Staghound...Extreme clipper 1850 by rwiederrich 1/96

I had guessed your broad use of "whatever works" to be your approach and you have my complete support and interest. I've just begun to include some of the styrene strips I collected long ago, guessing at some future use for them down the line. You have unlocked the door to that for me already. Just because these materials make it possible to achieve desired results at scale, doesn't make it any easier. I find it encouraging that the demands for perfection in your chosen profession have informed and enhanced the quality of work in your chosen avocation. Thanks for the inspiration. The more you document, the better. Documentation: Something that few of us want to take the time to do, but ultimately the most useful to posterity. Not to mention those of us following the same pursuit. Thumbsup :D
The results you have achieved and pictured here I find both humbling and challenging. I am not displeased with what I have achieved with my model thus far, but am now challenged to improve, given the possibilities your examples present. One of the things I miss, having had to give up my weekly participation as a volunteer at the USNA museum workshop, is the imaginative resourcefulness and unlimited possibilities presented by the collective experience and diversity of the other volunteers working there.
" Wow! I would NEVER have thought of that!" Was a commonly used expression among the members.;)

Pete
 
rwiederrich said:
Rich...we have a couple things to tackle


First, When McLean says, she has "ventilators in her decks". Do you suspect she has ventilators before her fore and main masts like Flying Fish?
Secondly, And this is a big one.....I know we agreed that McLean made a mistake when he said the forecastle was the height of the main rail...but what if he was correct? What if the topgallant deck was at the main rail and the entry to the forecastle deck was, (As it is with the aft cabin), set 3 ft below. And the crew accessed it via a companionway as Crothers depicted in his book I quoted earlier? The patent windless still would fit. The reason I am readdressing it is...if McLean was wrong on this matter...and on several other issues...HOW then can we conclude he wasn't wrong on many other issues? And if we are to conclude his first hand knowledge was derived from actually getting his info from McKay's yard...then we must also conclude his observation of the forecastle must also be correct...and that we are missing something.
That something, I feel, can be found in Crothers depictions of what I am describing. The low topgallant forecastle deck was at the main rail....there was a companionway entry midship that led down to the forecastle deck...where the patent windless was. I'll find the picture from Crothers and post it later.

Wresting with this issue, I concluded that we need to look at this more objectively. We can't assume because we know how it was done on Glory of the Seas, that McKay did the same for his first clipper. I truly doubt it. Crothers says, the low topgallant forecastle was just as prevalent as the high. And to disregard McLean's observation on this...means every other observation he made is under suspect. Personally, I don't want to go there, I trust his highly informed observations. If we are to conclude they were *Highly* informed. Staghound had either a high topgallant...which its deck level was at the monkey rail(our current stance), or she had a low topgallant forecastle, which its deck level was at the main rail. Lowering her ceiling height....but if the forecastle deck was recessed 3ft below...as is the main cabin aft...then there is ample room for the patent windless and working space for the crew.



Chew on this.....

Rob
Click to expand...
I am often taken, these days, by the application of other scientific observations as applied to the challenges presented in historic research. Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty. You can fix the position of a particle, or its' speed, but not both simultaneously. Or of fractal geometry. The closer you get to an image or object, the more ill- defined it becomes. I just had a similar discussion with Bill R. I am sure a far better-informed person will either dis-abuse me of my notions or correct them. Cool! all part of the process. Good compelling and challenging critical thinking on Rob's part.Thumbsup:D

Pete
 
Last edited:
Peter Gutterman said:
I had guessed your broad use of "whatever works" to be your approach and you have my complete support and interest. I've just begun to include some of the styrene strips I collected long ago, guessing at some future use for them down the line. You have unlocked the door to that for me already. Just because these materials make it possible to achieve desired results at scale, doesn't make it any easier. I find it encouraging that the demands for perfection in your chosen profession have informed and enhanced the quality of work in your chosen avocation. Thanks for the inspiration. The more you document, the better. Documentation: Something that few of us want to take the time to do, but ultimately the most useful to posterity. Not to mention those of us following the same pursuit. Thumbsup :D
The results you have achieved and pictured here I find both humbling and challenging. I am not displeased with what I have achieved with my model thus far, but am now challenged to improve, given the possibilities your examples present. One of the things I miss, having had to give up my weekly participation as a volunteer at the USNA museum workshop, is the imaginative resourcefulness and unlimited possibilities presented by the collective experience and diversity of the other volunteers working there.
" Wow! I would NEVER have thought of that!" Was a commonly used expression among the members.;)

Pete
Click to expand...
Peter, my experience has demonstrated to me that the shortest distance between two places is a straight line...it also has shown me that paint covers a multitude of sins. Work of detail, comes by way of practical application...and practice. The old adage, practice makes perfect, is actually incorrect. You can practice imperfectly all day long and never achieve perfection. Perfect practice makes perfect. But then, again, nothing we make is perfect.

I do apologize for not *documenting* better my every step. If I was demonstrating to a student, the exact process to be followed, I would keep better records.
However, I provide, more like, highlights...than anything.
I'm humbled to be an example to anyone. But remember this,... hone your skills.....learn to cover up mistakes with the same fervor as you employed in making the part(Mistake) originally. Smile.... And before you know it you've gotten better at both, and sometimes you can't even tell the difference. *Hack* advice 101..

Rob(I never thought of that, is the beginning of any new endeavor).
 
Peter Gutterman said:
The closer you get to an image or object, the more ill- defined it becomes.
Click to expand...
They call that *Magnification*. And camera's don't lie. You make something...sit back, look and marvel at it. Take a picture of it... and you're starting over.......

I recall making a telescope mirror once...and on the surface it looked good. Smooth, reflective. Till I subjected it to a Foucault test with a Ronchi grid. It is now an ashtray.

Comparing it on the surface to the guy next to me who had years of experience...reminded me...if I want to make a successful mirror. I need to learn more, and then make more mirrors.
 
rwiederrich said:
Rich...we have a couple things to tackle


First, When McLean says, she has "ventilators in her decks". Do you suspect she has ventilators before her fore and main masts like Flying Fish?
Secondly, And this is a big one.....I know we agreed that McLean made a mistake when he said the forecastle was the height of the main rail...but what if he was correct? What if the topgallant deck was at the main rail and the entry to the forecastle deck was, (As it is with the aft cabin), set 3 ft below. And the crew accessed it via a companionway as Crothers depicted in his book I quoted earlier? The patent windless still would fit. The reason I am readdressing it is...if McLean was wrong on this matter...and on several other issues...HOW then can we conclude he wasn't wrong on many other issues? And if we are to conclude his first hand knowledge was derived from actually getting his info from McKay's yard...then we must also conclude his observation of the forecastle must also be correct...and that we are missing something.
That something, I feel, can be found in Crothers depictions of what I am describing. The low topgallant forecastle deck was at the main rail....there was a companionway entry midship that led down to the forecastle deck...where the patent windless was. I'll find the picture from Crothers and post it later.

Wresting with this issue, I concluded that we need to look at this more objectively. We can't assume because we know how it was done on Glory of the Seas, that McKay did the same for his first clipper. I truly doubt it. Crothers says, the low topgallant forecastle was just as prevalent as the high. And to disregard McLean's observation on this...means every other observation he made is under suspect. Personally, I don't want to go there, I trust his highly informed observations. If we are to conclude they were *Highly* informed. Staghound had either a high topgallant...which its deck level was at the monkey rail(our current stance), or she had a low topgallant forecastle, which its deck level was at the main rail. Lowering her ceiling height....but if the forecastle deck was recessed 3ft below...as is the main cabin aft...then there is ample room for the patent windless and working space for the crew.



Chew on this.....

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
I have to reread descriptions of her ventilators.
I went and double checked this article by Michael Mjelde, which also included Duncan McLean's complete description of Glory of the Seas. I was shocked to read that he actually wrote that her focsle height was 6 feet! It's on the bottom left and upper right of the page here. How did we all miss that?
I agree, we don't want to blithely ignore Duncan McLean's descriptions. Is there any other source supporting a 3' drop? I thought I read about that for Flying Fish which I will double check. From Donald McKay's own internal sketch of twin packets Star of Empire & Chariot of Fame there's no indication of a drop, so it must have had the higher focsle deck.
One thought which may support the idea of a recessed focsel deck on Stag Hound is the weight of a patented windlass, since it's all metal. That would mean it would make sense to have it located further down in the bow for improved boyancy and weight balance. In that case, would the aft end of the focsle bulwarks be solid with two watercloset wings but no doors, as sole entry below would be the companion?

20240821_124255.jpg

20240821_115753.jpg

20210412_190634.jpg
 
One thing Crothers said, was the 3ft drop in forecastle height was to also lower the center of gravity for heavy Windlesses.....or heavy machinery.
Regardless...we have too logically and structurally allow for that Patent windless.

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
One thing Crothers said, was the 3ft drop in forecastle height was to also lower the center of gravity for heavy Windlesses.....or heavy machinery.
Regardless...we have too logically and structurally allow for that Patent windless.

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
From Duncan McLean's description of Flying Fish he gives her main rail bulkhead height as 4 & 1/2' surmounted by a 16" monkey rail, meaning full bulkhead height at 5'10." So, definitely, her forecastle area would have to be below. Interestingly, in his description there are dual wing companions which lead to sailor's quarters below. Before the companions are waterclosets. I believe those were located below as even the smallest fellow would be hard pressed to squeeze into a 4 & 1/2' high loo!
That tells me too that all these models depicting a head at the side of the forecastle, as well as an open area with a windlass beneath the focstle deck are unfortunately incorrect. It would be impossible to have an open focsle because that would ruin sailor's quarters below. She would have had solid bulheads with twin companions on both sides. Maybe the windlass might be in front of the bulkhead but the rest would have been 3' below. Maybe even the windlass too? I don't see how it would be possible to work a windlass with merely a 4 & 1/2 foot clearance.

20240821_132447.jpg

20240821_133321.jpg

20240821_132549.jpg
 
Last edited:
ClipperFan said:
Rob,
From Duncan McLean's description of Flying Fish he gives her main rail bulkhead height as 4 & 1/2' surmounted by a 16" monkey rail, meaning full bulkhead height at 5'10." So, definitely, her forecastle area would have to be below. Interestingly, in his description there are dual wing companions which lead to sailor's quarters below. Before the companions are waterclosets. I believe those were located below as even the smallest fellow would be hard pressed to squeeze into a 4 & 1/2' high loo!

View attachment 466184

View attachment 466185

View attachment 466186
Click to expand...
I was just reading that myself...just before you posted it. Fish had companionways in the forecastle leading *down* to the crew's quarters. I suspect Staghound had a similar arrangement, with her topgallant forecastle at the rail height and room below for crew.
Now look at the distance between deck for the Emersons windless to fit. There truly isn't much room for a person...but why does a person need to be in that space? The mechanism is fully operational without a person to be in that space. And the engaging and disengaging levers are available topside.
1724262829523.png
 
We keep thinking a topgallant forecastle needs to be heigh enough for a man to access. Apparently it doesn't.
We need to get our minds off of the idea that a more robust, complex companionway egress to a lower forecastle deck wasn't probable.
We have to start looking at this from the facts...not a preconceived perception.

From all the known information....McLeans first hand account, Crothers decades of understanding clipper ship structures, to Donald McKay's own depictions. we need to look at this with fresh eyes.

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
We keep thinking a topgallant forecastle needs to be heigh enough for a man to access. Apparently it doesn't.
We need to get our minds off of the idea that a more robust, complex companionway egress to a lower forecastle deck wasn't probable.
We have to start looking at this from the facts...not a preconceived perception.

From all the known information....McLeans first hand account, Crothers decades of understanding clipper ship structures, to Donald McKay's own depictions. we need to look at this with fresh eyes.

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
It appears to me that where the focsle deck height is at the main rail, that makes it a situation where crew quarters must be 3' below with solid bulkheads above. As for your other question, here's McLean's running description of various ventilators installed on Stag Hound. It appears that he lists at least five locations for ventilators: in her decks, along the line of the planksheer, fore, and aft, and also in the bitts. Possibly even her foretopsail sheet bitts. Although that's a bit vague because it could be that A McLean's describing that these ventilated bitts are all of choice white oak and are strongly kneed above and below. Hard to tell.
Then there's his somewhat sparse description of the topgallant forecastle: it's the height of the main rail, making it 5' in the after winds (sic wings?) of which she has water closets, for the "use" of the crew. This is where we have to do some interpretive reasoning. A 5' high location is too cramped to fit more than a small amount of bunks or a windlass. Logically, then the next arrangement is exactly as described in Flying Fish with dual port and starboard companions leading to windlass and crew quarters 3' below. Just before the companions, "in the after wings of the forecastle" would be dual water closets. The way I see this arrangement, 5' companions would probably be open doors with a sliding top, just outside the focstle deck; the indented area could accomodate a forward hatch. This gives an added benefit of lowering the heavy metal patented windlass securely protected from salt water and other elements. I see this windlass area as being flanked by the two water closets and then a separate bulkhead with twin door entrances to crew quarters. As for modeling, it's just a matter of modeling the twin companions and molded focstle bulkhead. As for sources of lighting? Options are more deck prisms or maybe a small skylight. Both are complete conjecture as there's no mention of either.

20240821_132447.jpg

20240821_155333.jpg
 
Rob,
McKay's extreme clipper Stag Hound. "Pioneer craft of the California Fleet" as so eloquently described by Donald McKay's son Cornelius, launched on December 7th, 1850. The following year, April 15th, 1851 his second, arguably most famous extreme California clipper Flying Cloud was launched. That's an amazing 129 days later. In all likelyhood these were very much twins in concept and to a degree design. Reading the McLean's description of the central entryway to downstairs apartments below her 68' poop deck it's virtually identical "in the front of the poop is a small portico, which protects the entrance to the cabins, of which she has three."
But I digress. The description of the focsle on Flying Cloud doesn't identify whether the deck height was at the 5' main rail or the 16" monkey rail above. "She has a topgallant forecastle 30 feet long amidships, fitted for the accomodation of one watch of the crew, and in its after wings are two water closets."
He also describes that she was equipped with "Emerson's patent ventilators, indispensable for every class of ship but more particularly for packets, and those trading to warm climates."
As for why I believe access to a windlass should be high enough for a man to stand in. Here's my reasoning. Mechanical devices require routine maintenance, usually involving daily lubricants. occasional adjustments and repairs. Why force crew to struggle to do such routine tasks? Especially when such work would have to be done in between other sail maintenance duties. If quarters are tight, temptation would be to "cut corners" and claim work was done when in fact it wasn't thoroughly accomplished. Just human nature.
But I do find myself agreeing with you about a 3' drop area. "Fitted for the accommodation of one watch of the crew" does imply to me that she too, much like we're now concluding her older sister ship Stag Hound most likely had a 3' drop to crew accommodations below.
 
Last edited:
Well, it wasn't what I was hoping for when I asked for more pictures of the Stag Hound model. Now, here are 15 current pictures of Cornelius McKay's gorgeous hull model of what he referred to in his letter to Captain Arthur H Clark as "the Pioneer craft of the California Clipper Fleet." For being crafted in 1850, this 173 year old sole surviving  builder's model is really quite beautiful and has held up well.

IMG_4660.jpg

IMG_4659.jpg

IMG_4657.jpg

IMG_4656.jpg

IMG_4654.jpg

IMG_4653.jpg

IMG_4652.jpg

IMG_4651.jpg

IMG_4649.jpg

IMG_4646.jpg

IMG_4645.jpg

IMG_4648.jpg

IMG_4647.jpg

IMG_4644.jpg

IMG_4643.jpg
 
I don't know about you but I can't seem to get enough of Cornelius McKay's drop dead gorgeous extreme clipper Stag Hound hull model. These are the same images reoriented to better view and slightly cropped to better see lovely details. From one blurry, somewhat dark picture from 1928 to these technicolor beautiful images is just an amazing progression. Even so, that 1928 image is still the very best source for our modeling agenda. I will try once more to get that image and others which will greatly aid our objective of realizing the most accurate clipper Stag Hound replica.

20240822_071659.jpg

20240822_071620.jpg

20240822_071739.jpg

20240822_071809.jpg

20240822_071956.jpg

20240822_071934.jpg

20240822_072224.jpg

20240822_072253.jpg

20240822_072330.jpg

20240822_072418.jpg

20240822_071545.jpg

20240822_072446.jpg

20240822_071850.jpg

20240822_072130.jpg

20240822_072158.jpg
 
Last edited:
It’s the stern, I’m most focused on. She is sharp and narrow. That’s why McLean said her exit is as sharp as her entry. Great job Rich

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
It’s the stern, I’m most focused on. She is sharp and narrow. That’s why McLean said her exit is as sharp as her entry. Great job Rich

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
Thanks! Her dramatic 40" dead rise at half-floor is clearly obvious in some full ship images. She will truly build into a beautifully different model, possibly sharper than Cutty Sark.
 
Rob,
I gave a much longer description of our logical progression to this radically different interpretation of the forward forecastle on Stag Hound. However, once it's realized that the windlass mounted in her was a heavy iron geared 1850 patented Emerson-Walker device, decisions come into focus. High center of balance isn't desirable in any ship, especially one with a sharper prow than usual. So the most sensible solution is to place the heavier item down below. This has an added benefit of protecting all those gears from salt-water exposure. Once that solution is arrived at, now the entire aft bulkhead becomes the rear wall to sailor's accomodations 8 feet below. So we've arrived at this radically different solution, which is definitely how Flying Cloud and Flying Fish also would have appeared (unless you believe it's possible to work in a 4' 3" to 4' 9" crawl space).

20240829_185001.jpg

20240829_185522.jpg
 
Hmmm... Maybe I can still make some revisions and use this facade. I'd still have the Samson Post sticking up through the forecastle deck, Maybe explained away by having the bell mounted on it. The bitts can stay as is. I have a nice double action capstan to mount on the deck. The other one is removable with a little rubbing alcohol. the anchor chain and chain ports would have to go, and the holes filled. Thoughts?
More re-do but whattahell...
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Hmmm... Maybe I can still make some revisions and use this facade. I'd still have the Samson Post sticking up through the forecastle deck, Maybe explained away by having the bell mounted on it. The bitts can stay as is. I have a nice double action capstan to mount on the deck. The other one is removable with a little rubbing alcohol. the anchor chain and chain ports would have to go, and the holes filled. Thoughts?
More re-do but whattahell...
Click to expand...
Peter,
Every time I share our Stag Hound progress I wince thinking about the consternation it's causing you. That's not my intention at all. Rob and I are sharing insights we gain as we further evaluate the documents and their true meaning. If you feel compelled to redo your previous build, more power to you. On the other hand, if you just want to leave what you've done alone, just remember there are probably hundreds of bare stem Flying Cloud models out there!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top