"Flying Cloud " by Mamoli - kit bash

ClipperFan said:
Peter,
Check appendix references at the back of the book. Crothers has small numbers 1,100 next to the Flying Cloud description. 1 should be chapter 1 and 100 should be his reference source. I'm curious to know too, as this info isn't specified in the Boston Daily Atlas article.
Click to expand...
As soon as I wrote that I thought "Duh. Check the appendix". :rolleyes:
 
I'm currently doing the layout for the Forecastle bulkhead facade influenced by Rich's drawing. Maybe a few days before I can get it done, 20240913_232510.jpg20240913_232609.jpghopefully declare victory on this aspect of the build and move on. Time to s**t and get off the pot, so to speak. I could keep fiddling with it forever.
 
Peter,
Not to confuse the issue further but that sketch isn't my final one. Rob pointed out that outermost companions wouldn't give enough room for downstairs ladders due to sharp inward slope of the ship.
Here's my final illustration. Companions were moved inward with ladders to forecastle deck outside of them. I just want you to have the most accurate source for your courageous remake of your forecastle. From the divisions I see it looks like you can have two inner windows with two outer companions and ladders just outside of them. I'm looking forward to your final design. It's going beautifully.

20240905_193524.jpg
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Thanks, Rich. I did take into account your changes in your revised companionways further inboard. Very handsome drawing!
Click to expand...
Peter,
Thanks for the nice compliment, I appreciate the encouragement. Ever since I learned how ornately designed McKay's clipper Glory of the Seas rear coach house front fascia actually was I've been applying that design ethos to his other ships. This is yet another area where commercial plans have it all wrong. Blue Jacket's 1:96 scale Flying Fish builds into a magnificent model. Unfortunately it's riddled with annoying mistakes. One of which is her rear coach house plain barn door front fascia. It has a single rectangular window on the port side and looks nothing like the actual ship did. In JE Buttersworth's spectacular Flying Fish painting, commissioned by her owners to celebrate her win of the 1852-53 Great Deep Sea Derby, he shows her far more ornate front fascia which looks remarkably similar to the one on that was on Glory of the Seas.
Your fabrication of an enclsed front forecastle with ornate windows will most certainly raise some eyebrows. Ironically, that's precisely how Flying Fish should appear too.

20240721_141000.jpg

2020_buttersworth_flying_fish_painting-2.jpg
 
I also notice the filigree painting on the counter that I've been contemplating adding to my Flying Cloud. I'd like to see the closeup of the other 2/3 of the ship!
There's a lot to see, like the brass or bronze stanchion safety railing on the front of the cabin. The current Flying Fish kit is by Model Shipways, by the way. Designed and drawn by the incomparable Ben Lankford. How he missed this painting for reference is a mystery.
 
Peter Gutterman said:
I also notice the filigree painting on the counter that I've been contemplating adding to my Flying Cloud. I'd like to see the closeup of the other 2/3 of the ship!
There's a lot to see, like the brass or bronze stanchion safety railing on the front of the cabin. The current Flying Fish kit is by Model Shipways, by the way. Designed and drawn by the incomparable Ben Lankford. Hoe he missed this painting for reference is a mystery.
Click to expand...
Peter,
My manufacturer's guess missed by that much. My apologies to Blue Jacket. I also wonder how Ben Lankford misplaced those two water closets. Maybe it's the curmudgeonly English Major in me. When I read Duncan McLean's Flying Fish description, I follow his context. Doing that, I get a completely different take on the front forecastle arrangement. He clearly states twin outer companions lead to quarters down below which have accomodations for one watch of the crew. Before (meaning in front of, not behind) the companions are water closets. I read that to mean downstairs, in front of the companion ladders on each side there were the ship's heads. That means Flying Fish had an identical foreward arrangement as Stag Hound and Flying Cloud did. Which also moves her windlass below as well, since the forecastle bulkhead now functions as the aft wall for crew quarters below. Meanwhile, I wonder how willing Model Shipways would be to revising aspects of their plan and kit? Corrections would include, from bow to stern:
(1) add navel hoods, cutwater & more realistic flying fish figurehead to blend into both.
(2) revised forecastle as we discussed.
(3) ornate rear coach house front facade.
(4) rear coach house sides narrow to accomodate consistent working area for crew.
(5) relocate centrally mounted rear coach house companion to port side.
(6) lubber holes go fore to aft of solid top frames.
 
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
My manufacturer's guess missed by that much. My apologies to Blue Jacket. I also wonder how Ben Lankford misplaced those two water closets. Maybe it's the curmudgeonly English Major in me. When I read Duncan McLean's Flying Fish description, I follow his context. Doing that, I get a completely different take on the front forecastle arrangement. He clearly states twin outer companions lead to quarters down below which have accomodations for one watch of the crew. Before (meaning in front of, not behind) the companions are water closets. I read that to mean downstairs, in front of the companion ladders on each side there were the ship's heads. That means Flying Fish had an identical foreward arrangement as Stag Hound and Flying Cloud did. Which also moves her windlass below as well, since the forecastle bulkhead now functions as the aft wall for crew quarters below. Meanwhile, I wonder how willing Model Shipways would be to revising aspects of their plan and kit? Corrections would include, from bow to stern:
(1) add navel hoods, cutwater & more realistic flying fish figurehead to blend into both.
(2) revised forecastle as we discussed.
(3) ornate rear coach house front facade.
(4) rear coach house sides narrow to accomodate consistent working area for crew.
(5) relocate centrally mounted rear coach house companion to port side.
(6) lubber holes go fore to aft of solid top frames.
Click to expand...
Best to address your considerations to whomever is in charge of the design and/or model kit revisions at Model Shipways. They have been re-designing and reintroducing a number of their kits, Such as Harriet Lane and the Phantom pilot boat. But I suspect that any changes will be subject to the existing kits' popularity and sales as is. After following the build logs of their Lankford revised Constitution model from solid to plank on bulkhead from the 1970s or 80s, I see that it too is much in need of revising and updating. Ben Lankford died about 5-6 years ago. The Model Shipways folk participate on and follow SOS forums. Maybe somebody will take notice and contact you. They did contact me in order to use images of some of my finished M.S. kits in their advertising.
Personally, I'm sorry to see the solid hull option going the way of the dinosaur. I'm glad I got one of the last small scale solid hull Harriet Lane kits before the changeover to 1:96 scale plank on bulkhead versions. BlueJacket and A. J. Fisher still offer solid hull kits. Scratch built USNA museum models are still being built using the solid hull lift method with great effectiveness under the guiding hand of Curator of Models and master model builder Don Preul.
I personally appreciate you being a stickler for well-constructed and thought-out written communication. Something my dad always insisted upon on even so much as a post-it note. ;)
 
Last edited:
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
My manufacturer's guess missed by that much. My apologies to Blue Jacket. I also wonder how Ben Lankford misplaced those two water closets. Maybe it's the curmudgeonly English Major in me. When I read Duncan McLean's Flying Fish description, I follow his context. Doing that, I get a completely different take on the front forecastle arrangement. He clearly states twin outer companions lead to quarters down below which have accomodations for one watch of the crew. Before (meaning in front of, not behind) the companions are water closets. I read that to mean downstairs, in front of the companion ladders on each side there were the ship's heads. That means Flying Fish had an identical foreward arrangement as Stag Hound and Flying Cloud did. Which also moves her windlass below as well, since the forecastle bulkhead now functions as the aft wall for crew quarters below. Meanwhile, I wonder how willing Model Shipways would be to revising aspects of their plan and kit? Corrections would include, from bow to stern:
(1) add navel hoods, cutwater & more realistic flying fish figurehead to blend into both.
(2) revised forecastle as we discussed.
(3) ornate rear coach house front facade.
(4) rear coach house sides narrow to accomodate consistent working area for crew.
(5) relocate centrally mounted rear coach house companion to port side.
(6) lubber holes go fore to aft of solid top frames.
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
My manufacturer's guess missed by that much. My apologies to Blue Jacket. I also wonder how Ben Lankford misplaced those two water closets. Maybe it's the curmudgeonly English Major in me. When I read Duncan McLean's Flying Fish description, I follow his context. Doing that, I get a completely different take on the front forecastle arrangement. He clearly states twin outer companions lead to quarters down below which have accomodations for one watch of the crew. Before (meaning in front of, not behind) the companions are water closets. I read that to mean downstairs, in front of the companion ladders on each side there were the ship's heads. That means Flying Fish had an identical foreward arrangement as Stag Hound and Flying Cloud did. Which also moves her windlass below as well, since the forecastle bulkhead now functions as the aft wall for crew quarters below. Meanwhile, I wonder how willing Model Shipways would be to revising aspects of their plan and kit? Corrections would include, from bow to stern:
(1) add navel hoods, cutwater & more realistic flying fish figurehead to blend into both.
(2) revised forecastle as we discussed.
(3) ornate rear coach house front facade.
(4) rear coach house sides narrow to accomodate consistent working area for crew.
(5) relocate centrally mounted rear coach house companion to port side.
(6) lubber holes go fore to aft of solid top frames.
Click to expand...
Aspects 1-6 Are fodder for kit bashers. If enough of us revise these kits to make them more historically accurate, then perhaps a demand for a more revised and accurate kit will develop and a company like M.S. will follow suit.
Click to expand...
 
Peter,
When you think about actual part revisions, most of the corrections could be accomplished within the instructions. As for kit parts, the only additions would be an elongated stem to include a cutwater, navel hoods and more natural flying fish figurehead. Eliminating windlass and anchor chains which would now be below would be a reduction in parts and cost.
Oh yeah, I remembered another small addition discovered on the Glory of the Seas forecastle:
(7) a low waterway surrounding entire outer fo'c'sle perimiter ending in a graceful curve at the ship's prow.
 
Last edited:
Re; Focsle capstan issue: I believe that these “patent” capstans were often geared to the windlass below thus eliminating the up and down pump breaks. This meant that more men could work together to raise the anchor. A capstan above the patent windlass on a ship would be usual.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
Re; Focsle capstan issue: I believe that these “patent” capstans were often geared to the windlass below thus eliminating the up and down pump breaks. This meant that more men could work together to raise the anchor. A capstan above the patent windlass on a ship would be usual.

Roger
Click to expand...
Roger,
I agree with you about the continued reliance on a capstan above to work in conjunctuon with a windlass below. It's documented, at least in the case of Stag Hound that she was equipped with two capstans. Since Flying Cloud was McKay's second of his California Clipper Fleet, it makes sense she would be given a least two capstans too. But forgive my confusion. Wouldn't advanced mechanics facilitate use of less men to accomplish the same task which required more men before?
 
All my Flying Cloud plans call for four Capstans .Double action on the forecastle and weather decks And two single action models on the poopdeck P. @ S. behind the portico. That and a couple of bucks+ might get you a cuppa at Starbucks. :rolleyes:
 
Peter Gutterman said:
All my Flying Cloud plans call for four Capstans .Double action on the forecastle and weather decks And two single action models on the poopdeck P. @ S. behind the portico. That and a couple of bucks+ might get you a cuppa at Starbucks. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Peter,
Before jumping on that, I would suggest researching as many of McKay's other clippers to see if any others carried 4 capstans. What I can verify is that McKay's 1st clipper Stag Hound carried only 2 capstans. I will see what I can find out about those other McKay clippers. Fortunately, Lars Bruzelius has quite a few Boston Daily Atlas articles available.
 
Re; Capstan vs Windlass manpower: The patent windlass might not require less manpower. Start with basic Physics. Work = Weight x Distance Moved.
Power is the rate at which work is performed or (weight x distance)/time.

So, the work is the weight of the anchor x the length of the cable. In either case this is the same. The pump brakes turning the windlass could only accommodate 4 men so would have had very low gearing. Hoisting the anchor in this manner would have been slow. (Low power).

The capstan allowed more men. Higher rearing between the capstan and windlass took advantage of the increased Power of more men to raise the anchor more quickly.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
Re; Capstan vs Windlass manpower: The patent windlass might not require less manpower. Start with basic Physics. Work = Weight x Distance Moved.
Power is the rate at which work is performed or (weight x distance)/time.

So, the work is the weight of the anchor x the length of the cable. In either case this is the same. The pump brakes turning the windlass could only accommodate 4 men so would have had very low gearing. Hoisting the anchor in this manner would have been slow. (Low power).

The capstan allowed more men. Higher rearing between the capstan and windlass took advantage of the increased Power of more men to raise the anchor more quickly.

Roger
Click to expand...
Exactly.....
The second industrial revolution in America helped change the manual labors of men...transferring it to machinery. Why...I suspect the patent capstan/windless mechanism was employed as often as possible. It surely was on McKay's first clipper Staghound. Because he had an open checkbook...given him by the owners.

By the way.....Robert. I received the material....thank you so much. I pray the book found you in good condition ?

Rob
 
Hi Rob,

The book arrived last week in great condition, well packaged. Thanks for your efforts. It’s in my reading stack. Thanks again for your efforts.

I was going to email you today to make sure you received the decking material. Nglad it arrived.

Roger
 
Roger Pellett said:
Hi Rob,

The book arrived last week in great condition, well packaged. Thanks for your efforts. It’s in my reading stack. Thanks again for your efforts.

I was going to email you today to make sure you received the decking material. Nglad it arrived.

Roger
Click to expand...
Thanks very much. I hope I wasn't too presumptuous, asking you to exchange as we did....but it worked out very well....for both of us.
And Michael Mjelde thanks you for your order and faithful interest.

Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top