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

No Problem. I just want to get as close as I am able to the latest thinking while still possible with this model.
If it proves to be too big a hassle, I'll be happy to be content in the corner I've painted myself into. I've already sat in front of the model mulling it over and weighing the risk-reward factor.
 
Here's the completely revised Stag Hound aft section with 44' poop deck. Once Rob clarified that the Captain's 12' x18' stateroom was actually in the starboard poop deck, that widened it by at least 7'. That dimension is arrived at by adding 24' (12' outer cabins × 2 + 13' for a total of 37'.
Looking down on the plan, starboard is above, port is below. The Captain's large 12' wide by 18' deep stateroom abuts the fore poop deck bulkhead, aft is an 8' deep recess, then a 6' deep Steward's cabin, aft of that is the 4' deep starboard watercloset, which would now be opposite each other in a 4' deep hallway with dual access doors to the large stern apartment accommodation for a family with double berths. In center is still the 13' wide × 32' deep great room with a forward salon and aft pantry. Port side apartments consist of a 12' wide × 10' deep First Mate's cabin which abuts the fore poop deck bulkhead. Aft of that is the Second Mate's 8' deep cabin, another 8' recess, the Third Mate's 6' deep cabin and the 4' deep port watercloset. Little circles on deck are prisims. Since there's no other light source I added a deck prism over both WCs. There's two deck prisms with corresponding portholes for the Captain's stateroom since it's so large. All other deck furniture remains the same.

20240827_144916.jpg
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Would Flying Cloud have had the ladder and railings on the coach house (portico)?
Wonderful drawing, as always, by the way.
Click to expand...
Peter,
How Rob and I decided that such a safety rail made sense was taking into account the fall risk for not having one. The poop deck is 5 feet high and the portico has to be 8'6" to clear 32" high safety rails. To us, it just makes common sense that there would have been railings.
 
WilliamM said:
I know that I have followed everything you gentlemen have posted! Thank you!

Bill
Click to expand...
Bill,
You're welcome. My ultimate hope is someday the true beauty of Flying Cloud and other McKay clipper ships will be fully and historically accurately realized. Our years long investigation into Glory of the Seas where author Michael Mjelde was an irreplaceable resource, convinced me that she is the "Rosetta Stone" of McKay's wondrous vessels.
 
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
I want to be sure that I know who both Bills are. I've been in contact recently with Bill-R: and seem to remember the other fellow as possibly William? Can you give me the other fellow's ID so I can be sure? Thanks!
Click to expand...
William M (Morrison), Bill-R (Ramsey)
 
Roger Pellett said:
I have read and enjoyed Michael Mjelde’ two books . Has he published a third?
Click to expand...
Roger Pellett:
Here's Michael Mjelde's third publication involving the incredibly long lived career of Donald McKay's final medium clipper Glory of the Seas. After I had already paid full price for my copy, Mike's friend Rob Wiederrich informed me that Mike had a discount coupon available. He also lives close enough to Mike to get autographed copies too. If you're interested, I'll see what it cost to do that.

71yelZt1VRL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
 
Last edited:
ClipperFan said:
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 elk there are probably hundreds of bare stem Flying Cloud models out there!
Click to expand...
I agree. We want to help folks build better more accurate models……however……some rebuilding carnage must happen. Been there, done that.

Rob
 
If it’s possible to get a signed copy of his new book I’d like one. My second volume is signed too. Otherwise I’ll use Amazon.

Incidentally, I am also acquainted with Jim Delgado. He has been featured as a speaker twice at our Gales of November conference here in Duluth. One year I was his “duty driver” and we spent the afternoon aboard the whaleback steamship SS Meteor. He later wrote one of the Blurbs (yes that’s a publishing term) for my whaleback history book. He’s an interesting guy.

Roger
 
rwiederrich said:
He does show a windless....but I'm wondering where Crothers got his drawings data from?

View attachment 466188
Click to expand...
The location of the forecastle deck on my Flying Cloud model conforms with the above drawing. I did not include the companion way, but it would not be visible.
I located the heads in the "wings". The entries into the water closets would be a little cramped. If I had hand made my winch instead of using an aftermarket part I would have left a little more wiggle room. But call me lazy. Once this thing is finished, who's gonna even see it? (Except maybe Rob and Rich...:p)
 
I would argue against calling into question Duncan McClean's published observations. They were, after all, firsthand and so detailed in their descriptions, what possible purpose would there be in being cavalier in his observations. His job was to report on the latest innovations in a vital industry, as exciting in its' day as the space program was in the 1960s.
 
Peter Gutterman said:
I would argue against calling into question Duncan McClean's published observations. They were, after all, firsthand and so detailed in their descriptions, what possible purpose would there be in being cavalier in his observations. His job was to report on the latest innovations in a vital industry, as exciting in its' day as the space program llwas in the 1960s.
Click to expand...
Peter,
That's exactly the same conclusion Rob and I arrived at too. Only if we found other reliable documentation to refute him. One example is the published 1 & 1/2" rake per foot in the Boston Daily Atlas. Two other sources state it was 1 & 1/4" per foot. In this case, it was non other than Donald's son Cornelius who listed all mast rakes as 4.2" per foot, not the 4 & 1/2" as reported in the paper. Still, unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, we're following the statistics as coming from the McKay shipyard.
 
To people like me interested in the history of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering these mid-Nineteenth Century merchant vessels were built during an interesting period. Builders were beginning to use the products of the Industrial Revolution aboard their ships. The winches, capstans and windlasses were part of this. The availability of cast iron and machined parts meant that the windlass could now be driven by a capstan meaning more hands pushing. With the advent of steam, the reverse was true; steam power drove the windlass which could be connected to the capstan on the forecastle deck above.

There is an interesting series of articles in the Nautical Research Journal about the Mid Nineteenth Century adoption of this new shipboard technology. The series ran from the mid 1970 into the 1980’s. The article uses the Packet S hip Ocean Monarch as an example but much would apply to the clippers as well.

Roger
 
Peter Gutterman said:
The location of the forecastle deck on my Flying Cloud model conforms with the above drawing. I did not include the companion way, but it would not be visible.
I located the heads in the "wings". The entries into the water closets would be a little cramped. If I had hand made my winch instead of using an aftermarket part I would have left a little more wiggle room. But call me lazy. Once this thing is finished, who's gonna even see it? (Except maybe Rob and Rich...:p)
Click to expand...
Rob,
From this painting of clipper ship Chariot of Fame, apparently in English waters it's clear she had a high forecastle deck, from the depiction of crew working there. This also confirms once again that Donald McKay definitely omitted his now trademark bow. The painting also shows what appears to be carved gilded navel hoods and cutwater. Neither of these are included in McKay's own sketch. The other thing that I wonder about from Crothers' illustration is the somewhat large size of the windlass and confusing placement of an internal companion.

20240902_142634.jpg
 
Beautiful painting Rich. I agree completely....That McKay was secretive....however, I'm not convinced of the depiction of the naval hood and cutwater. It appears to be very ornate on the cheeks and the figurehead. The image is not clear enough.

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
Beautiful painting Rich. I agree completely....That McKay was secretive....however, I'm not convinced of the depiction of the naval hood and cutwater. It appears to be very ornate on the cheeks and the figurehead. The image is not clear enough.

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
The image doesn't have high enough resolution, for sure. However, I believe by the difference in the appearance of this vessel's bow and the somewhat vague depiction by McKay's own hand that there's something "fishy" going on. The highly ornate cheeks, to me support the idea of cutwater beneath navel hoods. It strikes me that artists sort of had fits trying to depict this combination. Even the very first illustration of the launch of Flying Cloud has them but it's damnably difficult to see. It's basically a dark triangle just above and behind the winged angel. Then the cutwater extends the stem profile and supports the figurehead, identically as we see on Glory of the Seas. Considering the great distance these artists would have had to of been to get an entire ship in their view, such details must also have been very hard to identify. I've enlarged the bow so you can see that blurry, dark triangular section from the launch of Flying Cloud original woodcut.

clipper-ship-flying-cloud-launched-boston-5886571.jpg.webp

20240903_171220.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top