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

[Michael Collins]

Great discussion panel here.

 

 

I had always used that booms were fixed at one end and were more like forearms. Yards are yards but were also used as booms when the need arose. Just has 1/2 the length sticking out past the articulation point. 

 

Paintings from any time period are not my sole source of details and near the bottom of being used. I read each and item written on the ship, view every drawing I can find. Every bit of information is used to to compare, eliminate, verify something new. I used the paintings as they are visible and quickly absorbed into the mind.

 

This is neither to confirm nor deny, just to point out all but the the existing vessels are subject to interpretation over exactness.

Edited yesterday at 06:12 PM by Michael Collins

[Kenchington]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

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

Perhaps assorted flying kites added later as the ships were put into trades where more and longer periods of light winds could be expected?

 

Record speeds should come on days of strong, steady winds, though not in truly heavy-weather -- with the border between "strong" and "heavy" depending in the size and type of vessel. Skys'ls, t'gallant stunsl's and the like were more to maintain speed when the wind fell light than to push up the overall maximum, so likely not set when records were being broken.

 

Trevor

[Kenchington]

Michael,

 

Admiral Smyth, writing about the time of Flying Fish (though often with reference to much older sources) limited the meaning of "yard" to square, lateen and lug yards (each spreading the head of a sail, while crossing a mast), whereas he saw "booms" as extending outwards and spreading the feet of sails. I guess you could say that they are fixed at one end but there's a big difference between the boom of a gaff sail, pivoting at the mast end, and a jibboom or stuns'l boom, which can be slid in or out but (when in use) is fixed so as not to pivot. Then there were Bentick booms, which crossed a mast (like a yard) but spread the news of a squaresail.

 

I'm sure that we could come up with many other kinds of booms too!

 

Trevor

[Michael Collins]

The day one does not learn something is a wasted day. Why carry them when there will be no requirement.

 

And yes, there have been very many various booms over the years and more to follow I'm sure.

[rwiederrich]

4 minutes ago, Kenchington said:

Record speeds should come on days of strong, steady winds, though not in truly heavy-weather -- with the border between "strong" and "heavy" depending in the size and type of vessel. Skys'ls, t'gallant stunsl's and the like were more to maintain speed when the wind fell light than to push up the overall maximum, so likely not set when records were being broken.

This can be stated as truth.  Most records were established during long stints of strong steady weather.  The occasional squall  and tempest only contributed to calculating overall 24 hour periods....for establishing nautical miles traveled.  Setting and striking sails to optimize overall speed was a common and safe practice.  Clipper captains were notorious for pushing the envelope...letting out more sail when prudently it was a dangerous move.  However, the promise of  monetary gain and the prestige of setting a record associated with their name fueled the practice.   Paintings of clippers with a full set of sails, to include stunsails, set generally happened in the tropics and when fair breezes beset them, and even then, many skysails were furled to protect their fragility.

 

Notice this famous painting of Glory of the Seas being chased by Young America.  Both with reduced sky and royals...to protect against demasting...during a brisk squall.

 

Rob

 

[ClipperFan]

@Michael Collins I was asked to, as it were add my 2c to this conversation regarding what @rwiederrich and I now refer to as the unique McKay bow construction. Reading the in-depth Boston Daily Atlas write ups by Duncan McLean (a Scottish sailor and friend of Donald McKay) led me to discover that compared to his historic descriptions, not one of our modern McKay clipper ship models are accurate! That's because the only part of a prow they model is a bare stem. Both the cutwater extension of the stem and twin navel hoods which overlay and protect the cutwater have consistently been left off. Photographic proof of these very rugged devices are now clearly evident in multiple, crystal clear images of McKay's final clipper Glory of the Seas. In a way, Donald McKay has been so successful in hiding his secretive prow that he's become a victim of his own jealously guarded secret. From the beginning, in his first description of the vessel Stag Hound, McLean mentions a cutwater and hood ends but it's easy to overlook. However, in his write up of the famous clipper Flying Cloud McLean gets more descriptive and for the first time refers to these devices as navel hoods. To be clear, these prow extensions are nothing like naval hoods which essentially protected anchor hawse holes before advent of iron rings. Rob and I have concluded that since this unique McKay prow design was present in his premier extreme clipper and is clearly visible on his final medium clipper that this was a practice he incorporated in all of his clippers. One exception was his 4 decked 4 masted clipper-bark Great Republic. It stands to reason, since she had an entire additional deck, her height made need of the navel hoods unnecessary. I've attached all 4 pages of the Boston Daily Atlas which brings up another issue that model plans have gotten wrong. Main rail height of 4'6" on Flying Fish was one of the lowest for a McKay clipper. This required accommodations for a watch of the crew to be arranged below deck. This is actually described in the Boston Daily Atlas article. It describes 2 companions in the wings of the forecastle, leading to quarters below where there are 2 water closets (WCs) ahead of the stairs. These quarters are described as lofty, well-lit and ventilated. Since the height of the forecastle deck was set at the main rail height, that means the underside of the fore deck would have been just under 4'3".... little more than a crawl space. This means the windlass also would have been mounted below. The forecastle bulkhead would have been fully enclosed with windows, similar to those seen on the aft coach house, as illustrated in the Buttersworth piece.  In the order I attached images: first 4 are the McLean article, then is an actual tracing of Flying Fish from a museum in Norway, my scale overlay of how McKay's original bow would appear, a more realistic ornate flying fish figurehead, then 2 historic scenes of Glory of the Seas, 3 details of the Buttersworth work. Note: the coach house front facade is more ornate then plans treat this area which is consistent with photos we have of this coach house, the prow in the artwork is more pronounced than the bare stem in the plan and finally is my reconstruction of the Stag Hound forecastle also attached for reference. We also know for a fact that the aft coach house narrows to match the outer hull, the rear coach house companion is offset to port and lubbers holes are much larger than plans show.

[ClipperFan]

23 hours ago, Michael Collins said:

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 The top Buttersworth piece is of the 1853 clipper Black Warrior, Damariscotta, Maine. It features a larger than life sized full color female native american warrior. I had an opportunity to view this piece in person when I visited the Hyland Granby Antiques, Hyannis, MA. Here's a link to their site: Clipper Ship "Black Warrior" by James E Buttersworth, American circa 1853, (29 x 35 3/4) - Inventory - Hyland Granby The other two works are of the Flying Fish. Rarely does Buttersworth depict all yards mounted, since often the skysail yard would be taken down in rough weather.