Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[ClipperFan]

53 minutes ago, sob said:

for what its worth - this is what W.A .White came up with in 1933 - no reason to think that he had any more information that we have

but note that he includes a trail-board which McLean said the FC did not have so this might have been pure guesswork

@sob Scott, I applaud your efforts to reconcile these obviously erroneous plans with the factual account. As you correctly point out, Flying Cloud had no trailboard. You'll also note that this plan lacks any form of a cutwater or navel hood. I suspect that these type of plans were intended for mantle piece decorations and so attention to accuracy wasn't high on priorities.

[sob]

I would not dismiss the plans redrawn in the 1930s as easily as that 

 

since there were no actual plans and there were no photos of most of the of the early clippers the people who drew the plans went on what they know about

clipper ships (which might not have been much) and whatever they had in their own libraries or libraries they could access - some info was quite good (like the Hall 

info on the ships), some not so much  - but I think that the people who drew these plans had the best of intentions to produce plans as accurate as they could

[Kenchington]

You gentlemen are generating posts far faster than I can hope to respond to them! But before attempting to catch up:

 

Rob: It is all too easy to get lost in discussing the fine details of long-gone ships. None of that should distract us from your absolutely awesome model of Glory of the Seas. Every time I look at your images, I am stunned by the quality of your work! Please don't let any disagreements overshadow that achievement.

 

Now ...

 

10 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Not one image I provided of clippers bows have these *external* wooden hoods.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that the 18th Century type of navel hood had a place on a clipper (as in "clipper ship", not so sure of the Baltimore clippers). At least one contemporary commentator used the term for a quite different structure on the bows of Flying Cloud and you have extended that into a term for a modified version of that same structure on Glory. But neither conforms to the older dictionary definition.

 

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I'm still chewing on this...   If McLean says, ""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".

 

Terminate...?  that means the two intersect and become one. Or they simply end.  If the plank sheer on McKay's drawing (both McKay's), is at least 3~4 ft above the so called *Navel Hood*, which Scott claims is slightly above or around the Howes Holes.  for them to bisect...they must protrude beyond the hull.  If not...then by both of those drawings the figurehead must be right up against the stem at the line of the strakes.  For that is where the planksheer and hood terminates on their drawings.  However, if one were to follow the McLean description and use the Glory profile....the description makes far more sense.

I hope we can agree that understanding some long-ago document requires that we both follow its words and understand its context. From what I can see, McLean was extolling the virtues of a particular ship, for an audience who understood ships, but not providing instructions to shipwrights who might build a similar vessel. Hence, he did not have to be fully precise.

 

He wrote that the angel was "where the line of the planksheer" terminates, not at the end of the planksheer itself. I take that to mean that extending the curve of the planksheer would lead to the location of the angel -- which makes complete sense and fits with such other evidence a you have presented.

 

It is less certain what McLean meant by "navel hood" but the paintings of Flying Cloud (unlike the photographs of Glory of the Seas) suggest that the carved (and gilded) work on those "hoods" dropped down as it flowed aft from the feet of the angel. My guess (though there's plenty of room for disagreement) is that the lower, after end of McLean's "navel hood" surrounded the hawse hole (as the old, original type of navel hood had on other ships), while the upper forward end stretched out meet the forward reach of the stem structure, where the latter bore the angel.

 

 

I'll also try to respond to:

 

14 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

regardless if you have a different interpretation of three components that comprised the bow on McKay's extreme clipper Flying Cloud it's impossible to deny that the ship was equipped with them. Stem, cutwater, navel hoods, all three

But not right away!

 

 

Trevor

[sob]

my last post got me to take a look at Hall's Scantling for the McKay ships (https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/files/Hall-Models_and_Measurements-1883.pdf

and https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/Hall-Flying_Cloud_measurements.html

 

there is no mention of navel hoods for the FC - that does not mean there were none but it clearly does not provide useful info on that front

 

[sob]

basically we are just like the plan makers of the 1930s - we do not have access to any actual plans and we do the best we can with what info we have

that means, by definition, we (all of the people looking at the design of a long-ago ship) will not agree on every detail

 

it would be great if some long lost photos of early clippers showed up with enough detail to resolve some of these questions but, if we are to go ahead and

build something we cannot wait for that chance 

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, sob said:

this is also for what its worth - this is a picture I took of the 1916 model of the FC by Boucher in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts

it is hard to see but it basically conforms to what McLean said (also not, relating to a different discussion, note that the base of the figurehead is quite large and would provide good support without needing a hood over it to help hold it in place)

 

it is hard to see the planksheer but if you follow the line of the main rail it likely hits the figurehead just about where the gold carving that surrounds the Hawes hole hits the figurehead - this model does not show any obvious navel hood which would be behind the carving

 

[ClipperFan]

Just now, ClipperFan said:

 

@sob Scott and @rwiederrich the large 1900s Boucher Flying Cloud models are my most favorite replicas. The realistic, lifelike depiction of her billowing sails is the most impressive I've ever seen. The second one is in the library of the Addison Gallery, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. There are slight differences in the sail arrangements. Still, typical of all models, she has a few mistakes. Starting at the bow, there's no navel hood, practically no cutwater, her trumpet bearing angel figurehead, besides lacking wings is out of scale too large. The hawse hole is too high. She has no accommodations for crew in her forward forecastle which has a windlass stuffed in an area that's unworkable. Further back she has a rear portico which doesn't match that of Stag Hound described as a small square portico. Basically a simple entrance way to stern apartments below. Finally, she has dual poop deck capstans which were not mentioned by McLean. 

[sob]

ps - few of the paintings of the Flying Cloud (and many early clippers) were likely done by artists who had actually seen the ship - most

artists went by whatever descriptions they had (e.g. the McLean articles) and by what they knew about clippers in general

 

there were some of the Flying Cloud where the artist might have - see

https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/what_Flying_Cloud_looked_like.htm

 

[rwiederrich]

1 hour ago, sob said:

well, we disagree about the windlass being under the deck taking up crew space but agree that there needed to be enough room for a watch of the crew 

The patent double action capstan on the forecastle deck has a purpose....it was used to operate the windless below....which was also reversible.  One tumbler on the capstan operated one side of the windless below and the other the other side.  Gearing allowed for turning clockwise to operate the starboard anchor , and counterclockwise on the other tumbler  (On the capstan) to operate the port anchor.

When McKay built Staghound he had an open checkbook...and he spared no expense...it was clear she had a patent windless similar to the ones I have posted earlier...UNDER her *Upper* topgallant deck, in a weather free enclosed forecastle.  It is said FC was built in like manner.

 

Rob

[sob]

ps the Boucher models were made for show & impact (and that they have) - Boucher had a factory in NYC that made models and accurate detail was not one of their hallmarks - but they sure do look nice  (their are some more of his models - full sales and all - in the NY Yacht Club

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, sob said:

ps the Boucher models were made for show & impact (and that they have) - Boucher had a factory in NYC that made models and accurate detail was not one of their hallmarks - but they sure do look nice  (their are some more of his models - full sales and all - in the NY Yacht Club

@sob Scott, if you have any pictures of those other models, I'd love to see them. Meanwhile, I tried to lighten up the Champion of the Seas daguerrotype to make some details easier to see. This is the only other bow photo there is of a McKay clipper. Rob and I see a great similarity between this 1854 vessel and Glory of the Seas launched 15 years later. This tells us that, while he constantly revised his hull profiles in pursuit of improvement, Donald McKay was remarkably consistent in his bow treatments. 

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

The realistic, lifelike depiction of her billowing sails is the most impressive I've ever seen

For realistic sails, there's nothing to equal the real thing 😀

That's Stad Amsterdam, with a sailplan close to a 7/8 copy of Cutty Sark's, so not a Yankee clipper but not so very different either. The image on the left was taken with a wide-angle lens, which has messed with the perspective.

 

Trevor

 

[rwiederrich]

On 4/24/2025 at 6:39 AM, 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

 

Some things to question.  First:  you have built a very beautiful model here Scott.  Is she scratch or from a kit?  I see you have the patent ventilator and the straight pipe ventilator within the stanchions and planksheer.

What I do question is, why on earth would the chain be ladled across the open deck, to be  a tripping hazard, and destructive to the deck?  From what I gathered, and which makes greater sense, is to run the chain straight down from the patented windless (as outlined elsewhere), and guide the chain  in a chain trough (as would be expected in the forecastle)...down to the chain hold?  It is said, no scientific application was speared, and the utmost attention was paid to her construction.  I see you have added the double action patented capstan....but what function does it perform if not coupled to the patented windless below?

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

27 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

For realistic sails, there's nothing to equal the real thing 😀

That's Stad Amsterdam, with a sailplan close to a 7/8 copy of Cutty Sark's, so not a Yankee clipper but not so very different either. The image on the left was taken with a wide-angle lens, which has messed with the perspective.

 

Trevor

 

I tried to attain that with my Great Republic.

[sob]

I got to wondering if people who spent the careers studying ships said anything about the structure you point to on the Glory 

the first ting I found is fro Crothers' The American Built Clipper Ship 1850-1856 (1977) - this is the go-to book for most things clipper ship

 

this is figure 24.2

 

it looks a lot like the Glory structure 

 

sad to say, the book does not include the Glory so I cannot be sure

 

in any case, Crothers does not think much of the structure he calls a "headboard" but he does list a number of ships that had headboards (p 361-368)

 

some of what he says:

Between 1850 and 1856, the bows of the clippers generally became plainer as each year went by. The cumbersome headboards, which were subject to destruction at sea, and the graceful trailboards, with their expensive carvings, were diminished for pragmatic reasons, as described in Chapter 24.as described in Chapter 24.

 

Headboards
The headboards, illustrated in Figure 24.2, were the only
exterior planking remaining to be fitted in the ship. They did
not constitute a part of the structural hull, even though, due
to their exposed position on the bows, they required sufficient
substance to enable them to withstand the heavy battering
of rough seas. Their structure, stoutly supported by
transverse timbers called cheeks, which were anchored into
the stemhead, was heavy and cumbersome, even though
their appearance to an observer was graceful and pleasing.
They served no purpose other than to ornament the bow and
render the forward endings of the planksheer and the main
rail more pleasing to the eye. In general, the upper rail projected
forward in a line which continued fair with the sheer
of the main rail while the lower rail continued as an extension
of the planksheer, sweeping forward and upward in a
graceful curve until the two rails converged immediately
abaft the figurehead. Between these rails, the transverse cheek
timbers supported suitable framing to which the headboarding
was fastened.
Detailed information on the subject of headrails and
headboards in merchant vessels is very scarce and difficult to
find. This, as is the case with much intimate detail concerning
commercial ships, is due to the fact that, in early days,
such ships were constructed as individual enterprises. There
were no precise rules in place, so each shipbuilder followed
his own initiative and inclination. With no central policy or
control, it was inevitable that there would be great variation
of detail among merchantmen. However, the general rules of
construction were followed by all shipbuilders and thus, at
any given period, all ships being built were constructed in a
like manner and they all took on the same general appearance,
adhering to the same general details.

...

About the year 1815 a new feature appeared at the ship's

head, namely headboards. A new straight rail, uniformly tapered

from its after end to the forward end, was installed between

the catheads and the figurehead. The space between

this new rail and the old upper rail was boarded in. This detail

is very apparent in the United States ship of the line

Columbus. The ship's head had finally received a very small

improvement.

By 1840 the old individual, graceful headrails were superseded

by more predominant boarding. The topmost rail was

an extension of the main rail and the lower rail was an extension

of the planksheer. By this time, foremasts were located

abaft the forecastle and the ship's head was moved under cover.

In 1850, headboards were regularly built into the bows of

large merchant vessels. However, it was a time when shipbuilders

and owners, pressed by demand and economics,

looked for ways to speed construction and reduce costs without

sacrificing a ship's seaworthiness. By decreasing the structural

work required to install headboards, they saved both

weight and labor, which, along with the elimination of excessive

and useless structure, fitted nobly into the design of

the dipper ship.

And so began the demise of headboards, particularly in

dippers. Of the vessels included in this book, only twentytwo

are definitely known to have been built with headboards.

Between 1851 and 1853 the number of ships built with headboards

declined uniformly until they disappeared entirely. After

1853 the only dipper ship built with headboards and included

in this list was Noonday, launched August 25, 1855.

(he says much more)

 

since he does not list any McKay ship as having headboards this may not be related to the structure on the glory but it does look basically the same

 

McLean mentions a few ships with headboards so he know the concept (Shooting Star, Antelope, & Silver Star)

 

maybe, if ay did come up with a strengthening structure he used the old headboard design as a cover

 

Scott

 

 

[sob]

Rob Asked:

Some things to question.  First:  you have built a very beautiful model here Scott.  Is she scratch or from a kit?  I see you have the patent ventilator and the straight pipe ventilator within the stanchions and planksheer.

What I do question is, why on earth would the chain be ladled across the open deck, to be  a tripping hazard, and destructive to the deck?  From what I gathered, and which makes greater sense, is to run the chain straight down from the patented windless (as outlined elsewhere), and guide the chain  in a chain trough (as would be expected in the forecastle)...down to the chain hold?  It is said, no scientific application was speared, and the utmost attention was paid to her construction.  I see you have added the double action patented capstan....but what function does it perform if not coupled to the patented windless below?

 

thanks, the model is fully scratch (and from my plans) - I did not grow the trees, smelt the metal or forge the chain but I made everything else  (my previous FC hull was from a kit  but I tossed everything but the bulkheads)

 

re: What I do question is, why on earth would the chain be ladled across the open deck, to be  a tripping hazard, and destructive to the deck?

I did it that way because 100% of the plans and drawings and models of the flying cloud and almost all other clipper ships have it that way - and, in addition for balance it makes more sense to stow the heavy chain further back in the hull (where there is also more space in the hull) - the White drawings of the FC deck do show a chafing plate under the chain but no other clipper ship plan does

 

re: but what function does it perform if not coupled to the patented windless below?

as I've pointed out, all of the other FC plans & models and those of almost all other clipper ships show the windlass aft of the forecastle and many also show a capstan on the forecastle

 

as for use: docking, fore lower sail, jib sails ...

[sob]

ps - this is what Crothers has for the forecastle plan for the Flying Cloud

 

note he has windlass behind the deck & in another drawing shows a capstan on the forecastle

[sob]

a while back I mentioned the sheer needed stop be taken into account when talking about the height under the forecastle - I recalled a discussion of test in some book & just found it in Crothers - page 40

 

The sheer of the weather deck, as quoted in various descriptions,
did not necessarily run parallel with the sheerline
of the planksheer (also called the covering board), and the
main rail, the latter two generally, but not always, being parallel
with each other. The deck sheer followed the trace of the
planksheer from the stern through the length of the vessel to
a point approximately abreast of the foremast. At this point,
in ships where the two sheerlines diverged, the deck rose at a
much flatter and slower rate than did the sheer of the covering
board and main rail.
This divergence accomplished two objectives. First, a deck
with the same steep incline as the covering board would, in
many vessels, require a seaman to constantly walk up and
down hill when working the forward end of the ship if she was
sailing in normal trim. The situation would be exacerbated if
she were trimmed by the stern. This of itself would not be very
practical, and practicality was part and parcel of shipbuilding.
The second result was that of achieving headroom under the
topgallant forecastle deck. This allowed for housing one watch
of the crew, handling of ground tackle, installation of the anchor
windlass, and location of the hawseholes totally above the
weather deck, a very practical accomplishment. Sufficient
headroom beneath the topgallant forecastle deck was required,
as it was an important working area.

 

with a sheer of 3 feet the FC would have quite a bit of extra headspace under the forecastle (as noted in the Crothers diagram where 

he says the headspace was 6 4" - quite enough when the average height of a full grown mail was about 5 1/2 feet)

[rwiederrich]

23 minutes ago, sob said:

and, in addition for balance it makes more sense to stow the heavy chain further back in the hull (where there is also more space in the hull)

This I understand, that is why I included it in my post.  I wasn't questioning the storage.

 

25 minutes ago, sob said:

many also show a capstan on the forecastle

 

as for use: docking, fore lower sail, jib sails ...

I understand the use of the capstan...but I mentioned the use of the *double* action type that is used in conjunction with the windless.  That kind was used on both the Staghound and FC.  You didn't address that issue.

 

I'm impressed you scratch built the model .  Did you ever finish it with masts/yards/rigging?

 

Rob

[sob]

double acting captains can have different gearing on the two rows - straight or through planetary gears giving more torque

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

 

as for the model - next up is the poop rail (lots of stanchions mounted at an inward angle) then the made-masts - then (finally) rigging - I've done a lot of research on ropes

see; https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/articles/Obsessing_about_rope.html so I'm ready (my own rope walk as well) when the time comes

 

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I tried to attain that with my Great Republic.

And you did a great job! Your fore topsail is a very nice, subtle approach towards the way that older sails set. Not many artists captured it but, in rather light weather, the weight of flax/hemp sailcloth made the sail hang down from the yard, then balloon forward near the foot, where the force of the wind overcame the lesser weight pulling down. You have captured that shape, though not so extreme, hence better suited to the cotton canvas of a clipper.

 

But I don't see how a forecourse can be well modelled. There's no way to reproduce the way that the wind lifts the sail, against its own weight, when the only solid connection is along the yard. No criticism there. I just don't see how, mechanically, it can be done.

 

Trevor

Edited Friday at 07:09 PM by Kenchington

[rwiederrich]

16 minutes ago, sob said:

ps - this is what Crothers has for the forecastle plan for the Flying Cloud

 

note he has windlass behind the deck & in another drawing shows a capstan on the forecastle

Yep...I'm fully aware of these drawings.  I don't agree.  I see, you too disagree with them.  You didn't model the skylights on the main cabin, as he depicts.  See, this is the entire point Rich and I are so adamant about the Staghound and FC forecastle and stem/hood issues.   Our conclusions are in opposition to what is commonly (as you put it), accepted.

 

Rob

[Kenchington]

Sorry about that image! It was intended for a different post that I have abandoned. 

 

In fact, I'm going to bow out of this discussion now: I'm just too pressed for time to keep up. And I'm far from sure that my interventions have been helpful anyway.

 

Best of luck to you all as you work to resolve the various interpretations!

 

Trevor

[rwiederrich]

6 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

And you did a great job! Your fore topsail is a very nice, subtle approach towards the way that older sails set. Not many artists captured it but, in rather light weather, the weight of flax/hemp sailcloth made the sail hang down from the yard, then balloon forward near the foot, where the force of the wind overcame the lesser weight pulling down. You have captured that shape, though not so extreme, hence better suited to the cotton canvas of a clipper.

 

But I don't see how a forecourse can be well modelled. There's no way to reproduce the way that the wind lifts the sail, against its own weight, when the only solid connection is along the yard. No criticism there. I just don't see how, mechanically, it can be done.

 

Trevor

True..the main course is more difficult.  Since the clews are not hard pressed to a yard...they tend to fold inward as the sail is filled and the main tack retract back and in.

 

Ummmm...This image and your red lined don't seam to apply?

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

3 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

Sorry about that image! It was intended for a different post that I have abandoned. 

 

In fact, I'm going to bow out of this discussion now: I'm just too pressed for time to keep up. And I'm far from sure that my interventions have been helpful anyway.

 

Best of luck to you all as you work to resolve the various interpretations!

 

Trevor

Thanks Trevor...you've been most engaging.

 

Rob

[sob]

well, common wisdom is sometimes (but far from always) wisdom

 

one other citation about headboards - this time from Campbell in his China Tea CLippers

 

McKay's clippers, although keeping to

the clean bow as on the later New Yorkers, tended to retain a longer stem

knee and featured a form of decorative headboard which was built flush

with the hull without exposed timber supports, and looked very

handsome.

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I tried to attain that with my Great Republic.

Stad Amsterdam is a quite lovely scaled down clipper replica. I really appreciate seeing how the yards have been stepped to take better advantage of the winds higher up. 

[sob]

Rob said: if you have any pictures of those other models, I'd love to see them.

 

I've seen pictures & have seen one of the models (an America's cup type craft) but do not have any myself

 

and I do not see any on-line

[sob]

I did find one in a book by Rob Napier - Caring for Ship Models (highly recommended) - can not see the top but still very impressive visually

 

 

 

[ClipperFan]

 

4 hours ago, sob said:

ps - few of the paintings of the Flying Cloud (and many early clippers) were likely done by artists who had actually seen the ship - most

artists went by whatever descriptions they had (e.g. the McLean articles) and by what they knew about clippers in general

 

there were some of the Flying Cloud where the artist might have - see

https://www.sobco.com/ship_model/fc/what_Flying_Cloud_looked_like.htm

 

@sob Scott, since the museum said these are free to download, I felt it's OK to share them here. This is the June 1854 watercolor sketch of Flying Cloud anchored at Whampoa. As you said, very few on site paintings exist of her. Not surprising when you consider the busy life of a clipper and the fact that in order to capture a complete image, the artist would have to be a great distance away. That's taking into account that they're staring at a vessel which is over 200 feet long with an approximately 60 foot long bowsprit. At such a distance, specific details would be very difficult to make out. Having said that, it's still possible to discern a long, apparently carved and  gilded device which terminates just behind and above an outstretched winged, trumpet bearing angel figurehead which appears to be all white with a golden trumpet. Note too how her razor sharp bow profile includes a gracefully curving cutwater which enhances her stem. Another fact which indicates this was drawn on site is that her jibboom has been retracted. What I find interesting too, is that she also had wooden ladders on her starboard hull similar to those on a man-o-war. This also shows she had a pure black hull with white painted stanchions supporting a rear poop deck rail. Since the artist's viewpoint is apparently at sea level, there's practically no deck details to make out. Overall, this is a lovely restful watercolor. It would be fascinating to see if this artist did any other works of this beautiful McKay extreme clipper.