A couple of likely candidates...
With the help of Alessandro and encouragement of others, a couple of 'base' existing model options have been looked at.
But, before I go any further, there is a potential complication, and possible part reason for the Tayluer's quick demise.
As mentioned earlier, the Tayluer's masts were said to be set further apart and more towards the aft end than standard 'clippers' of the time.
Research has shown that the Tayluer was originally commissioned as a screw steamer, but her design was modified during construction to accommodate sail propulsion.
It appears, therefore, the hull may have already been partially constructed for a large steam engine at this point, which meant the infrastructure required to mount masts was missing midships, forcing the main and mizzen masts towards the rear of the vessel.
"
That's a significant claim about her genesis, and it would indeed neatly explain the Grantham-style fuller midsections — but given your standard of verification, let me check it before we fold it into the record:
The claim is partly corroborated and partly needs pinning down — let me get the full paragraph from the Moore Group archaeology page, since its snippet cuts off right where it explains what "this modification" was:
Verified — and it's better than "could explain." The archaeological assessment of the wreck (Moore Group, citing MacGregor, 1973) states it outright:
"The ship was originally designed as a screw steamer but whilst on the blocks its form was changed to that of a clipper owing to the lack of availability of a suitable engine."
And the consequence was the mid-build dimensional jump we noted earlier: from 204 × 36 × 23 ft as laid down to 225 × 39.4 × 27.6 ft as launched. Her genesis as a screw steamer now explains three things that previously looked like anomalies:
The Grantham resemblance. The lugnad.ie analysis finding her sections matched John Grantham's auxiliary-steamer drawings isn't coincidental — she was laid down to Grantham's consulting brief for the Bank Quay Foundry, whose shipbuilding programme (11 iron vessels, 1852–55, per MacGregor via Starkey) was steeped in steamer work. The Bank Quay foundry had built paddle steamers through the 1840s before moving to ocean-going iron vessels.
The retention of steamer architecture. Per the Moore Group assessment, the designers kept the large hold "allowing for the possible refit of the vessel with a steam engine at a later date" — hence the three decks, box keelson, and deep hold that puzzled us relative to Flying Cloud.
The reason she couldn't turn at Lambay. This is the historically significant part: the steamer-derived hold placement forced the main and mizzen masts further aft than sailing-ship practice, at the expense of balance. The article links this aft shift directly to her poor response and handling difficulty — compounding the undersized rudder and the 17-degree uncompensated compass deviation. She was, in a real sense, lost to a design compromise made eighteen months before she ever tasted salt water.
The critical implication for your model
This is now the single most important divergence from Flying Cloud plans, and one I'd previously missed: mast placement. If you adapt McKay's rig using Flying Cloud's mast stations, you'll reproduce exactly the error Tayleur's builders didn't make. Your modified plan needs the main and mizzen stepped noticeably further aft than the American convention — the contemporary illustrations referenced in the Moore Group article are the check on how far. That's also a detail worth capturing, not smoothing over: the aft-set rig is Tayleur's most distinctive visible signature, visible in her profile silhouette.
Secondary build notes flowing from the steamer genesis: consider modelling the hull as originally lofted (204 ft) versus as launched (225 ft) only if you're documenting the design evolution — otherwise, as-launched dimensions. And the huge hold means a plausibly cavernous hatch spacing fore-and-aft compared to McKay ships.
The MacGregor reference (David MacGregor, 1973 — likely The Tea Clippers or its predecessor work on British iron ships; I'd want to confirm which title before you chase it) is now the key secondary source alongside Vicary and the lugnad half-model analysis. Want me to verify which MacGregor title carries this account, or shall we move to drafting the Dún Laoghaire enquiry with this added context? The steamer-origin story strengthens the case for requesting the half-model documentation considerably — it makes her hull historically unique among clipper survivors.
"
So, where to next...?
Cheers.
