Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[rwiederrich]

42 minutes ago, sob said:

I guess we just read the english sentence differently

 

 

I suppose so Scott....and structural engineering as well.  If McLean never gave the exact dimensions of the aft portico on FC...how did you determine its measurements? How did you determine, that 5ft was ample room for a full watch of crew with a patent windless in the middle in the forecastle?  It goes beyond just reading  english, it entails interpreting intent and coupling that with historical evidence.  Some would call it the scientific method.

 

Rob

[sob]

i did not say 5 feet was enough - in fact I specifically said that 5 feet was not enough and that you idea of a dropped floor made sense 

[sob]

also - one should take into account the sheer - which McLean said was 3' 

 

[rwiederrich]

20 minutes ago, sob said:

i did not say 5 feet was enough - in fact I specifically said that 5 feet was not enough and that you idea of a dropped floor made sense 

I know you did...and you are right in saying the 3ft drop made sense.  But your drawings do not mimic this, thus it can be assumed by them that use them, you do feel it is enough.

Even though you did show remorse in having to alter a completed model to demonstrate your senses.

 

Rob

Edited 5 hours ago by rwiederrich

[sob]

sorry but it takes time to change drawings

[rwiederrich]

47 minutes ago, sob said:

also - one should take into account the sheer - which McLean said was 3' 

 

Was he measuring that from amidships...or the entire length from stern to stem?  I know he said, *About 3ft*...Staghound had a 2.5ft sheer.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

@sob to substantiate the success of our intensive investigation into virtually every section of McKay's final clipper, here's just a few pics of @rwiederrich 1:96 scale replica Glory of the Seas. After viewing this magnificent piece in person, non other than author Michael Mjelde himself declared that Rob's recreation is the finest model ever produced. To give you an idea of the evolution involved in this, to me incredible achievement, I'm sharing Michael Mjelde's own highly detailed deck and sheer profile. As well thought out and carefully researched as this was, it unfortunately was also inaccurate. At different times, Rob and I both concluded that this error was due to reliance on one particular scene: the 1869 Glory of the Seas fitting out in East Boston harbor. I've included the original as well as a close up of her hull. You'll note how closely the photo's sheer profile matches the sketch. This also demonstrates challenges faced in trying to accurately capture these magnificent ships. If you've ever seen these vessels in person, you realize you need to get a great distance away in order to view the whole ship, especially a tall one. This presents a particular challenge as perspective distortion gets introduced. Recognizing this, we set about to compensate for it. Before the 1907 scene of Glory of the Seas docked at San Pedro became available, I sketched this conjectural sail plan of her. Note how her prow more accurarely reflects her actual appearance. The point I'm making is that a bare stem alone can't possibly achieve this gracefully curving prow. A hallmark of McKay's clippers. Here again are the lines of Flying Cloud which I'm sure you'll recognize and which you apparently staunchly still defend. In your construct, the angelic figurehead tacks onto the notch in the bare stem. That gives no room for either cutwater or devices which we refer to as navel hoods. Such a configuration totally ignores the specific description given in McLean's article which not only states existence of a cutwater but also a navel hood large enough to support carvings. It's the prime reason why Rob and I are so insistent that current models are inaccurate when matched up against historic evidence. Even an impressive model which is quite beautiful yet still inaccurate. However you may interpret cutwaters and navel hoods, you must admit that current Flying Cloud models lack either of these nautical devices and still only model a bare stem. I submit to you that by continuing to stubbornly adhere to this contradiction, it promotes a fallacy in modeling and robs McKay models of their more accurately graceful profile. As a result, we continue to see models being produced with bare stems and figureheads awkwardly tacked on in a quite vulnerable position. Compare that somewhat sparse treatment to the more substantial and refined treatment as we see in multiple historic images of the Glory of the Seas. Finally, as a means of comparison I share the 1907 starboard broadside of her at San Pedro with the painting of Flying Cloud. What I see is that the nautical structures practically disappear when seen from a great distance but the vessel's sharp projecting profile is still readily apparent. Once again, however you want to name these devices, a lone cutwater would be too vulnerable without reinforcing protection of those stiffening devices.  

 

[sob]

Rob sure does good work

 

re: sheer - McLean did not say

 

as for the McKay structures - I will note that a lot of ships were built by people other than McKay and they did not all sink from a split bow

 

and, as for the FC description of a extended navel hood means it "gives no room for either cutwater ..."

 

Scott

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Kenchington said:

True enough. And he also says nothing of where the navel hoods terminate, only where the carved work on them terminates.

 

Like Scott, I read where the carved work terminates to mean that there was no navel-hood carving beyond the aftermost part of the angel (i.e. the feet), though I don't deny that there is some ambiguity. But you are right that the structural timber of the navel hoods could have continued up to the angel's shoulders, as in Glory. Certainly, there was some sort of heavy timber there. As you say, the figure could not have been supported by its feet alone. (And I see to justification to suggest some sort of supporting ironwork, though that would have been technically possible.)

 

Trevor

Trevor, last summer on the way to spending a long Anniversary weekend at the Break Hotel, Narragansett, RI my wife Peggy and I detoured to Hyannis, Cape Cod to view Athene, the classical Greek goddess figurehead which once graced McKay's last clipper Glory of the Seas. The owners were gracious enough to allow me to take multiple pictures and at the husband's insistence, was able to even touch her. He also pointed out the remains of a thick iron bar which pierced her back to which she was mounted to the stem-navel hood combination behind her. I know there's some dispute about where the devices we call navel hoods terminate. Here's my take on it. By having hoods mount up to a figurehead's shoulders (apparent on both 1854 Champion of the Seas and 1869 Glory of the Seas) they do double duty. They give shelter and a sturdy mounting point. Meanwhile, the figurehead's feet are mounted to the cutwater below, creating a dual point protected mount. Here's how I see the structural components. The stem to which all strakes mount has a cutwater attached to it. This is the graceful curving component which extends the bow profile about 7' outward. These two components are in turn sandwiched between by the large wedge shaped nautical devices which we believe McLean refers to as navel hoods. They are laminated, curving tapered pieces that are roughly 14' long and large enough to support carvings. As seen on Glory of the Seas, the cutwater also had gold leaf embellished carvings as well. This complex design since it adhered so closely to the ship's hull was an ingenious extension of the vessel's prow. It also provided a substantial support for the massive bowsprit and jibboom spars installed just above. As I pointed out before, such a clever design bears no resemblance at all to naval hoods which usually didn't mount so tightly to a vessel's hull.

 

[ClipperFan]

55 minutes ago, sob said:

Rob sure does good work

 

re: sheer - McLean did not say

 

as for the McKay structures - I will note that a lot of ships were built by people other than McKay and they did not all sink from a split bow

 

and, as for the FC description of a extended navel hood means it "gives no room for either cutwater ..."

 

Scott

@sob Scott, before I forget to do so, I just want to acknowledge the spectacular job you have done on accruing the most substantive library on the McKay extreme clipper Flying Cloud. Besides Lars Bruzelius' excellent nautical site, I've relied on yours for in-depth research on McKay's record setting clipper. As for Rob's craftsmanship, besides his incredible talent, what I really credit Rob, as well as Vladimir for is their dedication to achieving meticulous accuracy in our group effort to reconstruct Glory of the Seas. I also give great credit to Michael Mjelde for his surprising humility in recognizing a critical mistake in his initial erroneous sheer and bow profile. When given updated information he readily embraced it and worked graciously with us to correct his oversight. 

 

As for sheer, in both articles McLean actually describes sheer on Stag Hound as being 2 & 1/2 feet and on Flying Cloud as 3 feet.

 

Why you state other vessels didn't sink from a split bow escapes me. All I did was share word for word McLean's evaluation of the bow structure on Flying Cloud. He merely stated that loss of her cutwater wouldn't affect her safety or cause a leak. 

 

Your final statement is even more confusing to me. Nowhere in his write up did Duncan McLean ever mention an extended navel hood. It's Rob and I who have been using a phrase that the navel hoods were an extension of the bow configuration. One of the challenges we do face is that McLean writes very sparsly in his descriptions. Facts that we do know are this: Flying Cloud, Stag Hound both were equipped with a stem, a cutwater and navel hoods. That for sure is included in both descriptions. A singular cutwater is the curving extension piece beyond the stem and attaches directly to it. Thats what creates the vessel's sharp profile. We believe what possibly contributed to the reputation of McKay clippers being consistently fast sailers could be this stalwart bow construction allowing them to part strong seas more effectively. One item that may be a bit confusing, leading you to think it's improbable to have McKay's early clippers equipped with navel hoods is an apparent lack of depth to accommodate them. Rob helped me out with this issue. While the internal main rail height was 5 feet, due to a 1 foot high internal waterway at the base, an external sheerline molding attached to that would have been about 4 feet deep instead. In conclusion, we have great respect for your enthusiasm for McKay's clippers. We're just honestly trying to share discoveries which will further improve accuracy of the models of his magnificent ships.

 

[sob]

thanks for the kind words about the web site

 

what I ment by the not sinking from split bow was that the normal copper construction seemed to be adequate in most cases

even if McKay had something stronger that helped in out of regular situations

 

sorry if I made you think that a lack of depth of the rail height was an issue, - I was referring to the Mary McKay outline & it 

did not seem too have enough depth above the shelf where the figurehead was based to support the kind of structure the Glory had

 

I very much appreciate your efforts to educate me (and countless other modelers), but, as a researcher myself, I am not convinced

of all of your deductions  but please do not take that as any type of insult - its just multiple researchers coming to different conclusions

 

Scott

 

ps - btw - do you go to the Joint Clubs annual meeting in New London?  I generally do but had to skip this years meeting

[ClipperFan]

52 minutes ago, sob said:

thanks for the kind words about the web site

 

what I ment by the not sinking from split bow was that the normal copper construction seemed to be adequate in most cases

even if McKay had something stronger that helped in out of regular situations

 

sorry if I made you think that a lack of depth of the rail height was an issue, - I was referring to the Mary McKay outline & it 

did not seem too have enough depth above the shelf where the figurehead was based to support the kind of structure the Glory had

 

I very much appreciate your efforts to educate me (and countless other modelers), but, as a researcher myself, I am not convinced

of all of your deductions  but please do not take that as any type of insult - its just multiple researchers coming to different conclusions

 

Scott

 

ps - btw - do you go to the Joint Clubs annual meeting in New London?  I generally do but had to skip this years meeting

@sob Scott, 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 somehow are described by Duncan McLean a fellow sailor Scottsman and friend of Donald McKay who's shipyard supplied exacting specs to him for publication. In addition, he specified that whatever you envision navel hoods to be, they had to be external and large enough to support some form of carvings as well. Using the Alexander Hall lines of Mary McKay's historic tracing, I have clearly demonstrated how it's feasible to incorporate all three components and still provide for a full-sized trumpet bearing winged angel. Disagree with my interpretation? Fine. I have no bone to pick with you. But I do strongly feel that in order to do justice to specifics published way back in 1851, you do need to devise your own interpretation to incorporate these components beyond just a bare stem.

Since I'm not a modeler I usually am not involved in these groups but I would like to learn more.