Flying Fish by Michael Collins - 1:36.7 - from 1951 Model Shipways plans

[Michael Collins]

I've been building wooden ships for 48 years. Usually these are built on ships, before I was retired. I've built several Bluenoses and the Cutty Sark onboard the C.S.S. Baffin. Baffin had a woodworking shop on her and I did a lot of the work using her facilities. However in 1990 the Baffin could no longer be feasibly kept up and she was sold to India where she carried on as a passenger vessel for a while. After her I started the Flying Fish onboard the C.S.S. Matthew. She did not have a workshop and the keel and bulkheads were cut out onshore and a friend had a mill where he made me the pine planks. I started the Flying Fish in 2010 and worked on her for 3 28 day trips (84 days in total). In 2011I worked the same schedule of 3 trips; 28 days each. It was them crated up and left in my rec room until 2023 when I restarted her. I was retired then and worked from June 2023 to July 2024 - 384 days in total. Then it went through another crated period until June of 2024. Hopefully this is the last go at her before she's finished.

 

The first photos show the C.S.S. Baffin that the Cutty Sark and Bluenoses were built on and the second is the C.S.S. Matthew that the Fish was started on. The 3rd and 4th images show those two as they now sit in the rec room.

 

The rest are just a rough assemblage of chronological images of its construction over the years.

 

I want to show her with all the running lines attached, even to the point of being erroneous. The staysails and studding sails will be used in conjunction. Also the sails will only be outlines in white so one can view all the lines in their entirety. As of now the staysails are done, but I am looking for a method to solidify rope for the rest. The bottom arc of the sail is the main area of concern. I've tried many solutions and potions, but none will make the rope rigid enough to handle. The second last try was using 18 gauge wire up from previous attempts with 22 gauge. The 18 gauge hobby is also too flimsy. I'm currently trying epoxy on the rope line and will see if this works. 

 

This was started from a set of 1951 Model Slipways plans that I had enlarged. I had researched the Flying Fish for over a year before I started her. There has been a dramatic change in her plans from the 1951 MS versions and also current findings have altered her again from those. So in areas of doubt or uncertainty I filled in the blanks with my own interpretation. The figurehead is a good example. It has been described as a "greenish gold flying fish". That's it. I have seen many images of what it may have looked like, but I went my own way. If it were the Flying Cloud, there's tons of research and items available. But I wanted the less traveled road. In the last decade of so there's been many who have picked up on the Fish also. 

 

[Kenchington]

That's an amazing model, Michael -- and a remarkable story!

 

What position did you have on Baffin and the Matthew that gave you time for model building?

 

I remember both of them, when alongside the BIO wharf, though (not working on the hydrography side of the Institute) I was never aboard either. My time at sea was on the research trawlers: Navicula, Lady Hammond, Prince, later Templeman, Needler and Teleost.

 

Trevor

[Michael Collins]

I was a hydrographer/cartographer during my time with the Canadian Hydrographic Service. Whenever possible we worked 12 hours a day and I'd do 5 or 6 hours, after I was back on board from a 34 foot survey launch. During weather, or ice, we'd either hide, or get blocked in by ice. In both cases that freed up a lot of time for me. 

 

And Holy Crow - the Lady Hammond. I sailed on her for nearly 2 years doing Fisheries Research before becoming a Hydrographer. Max Baker was her captain when I first went aboard and Neil Barnes was chief officer. She was a cork. Once I got sea legs on the Lady Hammond, there was no ship that bothered me. Used to jam yourself into the rack as she'd darn near go rail to rail in Bedford Basin. Worst sea vessel I've ever been on for sea manners.

 

Se was originally the Hammond Innes built in England during the Cod Wars. All sides involved figured the fish would long be gone before the courts dealt with it. And they pretty much were. England just cranked those things out hoping to out fish the other nations. We'd do 12 days on 2 days off trips year round.  Off of Scatarie Island or Sable Island in February in a cod wars trawler is no fun. But I did build one Bluenose on her.

[Wawona59]

That sure is a "whale" of a nice BIG Fish.  Beautiful work!

 

[yankee clipper]

Michael I can't help but think I remember you starting the Flying Fish on one of the earlier ships model web sites. It should have been about 2010. I remember it because I started the FF about the same time using the Ben Lankford 1979 plans.

I followed the progress of the build until the screen went blank. If that was you congratulations on a beautiful build and glad to know you are still out there.

Yankee Clipper

[Kenchington]

Michael: I'm impressed! I could not have handled hydrographic surveys, let alone on-board model building after a day in those survey launches.

 

Hammond Innes was probably the finest, most successful distant-water wetfish trawler the British ever built -- as well as almost the last of them. I still have soft spot for her in my heart. But as a research trawler, I have to agree: She was a bitch. In a sick way (pun intended), I'm glad you had the same trouble I did. I got on well with the Chief Engineer (both of us being Limeys) and he insisted that he knew how to ballast a trawler. I was never sure that he understood the difference between a ship with a hold full of ice and fish, versus one with only scientific gear and a lot of ballast down there. 

 

Even so, Prince was worse, once she was used outside the Gulf. And the Templeman/Needler pair, amongst their other problems, had the accommodation for the scientific party up forward, so they gave us little rest.

 

Then again, the Australians, who could have had the Hammond's sister, C.S. Forester, bought the much-smaller, French Soela instead. She was a lot of fun in a 75-knot gale on the South Tasman Rise, around 49° South.

 

Trevor

[Michael Collins]

Yankee Clipper - yes the ship was started in 2010. Then again in 2011. Then I stopped until 2023. I may have started a build log on one of the boards. But hopefully this time will finish her.

 

[Michael Collins]

Kenchington - Chief Engineer's name Fred Bartle? We used to fillet up fish for Max and Neil as they never had time to come down to the sampling room. Fred lived there. But he expected that someone fillet his fish too. 

[Kenchington]

It was a long time ago but I think he was Fred.

 

I wonder whether you were aboard for any of my trips. I think my first would have been winter 1980 and the last probably in '82. I was chasing redfish in those days.

 

Trevor

[Michael Collins]

I was on her from February 1980 until April 1982. So we would have overlapped. I was one of the samplers onboard along with Alan Johnson and Barry Brown. We ate a lot of fish at home during that time. Other than Fred it seemed that most engineers and oilers kept themselves in the engine room. I remember jigging for squid in Chedabucto Bay because we couldn't get any trawling. At the same time the fishermen were dumping squid on the C.B. Causeway by the dump truck full. There were 4 female scientists and we had large tanks on port and starboard. The few squid we jigged were put into the tanks. The photo is of Gary Williams and Regal Lace on that trip sitting in the Bay. We did some Olympic diving off of the gantry. We did two tows on the way home and got tons of squid for the girls.

[Kenchington]

Then I can welcome an old shipmate to MSW! You and I probably worked side by side in the wet lab, all those years ago.

 

I wasn't on any squid cruises and had no contact with DFO's squid scientists at that time, though I did brush up against the people at Dalhousie, who got the squid to spawn in the Aquatron tank. (Maybe ones your brought in live?) And I do remember the Hammond's hopper full of tons and tons of the oily beasts. As you likely know, they have occasional exceptional years and one came in the early '80s.

 

Trevor

[ccoyle]

1 hour ago, Kenchington said:

Then I can welcome an old shipmate to MSW!

 

That is so cool that you guys could reconnect here! My science background is in salmonid ecology, specifically habitat restoration -- all done on dry-ish land, except in winter of course. I only did one cruise on Humboldt State's research tug, and not too far out either -- just far enough out to do an otter trawl and collect some samples. I always noted a correlation on the few ocean excursions I've been on between how excited a guy was to go out and how sick he would be once we left the pier. A guy I used to work with once worked as a NOAA Fisheries observer on a Japanese processing ship -- he said there was always plenty of sashimi on board. My own stint with the fishes was sadly too short -- after a few years I made the first of several career changes and became a teacher.

 

Cheers!

[Snug Harbor Johnny]

2 hours ago, Kenchington said:

Then I can welcome an old shipmate to MSW! You and I probably worked side by side in the wet lab, all those years ago.      Trevor

Safe and sound at home again, let the waters roar, Jack.
Long we've tossed on the rolling main, now we're safe ashore, Jack.
Don't forget your old shipmate, faldee raldee raldee raldee rye-eye-oh! 

[Jared]

A beautiful model and fascinating story as well.  I look forward to following the rest of your FF build.

[Kenchington]

Thanks, @ccoyle! I was afraid that I was using ship-modelling bandwidth for a bit of personal reminisce.

 

Salmonids are a different game to marine fisheries, with habitat modification (for better or worse) being a big part of their story. Most (not all) habitat change offshore is beyond the bounds of human intervention, so my career has been more about fishing people and fishing boats impacting on the fish and being impacted in their turn.

 

But now I need to figure out how to represent a keg of dead fish, as 1:24 lobster bait!

 

Trevor

[Michael Collins]

Well I cannot allow this reminiscing to be killed on my watch. We were mid to deep water surveying so we had zero fresh/shallow water to be near. Sent in to fish on known shoals not the shallow we seek. This means zero salmon knowledge of any kind, other than my great-grandfather and grandfather landed monsters in Ecum Secum in the 1910-1940s or so. The large ones were getting smaller in the photos as time passed.  When we would do the Arctic trip of the survey season, we'd always stop in Nain, Labrador for frozen char. Are these the same species or related, more so than trout? 

Remember the scientific freezer in the wet lab? Don't get caught in there. 

 

I am totally amazed at this reunion of sorts. Not much of Mr. McKay's sleek lines discussed - hope its within boundaries. Sometimes it helps to know who is behind the keyboard that may influence the build. Things that are shown on blueprints may - nay, are sure to have changed over the years. The Hammond would change winces when extreme deep water tows were to happen. These were great as you'd only get one tow or possibly 1/2 - on the way back  thought the second when your 6 hour shift was up. The fleeting winches would be changed. And it was worse with the hydrographic vessels. Baffin was changed almost be the cruise depending who would ride along with us on a survey. They had some weird stuff hanging off of the side of the ship. Or a magnetometer 4.5 miles astern and it takes 30-45 minutes to make a turn as you cannot upset it at all. Worst time - caught in a hurricane while surveying the sea mountains off of Yarmouth. About 200 miles offshore and no way to run - heave to as best possible and keep her nose into where ever "into it" felt like.

 

[Michael Collins]

3 hours ago, Kenchington said:

"But now I need to figure out how to represent a keg of dead fish, as 1:24 lobster bait!

Trevor"

 

At 1:24, I see carving in your future.

 

[Kenchington]

It may come to that but I really, really hope not! 

 

Trevor

Edited Wednesday at 10:10 PM by Kenchington

[ccoyle]

1 hour ago, Michael Collins said:

char. Are these the same species or related, more so than trout?

 

Oh, now you are speaking my language!

 

Trout is a confusing term, because it may be part of a fish's name in the common vernacular, e.g. rainbow trout, as well being its accepted scientific common name, i.e., that approved by an agency like NOAA or AFS. So, Joe Schmo may fly-fish for rainbow trout on the Upper Sacramento and NOAA would agree that his catch is a rainbow trout. Rainbow trout are in the genus Oncorhynchus, the Pacific salmons, along with Chinook, coho, etc. Yes, it's confusing that a trout is classified with the Pacific salmon, but that's the way it is. But it gets worse. An Atlantic salmon is indeed a salmon, though it is not classified along with the Pacific salmons; it is in the genus Salmo along with the brown trout, which is not a salmon. Eastern brook trout and Dolly Varden trout are neither salmon nor trout but chars in the genus Salvelinus, along with Arctic char. There will be a quiz on this material later.

 

As mixed-up as this system seems, the classification and official naming of some other fish groups is far more confusing, but it provides endless fodder for fish nerds to discuss and debate!

[JerryTodd]

I like big boats and I can not lie...

Though I do prefer mine to swim 

 

[Kenchington]

Trout and salmon ... about as consistent and logical a distinction as sloop and cutter 😎

 

Trevor

[Kenchington]

Michael,

 

You asked:

3 hours ago, Michael Collins said:

Are these the same species or related, more so than trout? 

Names of species, like names for boat types, get re-used for all sorts of things, often ones quite different to the original meaning. But all of the "true" trouts, salmon and chars are in the family Salmonidae -- which contains 240 species by one count. The chars are in the genus Salvelinus, the Pacific salmons (along with some species called "trout") are in Oncorhynchus, Atlantic salmon (the original and best!) plus a bunch of trout species are in Salmo.

 

But don't get me started on biological names for weird fish species. I'm finally tidying up a list of 250 from deepwater surveys we ran nearly 20 years ago and some of those were seriously weird!

 

And:

 

3 hours ago, Michael Collins said:

About 200 miles offshore and no way to run - heave to as best possible and keep her nose into where ever "into it" felt like.

 

Been there, too: The kind of weather when you run for shelter after the worst has passed, because you can't while it is blowing. In my case, we had Argentina as the nearest land upwind and Chile somewhere to leeward, with a whole lot of empty ocean between in both directions. But I've worked with commercial fishermen who had seen far worse in far smaller vessels. Then again, I've known people who never came home.

 

Trevor

 

 

[rwiederrich]

On 12/10/2025 at 10:43 AM, Michael Collins said:

Not much of Mr. McKay's sleek lines discussed

It's your build log....so misdirection can be as fun as the topic.

 

I'd simply like to say, you've done wonderfully on her...and in sucha large scale too.  Can't hide any details....or missteps.  your rendition is magnificent.  Have you not discovered the unique McKay naval hood discussion?  Most model designers simply glue the figureheads of FC and  FF against the cutwater, under the bowsprit.  McKay developed a unique *Hood*, that secured the cutwater to the stem providing extreme rigidity and provided a sturdy pedestal for the figurehead to rest up against.  Note McKay's famous last clipper....Glory of the Seas, to see this unique fixture.  It was unique to McKay clippers.  One of his *secret* design features.

 

Rob

[Michael Collins]

18 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

  Have you not discovered the unique McKay naval hood discussion? 

No, any of the drawings, paintings, etc showed nothing in this area. I've known others to carry the hood, but there was zero mention of it in the ragtag collection of "information" I had on her. Even back in 2010 there was so much information and misinformation floating around it was a kind of "pick and choose" what you like. And I must say since them the "info" has gotten more mesmerizing. I have read of hull lengths from 196.5 to 220 feet and many in between 198, 202, 212, 215. When the Butterworth paintings surfaced these were supposed to be the end all and be all of Flying Fish research. All that did was open another bag of hammers. Butterworth has depicted her with 4 sails per mast, no hood, and colorization that sets its own tone. I've found no less than 3 deck layouts of her - the one I chose was off of a set of 1951 plans I bought off of e-Bay. I've got a fairly nice library of clippers, but whereas she was always in the shadow of her older sister, there's not a great wealth of information on her. Boston Gazette spells out a lot of her dimensions, but given the loose or conflicting statements about her makes it  a stab in the dark.

Fished on all masts, fished on two, white masts with black bands, all white, all natural, black booms, natural booms

 

Cutty Sark, Victory, Constitution and others are easier to get correct as they are still around. And many others are lucky enough to have photographed many times. Even Victory has changed her tune from yellow to a salmon color in the last X number of years.

 

I must find the thread with McKay's hood on his ships.

 

Below are 3 images showing 4 sails per mast on  Flying Fish. And colors of the rainbow.

 

Good thing its the love of ships that is the real driving force for our replicas. And no one can really prove one wrong. Thank you for your valued imput.

[Michael Collins]

On 12/10/2025 at 5:04 PM, ccoyle said:

 

As mixed-up as this system seems, the classification and official naming of some other fish groups is far more confusing, but it provides endless fodder for fish nerds to discuss and debate!

Exactly the same as figuring the truth about the replicas we build. We carried a decent library on the "Fishes of the North Atlantic" with us - even the chief scientists got stuck on several occasions. But just from looking at an Atlantic salmon, its entire structure does look closer to a trout than a West coast salmon. And as you say the salmo designation sort of distances is from the pack. I think the entire two years or so I was on the Hammond we only caught 2 salmon in the trawl.

 

The weirdest that shallow tows produced was the Atlantic Torpedo. They are a ray and carry 220 volts around the perimeter of the oval head area, for stunning prey. The deep tows produced some really strange stuff, but most of it exploded on the way to the surface. But the luminescent colors and the fangs on these things are stuff from horror novels. 

 

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, Michael Collins said:

Below are 3 images showing 4 sails per mast on  Flying Fish

The first two show her rigged for 5 squaresails on each mast: course (cro'jick on the mizzen), topsail, t'gans'l, royal and skys'l. The first has the skys'l yards crossed but the sails furled (as are the fore and mizzen royals). The second shows all royals, plus the fore and mizzen t'gans'ls furled, while the skysail yards have been sent down -- as would be expected if stronger winds are forecast to persist for more than several hours.

 

In typical square rigs, any time there is a stay (leading forward) and shrouds, they mark the upper end of a "mast" (even if that is made of the same continuous pole as the mast below and the flagpole above), which is there to carry a yard and sail. The skys'l-mast stays and shrouds are clear in that painting, showing where the skys'l yards would go if they had not been sent down.

 

I think you can be sure that, in terms of terminology of the time, she was a "three-skys'l yarder".

 

Trevor

Edited yesterday at 04:22 PM by Kenchington

[Michael Collins]

Now its just a stroll down memory lane. We had an large pregnant Angler Fish come up in the trawl, and they had to go through the same level of tests as the profitable commercial  species. The female weighed 47 kilos (103 pounds). While hanging by her jaw she spawned. Her weight dropped 27 kilos to 20 kilos (44 pounds). 27 kilos of spawn slurping over the wet lab deck. It took the fire hoses to get the slime off - like Jell-O but goo and the ability to adhere to anything that came in contact with it. It was Crazy Glue that never dried.

 

The image is just to show the species, not mine.

[Michael Collins]

Are you saying the skysail booms are off? I count 4 booms. Oops - the first is 5 booms, I own it. Looks to be not near the same vessel but for floating. The two images are Butterworths. Look at the background vessel. I panicked and jumped. The second only 4 are shown. There would appear to be room for the skysail yards. but they are not shown? 

 

*EDIT* I do wholeheartedly agree that standard practice is for three booms on the topgallant mast. 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:13 PM by Michael Collins

[Kenchington]

Technically "yards", not "booms", though I would be hard pressed to define the difference. (Yards spread the heads of sails and booms the feet, maybe? There are probably multiple exceptions to any simple division like that.)

 

But, yes, I am saying that the ship in the second image was rigged to carry skys'ls but the yards are not shown. When the wind was expected to be unsuitable for such light-weather canvas for an extended time, instead of the yard being left aloft, the robbands cut and the sail sent down to the deck, the sail was left furled on its yard and the whole thing sent down as one package. It could readily be send aloft again when needed. That was entirely normal in the clipper era (and for centuries before) but became impractical with the heavy, steel rigs of the late 19th Century.

 

The ship in the background of each painting might be worth close study. There was a genre of ship portraits in which the same vessel was shown in 2 or 3 positions, often one sailing free and another close-hauled and/or in stern view. You may have four views of Flying Fish in two paintings.

 

Trevor

[rwiederrich]

The key element on all of these paintings is the large single topsail.  This clue, alone shows us that these vessels were painted before they received their upgrades to the Howes double topsail design.

In many cases the area covered by these four sails....ie...main, topsail, topgallant, royal, was sufficient to propel the vessel at a moderate 10~15 knots.   It is true, many captains reduced the skysail/yard to reduce stress on the mast....but most paintings we see do not depict vessels in such a dreadful affair.  Some paintings that do depict such an extreme weather condition, also show damage to royal and topgallant masts...not to mention loss of said yards and sails.

 

Hauling down skysail yards were a routine practice....however, some first hand descriptions from Duncan McLean, report that many of McKay clippers were originally only fitted out with royals.  One can assume, skysails were added later to aid in achieving greater speed.   Clipper Lightning achieved some of her record speeds, while missing her skysails during a particularly horrific passage.

 

When modeling any one particular vessel...it would not be inaccurate to depict her with or without skysails. Dependent, on the era you are modeling your clipper. 

 

I would fully encourage anyone not familiar with Donald McKay's remarkable naval hoods, to look up clipperfan..(Richard Jones), for his full explanation and research on the matter.  He and I both agree...McKay built all of his clippers with this structural feature.  It was his trade secret and he even asked artist to not paint it on his vessels to, in essence not reveal it to any competitor.   There is much evidence provided by Duncan McLean in his first hand accounts to verify the structures presence on McKay clippers.   Glory of the Seas is a fine example. We have loads of evidence this fact s true, if one cares to dig deep enough to find it.

 

The simple fact that model kit designers leave it off their kits, is evidence they are not familiar with Donald McKay's ingenious design and application.  Following paintings of the time cannot be your only source.

 

Enjoy.

 

Rob