"Flying Cloud " by Mamoli - kit bash

The Gavel said:
:eek: Next time I have 2 cents to add, I'll put it in my piggy bankROTF Pete! Thankfully you have ClipperFan's knowledge as a resource on your build!

BTW "The Gavel" is my call sign. You can call me Chuck.

Blessings!
Click to expand...
Hi Chuck!
I applaud you efforts to contribute towards our mutual goal of aiding others in their clipper ship builds. I didn't mean to embarrass you and if I did, my apologies. McKay's clippers are my favorite. If you've been following Pete's build, you know he's been the beneficiary (or victim) of our rapidly evolving discoveries of the real ship as opposed to hundreds of mistaken models built of her.
 
Last edited:
ClipperFan said:
Hi Chuck!
I applaud you efforts to contribute towards our mutual goal of aiding others in their clipper ship builds. I didn't mean to embarrass you and if I did, my apologies. McKay's clippers are my favorite. If you've been following Pete's build, you know he's been the beneficiary (or victim) of our rapidly evolving discoveries of the real ship as opposed to hundreds of mistaken models built of her.
Click to expand...
No worries, ClipperFan! Actually, you were very gentlemanly. You could have just written: "The Gavel, Pete is building the Flying Cloud not the Flying Fish!" So, no apology necessary because no offense was taken :). My embarrassment:eek::eek::eek: was entirely my own making ROTF.

I love what you are all doing to give the straight poop on clipper ships!

Blessings.
Chuck
 
I'm already stuck with the positioning of the masts as set in stone (or as pe-cut by laser into the false decks by Mamoli). Not entirely accurate but close enough for folk music. All of the room necessary for the superstructures to fit and for the capstan bars to clear them exists (barely). :rolleyes: So much for trusting the plans of these various kits. I compared what I have with Rich's measurements, and they weren't impossibly far off. These kits are useful in supplying you with a lot of the stuff you will need. But best to do all your investigations and research before you build them. Also, as with the Harriet Lane, a lot depends upon what period in the life of the ship you intend to portray. A caveat. However careful you are in your research you can get lost in the weeds. There WILL be contradictions, and you will have to do what makes the most sense to you given what you have to work with and live with that. Inevetably some new information will come to light once you have done. As with Murphy's Laws: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong; Nature sides with the hidden flaw; The trend is from bad to worse.
I might add: The last word never is.Cautious
 
Last edited:
The Gavel said:
No worries, ClipperFan! Actually, you were very gentlemanly. You could have just written: "The Gavel, Pete is building the Flying Cloud not the Flying Fish!" So, no apology necessary because no offense was taken :). My embarrassment:eek::eek::eek: was entirely my own making ROTF.

I love what you are all doing to give the straight poop on clipper ships!

Blessings.
Chuck
Click to expand...
The straight poop? As in: "The real s**t?"
 
Case in Point:
I took my model of the Harriet Lane to a model show today and a visitor at the show spent at least 15 minutes photographing it from every angle. If he took one picture, he must have taken fifty. Flattered, I just watched and enjoyed the appreciation silently. Later one of my friends guessed that he probably got the latest kit, and seeing my model thought it would be a useful example in building his. Only he's going to find out that my model (Harriet Lane ca. 1863) bears little resemblance to Harriet Lane ca. 1857 as depicted in the current (or any Harriet Lane) kit. Different armament, different foredeck arrangement, with the addition of a forecastle deck. And highly speculative (if well researched) at that! :rolleyes:
 
The Gavel said:
No worries, ClipperFan! Actually, you were very gentlemanly. You could have just written: "The Gavel, Pete is building the Flying Cloud not the Flying Fish!" So, no apology necessary because no offense was taken :). My embarrassment:eek::eek::eek: was entirely my own making ROTF.

I love what you are all doing to give the straight poop on clipper ships!

Blessings.
Chuck
Click to expand...
Chuck,
Good to know you're a fellow with a sense of humor. I love your pdf of the Webb clipper Flying Dutchman. Not only was she not the Flying Cloud she's also not even a McKay clipper! Just to show my appreciation, I'm sharing the Webb ship anyway.

20240907_144814.jpg
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Case in Point:
I took my model of the Harriet Lane to a model show today and a visitor at the show spent at least 15 minutes photographing it from every angle. If he took one picture, he must have taken fifty. Flattered, I just watched and enjoyed the appreciation silently. Later one of my friends guessed that he probably got the latest kit, and seeing my model thought it would be a useful example in building his. Only he's going to find out that my model (Harriet Lane ca. 1863) bears little resemblance to Harriet Lane ca. 1857 as depicted in the current (or any Harriet Lane) kit. Different armament, different foredeck arrangement, with the addition of a forecastle deck. And highly speculative (if well researched) at that! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Peter,
I know it's off topic from your Flying Cloud but I'd love to see your 1863 Confederate Blockade Runner Harriet Lane. In 1859 she was the USMC Revenue Cutter before she was captured by Confederates during the Civil War.
Actually, due to her long career, Glory of the Seas went through quite a transformation herself. Rob modeled her in 1877 while Vlad modeled her as she was originally launched in 1869.
 
Peter Gutterman said:
I'm already stuck with the positioning of the masts as set in stone (or as pe-cut by laser into the false decks by Mamoli). Not entirely accurate but close enough for folk music. All of the room necessary for the superstructures to fit and for the capstan bars to clear them exists (barely). :rolleyes: So much for trusting the plans of these various kits. I compared what I have with Rich's measurements, and they weren't impossibly far off. These kits are useful in supplying you with a lot of the stuff you will need. But best to do all your investigations and research before you build them. Also, as with the Harriet Lane, a lot depends upon what period in the life of the ship you intend to portray. A caveat. However careful you are in your research you can get lost in the weeds. There WILL be contradictions, and you will have to do what makes the most sense to you given what you have to work with and live with that. Inevetably some new information will come to light once you have done. As with Murphy's Laws: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong; Nature sides with the hidden flaw; The trend is from bad to worse.
I might add: The last word never is.Cautious
Click to expand...
Peter,
You're being too hard on yourself. I credit your extraordinary efforts in completely revising your bow from a bare stem to adding representations of navel hoods and cutwater. You may underestimate this but this is the very first time in history anyone has come close to modeling any McKay clipper with these long lost devices! Then you repainted your hull to more accurately reflect her authentic all black livery. Note: even both spectacular Boucher models still aren't as historically accurate as your's is right now. Remember that her solid top lubber holes are likely much wider and longer than kit plans indicate. If you want, you can double check with Rob or I and we can help out with any other questions you may have.
 
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
You're being too hard on yourself. I credit your extraordinary efforts in completely revising your bow from a bare stem to adding representations of navel hoods and cutwater. You may underestimate this but this is the very first time in history anyone has come close to modeling any McKay clipper with these long lost devices! Then you repainted your hull to more accurately reflect her authentic all black livery. Note: even both spectacular Boucher models still aren't as historically accurate as your's is right now. Remember that her solid top lubber holes are likely much wider and longer than kit plans indicate. If you want, you can double check with Rob or I and we can help out with any other questions you may have.
Click to expand...
Thanks! and I will be checking in on the details!
 
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
I know it's off topic from your Flying Cloud but I'd love to see your 1863 Confederate Blockade Runner Harriet Lane. In 1859 she was the USMC Revenue Cutter before she was captured by Confederates during the Civil War.
Actually, due to her long career, Glory of the Seas went through quite a transformation herself. Rob modeled her in 1877 while Vlad modeled her as she was originally launched in 1869.
Click to expand...
My depiction of Harriet Lane is as she may have looked on jan1,1863 the day she was captured in Galveston Harbor, when she was part of the Union Gulf Squadron. She was used as a blockade runner for the Confederacy after that. her appearance is based on contemporary descriptions and subsequent drawings. There are pictures of my model in Gallery 12 of finished models. Chuck is doing a version of the same thing using the latest MS 1:96 kit. Mine is smaller, 1/32"= 1', Using the older MS kit version. There is also a build log.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top