Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[ClipperFan]

17 hours ago, Kenchington said:

Sorry, ClipperFan, but I don't agree that the published dimensions are inconceivable. I'm not saying that they were correct, just that they could have been correct.

 

A 46-inch total depth of keel, with 7-inch thick garboards and 39 inches of the keel outside those garboards would mean that the floors sat flush across the top of the keel. That wasn't the universal way of building a wooden ship but it was one way. The other option was to notch the floors so that they hung over the sides of the keel as far as the inboard edge of the rabbet (either of which options could have the added complication of a deadwood between keel and floors). Notching the floors meant starting with a very deep, very expensive piece and then cutting away strength where it was most needed, so there was a major incentive to lay the floors flat on top of the keel, if that could be arranged without either critical weaknesses in the structure or extra costs elsewhere.

 

Note that the published report says that the garboards were through-bolted (each bolt passing through both garboards, edgewise, and the keel between). Thus, there was no need for solid timber to take fastenings driven from outboard, through the garboard and into the keel -- though I don't doubt that the garboards were trunnelled (from outboard) to the floors, which themselves were bolted to keel and keelson. Then again, all those copper bolts will have been expensive, not to mention the labour for boring the bolt holes and driving the bolts.

 

Trevor

@Kenchington Cornelius McKay, son of Donald wrote about the authenticity of his hand crafted 1:48th scale (4' 8 & 1/2") Stag Hound model in his letter to Captain Arthur H Clark when he turned this beauty over to him. His instructions were to add 4" bottom and 5" wales planking. He included that the keel should also be added. It was built in two sections and had a depth of 30" (not 39"). Cornelius also said this builders model was crafted from the vessel's molding lines as they were taken off the lofting floor. Besides this documentation, Hall in his exhaustive lists of specs for many if not all of McKay's clippers confirmed that Stag Hound had a lower keel of 30". These two documents are sufficient proof of her 30" lower keel.

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:03 PM by ClipperFan
correction

[rwiederrich]

For fun, I decided to add the figurehead. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

Rob,

I'm amazed how delicately your canine figurehead completes your clipper Stag Hound bow. It's reminiscent of the old fashioned lions rampant on English ships of war. Congratulations on having the first replica to accurately capture the Stag Hound prow in her full original configuration.

[rwiederrich]

2 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I'm amazed how delicately your canine figurehead completes your clipper Stag Hound bow. It's reminiscent of the old fashioned lions rampant on English ships of war. Congratulations on having the first replica to accurately capture the Stag Hound prow in her full original configuration.

Thanks Rich.   It does complete the stem.  When the bowsprit gets finished it will tie it all together.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Began the forecastle face and companionways.  
 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

Everything is just test fit.   I’ll reduce the companionways roofs slightly and add the ladders on either side of each companionway outboard.    I opted to add only 2 windows for the forecastle front.   It looked crowded and a bit overdone with four smaller windows.  
 

I figured I’d add this and the poop cabin facing before beginning the channels.  
 

Rob

Edited yesterday at 02:02 AM by rwiederrich

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Everything is just test fit.   I’ll reduce the companionways roofs slightly and add the ladders on either side of each companionway outboard.    I opted to add only 2 windows for the forecastle front.   It looked crowded and a bit overdone with four smaller windows.  
 

I figured I’d add this and the poop cabin facing before beginning the channels.  
 

Rob

Rob,

Beautiful clean installation. However, it brings up a different concern. We were working on the expectation that this area was 27' wide. Your build however implies a far narrower space, possibly a third less. Maybe 18-20' ? 

[rwiederrich]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

Beautiful clean installation. However, it brings up a different concern. We were working on the expectation that this area was 27' wide. Your build however implies a far narrower space, possibly a third less. Maybe 18-20' ? 

See...this is the stuff of scaling transcription errors.  I knew right away, you would bring this up.😆  From your original drawing we *concluded* the width to be 27ft.  No real true dimension is ever given from McLean....only that her entry was the sharpest ever seen on her model.  In this space I could only fit the two companionways,(3ft including jams) and the ladders(3ft),(required to ascend and descend) her forecastle deck.  What was left over was trepidatiously divided for windows, space between fixtures and such. 

I don't recall the actual width off my head, but I do know it is around 26.5 scale ft.....not 18~20.   I'll reverify when I get home.  No windows were places outboard the ladders...this space is relocated for the below deck W/C's.

 

I might still add some paneling embellishments.

 

Rob

[druxey]

Question: Those windows look awfully close to the deck and hence accidental damage. Were they really this large and low?

[ClipperFan]

18 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

See...this is the stuff of scaling transcription errors.  I knew right away, you would bring this up.😆  From your original drawing we *concluded* the width to be 27ft.  No real true dimension is ever given from McLean....only that her entry was the sharpest ever seen on her model.  In this space I could only fit the two companionways,(3ft including jams) and the ladders(3ft),(required to ascend and descend) her forecastle deck.  What was left over was trepidatiously divided for windows, space between fixtures and such. 

I don't recall the actual width off my head, but I do know it is around 26.5 scale ft.....not 18~20.   I'll reverify when I get home.  No windows were places outboard the ladders...this space is relocated for the below deck W/C's.

 

I might still add some paneling embellishments.

 

Rob

Rob,

When it comes to deck width specifics, we really only know of two: her widest beam amidships was 40 feet and at 8 feet from the stern, her poop deck was only 24 & 1/2 foot wide. Other internal dimensions are a 13 foot wide central cabin with a 12 foot wide captain's cabin on her starboard side below the aft poop deck. Thinking that ship's layouts are usually balanced I figured the opposite port side first mate's cabin would also be 12 feet wide. That would total 37 feet beam at 44 feet from her stern. If my pure conjecture is correct, in 63 & 1/2 feet, she's only 3 feet wider. That's since her widest beam of 40 feet is 107 & 1/2 amidships. Of course, the first mate's cabin could be smaller and that could make the poop deck narrower.

I don't know exactly where a 27' beam was derived from for the foreward bulkhead, just that it was the approximate dimension we arrived at for me to work with. It does drive home necessity of getting more specific deck dimensions to allow for effective scaling. It's precisely why I'm endeavoring to get more exact dimensions from sources available. 

[rwiederrich]

25 minutes ago, druxey said:

Question: Those windows look awfully close to the deck and hence accidental damage. Were they really this large and low?

Here's the call Druxey.  We do know the space was *airy, well ventilated and well lit*.  This is the first time the forecastle of Staghound or any early McKay clipper has been truly realized.  The working windless was below decks...3ft below, actually.  Like any window...I would assume there were clap shutters that were applied during heavy weather.  I placed the windows just over a scale foot or so above the decking. and the companionways doors 6 scale inches.  this means the windows are 4ft above the floor in the forecastle space and going nearly to the ceiling.  She also had prismatic ceiling light fixtures to aid in her illumination.

I admit it is a deviation from what we have always assumed.....like the McKay stem/cutwater, *hood*.   These interpretations are not of my own doing...however the construction and expression is.

I might even simulate on one window the addition of a partly opened shutter....to drive home the clear practicality and application.

 

Thanks, for the question.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

2 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

When it comes to deck width specifics, we really only know of two: her widest beam amidships was 40 feet and at 8 feet from the stern, her poop deck was only 24 & 1/2 foot wide. Other internal dimensions are a 13 foot wide central cabin with a 12 foot wide captain's cabin on her starboard side below the aft poop deck. Thinking that ship's layouts are usually balanced I figured the opposite port side first mate's cabin would also be 12 feet wide. That would total 37 feet beam at 44 feet from her stern. If my pure conjecture is correct, in 63 & 1/2 feet, she's only 3 feet wider. That's since her widest beam of 40 feet is 107 & 1/2 amidships. Of course, the first mate's cabin could be smaller and that could make the poop deck narrower.

I don't know exactly where a 27' beam was derived from for the foreward bulkhead, just that it was the approximate dimension we arrived at for me to work with. It does drive home necessity of getting more specific deck dimensions to allow for effective scaling. It's precisely why I'm endeavoring to get more exact dimensions from sources available. 

Staghound, was probably dimensioned after the typical *fish* body method.  With her fullness being amidships and then tapering aft to her narrowest...at 24.5ft.  Forward, we can only assume her entry followed the natural curvature and inclination to terminate with a sharp entry at her cutwater.  Everything in between, is an educated speculation.  McKay's own half model is our only data point.  A good top view would have been nice.  Still you can make a good educated guess from the images you acquired.  Personally, if her forward extreme was any wider than she is currently....it would change her overall body curve....forcing her widest section to be moved farther forward.  Or at worst, not giving her the smooth contours she has.

This is exactly the issue I was projecting on the issue of scaling transcription errors.  We are moving from the verbal (An that is vary subject specific),to the 3 dimensional.  Even with McLean's measurements....were they inside or outside measurements? Taken from a corner or a projection of molding?  How does one extrapolate...ABOUT?

 

Rob(Moving forward)

[rwiederrich]

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

I don't know exactly where a 27' beam was derived from for the foreward bulkhead, just that it was the approximate dimension we arrived at for me to work with.

Further research shows that Chapelle's drawing shows the point of the forecastle facing bulkhead is rough 29.5 ft across....making our 27ft rough guesstimate pretty close...considering all other hull modifications. Notably the reconstructing of the forecastle front and relocating the W/C's and windless internally.

 

Rob 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Further research shows that Chapelle's drawing shows the point of the forecastle facing bulkhead is rough 29.5 ft across....making our 27ft rough guesstimate pretty close...considering all other hull modifications. Notably the reconstructing of the forecastle front and relocating the W/C's and windless internally.

 

Rob 

Rob,

Another factor I missed in my sketch is the substantial inward rake of the ship's hull which also would affect workable items such as ladders, companions and windows.  As for future possible projects, I now have trued out the following sheer, body and deck profiles: McKay twin packets Star of Empire & Chariot of Fame clippers Stag Hound, Flying Cloud, Flying Fish, Sovereign of the Seas, James Baines, Lightning, Great Republic, Donald McKay, Mystic, Connecticut clipper Andrew Jackson (Belle Hoxie) and Rockland Maine Red Jacket. Currently for obvious reasons, my total fous is on Stag Hound but all the others have been digitally corrected so that vertical and horizontal lines have been reconciled as accurately as possible.

[rwiederrich]

Spent time finishing up the forecastle front and companionways.  I also added a foul weather shutter partially open exposing the window behind.  
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Spent time finishing up the forecastle front and companionways.  I also added a foul weather shutter partially open exposing the window behind.  
 

Rob

Rob,

This entirely new interpretation of an authentic McKay forecastle bulkhead will most certainly raise some eyebrows. From a nautical engineering aspect this makes so much more sense. Placing a new patented windlass below improves weight balance, provides sensible working room for unit maintenance and better weather ability. Meanwhile, closing off an aft forecastle bulkhead is the only logical way to create a safe space to serve as crew accommodations. This also emphasizes a greater difference in substantially larger American clipper design capabilities as compared to much smaller British ones. Incidentally, a description of Webb built New York extreme clipper Challenge has an identical forecastle arrangement for their crew as well. Rob your inclusion of foul weather shutters is a nice touch. Besides, answering questions before asked they provide a nice focus of interest. Painting them the same light blue of your waterways might also help them stand out as well.  

Edited 9 hours ago by ClipperFan
additional information

[Sailor1234567890]

Would there have been steps down those companionways or is there simply not headroom up there?

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Sailor1234567890 said:

Would there have been steps down those companionways or is there simply not headroom up there?

@Sailor1234567890 

There were short ladders going down 3 feet to windlass, dual heads and crew quarters below. Adding 4 feet 9 & 1/2" to height brings this space up to nearly 8 feet before reducing it again for ship's structures. I just took a day sail on the Mystic Schooner Argia and had an opportunity to take her companion ladder below. The ladder was so steep as to be nearly vertical. The safest way down was to descend facing forward. We determined this had to be the only sensible arrangement since there's no other way to safely provide crew quarters in the forecastle.