Staghound 1850 by rwiederrich - 1/96 - Extreme Clipper

[Kenchington]

Thanks for posting all that material, ClipperFan. But I am still at a loss.

 

Last night, I did some trolling around on the WWW ("trolling" in the fishing sense, not the social-media one!) but couldn't find anything useful about McKay's design methods -- nor Webb's, come to that, for all that he is often described as "America's first naval architect". I did check Crother's book and saw that he thought the clippers were designed by shaping half-models. Maybe they were. The problem I see is that inspiration, talent and experience can allow a shipwright to use a model-based approach to modify earlier designs but striking out on a wholly new hull-form with that approach risks abject failure. When building a small racing yacht, that's OK. If the new idea fails, the cost is small. But to build Staghound with no more guide than carving a chunk of wood seems like a most hazardous venture.

 

Turning to the academic literature this morning, I found two claims that Robert McKay [note not Donald] told Scott Russell (developer of the waveline theory), “I have adopted the wave principle in the construction of all my American clippers, and that is my secret. I first found the account of the wave line in the publications of the British Association.” That came with a citation of: The Literary Gazette and Journal of Archaeology, Science, and Art for the Year 1857, L. Reeve & Co., p. 980. I have not checked that source.

 

One of those two modern sources boldly proclaims: "shipbuilders such as John Willis Griffiths, Donald McKay and George Steers designed their clipper ships (like Sea Witch and Flying Cloud) and yachts (America) with wave-line hulls". But it offers no evidence of that, aside from Robert McKay's statement.

 

It would be nice to have some better idea of how the ships were designed!

 

Trevor

[ClipperFan]

@sob You're correct. In his Nov. 19th, 1896 letter to Captain Hall, Cornelius refers to his hand crafted Staghound builder's Model as being the sole surviving one of its type. He states that some surviving fancy models of his father's ships may be laying 'round somewhere but all of the working models were destroyed a few years ago. Since his dad died on Sept 20th, 1880 sixteen years earlier, this conclusion seems quite accurate. In his McKay biography, Richard reported that his relative Donald when late in life, broke, discouraged and to avoid freezing to death out of desperation resorted to cutting up and burning his working Models as firewood! Cornelius also wrote that he knew of no other correct model of his father's clipper ship existed. He made it himself from the lines of the ship as they were laid down on the Moulding loft floor. He also mentioned that he made drawings of her as well. I'm still trying to relocate them as they may be in the PEM, Salem, MA. Intriguingly, Cornelius adds that often the first working Model was most always altered on the Moulding loft floor in the process of laying lines down and then builders kept records of their revisions in offset tables. That implies more often then not, even a builder's working  Model didn't exactly match the vessel as eventually built. Cornelius emphasized the uniqueness of his builder's Model as his was taken directly from the final lines of the clipper ship as she was actually being constructed. This makes the Cornelius McKay Model and drawing the absolutely most accurate version of Donald's California clipper fleet in existence. I have in fact discovered two working Models of McKay clippers in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA. They're the final extreme California fleet clipper Romance of the Seas apparently crafted by George B. Upton and McKay's sole, four decked monster clipper, the four masted barque Great Republic. I edited the original to give a closer look. 

Edited 20 hours ago by ClipperFan
added pic

[ClipperFan]

2 hours ago, Kenchington said:

Thanks for posting all that material, ClipperFan. But I am still at a loss.

 

Last night, I did some trolling around on the WWW ("trolling" in the fishing sense, not the social-media one!) but couldn't find anything useful about McKay's design methods -- nor Webb's, come to that, for all that he is often described as "America's first naval architect". I did check Crother's book and saw that he thought the clippers were designed by shaping half-models. Maybe they were. The problem I see is that inspiration, talent and experience can allow a shipwright to use a model-based approach to modify earlier designs but striking out on a wholly new hull-form with that approach risks abject failure. When building a small racing yacht, that's OK. If the new idea fails, the cost is small. But to build Staghound with no more guide than carving a chunk of wood seems like a most hazardous venture.

 

Turning to the academic literature this morning, I found two claims that Robert McKay [note not Donald] told Scott Russell (developer of the waveline theory), “I have adopted the wave principle in the construction of all my American clippers, and that is my secret. I first found the account of the wave line in the publications of the British Association.” That came with a citation of: The Literary Gazette and Journal of Archaeology, Science, and Art for the Year 1857, L. Reeve & Co., p. 980. I have not checked that source.

 

One of those two modern sources boldly proclaims: "shipbuilders such as John Willis Griffiths, Donald McKay and George Steers designed their clipper ships (like Sea Witch and Flying Cloud) and yachts (America) with wave-line hulls". But it offers no evidence of that, aside from Robert McKay's statement.

 

It would be nice to have some better idea of how the ships were designed!

 

Trevor

 

[Rick310]

I really don’t like to get involved in these kinds of discussions.  However, I think I need to add to this discussion. Ships were not designed on paper until the late 1800s or early 1900s. Half models were the way ships were designed even up through the 1920s and the 30s. There is plenty of literature and one only needs to visit the Maine Maritime Museum. They have a display on how half models were used to layout the pattern for the frames on the lofting Floor.
The way it worked as I understand that is that all the principles involved in the ship, such as the  principle investors, shipyard owner, and captain got together and with a master model builder would decide what qualities they wanted in a ship’s sailing characteristics, such as cargo capacity sail handling and speed. The model maker would then put lifts pegged together and then he would carve these from the plank shear down into the form that met the desires of the principles. When everybody agreed that this was what they wanted, the half model was sent to the lofting barn where measurements were taken off of the half model and drawn on the floor of the lofting building at full size from the half model.  Wooden battens were shaped into the shape of the full sized frames that were then sent to the sawmill to cut out the pieces of the frames.At no point was he designed drawn out on paper. These half models were known as builders models as they were the actual model the ship was built from. Go to any Maritime Museum specifically the Maine Maritime Museum, and they have dozens of builders half models.

Cornilius’s model would not have been the actual half model of Staghound, as that model was used for lifting the frames.  
Although not the original builder’s model, it is without question, very accurate.

Clipperfan, you are absolutely correct!

Rick

[Kenchington]

43 minutes ago, Rick310 said:

Ships were not designed on paper until the late 1800s or early 1900s.

I'm sorry, Rick, but that's a myth. The topic has been much debated, without a lot of firm conclusions, but it is certain that the more advanced yards (notably the Royal dockyards in Europe) built from designs draughted on paper from the 17th Century onwards and probably from the 16th too. By the late 18th, individual timbers were being drawn on paper, before being lofted. (Stalkartt's textbook of the 1780s details the methods.) Across The Pond, British shipwrights may never have used a (3-D) model-based design approach, not even in the small yards building vernacular coastal craft.

 

Starting the design process by shaping a block of wood into a half-model seems to have been specifically a 19th-Century, North American technique (preceded by doing much the same with "hawks nest" models -- which look a lot like a modern plank-on-bulkhead model before most of the planking goes on). That sort of model-based design worked well with familiar hull shapes, as experienced skippers could say that they wanted a new schooner much like one that the same shipwright had just built but with a bit more fullness here or there, a slightly deeper keel or whatever.

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether men of Donald McKay's time and stature draughted and faired the lines of their ships on paper, did all of the necessary displacement and stability calculations, then built a half-model so that they could get a look at the 3-D shape (much as modern naval architects do with CAD/CAM computers), with final modifications made on the half-model before it was sent to the mould loft.

 

Half-models made at that stage had other uses too. Museums have models of steel ships with the plating marked on. It was likely much easier to lay that out in 3D than working a plating diagram on paper. Could be good for laying out planking too.

 

And lastly, for now:

 

3 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Intriguingly, Cornelius adds that often the first working Model was most always altered on the Moulding loft floor in the process of laying lines down and then builders kept records of their revisions in offset tables.

I think that what he meant was the final fairing of the lines was done in the loft, where it could be checked at full-scale, not 1:48. Messing with a design when your nose is up close to the chalk lines and you can't get an overall view would be risky! Then again, the absolutely final shaping of a wooden hull was and is done with an adze, when a futtock needs trimming before a plank will sit firmly in place.

 

 

Trevor

Edited 18 hours ago by Kenchington

[ClipperFan]

30 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

I'm sorry, Rick, but that's a myth. The topic has been much debated, without a lot of firm conclusions, but it is certain that the more advanced yards (notably the Royal dockyards in Europe) built from designs draughted on paper from the 17th Century onwards and probably from the 16th too. By the late 18th, individual timbers were being drawn on paper, before being lofted. (Stalkartt's textbook of the 1780s details the methods.) Across The Pond, British shipwrights may never have used a (3-D) model-based design approach, not even in the small yards building vernacular coastal craft.

 

Starting the design process by shaping a block of wood into a half-model seems to have been specifically a 19th-Century, North American technique (preceded by doing much the same with "hawks nest" models -- which look a lot like a modern plank-on-bulkhead model before most of the planking goes on). That sort of model-based design worked well with familiar hull shapes, as experienced skippers could say that they wanted a new schooner much like one that the same shipwright had just built but with a bit more fullness here or there, a slightly deeper keel or whatever.

 

I'm beginning to wonder whether men of Donald McKay's time and stature draughted and faired the lines of their ships on paper, did all of the necessary displacement and stability calculations, then built a half-model so that they could get a look at the 3-D shape (much as modern naval architects do with CAD/CAM computers), with final modifications made on the half-model before it was sent to the mould loft.

 

Half-models made at that stage had other uses too. Museums have models of steel ships with the plating marked on. It was likely much easier to lay that out in 3D than working a plating diagram on paper. Could be good for laying out planking too.

 

And lastly, for now:

 

I think that what he meant was the final fairing of the lines was done in the loft, where it could be checked at full-scale, not 1:48. Messing with a design when your nose is up close to the chalk lines and you can't get an overall view would be risky! Then again, the absolutely final shaping of a wooden hull was and is done with an adze, when a futtock needs trimming before a plank will sit firmly in place.

 

 

Trevor

@Rick310 @Kenchington guys, it wasn't my intention to touch off a firestorm about the creative process of ship designers and builders from almost two centuries ago. My focus was on the meticulous accuracy of our specific approach in resurrecting extreme clipper Staghound Donald McKay's pioneer clipper of the California clipper fleet. Just from a logical viewpoint, I personally can't see how a half-hull model would be able to accurately predict hydrophonic properties. Being that it's only half of a hull. It makes sense that a vessel would first be drafted on paper, then possibly a full hull mock up to provide proof of concept. In such a case, the half-hull working builder's model would then be crafted to develop full sized molds. This is of course pure conjecture on my part which I've had no opportunity to confirm. Regardless, there are a few of Donald McKay's ship's lines still in existence. Of all places, this beautiful tracing of Donald McKay's extreme California clipper Flying Fish resides in the Bergen-Sjoforts Museum, Bergen, Norway. 

[Kenchington]

No firestorm, ClipperFan, just a learning process for all of us -- each having our existing ideas corrected into a deeper understanding.

 

34 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

I personally can't see how a half-hull model would be able to accurately predict hydrophonic properties.

Nobody could do that then or for a long time after. Scott Russell's waveline theory turned out to be completely wrong, once Froude got his towing-tank work going. (Though, as late as 1920, Roué used the waveline notion when designing Bluenose and there's no doubt that she turned out well.) Back in the 18th Century, even the great af Chapman held absurd notions about water pressure helping a ship forward if the wetted surface abaft the main bend was greater than that ahead. In one sense, they were all wildly wrong. Yet the best of them could and did design ships which met the specific needs placed on them, in the context of their times.

 

I'm no naval architect but I think that computer-based designs still had to be checked in a towing tank up through the 1980s. Maybe they still do. And that's for the performance of motorships in calm water. The effects of waves still defy mathematical analysis, while relying on wind and sail for motive power adds a whole lot more complications.

 

Trevor

[Rick310]

I disagree.  Europe may have been designing ships on paper at that time.  I don’t know much about European ship building techniques, however, I would like you to show me an American ship plan from the mid 1850’s from which that ship was built,  Any plans on paper originated from the half models/lofting floor.

[rwiederrich]

It was typical to make the 1/4” to 1ft half model , then loft from it the scale frames.   The designer designed the model…. Then made the full scale frames on the lofting floor. 
 

Rob

[BANYAN]

1 hour ago, Rick310 said:

I would like you to show me an American ship plan from the mid 1850’s from which that ship was built,  Any plans on paper originated from the half models/lofting floor.

Hi all, I have been following this discussion with great interest and learning a lot in the process.  While not an American design, I offer (in the interest of further discussion) a design by one of the pre-eminent RN naval architects (for steam vessels  - Master Shipwright HM Dockyard Pembroke) at the time, Oliver W Lang, in 1854.  Lang designed the hull for HMCSS Victoria (1855) straight off the drawing board - No half hull model.  Now the builder (Young, son and Magnay of Limehouse, London) may have built one later, but in the copious correspondence around the build of this vessel, a half hull is not mentioned at all, not even inferred. I am very confident about this as Lang, and the ship build superintendent, Commander Lockyer, RN, were in constant communication, and there is definitely no mention of a half model. In support of this, the design changed a couple of times (the vessel grew bigger) to accommodate all of the roles, and latest equipment,  she was intended to perform for the Colony of Victoria.  Unfortunately, I cannot post a copy of the plan here due to restrictions placed on me by the owner of the only surviving plan (Sheer Drawing) of the vessel.

 

The design was based on, and is very similar to, the Gun Dispatch Vessel (Arrow and Vigilant Classes) of the time, but had completely different proportions, and encompassed a clipper like (Aberdeen) bow, much different to the other RN designs.  She was also significantly different to RN vessels in being built on the diagonal planking system (Not the Sepping's diagonal bracing) which was generally not used in the RN (due to cost). The very few vessels that were built on this principle, were renowned for their quality and hull strength. A quick scan of my (stalled) build log will provide and idea of her design.  She was built as an armed vessel using combined merchant and RN standards, but outfitted to Vice-Regal standards internally, and was minimum manned.

 

The real point being, she was a 'paper' only deign. She proved to be a very sound and fast vessel, her hull being reported as sound as the day she was built when she was dismantled in the 1880s. Her top speed is reported as  13+ knots , and she is also reported to have been a very good sea keeper, and a relatively dry vessel (her bulwarks were only 2' 9" high). She held the trans-Tasman (Sydney to NZ) record for some time, and that crossing can be treacherous.

 

Let the cannon balls fly

 

cheers

 

Pat

[Kenchington]

3 hours ago, Rick310 said:

I would like you to show me an American ship plan from the mid 1850’s from which that ship was built

I have no plans to show you but the Smithsonian does -- those of most major USN warships. Chapelle published versions of some of them in his "American Sailing Navy".

 

The point is that smaller vessels built for private owners in North American yards were most often designed using half-models, but large ships built for the government were typically designed on paper. The question before us is whether large, expensive, innovative merchant ships (as in McKay's extreme clippers and their like) were designed using the approach preferred for fishing schooners or that used for major warships. Or maybe their designers preferred a hybrid approach.

 

I don't think that we (yet) have grounds for a definite answer.

 

Trevor

[rwiederrich]

Did some sanding today.  
 

Rob