Clipper Ship Build Thoughts

[rwiederrich]

Hi Rob,

I agree with you in that I find that performing research to be very fulfilling. I as you also do not want build a ship that has been built many times over. I am about to get off my thumbs and make a decision. I find that is my hardest decision to make. When I do, I will be sure to start a build thread and I would hope you will follow along. As I have said before, I am new to this hobby, but not to scratch building. There are so many beautiful ships waiting to be built, but then again I have recently retired.

Bill

I have been researching my next build after Staghound for over 4 years...and that is of the Western Shore...One of only two full rigged clippers ever built on the West Coast of the USA. She was built in Cooz Bay Oregon. The only other full rigged clipper built on the West Coast was the Wild Wood, built at Port Madison in 1871. American Lloyds list her and Western Shore as a Medium clippers. There is little info on her since records for the Puget Sound District (Port Townsend) are incomplete predating 1873.

So before I even get started on my current build,,,,,I've been researching the next. It goes on and on and on..........

Good luck and I will be following along closely, if you don't mid...

Rob(You'll find, that you will work harder now than when employed)

 

[Bill-R]

Hello everyone,

I have been doing a lot of research and reading the post form the McKay fans and it has been very interesting and educational. As a result of their discussion's, I have been able to compile some very good information on the Flying Cloud. I am sure this information isn't anything new, but it's new to me. One piece of information I checked was a report by Bruce M. Lane from the late 1950's that had a great deal of information on the Flying Cloud. In that report he even mentions "hoods". I am going to assume from the context of his dialog, he was referring naval hoods. Also, I am getting my work shop in order. My wife and I have just relocated and now I will have an airconditioned work room. Living in Florida this is a big deal for me. I had been building in my garage and during the summer months it would get as high as 95F. That would limit my work time very much.

Bill

 

[Bill-R]

Hello everyone,

I have been looking at the Flying Cloud plans by Scott Bradner to determine the placement of the naval hood with respect to the hawse hole and the planksheer.
I have a copy of a manuscript written by Bruce M. Lane that was supplied by Scott Bradner which states the following:

The Currier lithograph locates the center of the hawse hole (only one on the starboard side) slightly less than its own diameter down from the planksheer and one and one-half the diameter forward of a vertical line drawn from the load-water-line.

Looking at the Bradner drawing, there appears to me to be a discrepancy in the information as to the placement of the hawse hole with regard to the planksheer. This placement also leaves no room for a naval hood. Does anyone have any thoughts on this information? I have included a picture of the from the Bradner plans below.


Thanks, Bill

 

[Peter Gutterman]

Here I'd Thought I'd seen all the Bradner drawings. Somehow, I missed this. Funny. he has both hands of the angel on the trumpet as I imagined and carved it on my rendition. Pure serendipity. On the BlueJacket figure the left arm trails rather stiffly along her left side. With nothing else to go by I liked the more dynamic and romantic pose with both hands on the horn, and apparently so did Scott Bradner. I rather like his rendition.

 

[Bill-R]

I really like his plans. I think it’s great that he made them available to everyone for free.

Bill

 

[Peter Gutterman]

I could do with a little more practice carving at that scale. Next time maybe I'll try Sculpy.

 

[Peter Gutterman]

I really like his plans. I think it’s great that he made them available to everyone for free.

Bill

Totally agree!

 

[Bill-R]

With all of the great Donald McKay discussion, I think I have an understanding of the naval hood. I am going to break out the drawing board and adjust the plans to incorporate the naval hood. As I have never seen a representation of a naval hood on the Flying Cloud, what I will draw will be my idea of a naval hood. Of course I will use some creative liberties, so I hope it will be acceptable.

Bill

 

[ClipperFan]

With all of the great Donald McKay discussion, I think I have an understanding of the naval hood. I am going to break out the drawing board and adjust the plans to incorporate the naval hood. As I have never seen a representation of a naval hood on the Flying Cloud, what I will draw will be my idea of a naval hood. Of course I will use some creative liberties, so I hope it will be acceptable.

Bill

 

[ClipperFan]

With all of the great Donald McKay discussion, I think I have an understanding of the naval hood. I am going to break out the drawing board and adjust the plans to incorporate the naval hood. As I have never seen a representation of a naval hood on the Flying Cloud, what I will draw will be my idea of a naval hood. Of course I will use some creative liberties, so I hope it will be acceptable.

Bill

Bill,
I've already done some preliminary work for others who want to build an accurate replica, on exactly what you're looking to do. Here's my 1:96th scale Flying Cloud bow, including correctly sized navel hood, with cutwater and figurehead all to scale of 1" = 8'. The sheer profile is based on the 1881 Henry Hall lines. My trumpet bearing winged angel is derived from earliest contemporay illustrations, a famous ad, familiarity with Gleason's impressive carving work on other clipper ships. I've also included a June 1854 on site sketch of Flying Cloud anchored off Whampoa, from Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Look closely, you'll see ornate navel hoods on her bow and a tiny detail of the winged angel holding a trumpet. Finally, my 1:96th scale Glory of the Seas prow, illustrating how ornate an original McKay clipper bow originally appeared.
Keep in mind that these unique navel hood structures are actually an extension of the ship's prow. As such, they are amazingly thin to match the bow profile precisely. Once the bow peak is met, these clever structures twist into pointed straight lines, sandwiching the cutwater between them. How Donald McKay accomplished this so seamlessly is apparently still a mystery. It's such a challenge that master modeler of 40 years Rob Wiederrich had to use thin metal to replicate them! The cutwater below is where the figurehead's feet are mounted, while a sturdy bar attaches her back up into the twin navel hoods above. This rugged combination of navel hoods protecting the figurehead underneath, while enhancing cutwater structure below is what really gives McKay clippers their "yacht-like" appearance. Unfortunately, such beauty has been lost for centuries, as model after model has only featured a bare stem with the figurehead awkwardly tacked on beneath the bowsprit.
Two of my favorite Flying Cloud models are the spectacular Boucher built ships. One is at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the other is at Addison Gallery of Fine Art, Phillips Academy, Andover, MA. These are two of the most spectacular miniatures, which unfortunately feature an ordinary bare stem and inaccurately place figurehead. Right now, Peter Gutterman has revised his bow and does a decent job of modifing his Mamoli hull as best as possible. If you start from scratch, you could finally be first to ultimately reproduce Flying Cloud accurately.

 

[ClipperFan]

Bill,
While we're on the topic of creating a more accurate Flying Cloud model, I have a few other observations to share with you. *Forecastle height is at the top of the monkey rail, not the main rail. *[actually The Boston Daily Atlas article doesn't list specific height, so I'm inaccurate to state a specific forecastle deck height] What McLean does say is that the area under the forecastle is set to accommodate one watch of the crew with waterclosets in the wings. The only other clipper that specifically describes such an arrangement is the Flying Fish. In her case, it describes twin wing companions which lead to an area below with water closets before them. This area is lofty, well lit and ventilated. In such a case, the entire forecastle bulkhead would have to be closed off, since it's the aft wall of crew quarters below. In addition, the windlass would of necessity be mounted below. That's due to the fact that there's not enough space to work on it above. Since the space is well lit, that implies forecastle bulkhead windows too.
Michael Mjelde shared proof of that by sharing a routine Glory of the Seas maintenance letter. There were plans to upgrade the windlass below. To accomplish that, they needed precise measurement of the internal forecastle height. It turned out to be 5'9". Adding in 3 & 1/2" thick decks put forecastle deck height at 6' & 1/2". For some reason the edge of the rear forecastle has a slight curve. That also doesn't match Glory of the Seas which had a straight forecastle edge. Another difference, as can be seen by contemporary Flying Cloud art, is that hull was pure black, the rear rail might have been white but the fore splashrail was definitely black and similar to Glory of the Seas extended nearly to the foremast chains. That rail was 18" high and inside about 1' high was a shelf which ran completely around the interior and ended in a graceful curving point at the bow, with a pinrail. Michael Mjelde also informed us that Donald McKay never employed round iron bitts. Instead he had big wooden rectangular ones. On both Boucher models in the poop deck fore center is a large rectangular house. That too, doesn't match Duncan McLean's description of a small portico entrance to apartments below. At most it was possibly 10' square, inset 5'. I've attached a portion of the Boston Daily atlas description so you can read it for yourself.

 

[Peter Gutterman]

Rich, do you have a photo of the model encompassing more of the well deck showing the placement of the Booby hatch and the capstan between it and the mainmast? It is a mystery to me how they would operate the capstan in that confined space. The booby hatch was probably removeable, and a cover placed over the hatch opening to step on when operating the capstan. Seems really inconvenient and would mean that that particular capstan would only be used while in port, loading and off-loading cargo, as well as aiding in hoisting heavy spars. ...

 

[ClipperFan]

Rich, do you have a photo of the model encompassing more of the well deck showing the placement of the Booby hatch and the capstan between it and the mainmast? It is a mystery to me how they would operate the capstan in that confined space. The booby hatch was probably removeable, and a cover placed over the hatch opening to step on when operating the capstan. Seems really inconvenient and would mean that that particular capstan would only be used while in port, loading and off-loading cargo, as well as aiding in hoisting heavy spars. ...

Peter,
At first, I thought you were asking about the forecastle, so I repeated that topic by mistake. Then I realized you were asking about the companion "booby hatch" in front of the supposedly small rear portico. You're right, both interfere with each other as set up now. Solution would be a smaller front sliding door entrance portico, with maybe a 2' projection. Then the booby hatch could be moved back out of the way of men manning the capstan. Here's the only picture I could find of that section.

Since I already wrote this, I figured why erase it.... ;-)

As the Boucher models sit right now, unless they're tiny midgets, nobody can fit under the forecastle. It's too low. That's because instructions by Duncan McLean to set forecastle deck height are wrong! It has to be set at monkey rail height. Rob, Vladimir and I all learned this after they had both set their forecastle decks too low. Both later tore down their entire forecastle decks and rebuilt them to correct height.

 

[Bill-R]

Hi Rich,
Thanks for the information. My preliminary sketch of the Flying Cloud hood is very similar to your rendition. I did a very unscientific calculation on where to place the hawse hole. I used the Glory of The Seas as a guide and counted the number of planks between the planksheer and the hawse hole and scaled it to 1:96. I have seen a number of drawings, paintings and models of the Flying Cloud that shows the hawse hole a various locations. I don't have a clear answer for its position.

Thanks, Bill

 

[ClipperFan]

Hi Rich,
Thanks for the information. My preliminary sketch of the Flying Cloud hood is very similar to your rendition. I did a very unscientific calculation on where to place the hawse hole. I used the Glory of The Seas as a guide and counted the number of planks between the planksheer and the hawse hole and scaled it to 1:96. I have seen a number of drawings, paintings and models of the Flying Cloud that shows the hawse hole a various locations. I don't have a clear answer for its position.

Thanks, Bill

Bill-R:
In my observation, you simply cannot have a better, real example of hawse hole placement then the starboard broadside bow view of Glory of the Seas. That's not conjecture, it's rock solid evidential proof. Knowing that the precise documented measure of her lovely Grecian goddess Athene is 90" (7 & 1/2 feet) and that her bowsprit is 24 feet, it's possible to determine the precise dimensions of all the other components in this impressive picture. The hawse hole location can easily be determined by using these internal dimensions. As an aid, attached is that amazing picture along with my precise to scale bow sketch of this very section. To determine dimensions for Flying Cloud I used the exact same principles knowing this is the very same approach that Donald McKay consistently employed. Let me know if there's anything that you need from me to help. Meanwhile, I'd love to see your work too.

 

[Bill-R]

Hi Rich,
Thanks for the information. It will help a lot. Right now I am gathering materials together for the build. I’m using 5mm plywood for the bulkheads and for the bulk of the build I will be using cherry. I haven’t decided on the deck planking yet, but it will be something of a lighter color.

Bill

 

[ClipperFan]

Hi Rich,
Thanks for the information. It will help a lot. Right now I am gathering materials together for the build. I’m using 5mm plywood for the bulkheads and for the bulk of the build I will be using cherry. I haven’t decided on the deck planking yet, but it will be something of a lighter color.

Bill

Bill-R:
From those choices of woods, it sounds like you're planning a serious Flying Cloud build. I'm looking forward to seeing your progress.

 

[Peter Gutterman]

Peter,
At first, I thought you were asking about the forecastle, so I repeated that topic by mistake. Then I realized you were asking about the companion "booby hatch" in front of the supposedly small rear portico. You're right, both interfere with each other as set up now. Solution would be a smaller front sliding door entrance portico, with maybe a 2' projection. Then the booby hatch could be moved back out of the way of men manning the capstan. Here's the only picture I could find of that section.

Since I already wrote this, I figured why erase it.... ;-)

As the Boucher models sit right now, unless they're tiny midgets, nobody can fit under the forecastle. It's too low. That's because instructions by Duncan McLean to set forecastle deck height are wrong! It has to be set at monkey rail height. Rob, Vladimir and I all learned this after they had both set their forecastle decks too low. Both later tore down their entire forecastle decks and rebuilt them to correct height.

View attachment 465532

Thanks, something must have been terribly amiss in the placement of the Mainmast (or masts in the plans I've been using.) The Bluejacket plans omit the booby-hatch entirely. The Mamoli and Fisher plans are awfully crowded. I'll have to revisit and see what I can move. Scott Bradner solved the problem by making thr front of the coach-house flush with the poop-deck wall.

 

[ClipperFan]

Thanks, something must have been terribly amiss in the placement of the Mainmast (or masts in the plans I've been using.) The Bluejacket plans omit the booby-hatch entirely. The Mamoli and Fisher plans are awfully crowded. I'll have to revisit and see what I can move. Scott Bradner solved the problem by making thr front of the coach-house flush with the poop-deck wall.

Peter,
McKay's second extreme clipper Flying Cloud was a very close design to Stag Hound. She was actually launched 139 days after McKay's first clipper. In size, while she briefly replaced "the Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet" as the largest merchant ship of her class in the world, she was only 10 feet longer on deck and 9 feet longer overall. Since McLean didn't list the specific distances of Flying Cloud like he did precisely for Stag Hound I use a principle of deck to mast distance ratio to determine exact measurements. I'll explain:

Stag Hound exact distances as listed:
50' from fore stem to foremast center
67' from fore center to mainmast center
56' from main to mizzenmast center
42' from mizzen to sternpost

Main deck length of Stag Hound is 215'
50 feet ÷ 215 feet = .232%
67 feet ÷ 215 feet = .312%
56 feet ÷ 215 feet = .260%
42 feet ÷ 215 feet = .200%

assign these ratios to Flying Cloud 225'
.232 × 225 feet = 52 ft foremast center
.312 × 225 feet = 70 ft mainmast center
.260 × 225 feet = 59 ft mizzenmast center
.290 × 225 feet = 44 ft mizzen - sternpost

It works out perfectly, all distances = 225'
We also know the Flying Cloud poop deck length is 68'.
Subtract 68' from 225' results in 157'
Distance of fore + mainmast = 122'
Subtract 122' from 157' results in 35'. That's the distance from mainmast center to fore poop deck bulkhead. There should be plenty of room to fit in main fife rail pumps, a capstan, a central companion and a small portico. Try measuring these out on paper, it should work. After all it did on a full sized ship.

 

[ClipperFan]

Peter,
At first, I thought you were asking about the forecastle, so I repeated that topic by mistake. Then I realized you were asking about the companion "booby hatch" in front of the supposedly small rear portico. You're right, both interfere with each other as set up now. Solution would be a smaller front sliding door entrance portico, with maybe a 2' projection. Then the booby hatch could be moved back out of the way of men manning the capstan. Here's the only picture I could find of that section.

Since I already wrote this, I figured why erase it.... ;-)

As the Boucher models sit right now, unless they're tiny midgets, nobody can fit under the forecastle. It's too low. That's because instructions by Duncan McLean to set forecastle deck height are wrong! It has to be set at monkey rail height. Rob, Vladimir and I all learned this after they had both set their forecastle decks too low. Both later tore down their entire forecastle decks and rebuilt them to correct height.

View attachment 465532

Peter,
Sometimes over confidence can lead to speaking with authority while being somewhat off. That's the tricky situation we consistently face when dealing especially with McKay clipper focstle deck heights. I still maintain that as the Boucher focstle height is set at the main rail height, access to the windlass underneath is ridiculously low. Compared to her generous 7'8" 'tween deck heights, this makes no sense. Here's where things get more vague. McLean's focstle description is quite sparse. Rob and I have been evaluating this exact same area with our Stag Hound build. Since she was equipped with a state-of-the-art metal gear drive windlass with ends which ungear, it makes logical sense that this would be further down, fully enclosed. McKay's 4th clipper Flying Fish is the only one where McLean actually describes that an area is provided for one watch of the crew 3' below the main deck. In the case of that ship, her main rail bulwarks were 4 & 1/2' high. The fore focstle bulkhead is described as having port and starboard twin companion entryways to crew quarters below. Before the companions, water closets were provided for the crew. Unless you're a midget, it's impossible to sit in 4 & 1/2' high toilets. This logically leads me to believe both "head" and windlass were mounted 3' below, giving a ceiling of 7 & 1/2' for Flying Fish. That's the configuration Rob and I are working on for Stag Hound and how I now belive was the actual set up for Flying Cloud too. From a model building perspective, solid molded focstle bulkheads with twin port and starboard 5' high companions would be the most likely arrangement.