• LUCZORAMA SHIPWRECK SCAVENGER HUNT GIVEAWAY. 4 Weeks of Fun • 1 Legendary Prize ((OcCre’s Fram Ship)) • Global Crew Welcome!
    **VIEW THREAD HERE**

"Flying Cloud " by Mamoli - kit bash

I agree that these working additions add realism and interest to a replica. From what reading I've done, pretty much every cargo hatch would have livestock pens temporarily erected over them. There were pig pens, chicken coops, probably other live animals to eventually serve as dinner over a three or possibly four month journey.
 
Interestingly enough, I read that often the upper decks of these vessels would resemble a barnyard, what with all the livestock taken aboard. When you think about it, this makes total sense too. I seem to recall reading this account by first person observations of lady passengers aboard Flying Cloud on her record breaking inaugural passage.
 
Peter, Not to be a Debbie downer...but the reason you are wondering why the animal pen looks too large and awkward.....is because it is. The pens for livestock on Clippers were generally the size of the hatch it sat upon. During the voyage, the hatch bas button down tight...so the real-estate was used for this purpose. Crowding the deck with such a large *house* made working the ship impossible.

Notice the animal crib(house) on glory of the Seas...sitting atop the main hatch. Aft the main cabin, and the fore hatch has a companionway atop it.

FE93A3BE-7264-4077-BA0E-B0BC34499E2A.jpeg.59518d0de46a2dec94ccf110e87e0d3e.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I was basing mine more or less on Scott Bradner's. And yeah it DOES seem waaay too big to move around in the cramped quarters it creates up forward. I don't think anyone will notice anything amiss if I leave off stock pen and poultry coop details altogether. Gilding the lily. Oh well, it was fun to make.:rolleyes:
Not an issue really, "Debbie" This was the conclusion I was slowly arriving at on my own. The evidence was too glaring to ignore. Not the first time on this build.
I happily accept any well-reasoned evidence-based critiques. (Not the same as criticism.) My model gets better and benefits as a result. Something I got used to working at the USNA museum workshop where the font of knowledge was overflowing and unsparingly dispensed! Thumbsup ;)
 
Last edited:
Pete,
Rob's correct about maintaining discipline to scale. When oversized items are introduced it tends to diminish the size of the overall model. I'm glad Rob brought up the issue. We recently discussed this very fact with Rob's prebuilt Staghound deck pieces. Once placed on the poop deck, it became clear they were oversized. Rob will redo all of them except the portico. His end results will be better for the extra work. As will yours. There's nothing wrong with wanting to add realism. Just remember to keep it in scale.
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Editing, revision, (I like the term, literally to see again). Works for authors, filmmakers, composers, choreographers, works for me! Thumbsup :p
Click to expand...
One habit you might want to develop, is in your research, try to broaden it to include lots of clippers. to see what was the practice of the time and on these specialized ships. When you are intimately acquainted, with clipper structures and practices...not to fail to mention rigging practices...you will be better prepared to identify and self correct. For instance, the *double*forecastle splash rail. You are doing a great job and in part, putting up with Clipperfan and my self's constant input. I've been doing this for a couple of decades...so I tend to have a knee jerk reaction...when things are outta sorts. My bad...
I hope you are not offended.

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
One habit you might want to develop, is in your research, try to broaden it to include lots of clippers. to see what was the practice of the time and on these specialized ships. When you are intimately acquainted, with clipper structures and practices...not to fail to mention rigging practices...you will be better prepared to identify and self correct. For instance, the *double*forecastle splash rail. You are doing a great job and in part, putting up with Clipperfan and my self's constant input. I've been doing this for a couple of decades...so I tend to have a knee jerk reaction...when things are outta sorts. My bad...
I hope you are not offended.

Rob
Click to expand...
No worries. I think I have demonstrated my willingness to embrace well intended and useful information offered in the spirit of an opportunity to refine and enhance my model. It is flattering actually, because, I assume, if you thought the work unworthy or hopelessly inaccurate you wouldn't waste your considerable time and effort on your contributions.
I expect the discrepancy in scale between your premade deck furnishings and the hull could be attributed to error creep in the translation from design to computer file to laser to the final laser engraving. Even an error creep discrepancy as small as 1/32" or less will add up to a discernable difference once the hull is assembled.
It seemed (even to me) to make good use of the time, waiting for the bulkheads to be cut and delivered, by making the deck furnishings in the interim. But there's no accounting for error creep. So, I guess the lesson is wait until the hull and deck are finished and build all the rest accordingly so as to maintain control over the proportions. Even considering this and making card stock templates to adjust for fit, I have largely failed in this regard and made many of my own deck furnishings slightly too large. Thanks for not leaning on me in this regard as I'm sure you can't have missed it. In the end I hope to have an interesting and aesthetically pleasing model, warts and all. I doubt that anyone interested in building a model of Flying Cloud will be likely to use mine as an example of the final word. ;)
(Or I hope not:rolleyes:.)

I remain, your humble and obedient servant,
Pete
 
Pete…..good response indeed. One would think that if you’re building in a particular scale and all related furniture is built in that scale…. it should be in scale together, independent of each other. That Is scaling problem. It is always a problem. Like you said, it is best to work in sequence. I have never done it that way before, but time forced me to. No problem , I can remake everything anyway. The Staghound didn’t have a lot of furniture to begin with.
I began the starboard side waterway.
Rob
 
Last edited:
Peter Gutterman said:
I was basing mine more or less on Scott Bradner's. And yeah it DOES seem waaay too big to move around in the cramped quarters it creates up forward. I don't think anyone will notice anything amiss if I leave off stock pen and poultry coop details altogether. Gilding the lily. Oh well, it was fun to make.:rolleyes:
Not an issue really, "Debbie" This was the conclusion I was slowly arriving at on my own. The evidence was too glaring to ignore. Not the first time on this build.
I happily accept any well-reasoned evidence-based critiques. (Not the same as criticism.) My model gets better and benefits as a result. Something I got used to working at the USNA museum workshop where the font of knowledge was overflowing and unsparingly dispensed! Thumbsup ;)
Click to expand...
 
Rob, Pete this is where the old carpentry adage comes back to mind: "Measure twice, cut once." My contribution can be to develop final precise deck furniture plans at 1:96th scale. Also where possible, creating full deck profiles based upon all available documentation should facilitate more accurate bulkheads. I suspect that if we had taken that extra step than the resultant  Staghound wouldn't be a little too narrow. As we've seen with our exhaustive investigation into clipper Glory of the Seas it is quite possible to create an accurate and beautiful replica.
 
As it is said "the Devil's in the details"
And Murphy always has his thumb on the scale. Rule#3 " Nature sides with the hidden flaw" :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top