Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

46 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

Rich and I discuss it in some length on pages 11-14 or so of this log.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

You said, "if those beaks were only on McKay ships they sure could have been an important development  

 

it does appear that I need to work some on my Flying Cloud drawings to better conform to what McLean describes".

 

Rich and I have been researching this issue for quite some time...both, independently, and together as of 2009 to present.  Understanding the ingenious mind of Donald McKay, with the aid of Michael Mjelde, we have concluded McKay incorporated this very unique structural element into all of his clippers.  Model builders for over a hundred years have been misrepresenting his clippers, either by bias, or most likely, by simple ignorance of the fact.  It is hard to identify these structures in paintings, because McKay guarded it so.  Painting were like photographs of the time.  Not until actual photographs of Glory of the Seas, where we able to finally identify these structures, as what they were....and their naval architectural structural significance.  Noticing that every other clipper made...NEVER had them...in paintings or in photographs.  This fact, in part led us to devise, , these were indeed one of McKay's well guarded *secrets*.

Now it has become Rich's desire to educate and, if possible, get model manufacturers to change their inaccurate drawings.  And fully represent the *Real* McKay clipper bow. to pay real honor to that visionary master, ship builder.

 

Rob

[sob]

I wish there was more evidence for them in the early McKay clippers 

 

as I mention on my website, some research has shown that McLean's descriptions of McKay's ships may not

have told the whole story so that McKay's competitors would not know the details McKay wanted hidden

 

but the hiding of this particular detail seems to have been rather successful (assuming you and Rich are correct)

 

at this point it seems to be different opinions by different people

 

Scott

[sob]

but , in any case, I do not think that it is right to call them "navel (or naval) hoods"

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

8 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich and I have been researching this issue for quite some time...both, independently, and together as of 2009 to present.  ... This fact, in part led us to devise, , these were indeed one of McKay's well guarded *secrets*.

Now it has become Rich's desire to educate and, if possible, get model manufacturers to change their inaccurate drawings.  And fully represent the *Real* McKay clipper bow. to pay real honor to that visionary master, ship builder.

 

  This aspect of the log provides real educational value.  Firstly, I see now the need for reinforcement of the extended (prow) part of a clipper cutwater (or many 19th c wooden ships).  It's not a single piece, but a buildup of many shaped sections joined together.  Even though the wood is thick (what, around a foot?), it still can only take so much force before breaking, and a heavy ocean wave encountered at a side angle can present a massive amount of force.

 

  On the C.S. and big T, the (typical) reinforcement goes from the sides of the hull (incorporating the hawse hole) out to the sides of the cutwater to make a sturdy triangle when bolted through.  McKay's hood is located higher up and joins over the the top of the cutwater.  Perhaps this innovation presents greater streamlining in rough seas, and a small advantage over a long voyage amounts to a time savings that might amount to a couple days or more - not inconsiderable for the original purpose of the China Tea trade.  There may be other factors not immediately seen as well.

 

  Everything on a sailing ship had a purpose, and even though my project is not a McKay design, the information in this log helps me appreciates important construction details.  Now I suppose that a clipper with a naval hood that is Christened 'Robin'  could be said to have (here it comes) ... a Robin Hood ?

 

[sob]

🙂

[rwiederrich]

22 minutes ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  This aspect of the log provides real educational value.  Firstly, I see now the need for reinforcement of the extended (prow) part of a clipper cutwater (or many 19th c wooden ships).  It's not a single piece, but a buildup of many shaped sections joined together.  Even though the wood is thick (what, around a foot?), it still can only take so much force before breaking, and a heavy ocean wave encountered at a side angle can present a massive amount of force.

 

  On the C.S. and big T, the (typical) reinforcement goes from the sides of the hull (incorporating the hawse hole) out to the sides of the cutwater to make a sturdy triangle when bolted through.  McKay's hood is located higher up and joins over the the top of the cutwater.  Perhaps this innovation presents greater streamlining in rough seas, and a small advantage over a long voyage amounts to a time savings that might amount to a couple days or more - not inconsiderable for the original purpose of the China Tea trade.  There may be other factors not immediately seen as well.

 

  Everything on a sailing ship had a purpose, and even though my project is not a McKay design, the information in this log helps me appreciates important construction details.  Now I suppose that a clipper with a naval hood that is Christened 'Robin'  could be said to have (here it comes) ... a Robin Hood ?

 

You're all too funny Johnny.  I appreciate your valuable input.  

 

Robin Wiederrich....aka..rwiederich

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, sob said:

I wish there was more evidence for them in the early McKay clippers 

 

as I mention on my website, some research has shown that McLean's descriptions of McKay's ships may not

have told the whole story so that McKay's competitors would not know the details McKay wanted hidden

 

but the hiding of this particular detail seems to have been rather successful (assuming you and Rich are correct)

 

at this point it seems to be different opinions by different people

 

Scott

First, what is your website address?

Second.  We know from Glory of the Seas, that McKay incorporated his “Hood”.  That is undisputed.  We also know that he built glory of the seas on his own account, at this time in his career, he was beginning to financially falter.  He could not afford patented, capstan’s or windlesses. He made easier wooden ones. He also used wooden bits as well.  However, structural items such as his “Hood” remained.  It was a signature piece.  Images of Champion of the Seas strongly indicate a Glory of the Seas bow.  The lack of ample evidence is not proof, since we actually have evidence in his last clipper.  It was not a feature that evolved like his body designs(always searching for the fastest design). It was a feature that set him apart. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

@sob @rwiederrich and I have both been doing a very deep dive into Donald McKay's remarkable California clippers for 16 years now. While the vast majority of that time has been concentrating on his last magnificent medium clipper Glory of the Seas, it naturally led to examination of his other earlier clippers as well. Our research has led us to some startling conclusions. I personally have been astounded to discover how effectively Donald McKay disguised his nautical bow construction which Rob and I now refer to as the unique McKay bow. Beginning with Stag Hound his inaugural clipper, Duncan McLean a sailor himself and apparently good friend of McKay's describes this vessel as: "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." There are 3 components described in the Stag Hound bow: (1) stem, (2) cutwater and (3) hood ends. " The whole rake of her stem on deck is 6 feet, and of her sternpost 2 feet." "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. "A carved and gilded stag hound, represented panting in the chase, and carved work around the hawse-holes and on the ends of her cat-heads, comprise her ornamental work about the bow." Using published Stag Hound lines, I overlaid (2) cutwater and (3) navel hood over the (1) stem adding the stag hound panting in the chase as described. Carved work, just as on Glory of the Seas would embellish both cutwater and navel hoods identically. There's a precise scale included off the port bow of the sketch. One observation I've made is that Duncan McLean is long on construction details and short on describing ornamental work. When he describes Flying Cloud for the first time, McLean actually uses the nautical term "navel hoods." In fact, he makes his most in-depth observations of any McKay bow in his evaluation of the strength and ruggedness of this California clipper fleet bow. "She has neither head nor trail boards, but forming the extreme, where the line of the planksheer and the carved work on the navel hoods terminate, she has the full figure of an angel on the wing, with a trumpet raised to her mouth. The figure is finely designed and exceedingly well executed, and is a beautiful finish to the bow. It is the work of Mr. Gleason, who made the figure-head of the Shooting Star." "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." Utilizing the same published lines for Flying Cloud I reconstructed her complete bow as she's been described ever since the Boston Daily Atlas article was published over a century ago on April 25th, 1851. Admittedly it's tough to see since it's so dark but the very first color woodcut illustration of her being launched includes a wedge-shaped design just above and behind a white winged trumpet bearing angel which the artist used vertical lines to delineate. Just like Glory of the Seas the top line of this shape just happens to align directly with the planksheer molding. A couple years ago I discovered this fascinating oil in an Australian Maritime Museum titled "Flying Cloud off Whitbey, North Yorkshire 1871" by John Scott. Twenty years after her launch, she still has her trumpet bearing winged angel mounted in front of her gilded carved navel hood over a carved cutwater. Typical of older wooden clippers, her once lofty rig has been reduced and her once deep topsails have been replaced with Howe's rig upper and lower topsails on all masts. Another beautiful contemporary piece I found is: "Ship 'Flying Cloud' Alex Wagner, Cmdr, of New York going into Hong Kong." This is an earlier work depicting her when she still had her original taller rig. Detail scene shows a white winged angel bearing a trumpet with painted, carved navel hood and cutwater. Note how in all works, her angel figurehead isn't attached to the bowsprit but mounts below the navel hoods and in front of her cutwater. Artistically portraying these complex shapes is quite a challenge since the prows of these huge clippers were very sharp and their rigs were like skyscrapers. Incidentally, I've personally seen a portion of a substantial iron bar that once mounted the Grecian goddess Athene to her supporting navel hoods on Glory of the Seas when her new Cape Cod owners invited me to see her. I hope this is sufficient evidence to prove conclusively that our understanding of clipper Flying Cloud must be revised to incorporate these unique bow construction components.

 

[sob]

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

see https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/details/Flying_Cloud_Details.html for note on possible inaccurate description by McLean

 

to be clear - I have no doubts that the structure on the bow of the Glory is what you describe as a strengthening structure 

but I have not seen any evidence that a structure of the same size or appearance was on the early McKay ships - it would be logical that McKay's idea for his hood evolved over time (as engineering usually does) so I do not know what a strengthening structure would have looked like on the Flying Cloud (particularly given the outline on the Mary McKay drawing (which was done quite a while after McKay had built his last clipper so there would have been no reason to still he hiding details)

 

I do NOT want to pick a fight here but an exchange of ideas is useful

 

Scott

[sob]

ps - I fully think that just about all clipper ships, McKay's and others, had what had been in use for many years - "navel hoods" which were beefed up structures around the hawes holes and I expect that is what McLean was referring to

 

as I mentioned a few posts ago - I do not think that the McKay structures would have been referred to as "navel hoods"

 

anyway, we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns here 

 

[sob]

I see no reason to doubt the structures you-all are talking about existed (as shown in the Glory photos) but

I do not see any reason to think that they would look the same from when McKay first thought of them to the last ship

 

[ClipperFan]

42 minutes ago, sob said:

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

see https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/details/Flying_Cloud_Details.html for note on possible inaccurate description by McLean

 

to be clear - I have no doubts that the structure on the bow of the Glory is what you describe as a strengthening structure 

but I have not seen any evidence that a structure of the same size or appearance was on the early McKay ships - it would be logical that McKay's idea for his hood evolved over time (as engineering usually does) so I do not know what a strengthening structure would have looked like on the Flying Cloud (particularly given the outline on the Mary McKay drawing (which was done quite a while after McKay had built his last clipper so there would have been no reason to still he hiding details)

 

I do NOT want to pick a fight here but an exchange of ideas is useful

 

Scott

@sob Scott, since cutwaters and navel hoods were never included by McKay in his lines, his widow would have had nothing to trace. Similarly, no monkey rails, splash rails or figureheads have been found on any clipper ship lines either. Rob, Vladimir, myself and occasionally Druxey have been able to keep our communications civil by agreeing that our mutual goals have been to maintain focus on trying to remain as faithful as possible to Donald McKay's historically accurate vessels. However you envision cutwaters and hood ends (or navel hoods) I strongly believe you must at least concur that as her lines are currently portrayed they only show a bare stem, these other two important elements are currently lacking. Perhaps it's personal artistic bias but the two bow revisions I've illustrated appear to show a more refined impressive and complete clipper prow which gracefully incorporates all elements as described.

[sob]

of course I want 'remain as faithful as possible to Donald McKay's historically accurate vessels" 

 

your bow revisions do show " a more refined impressive and complete clipper prow" I just do not agree that there is reason

to think that McKay's idea would have sprung forth on his first few ships quire a refined

 

but, in the end, there is no actual data to show that either of us us correct in our views - so I'm going to leave it there

 

but do keep up the very good work shown in this blog

 

Scott

[Kenchington]

I have been following your discussion with interest, though without enough detailed knowledge of McKay's creations to judge amongst the disagreements. However, there is one point at which I fear a misunderstanding has crept in.

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

hood ends (or navel hoods)

Maybe it's just terminological confusion but I think those are two entirely unrelated things.

 

"Hood end" usually means the end of a plank that fits into the rabbet on stem or post (or else a similar end elsewhere in a ship's structure, such as on a wing transom). I have no idea of the etymological derivation of that. Maybe from something Dutch?)

 

In contrast, "Navel hood" seems to have originally meant a "hood" (analogous to a head covering) around the hawse holes -- though I do not doubt you are right that McKay extended the decorative elements of the original into a covering for timbers bracing the upper stem -- timbers replacing the old "cheeks of the head", between which the original navel hoods filled a space to prevent the cables from chafing on the angles of the cheeks. "Navel", in that setting, probably meant simply "centre" (from which English separately derives the anatomical navel), as in "between the cheeks".

 

Which brings me to:

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

"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.

That is to say that, at the load waterline (hence far below the navel hoods) the horizontal angle of the outer planks, relative to the centreline of the ship, was so narrow that it continued the bevel of the cutwater. It's a bit of a meaningless, almost journalistic, superlative, as the cutwater could readily be given a 45-degree (or even wider) bevel. What is clear is that it has nothing whatever to do with the navel hoods. Likewise for:

 

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

"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."

That describes the bolting of the ends of the planks -- each pair (one starboard, one port) through-bolted with the bolt passing through the stem. Nothing to do with navel hoods.

 

 

Trevor

Related (by marriage) to Nova Scotian McKays -- though from the opposite end of the Province from Donald's birthplace!

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, sob said:

of course I want 'remain as faithful as possible to Donald McKay's historically accurate vessels" 

 

your bow revisions do show " a more refined impressive and complete clipper prow" I just do not agree that there is reason

to think that McKay's idea would have sprung forth on his first few ships quire a refined

 

but, in the end, there is no actual data to show that either of us us correct in our views - so I'm going to leave it there

 

but do keep up the very good work shown in this blog

 

Scott

Scott….. just to remind you.  McKay built many clipper barques and other models, prior to Staghound. He had ample experimental time to perfect the structure before he began on his fabulous clipper run.  Some more info to dissect.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, Kenchington said:

I have been following your discussion with interest, though without enough detailed knowledge of McKay's creations to judge amongst the disagreements. However, there is one point at which I fear a misunderstanding has crept in.

Maybe it's just terminological confusion but I think those are two entirely unrelated things.

 

"Hood end" usually means the end of a plank that fits into the rabbet on stem or post (or else a similar end elsewhere in a ship's structure, such as on a wing transom). I have no idea of the etymological derivation of that. Maybe from something Dutch?)

 

In contrast, "Navel hood" seems to have originally meant a "hood" (analogous to a head covering) around the hawse holes -- though I do not doubt you are right that McKay extended the decorative elements of the original into a covering for timbers bracing the upper stem -- timbers replacing the old "cheeks of the head", between which the original navel hoods filled a space to prevent the cables from chafing on the angles of the cheeks. "Navel", in that setting, probably meant simply "centre" (from which English separately derives the anatomical navel), as in "between the cheeks".

 

Which brings me to:

That is to say that, at the load waterline (hence far below the navel hoods) the horizontal angle of the outer planks, relative to the centreline of the ship, was so narrow that it continued the bevel of the cutwater. It's a bit of a meaningless, almost journalistic, superlative, as the cutwater could readily be given a 45-degree (or even wider) bevel. What is clear is that it has nothing whatever to do with the navel hoods. Likewise for:

 

That describes the bolting of the ends of the planks -- each pair (one starboard, one port) through-bolted with the bolt passing through the stem. Nothing to do with navel hoods.

 

 

Trevor

Related (by marriage) to Nova Scotian McKays -- though from the opposite end of the Province from Donald's birthplace!

@Kenchington another contribution which I forgot to mention before is that I sent my second Nautical Research Journal article for review by author Michael Mjelde who's been studying McKay's final clipper Glory of the Seas for 60 years or so. His exhaustive research included actual meetings and multiple conversations with sailors who served on this clipper. He is now author of three fascinating books on this spectacular clipper. The only corrections he recommended to me were minor source quotes. This as of yet unpublished submission includes a detailed evaluation on a number of McKay clippers with quotes from McLean articles, as I've done here. Mr. Mjelde said he enjoyed the article and didn't dispute any conclusions regarding my interpretation or illustrations of the McKay bow structures. If you look very closely at the sets of bow pictures of the only surviving McKay clipper we have, you'll see how tightly the large nautical devices to which the figurehead mounts adhere to the bow. While they have ornate carvings they are far more than extraneous decorations. They were complex structures which actually twist from a "V" curving element to a vertical termination. Such wooden modeling would have required intensive laminations to accomplish. Knowing his California clipper fleet had to be able to smash into some of the toughest, mighty seas on the planet, it's logical to conclude that McKay would devise a more durable prow to endure such conditions. Reinforced bow components, overlaying a sturdy cutwater which in turn attaches and extends the stem provides a far more rugged platform to which a figurehead is protectively attached and the bowsprit is rigged and mounted. It is our contention that this combination of designed components is precisely what Duncan McLean referred to when he said that Stag Hound represented a new form of navel architecture.   

Edited 6 hours ago by ClipperFan
grammar corrections

[rwiederrich]

One major reason Michael Mjelde stated that Campbella’s drawings were suspect…… because he failed to have a peer review of them.  We, on the other hand combined two or more heads when concluding our facts.  There is far more to the truth……then simple lack of identity in paintings, McKay probably requested slight obscurity in.  To protect his secret. (educated speculation).

As stated earlier,  I suspect,  McKay developed his devices while in Newburyport, on his earlier clipper barques.  His own apprenticeship with Webb saw him experiment with  building techniques and structures.   
 

Rob