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

Again, the more you try to magnify the reality of your subject, the fuzzier the outlines get. I went with the high deck because that's what my sets of plans agreed on.
My sole resources along with Crothers, at the time.
 
Peter Gutterman said:
Again, the more you try to magnify the reality of your subject, the fuzzier the outlines get. I went with the high deck because that's what my sets of plans agreed on.
My sole resources along with Crothers, at the time.
Click to expand...
Pete,
Just because a detail is fuzzy doesn't mean it's not there. If you're familiar with woodcuts, you know artists are very specific in their details. Other contemporay illustrations include this illusory detail. Meanwhile, as you continue with your build, it may be a benefit to cross-check your existing plans with the April 25th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas description. There's no harm in doing this and it may aid in confirming your existing plans. Here it is in full detail:

 
It’s highly probable that McKay requested paintings of his ships to be elusive when it came to his hoods. Or possibly the artist was so indoctrinated from painting so many “other” ships, that the feature fell by the wayside. Being unfamiliar with the structure an all. They failed to recognize its structural significance.
It’s true McKay didn’t just think it up for Glory of the Seas…..no more then he just thought up every other detail he repeated on his clippers.
Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
It’s highly probable that McKay requested paintings of his ships to be elusive when it came to his hoods. Or possibly the artist was so indoctrinated from painting so many “other” ships, that the feature fell by the wayside. Being unfamiliar with the structure an all. They failed to recognize its structural significance.
It’s true McKay didn’t just think it up for Glory of the Seas…..no more then he just thought up every other detail he repeated on his clippers.
Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
I know this word is overused but it's tough trying to come up with an appropriate synonym. This navel hood overlapping the blended cutwater is a truly uniquely overlooked design. Contrary to head boards and trail boards, which are really not much more than decorative embellishments, the McKay navel hood particularly is really an ingenious hull extension which serves multiple functions. It reinforces hull integrity at its greatest pressure point relative to opposing seas, it provides a battering ram quality strength to support the bowsprit-jibboom and it's a protective shelter for these vessels beautiful figureheads. I particulary now believe this feature is a big part of why Duncan McLean referred to Stag Hound as "her model may be said to be the original of a new idea in naval architecture." This is further reinforced by Cornelius McKay's description of Stag Hound as "the  Pioneer craft of the California Fleet."
 
rwiederrich said:
It’s highly probable that McKay requested paintings of his ships to be elusive when it came to his hoods. Or possibly the artist was so indoctrinated from painting so many “other” ships, that the feature fell by the wayside. Being unfamiliar with the structure an all. They failed to recognize its structural significance.
It’s true McKay didn’t just think it up for Glory of the Seas…..no more then he just thought up every other detail he repeated on his clippers.
Rob
Click to expand...
ClipperFan said:
Pete,
Just because a detail is fuzzy doesn't mean it's not there. If you're familiar with woodcuts, you know artists are very specific in their details. Other contemporay illustrations include this illusory detail. Meanwhile, as you continue with your build, it may be a benefit to cross-check your existing plans with the April 25th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas description. There's no harm in doing this and it may aid in confirming your existing plans. Here it is in full detail:

Click to expand...
Peter,
I've lightened and sharpened the previous tiny image to hopefully make it a little easier to identify details. As I said before, the woodcut artist intentionally used alternative vertical lines to emphasize the difference in this device. There's a distinct triangular shape just above and behind the trumpet bearing winged angel figurehead. Just behind where the angel's feet would rest is the gracefully curving cutwater. This piece is an extension of her stem.
To get an idea how dramatically different this somewhat crude but actually highly accurate illustration this is, compare this treatment to the bare stem prow on the otherwise impressive Boucher Flying Cloud model. The angel figurehead is simply tacked onto the bare stem.

20240903_214852.jpg

20240818_094204.jpg
 
ClipperFan said:
Pete,
Just because a detail is fuzzy doesn't mean it's not there. If you're familiar with woodcuts, you know artists are very specific in their details. Other contemporay illustrations include this illusory detail. Meanwhile, as you continue with your build, it may be a benefit to cross-check your existing plans with the April 25th, 1851 Boston Daily Atlas description. There's no harm in doing this and it may aid in confirming your existing plans. Here it is in full detail:

Click to expand...
I have a printout of the whole thing and just re-read it all again yesterday for just the reason you suggested. Thumbsup
 
Peter Gutterman said:
I have a printout of the whole thing and just re-read it all again yesterday for just the reason you suggested. Thumbsup
Click to expand...
I have to admit to an ignorance of one of the terms that reoccurs throughout this thread. Being primarily a modeler of warships, I have never heard of "naval hood". But, being forced to understand this unique term, I did my necessary research. Thanks gentlemen!

Bill
 
WilliamM said:
I have to admit to an ignorance of one of the terms that reoccurs throughout this thread. Being primarily a modeler of warships, I have never heard of "naval hood". But, being forced to understand this unique term, I did my necessary research. Thanks gentlemen!

Bill
Click to expand...
Bill....that same situation faced Rich and myself....when we first delved into the mysterious structure. Generally, all wooden structures within a commercial sailing ship, (clippers in particular) have unique nomenclature. It wasn't till an Indepth study of McKay designed clippers where we introduced to this term ourselves.
Unlocking the secrets of the competitive, industrious mind of Donald McKay...has been as exciting as building models of his ships.

Rob
 
ClipperFan said:
Peter,
I've lightened and sharpened the previous tiny image to hopefully make it a little easier to identify details. As I said before, the woodcut artist intentionally used alternative vertical lines to emphasize the difference in this device. There's a distinct triangular shape just above and behind the trumpet bearing winged angel figurehead. Just behind where the angel's feet would rest is the gracefully curving cutwater. This piece is an extension of her stem.
To get an idea how dramatically different this somewhat crude but actually highly accurate illustration this is, compare this treatment to the bare stem prow on the otherwise impressive Boucher Flying Cloud model. The angel figurehead is simply tacked onto the bare stem.

View attachment 469228

View attachment 469229
Click to expand...
Rich....this is the style of ornamentation circling the howes hole that I understand for Staghound..

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
Rich....this is the style of ornamentation circling the howes hole that I understand for Staghound..

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
Ornamentaion circling a howes hole doesn't make much sense to me. Consider that the function is an opening to constantly release heavy iron chains at high speed and then retract them hoisting heavy anchors. Why on earth would any sensible nautical designer specify carved, gilded ornamentation around such an area where it can be damaged and even wiped out? I believe this is artistic license not understanding a vessel's true structure. Again, I feel this can be attributed to complete unfamiliarity with McKay's radically different navel hood, cutwater bow structures. I believe that the ornamentation on Stag Hound most likely was identical as to that seen on Glory of the Seas. This just seems to be the most practical solution.
 
Last edited:
ClipperFan said:
Rob,
Ornamentaion circiling a howes hole doesn't make much sense to me. Consider that the function is an opening to constantly release heavy iron chains at high speed snd then retract them hoisting heavy anchors. Why on earth would any sensible nautical designer specify carved, gilded ornamentation around such an area where it can be damaged and even wiped out? I believe this is artistic license not understanding a vessel's true structure. Again, I feel this can be attributed to complete unfamiliarity with McKay's radically different navel hood, cutwater bow structures. I believe that the ornamentation on Stag Hound most likely was identical as to that seen on Glory of the Seas. This just seems to be the most practical solution.
Click to expand...
Then My understanding of McLeans description is unclear....or his description is unclear. I fully agree with you. Why ornament a feature that is definitely going to receive embracive contact. It makes more sense as built on Glory of the Seas. The ornamentation itself is that found on the hood...it is in front and above ,and on the stem. Hence *around*.

Rob
 
WilliamM said:
I have to admit to an ignorance of one of the terms that reoccurs throughout this thread. Being primarily a modeler of warships, I have never heard of "naval hood". But, being forced to understand this unique term, I did my necessary research. Thanks gentlemen!

Bill
Click to expand...
Bill,
Where Rob and I had our breakthrough in grasping the uniqueness of the McKay bow was being able to see many clear photographs of them installed on the Glory of the Seas. It drives home the reality of the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words."
rwiederrich said:
Then My understanding of McLeans description is unclear....or his description is unclear. I fully agree with you. Why ornament a feature that is definitely going to receive embracive contact. It makes more sense as built on Glory of the Seas. The ornamentation itself is that found on the hood...it is in front and above ,and on the stem. Hence *around*.

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
I've come to realize that Duncan McLean's fascination with a ship's ornamentation is at best minimal. He's far more descriptive with a vessel's nuts and bolts structure than any of her decorations.
 
ClipperFan said:
Bill,
Where Rob and I had our breakthrough in grasping the uniqueness of the McKay bow was being able to see many clear photographs of them installed on the Glory of the Seas. It drives home the reality of the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words."

Rob,
I've come to realize that Duncan McLean's fascination with a ship's ornamentation is at best minimal. He's far more descriptive with a vessel's nuts and bolts structure than any of her decorations.
Click to expand...
Bill,
Here's the visual difference between
(1) the famous clipper Great Admiral which features an ornamental cutwater but no navel hood.
(2) the McKay clipper Glory of the Seas which has the greatly misunderstood navel hood, cutwater bow.
(3) the clipper Seaman's Bride which has headboards and trailboards.
PRG-1373-79-15.jpeg.jpg.842e28bdf60607656141094192458f85.jpg

20240703_103746.jpg

17581-0-sc2.jpg
 
Rich....have you noticed the turnbuckle type apparatuses on the Great Admiral....just about where the naval hood would be on a McKay vessel? I wonder what the significance of these iron fixtures where? Again...without the significant structural modification...such as was with the *Hood*, the cutwater could easily be damaged by lateral action caused by a significant wave impact.

Rob
 
I believe that this chain is there to help offset vertical forces acting on the cut water. These are first the weight of the cutwater, and second inertial forces from pitching of the ship. While the navel hood supports the upper outboard end of the cutwater, there is a less supported area below. These forces could separate the cutwater and pull the stem loose from the hood ends of the planking. See crude diagram below. S is the upward force, W is static weight, and I is inertial force.

Roger

IMG_0121.jpeg
 
I am sure naval architects addressed these forces by the means present on the Great Admiral. McKay tackled the issue you identified by way of his “Naval Hood”. He appears to be the only builder designer who used his ingenious structure.

Rob
 
rwiederrich said:
Rich....have you noticed the turnbuckle type apparatuses on the Great Admiral....just about where the naval hood would be on a McKay vessel? I wonder what the significance of these iron fixtures where? Again...without the significant structural modification...such as was with the *Hood*, the cutwater could easily be damaged by lateral action caused by a significant wave impact.

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,
I didn't see that until you identified that. Do you think it's original or a reinforcement add-on later? I did see that the sheerline molding extends into a slimmer truncated navel hood type extension which curves gracefully up and over Admiral Farragut's figurehead. Clearly not as substantial as a full navel hood but it has the additional reinforcement of blending into the vessel's prow. You can see the dark triangular shadow just beneath where the molding clears the bow.
Roger Pellett said:
I believe that this chain is there to help offset vertical forces acting on the cut water. These are first the weight of the cutwater, and second inertial forces from pitching of the ship. While the navel hood supports the upper outboard end of the cutwater, there is a less supported area below. These forces could separate the cutwater and pull the stem loose from the hood ends of the planking. See crude diagram below. S is the upward force, W is static weight, and I is inertial force.

Roger

View attachment 469482
Click to expand...
Roger,
Thanks for your clear physics lesson. Your illustration while "crude" by your own terms is also quite effective. By this demonstration, you also reinforce the inventive brilliance of the vastly superior McKay navel hood integrated into the sturdy cutwater design. Cornelius McKay was absolutely right when he referred to his dad's premiere extreme clipper Stag Hound as "The Pioneer craft of the California Fleet." From what we can tell, Donald McKay first introduced his revolutionary prow design with full intent of besting the toughest seas of Cape Horn in this inaugural clipper. I wonder if this marvelous structural integrity might have also given sturdy McKay clippers an efficiency advantage in sailing? Could this in part be due to their remarkable ability to pierce through mighty seas that others could have had a tough time with?

GreatAdmirale.jpeg
 
Rob,
Here's the revised fo'c'sle bulkhead with all revisions we discussed:
(1) Companions are moved inward for sensible clearance below.
(2) twin outer ladders now reside where companions were before.
(3) splashrail height is now 14" down 4" to provide 32" fo'c'sle height.

20240905_193524.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top