Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

It's funny Rich.  I feel like I'm building another Glory, in a way.  However, I know enough to add some slight alterations to make her *unique*...since little is known about her particular ornamentation and trim work.  Artistic license is one of my favorite certifications....

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

One thing I'm finding out is these early McKay clippers were quite small compared to the later ones that were over 2000 tons and more. Even though Staghound was the largest commercial vessel of her type during her launching...she and her sisters were very narrow in breath. Staghound was only an amazing 24.5ft across just forward of her binnacle. Note this Butterworth painting of a clipper (probably FC) and the scale of men to the ship....not to mention the deck furniture and houses. Everything seams large on deck. Butterworth was known for his scale proportions being correct. So it all seems quite small on deck.

[uscharin]

59 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

 I'm not afraid to use, rework, or modify someone else's engineered material for my clippers.

 

Hahaha, me too!  Thanks for the enlightenment.  At some point I'll need to execute the ornamentation on my CS so your work caught my eye.

 

Keep up the good work!

[ClipperFan]

7 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

It's funny Rich.  I feel like I'm building another Glory, in a way.  However, I know enough to add some slight alterations to make her *unique*...since little is known about her particular ornamentation and trim work.  Artistic license is one of my favorite certifications....

 

Rob

Rob, at the rate we're going, it's already apparent that this clipper Staghound is another unique tribute to Donald McKay's creative genius. My only other request about the current cutwater decorative treatment is to add a single curved molding at the base of the cutwater, similar to what's seen on Glory of the Seas. It strikes me that this embellishment was added to minimize the wedge shaped appearance of this particular piece resulting in a more graceful appearance.

[rwiederrich]

14 hours ago, Snug Harbor Johnny said:

  Rob,  it looks like the hood is fashioned to fill the entire gap between it and the cutwater - making for a solid assembly with no gap between (so stronger).  This would be as opposed to just two angled pieces attached to both sides, having a gap behind.

  Perhaps a picture from directly below would illustrate your construction to advantage.

Here is what it looks like between the hood and hull/cutwater. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Finished the planksheer molding and put down a coat of black paint.  Lots of sanding between coats.  Gotta finish off with a dull coat.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

I will add the channels later, once the mast rake is established.  Weathering will take place as well. 
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

10 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

My only other request about the current cutwater decorative treatment is to add a single curved molding at the base of the cutwater, similar to what's seen on Glory of the Seas. It strikes me that this embellishment was added to minimize the wedge shaped appearance of this particular piece resulting in a more graceful appearance.

I thought that through, thoroughly before I added the scrolling.  However, I did not want Staghound to be a *repeat* of Glory of the Seas.  It is true, we do not know what her embellishments were fully, and as with the Great Admiral....I wanted a bit of difference on her stem.  I know the true structure of the McKay *hood* has been concluded to be the structure that would find no alterations from clipper model to clipper model, in the McKay line-up.  With that being said , I'm going to keep the scrolling as is, for the time being.  IMHV, it actually individualizes, the detailing of her stem/cutwater.  I have both models to make comparisons to, and it is enough of a difference to make her distinction all the more profound.  We'll see what she looks like after the gilding of her scroll work is complete and the staghound is installed.

 

Rob(I hope you understand my point)

[rwiederrich]

I've decided to proceed as I did with Glory....and do the decking and bulwarks first...before going on with the coppering.  More to follow.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Set the house and deck furniture to see.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Weathered the hull and painted the scroll work

 

Rob

[BANYAN]

Looks great Rob!

 

Some great collaboration on this build being seen here again.

 

cheers

 

Pat

[ClipperFan]

13 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I thought that through, thoroughly before I added the scrolling.  However, I did not want Staghound to be a *repeat* of Glory of the Seas.  It is true, we do not know what her embellishments were fully, and as with the Great Admiral....I wanted a bit of difference on her stem.  I know the true structure of the McKay *hood* has been concluded to be the structure that would find no alterations from clipper model to clipper model, in the McKay line-up.  With that being said , I'm going to keep the scrolling as is, for the time being.  IMHV, it actually individualizes, the detailing of her stem/cutwater.  I have both models to make comparisons to, and it is enough of a difference to make her distinction all the more profound.  We'll see what she looks like after the gilding of her scroll work is complete and the staghound is installed.

 

Rob(I hope you understand my point)

Rob, I understand. As there's no documented proof specific to her decorations, that's open to interpretation. 

[ClipperFan]

On 5/22/2025 at 10:39 PM, rwiederrich said:

Finished the planksheer molding and put down a coat of black paint.  Lots of sanding between coats.  Gotta finish off with a dull coat.  
 

Rob

@rwiederrich Rob and @Luis FelipeLuis after our discussion about relative deck dimension issues, I used a photo app

 

On 5/23/2025 at 6:09 PM, rwiederrich said:

Set the house and deck furniture to see.  
 

Rob

to realign the few deck sources available. Both the 1881 Hall and 1967 Chappelle copies we have were slightly out of true. I have corrected that as best as possible. The same process was applied to the sole deck image supplied by Luis. Finally, I've included my own beginning deck sketch. By comparing each of these, we can more accurately nail down this portion of Staghound.

[rwiederrich]

27 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob and @Luis FelipeLuis after our discussion about relative deck dimension issues, I used a photo app

 

to realign the few deck sources available. Both the 1881 Hall and 1967 Chappelle copies we have were slightly out of true. I have corrected that as best as possible. The same process was applied to the sole deck image supplied by Luis. Finally, I've included my own beginning deck sketch. By comparing each of these, we can more accurately nail down this portion of Staghound.

Rich.   I’ve spent some time making similar half comparisons of the McKay half model.  And she produced a similar overhead profile as with your Champelle’ drawing. Compare the narrow aft section, aft of midship to Buttersworth’s painting of FC.   I know this painting is not just a characterization of the real ship.  I think it is a depiction of the actual narrow hull this model of clipper had.  
 

Rob

Edited Wednesday at 12:44 AM by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich.   I’ve spent some time making similar half comparisons of the McKay half model.  And she produced a similar overhead profile as with your Champelle’ drawing. Compare the narrow aft section, aft of midship to Buttersworth’s painting of FC.   I know this painting is not just a characterization of the real ship.  I think it is a depiction of the actual narrow hull this model of clipper had.  
 

Rob

@rwiederrich agreed Rob. These early vessels were definitely leaner and narrower. Still, with a maximum 40' beam Staghound was only 4' less wide than Glory of the Seas which also was 40' longer than Staghound. I immediately noticed that my initial attempt to match the Hull diagram is too stocky, while it appears at first glance that Luis' deck profile is just a bit narrow. I've shared these because by matching halves we can finally generate a whole profile. It appears like grid lines on both Hall and Chappelle are 10 scale feet apart. My next step will be to combine these pieces to create wholes and then get those precise dimensions.

[rwiederrich]

I began to scale out your drawing, and at amidship you have her 40ft...if this is the measuring stick then, your poop deck length is also 40ft...4 ft short.  Placing her sternpost 7ft inboard of her taffrail, we can see that you correctly made her 24.6ft at 8ft.  Personally, I think her lines are sharper...and if you draw from her widest point amidship back toward her narrowest (24.6ft)..you will have that, "Smallness of her stern" idea, McLean describes.  She is also, "Uncommonly sharp forward".  Again, looking at Butterworth's painting, we can clearly see the almost exaggerated narrowness of the vessel, once you establish her greatest breadth amidship. Butterworth, painted Glory of the Seas, and he is very accurate and paid close attention to dimensional accuracy. No reason why we can't continue to trust his perceptions.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Apart from my oversized companionway , skylight and steering box....my portico is still good.  I'll remake or modify these items to make them fit the slimmer profile.  By the way, Luis' overhead profile drawing is pretty much what I was thinking.  She is slightly narrower amidship then the 40ft , but that can easily be corrected.  Also, the main cabin in this drawing looks more like what I am experiencing with my main cabin.  It takes up more deck space then I had anticipated...but with the narrower beam and seeing it drawn out makes more sense.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

I began to scale out your drawing, and at amidship you have her 40ft...if this is the measuring stick then, your poop deck length is also 40ft...4 ft short.  Placing her sternpost 7ft inboard of her taffrail, we can see that you correctly made her 24.6ft at 8ft.  Personally, I think her lines are sharper...and if you draw from her widest point amidship back toward her narrowest (24.6ft)..you will have that, "Smallness of her stern" idea, McLean describes.  She is also, "Uncommonly sharp forward".  Again, looking at Butterworth's painting, we can clearly see the almost exaggerated narrowness of the vessel, once you establish her greatest breadth amidship. Butterworth, painted Glory of the Seas, and he is very accurate and paid close attention to dimensional accuracy. No reason why we can't continue to trust his perceptions.

 

Rob

@rwiederrich Rob, as I mentioned, that deck sketch is a preliminary effort. To fit onto an 11" space I used 1cm to be 10'. Working at such a tiny scale made it very difficult to be fully accurate. However, my 8/27/2024 poop deck sketch is correctly scaled at 1:48th. As for Buttersworth, he did magnificent Staghound, Flying Fish, Sovereign of the Seas & Great Republic works. I don't recall him doing a piece on Glory of the Seas however. You might be thinking of Samuel Walters for that one. 

Edited Wednesday at 03:39 PM by ClipperFan
additional information

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

I began to scale out your drawing, and at amidship you have her 40ft...if this is the measuring stick then, your poop deck length is also 40ft...4 ft short.  Placing her sternpost 7ft inboard of her taffrail, we can see that you correctly made her 24.6ft at 8ft.  Personally, I think her lines are sharper...and if you draw from her widest point amidship back toward her narrowest (24.6ft)..you will have that, "Smallness of her stern" idea, McLean describes.  She is also, "Uncommonly sharp forward".  Again, looking at Butterworth's painting, we can clearly see the almost exaggerated narrowness of the vessel, once you establish her greatest breadth amidship. Butterworth, painted Glory of the Seas, and he is very accurate and paid close attention to dimensional accuracy. No reason why we can't continue to trust his perceptions.

 

Rob

Rob, Butterworth's works are undoubtedly gorgeous but he does have some faults, especially when he tries angle perspective images. His Flying Cloud piece has her aft poop deck too short, her mizzen mast is too far back making distance between main and mizzen too short, while distance between fore and main is too great. In addition, her small portico is too large as well. I love his atmospheric beauty and his broadside depictions are first rate but from a modeler's viewpoint, you simply can't rely on this particular depiction to create an accurate. replica.

Edited Wednesday at 01:52 PM by ClipperFan
corrections

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Apart from my oversized companionway , skylight and steering box....my portico is still good.  I'll remake or modify these items to make them fit the slimmer profile.  By the way, Luis' overhead profile drawing is pretty much what I was thinking.  She is slightly narrower amidship then the 40ft , but that can easily be corrected.  Also, the main cabin in this drawing looks more like what I am experiencing with my main cabin.  It takes up more deck space then I had anticipated...but with the narrower beam and seeing it drawn out makes more sense.

 

Rob

Rob, if your poop deck is 46 scale feet instead of 44 that pushes the 8' scale portico 2' feet closer to the mizzen mast making that distance 5'. For some crazy reason, tolerances in this area were designed tight by McKay. If it's not possible to push the poop deck bulkhead back 1/4" to make it the correct 44 feet, then you might want to move your portico back just enough so that the rear raked mizzen doesn't hit the portico rail.

[ClipperFan]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob, if your poop deck is 46 scale feet instead of 44 that pushes the 8' scale portico 2' feet closer to the mizzen mast making that distance 5'. For some crazy reason, tolerances in this area were designed tight by McKay. If it's not possible to push the poop deck bulkhead back 1/4" to make it the correct 44 feet, then you might want to move your portico back just enough so that the rear raked mizzen doesn't hit the portico rail.

@rwiederrich Rob, I took another glance at your portico and realized to move it back would require you to rework both sides to have narrower doors. Doing that would no longer have it be square. I suppose you could cut out part of the front portico roof railings to make room for the mizzen mast or cheat and move the mizzen mast 2 scale feet 1/4" forward. Unless of course you can back up the poop deck bulkhead.

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

@rwiederrich Rob, I took another glance at your portico and realized to move it back would require you to rework both sides to have narrower doors. Doing that would no longer have it be square. I suppose you could cut out part of the front portico roof railings to make room for the mizzen mast or cheat and move the mizzen mast 2 scale feet 1/4" forward. Unless of course you can back up the poop deck bulkhead.

Remember when I  said translating scale can sometimes be difficult?   Welcome to difficult.   I remeasured the mast locations and it appears I can fudge. Since Vlad misplaced the main mast slightly forward….. and thus caused the mizzen to also be relocated just enough forward to compensate.   I think the offset poop pushed everything forward 2 scale feet.   The slightly long poop deck does not reduce the overall appearance, since everything measures correctly forward of it.   I’ll just redo the poop furniture.    No problem.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Remember when I  said translating scale can sometimes be difficult?   Welcome to difficult.   I remeasured the mast locations and it appears I can fudge. Since Vlad misplaced the main mast slightly forward….. and thus caused the mizzen to also be relocated just enough forward to compensate.   I think the offset poop pushed everything forward 2 scale feet.   The slightly long poop deck does not reduce the overall appearance, since everything measures correctly forward of it.   I’ll just redo the poop furniture.    No problem.  
 

Rob

Rob, If you don't realize it by now, I border on anally retentive, obsessive-compulsive when it comes to wanting to make sure everything's perfectly accurate. Makes for great, meticulously accurate plans but it probably explains why it's been decades since I've built anything myself. You're the veteran modeler with 50 years' experience, I'm sure you'll make it work.

[ClipperFan]

For the next step in ensuring accuracy of the Staghound deck, Dan at my local Staples digitally matched both 1881 Hall diagram halves and all four 1967 Chappelle sections to create two equal 1:96th scale 28" enlargements. Hall is on left in vertical image, Chappelle on right. And Hall is on top while Chappelle is on bottom in the horizontal one. Despite the odd somewhat pointy stern which doesn't match McLean's description at all, the Hall profile is the more graceful. Meanwhile, Chappelle offers a good deck layout, other than the inaccurate forecastle arrangement. 

[ClipperFan]

@rwiederrich @Luis Felipe and @Vladimir_Wairoa here's the actual pdf plan images from Staples. I noticed that the grid lines on the previous plans are slightly skewed. That's due to my cell phone not being precisely above when I took the picture. These are more precise. The only mistake I see are slightly misaligned fore halves of the Chappelle.

[druxey]

Ah, the joys and frustrations of reproducing plans!

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, druxey said:

Ah, the joys and frustrations of reproducing plans!

Damn straight!

[ClipperFan]

As a way of evaluating Donald McKay's continuing nautical design evolution in his developing pursuit of the fastest hull, here are 1928 Flying Cloud plans. Besides dropping her angle at half-floor 10° it's clear that he widened her overall profile. In fact, it's quite likely that Staghound was McKay's slimmest, most aggressive vessel of his entire California clipper fleet.

Edited Friday at 03:42 PM by ClipperFan
added info

[rwiederrich]

8 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

As a way of evaluating Donald McKay's continuing nautical design evolution in his developing pursuit of the fastest hull, here are 1928 Flying Cloud plans. Besides dropping her angle at half-floor 10° it's clear that he widened her overall profile. In fact, it's quite likely that Staghound was McKay's slimmest, most aggressive vessel of his entire California clipper fleet.

I remember reading that Staghound was  McKay’s only true “extreme “ clipper.   From her came fuller designs. 
 

Rob