

[rwiederrich]

45 minutes ago, sob said:

1:96 ?

No...1/128   she would be too large for my space if she was 1/96.

 

[rwiederrich]

5 minutes ago, sob said:

at this point it would take too much work to drop the visible windlass in my Flying Cloud so it will just have to represent the common opinion of how the windlass was placed

 

No..I understand.  But looking at the forecastle...does it look like there is space under it for a full watch crew to comfortably live and work?  The deck of the FC is at the height(5.5ft) of the main rail. Nice model, by the way.

[sob]

thanks