Glory of the Seas 1869 by rwiederrich - FINISHED - 1/96 - medium clipper

[rwiederrich]

Interesting information can be gathered from this image.

Note: the person who took this image took  it from a standing position..aiming forward, just next to the mizzen mast.  Notice the extreme sheere in the deck moving forward. Validating that at least 7ft was her sheere.  If it can be agreed upon from this image.

Second:   Closeup and notice the curve of the prow, begins at the edge of the forecastle...if the forecastle length can be derived then the curve of the bow can be calculated, since we know the length of the hull to the knighthead.  Also...in every image of her bowsprit....it is clear her monkey rail concluded where the rail touches the sprit. So duducing this,we can gather that the forward curve of the return rail is minimal at best.  the width of the bowsprit itself.

 

Rob

Edited March 12, 2021 by rwiederrich

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

21 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Vladimir....thank you for applying your computer drafting skills to aid in bringing Glory alive 3 dimensionally.  I can't wait till we have some rock solid plans.

Your beginnings are coming along nicely, though I think the rake of the stem needs to be a bit more inclined...more like 8.5 degrees from vertical. 

 

Sweet job for sure.

 

Rob

Noted Rob. thank you youre way too kind to my minor contribution.v.

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

7 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Interesting information can be gathered from this image.

Note: the person who took this image took  it from a standing position..aiming forward, just next to the mizzen mast.  Notice the extreme sheere in the deck moving forward. Validating that at least 7ft was her sheere.  If it can be agreed upon from this image.

Second:   Closeup and notice the curve of the prow, begins at the edge of the forecastle...if the forecastle length can be derived then the curve of the bow can be calculated, since we know the length of the hull to the knighthead.  Also...in every image of her bowsprit....it is clear her monkey rail concluded where the rail touches the sprit. So duducing this,we can gather that the forward curve of the return rail is minimal at best.  the width of the bowsprit itself.

 

Rob

fantastic photo in that respect Rob! tip of the prowe can be almost seen, felt or sure.

[rwiederrich]

Rich...I still haven't seen Glory's hogging documentation....can you provide it?

 

Secondly...it is hard to imagine that Glory didn't stray too far from the Donald McKay's lines...cept for a slightly more vertical stem.  Notice her robust curve of her prow...quite similar to that of Glory's  IMV.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

5 minutes ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

fantastic photo in that respect Rob! tip of the prowe can be almost seen, felt or sure.

There is so much information in these images...we just need to draw it out and recreate it.

 

Rob

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

19 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

Before a commercially available 'Flying Fish' model became available, this fascinating authentic tracing of Donald McKay's Extreme Clipper 'Flying Fish' was published in a Nautical Research Journal magazine article. Look closely at the lower right corner, besides identifying this craft as 'Flying Fish' it identifies that this tracing originates from a Museum in, of all places Sweden.

It's documented that 'Flying Fish' had 4 1/2 Main Rail heights with a 16" Monkey Rail above that. These illustrations never include the Monkey Rail, nor do they illustrate the Naval Hoods which McKay's Clippers usually had too. 

I shared this because the Bow isn't a straight drop, it angles back in a graceful curve. Rob has calculated that Glory's Bow angles back at an 8 1/2' degree from 90 degrees verticle. Meanwhile, the commercially available 'Flying Fish' model, as impressive as it is, isn't accurate to the actual vessel in her Bow treatment. Her flying fish figurehead dangles precariously below in a way Donald McKay would never have done. 

The other image is of the "monster" Clipper 'Donald McKay'. British naval engineers actually took her lines when she was in Dry Dock, so these can be considered authentic. The pencil sketch of her masts, yards and sails are my conjectural work and can be disregarded. I've included this because this vessel is also considered a Medium Clipper. Look at her Bow and again there's no severely verticle prow. 

I'm beginning to suspect that due to her severe hogging (in 2 places towards her Foremast, there was 16' of distortion due to hogging) Glory's initial appearance has been marred. 

Thanks Rich I had a feeling it angles back towards bowsprit, i will check on it tmw as my eyes hurt already. I would say slightly though to the straight line, around nameplate it can be seen. there is no curve for sure.  thanks for pointing out, ill correct. V.

[ClipperFan]

41 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Interesting information can be gathered from this image.

Note: the person who took this image took  it from a standing position..aiming forward, just next to the mizzen mast.  Notice the extreme sheere in the deck moving forward. Validating that at least 7ft was her sheere.  If it can be agreed upon from this image.

Second:   Closeup and notice the curve of the prow, begins at the edge of the forecastle...if the forecastle length can be derived then the curve of the bow can be calculated, since we know the length of the hull to the knighthead.  Also...in every image of her bowsprit....it is clear her monkey rail concluded where the rail touches the sprit. So duducing this,we can gather that the forward curve of the return rail is minimal at best.  the width of the bowsprit itself.

 

Rob

Guys! I really hate to burst your bubble but Michael Mjelde emphatically confirmed to me that as much as this impressive Ship resembles her, she is NOT the "Glory of the Seas!"

Notice the large rectangular skylight in front of this vessel's Mizzen Mast. Such a device was never on "Glory of the Seas."

[ClipperFan]

33 minutes ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich...I still haven't seen Glory's hogging documentation....can you provide it?

 

Secondly...it is hard to imagine that Glory didn't stray too far from the Donald McKay's lines...cept for a slightly more vertical stem.  Notice her robust curve of her prow...quite similar to that of Glory's  IMV.

 

Rob

Rob,

As it's a pdf file, I will have to forward it to you in an email. Look for it.

[ClipperFan]

11 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

As it's a pdf file, I will have to forward it to you in an email. Look for it.

Rob,

I sent you the entire pdf page and then got creative. Using my wife's phone I took a picture of the diagram on her device, then emailed it to mine and viola! here it is for everyone to observe.

[ClipperFan]

31 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I sent you the entire pdf page and then got creative. Using my wife's phone I took a picture of the diagram on her device, then emailed it to mine and viola! here it is for everyone to observe.

Rob,

I just asked Mike to clarify my observation. With a 238' WL waterline and 235' SK Stern to Knightheads, it would have to mean that Glory's Stem at this point was not only severely verticle but actually tilted backwards 3 feet! If that were the case, it would make sense that her prow would be angled upwards which would also affect her Bowsprit steeve too. What also surprised me was what precipitated this poor condition was an entire loss of her protective yellow metal cladding and poor repairs done after she ran aground on a sandbar. In fact in 1910 Glory actually began to sink after having been anchored from March 1909 until February 1910 when her sinking condition was discovered. That led to a mandated Dry Docking. 

[rwiederrich]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Guys! I really hate to burst your bubble but Michael Mjelde emphatically confirmed to me that as much as this impressive Ship resembles her, she is NOT the "Glory of the Seas!"

Notice the large rectangular skylight in front of this vessel's Mizzen Mast. Such a device was never on "Glory of the Seas."

I wondered about that myself .  Far too many things are similar but that is incorrect I’m sure.  Lots to conside.

 

Rob

[rwiederrich]

7 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

I sent you the entire pdf page and then got creative. Using my wife's phone I took a picture of the diagram on her device, then emailed it to mine and viola! here it is for everyone to observe.

Terrible hogging.    Just terrible.  I bet this contributed to her exaggerated  bow

[rwiederrich]

8 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Guys! I really hate to burst your bubble but Michael Mjelde emphatically confirmed to me that as much as this impressive Ship resembles her, she is NOT the "Glory of the Seas!"

Notice the large rectangular skylight in front of this vessel's Mizzen Mast. Such a device was never on "Glory of the Seas."

Sorry folks.  I should have noticed the wood slats for rat lines on the mizzen too.   She has a single stick for a fore mast as the Glory did.  But she has her spreaders and not the add on back stays .......Too many similarities , but too many errors too. 
 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

17 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Sorry folks.  I should have noticed the wood slats for rat lines on the mizzen too.   She has a single stick for a fore mast as the Glory did.  But she has her spreaders and not the add on back stays .......Too many similarities , but too many errors too. 
 

Rob

Rob, no need to apologize. After all, the picture literally identifies the ship in the image as "Glory of the Seas." I actually thought it had to be her, due to that. My wondering if Glory had a third skylight had me question Mike which led him to clear up the mistake. 

[ClipperFan]

Jan/Feb 1992 "Seaways - Ships in Scale" has a very nice writeup on Medium Clipper 'Glory of the Seas' including a complete 1869 contemporary description of the vessel in specific details by Duncan MacLean, Boston Daily Atlas, article written by Michael J Mjelde.

Final image is another rare picture of her Goddess "Athene" figurehead, probably one of the raciest ones so far. It's amazing to admire the carving work on her grecian gown, once you can get beyond admiring her other, uhm assets....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by ClipperFan
Reorganizing pages in correct order

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

well Guys, I could not sleep last two nights . 

Probably her ghosts were hunting me There she is...

its quite meticulous work, I will continue working on detailing her when i have time..., looks like masts holes are what i forgot, need to find out angles. this is pretty much Michaels glorys design with reshaped bow, I would say it is ready for laser cut i am quite confident, only with little sanding due to tenths of milimeter. probably snug fit even better.

I put position for A bulkhead I consider optional, with centerline bulkhead already with shaped bowsprit angle and those important cheeks position. 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Vladimir_Wairoa
add

[ClipperFan]

53 minutes ago, ClipperFan said:

Jan/Feb 1992 "Seaways - Ships in Scale" has a very nice writeup on Medium Clipper 'Glory of the Seas' including a complete 1869 contemporary description of the vessel in specific details by Duncan MacLean, Boston Daily Atlas, article written by Michael J Mjelde.

Final image is another rare picture of her Goddess "Athene" figurehead, probably one of the raciest ones so far. It's amazing to admire the carving work on her grecian gown, once you can get beyond admiring her other, uhm assets....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried to upload these in progressive order but the site has a mind of it's own. Oh well, they're all here anyway.

[rwiederrich]

Rich. If you look with a discerning eye you will agree with me that there is something wrong in the image of Glory looking aft with her captain on the house.  It says this is Glory but it shows her with both fore and main masts made from single sticks and her mizzenmast as an iron banded composite mast. But when she was being fitted out for Alaska, she had a composite main mast wrapped in iron bands , the mizzenmast is a single stick.  That image is supposed to be years after the picture looking aft with her captain in the image.   How can that be?   Too many weird issues

Edited March 14, 2021 by rwiederrich

[rwiederrich]

5 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

well Guys, I could not sleep last two nights . 

Probably her ghosts were hunting me There she is...

its quite meticulous work, I will continue working on detailing her when i have time..., looks like masts holes are what i forgot, need to find out angles. this is pretty much Michaels glorys design with reshaped bow, I would say it is ready for laser cut i am quite confident, only with little sanding due to tenths of milimeter. probably snug fit even better.

I put position for A bulkhead I consider optional, with centerline bulkhead already with shaped bowsprit angle and those important cheeks position. 

 

 

Magnificent work Vladimir .  I do still have questions.  What scale is your drawing in?  The copper line on Glory is 22ft from her keel, and your drawing appears she has more.  The waterline to the rail at the jib boom is around 24~25 ft.  That means her hull above the waterline must be greater.  It appears less.  Am I correct?      Stunning work though.       

[rwiederrich]

I’m just amazed Vladimir.  Are you going to have laser cut bulkheads made?   How do you have that done?

[ClipperFan]

5 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

well Guys, I could not sleep last two nights . 

Probably her ghosts were hunting me There she is...

its quite meticulous work, I will continue working on detailing her when i have time..., looks like masts holes are what i forgot, need to find out angles. this is pretty much Michaels glorys design with reshaped bow, I would say it is ready for laser cut i am quite confident, only with little sanding due to tenths of milimeter. probably snug fit even better.

I put position for A bulkhead I consider optional, with centerline bulkhead already with shaped bowsprit angle and those important cheeks position. 

 

 

Vladimir,

I commend you on your enthusiasm in wanting to create your model of "Glory of the Seas." It also impresses me when I see the precisely clean lines computer aided drafting can accomplish. It's not my intention to dissuade your excitement but I want to point out some easily observable corrections you might want to make. If you look at a detail section of Glory's Bow, even without measuring it's apparent that her section above the waterline is taller above than below. Rob and I calculate that she's 25' above and 22' below at the apex of her Bow and she has a  -8 1/2 degree from 90 degree verticle Stem. Since that's been calculated from her 1869 scene on the Ways, it can be considered more reliable than later images which we now conclude are marred by up to 16' keel hogging. Your profile has Glory's Bow being lower above than below. If you add 3' to the 22' waterline, you'll have the accurate Bow height. 

Rob has also calculated her Naval Hoods to be 15' from her Bow to tip just 18" behind her 7 1/2' Grecian Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. Athene has now been determined to project 7 1/2' from the #1 iron band of the Bowsprit and 9' from where the Bowsprit emanates from the Bow. Then her flower endorned carved arch on the Cutwater actually has a larger width at its base than the section of Naval Hood above. While it seems to stay the same width, it gets just a little wider closer to the Bow. The 1877 image of Glory at a San Francisco dockside show this and also gives a clear indication of her graceful sheer which drops 7' at the center of her Main shrouds before gradually rising at a lower level at her stern.

Mike, myself and Rob have had a spirited debate about the 22.30 degree Bowsprit steeve. As I've constantly highlighted using other McKay Clippers, that angle of inclination doesn't fit evenly into an inches to feet measurement, which every other one of McKay's vessels do. For that reason, I still favor a 4 1/2" to 1' steeve or 20.60 degrees. That's about exactly the measurement of the latest crystal clear Bow and figurehead close up. 

At the base of her Stem there's a small, graceful curve which transitions to her keel. There's some confusion as to actual length of Glory's keel. In her actual registration it's given as 240.2' while the length in her Dry Dock measurement is 235'. Mike told me he believes the discrepancy is due an inability to place a keel block under the curve at the base of her Stem.  

One last observation is that your stern post appears to incline slightly backwards into her Hull. Maybe it's the angle at which your picture was taken, it's hard to tell. Either way, McKay's ships all had verticle sternposts or slightly inclined out. 

The last image shows Glory being towed to Alaska as a Salmon processing barge. If you look very closely at her Stern it's not flat across it rises ever so subtly towards her center. You'll see also that her Stern is more lightly formed than current plans, another issue I'm working to get corrected. 

I realize it's frustrating the pedantic pace we are going at but my sense is if you allow this process to evolve you'll be much happier with the more accurate model you'll get as a result.

[ClipperFan]

Just now, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

I commend you on your enthusiasm in wanting to create your model of "Glory of the Seas." It also impresses me when I see the precisely clean lines computer aided drafting can accomplish. It's not my intention to dissuade your excitement but I want to point out some easily observable corrections you might want to make. If you look at a detail section of Glory's Bow, even without measuring it's apparent that her section above the waterline is taller above than below. Rob and I calculate that she's 25' above and 22' below at the apex of her Bow and she has a  -8 1/2 degree from 90 degree verticle Stem. Since that's been calculated from her 1869 scene on the Ways, it can be considered more reliable than later images which we now conclude are marred by up to 16' keel hogging. Your profile has Glory's Bow being lower above than below. If you add 3' to the 22' waterline, you'll have the accurate Bow height. 

Rob has also calculated her Naval Hoods to be 15' from her Bow to tip just 18" behind her 7 1/2' Grecian Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. Athene has now been determined to project 7 1/2' from the #1 iron band of the Bowsprit and 9' from where the Bowsprit emanates from the Bow. Then her flower endorned carved arch on the Cutwater actually has a larger width at its base than the section of Naval Hood above. While it seems to stay the same width, it gets just a little wider closer to the Bow. The 1877 image of Glory at a San Francisco dockside show this and also gives a clear indication of her graceful sheer which drops 7' at the center of her Main shrouds before gradually rising at a lower level at her stern.

Mike, myself and Rob have had a spirited debate about the 22.30 degree Bowsprit steeve. As I've constantly highlighted using other McKay Clippers, that angle of inclination doesn't fit evenly into an inches to feet measurement, which every other one of McKay's vessels do. For that reason, I still favor a 4 1/2" to 1' steeve or 20.60 degrees. That's about exactly the measurement of the latest crystal clear Bow and figurehead close up. 

At the base of her Stem there's a small, graceful curve which transitions to her keel. There's some confusion as to actual length of Glory's keel. In her actual registration it's given as 240.2' while the length in her Dry Dock measurement is 235'. Mike told me he believes the discrepancy is due an inability to place a keel block under the curve at the base of her Stem.  

One last observation is that your stern post appears to incline slightly backwards into her Hull. Maybe it's the angle at which your picture was taken, it's hard to tell. Either way, McKay's ships all had verticle sternposts or slightly inclined out. 

The last image shows Glory being towed to Alaska as a Salmon processing barge. If you look very closely at her Stern it's not flat across it rises ever so subtly towards her center. You'll see also that her Stern is more lightly formed than current plans, another issue I'm working to get corrected. 

I realize it's frustrating the pedantic pace we are going at but my sense is if you allow this process to evolve you'll be much happier with the more accurate model you'll get as a result.

 

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, rwiederrich said:

Rich. If you look with a discerning eye you will agree with me that there is something wrong in the image of Glory looking aft with her captain on the house.  It says this is Glory but it shows her with both fore and main masts made from single sticks and her mizzenmast as an iron banded composite mast. But when she was being fitted out for Alaska, she had a composite main mast wrapped in iron bands , the mizzenmast is a single stick.  That image is supposed to be years after the picture looking aft with her captain in the image.   How can that be?   Too many weird issues

Rob,

Since this image originates from Michael Mjelde's first book I accept that it's genuine. Mike assured me in one of his emails that his process to verify every photo involved talking to members of the crew to verify their credibility. I do remember reading that in her long years of service, Glory went through multiple refits. The most logical explanation is that at some point, her Fore and Main Masts were replaced with 'solid sticks' and later replaced again with correctly built ones.

[ClipperFan]

Michael Mjelde just sent Rob and I a copy of an email he sent to Ron Haug's daughter Annie. In it, Mike refers to a 1935 India House publication "The Marine Collection at India House." (reprinted in 1973 by Wesleyan University Press, co-publisher's of Mike's first book "Glory of the Seas"in 1970). Page 51 details Glory's Goddess 'Athene' figurehead. It too confirms what I discovered in a recent Antiques Carving Magazine. "Glory of the Seas" indeed had a figurehead of exactly 90" (7 1/2') tall. Mike said verifying this fact will allow us to attain a higher degree of accuracy in our combined efforts to recreate "Glory of the Seas" He thanks Annie for her dad's attention to detail, which should satisfy everyone involved in recreating "Glory of the Seas."

Edited March 14, 2021 by ClipperFan
additional information

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

2 hours ago, rwiederrich said:

Magnificent work Vladimir .  I do still have questions.  What scale is your drawing in?  The copper line on Glory is 22ft from her keel, and your drawing appears she has more.  The waterline to the rail at the jib boom is around 24~25 ft.  That means her hull above the waterline must be greater.  It appears less.  Am I correct?      Stunning work though.       

thanks Rob. well its water lien mark from Michaels book but frankly im not certain could it be 2 wl mark maybe? 

tmw evening i will play with bowsprit ans mast angles. i will need a bit of your sharp eye with adjusting to achieve 21 degrees at the mast touch guys , but its just a littel doinciding with cheek tip. im probably willing to sacrifice one degree as i know if i move that cheek a tiny bit  i will destroy  the shape of it completely what i dont want...more of it tmw. well yes, i got last year friendly contact to one guy who made me cut already for quite a cheapish price so im going to have it definitely cut. i can work around late summer / autumn on hull ...and thinking of researching for deck and cabins thri next winter along zull is completed. pretty exciting plans. once i have her on paper im a bit more donfident. till then V . 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

1 hour ago, ClipperFan said:

 

Thanks Richard i take it favourably as a big help in process. i will show all degrees tomorrow nevertheelss i spent paintstaking time and work already and would be foolish if i ignored your wisdom. already seted calculations abotu masts and there are some discrepancies bettween Michaels drawing and ohotographs observed already...bowsprit oh well. wont allow me 20  degreed or - i have hood positioned rather agressively with tip facing a  little too more into bowsprit....

with that line it might not represent waterlone its either 2 wl or bulkhead cut position mark taken from book draw....oh by the way @Rob, there is no scale atm i work in percentage scaling so i can size her whatever screen allows ... thanks for sternpost mentioning yes i took it from Michael drawing  i will straighten it tmw. 

I expect there to be some compromises and probably even slight measure offlinesin my hull but i dont expect fundamental flaws at this point. when i see wghat some  companies did to cutty sark stern shape...i mean .... mess by mess....

[ClipperFan]

1 hour ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Thanks Richard i take it favourably as a big help in process. i will show all degrees tomorrow nevertheelss i spent paintstaking time and work already and would be foolish if i ignored your wisdom. already seted calculations abotu masts and there are some discrepancies bettween Michaels drawing and ohotographs observed already...bowsprit oh well. wont allow me 20  degreed or - i have hood positioned rather agressively with tip facing a  little too more into bowsprit....

with that line it might not represent waterlone its either 2 wl or bulkhead cut position mark taken from book draw....oh by the way @Rob, there is no scale atm i work in percentage scaling so i can size her whatever screen allows ... thanks for sternpost mentioning yes i took it from Michael drawing  i will straighten it tmw. 

I expect there to be some compromises and probably even slight measure offlinesin my hull but i dont expect fundamental flaws at this point. when i see wghat some  companies did to cutty sark stern shape...i mean .... mess by mess....

Vladimir,

Michael Mjelde confirmed he used the 1869 fitting out broadside photo as primary resource for his plans. He admits that in doing so that perspective wasn't taken into consideration nearly enough and as a result inaccuracies occurred. Definitely noticable have been the lower compressed Bow, more verticle Stem, diminutive figurehead, emphasized Stern and I'm sure Mast  distances would be off too, since closer masts would be emphasized while those in the distance would be closer and slightly diminished. Rob and I have been working to counteract these discrepancies in order to get a more accurate set of plans. 

[Vladimir_Wairoa]

5 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Vladimir,

Michael Mjelde confirmed he used the 1869 fitting out broadside photo as primary resource for his plans. He admits that in doing so that perspective wasn't taken into consideration nearly enough and as a result inaccuracies occurred. Definitely noticable have been the lower compressed Bow, more verticle Stem, diminutive figurehead, emphasized Stern and I'm sure Mast  distances would be off too, since closer masts would be emphasized while those in the distance would be closer and slightly diminished. Rob and I have been working to counteract these discrepancies in order to get a more accurate set of plans. 

Apreciated Richard, thank you. I will go to drawingboard  by evening. My assumption masts position might be off also proves some photos. Distance of  foremast is way forward in his placing i can say for sure. V. 

[rwiederrich]

13 hours ago, ClipperFan said:

Rob,

Since this image originates from Michael Mjelde's first book I accept that it's genuine. Mike assured me in one of his emails that his process to verify every photo involved talking to members of the crew to verify their credibility. I do remember reading that in her long years of service, Glory went through multiple refits. The most logical explanation is that at some point, her Fore and Main Masts were replaced with 'solid sticks' and later replaced again with correctly built ones.

I too would make that conclusion...if I knew for sure that that actually happened.  We do know when she had the stick mods done and about the year...but to return her mainmast BACK to a composite mast from a simpler stick mast was never made clear...if that even happened.  Not to mention her mizzen mast issues.

The reason I bring up this inconsistency...is.. it might lend validity to her poop having mods done on her twin skylights.  Which might explain that inconsistency in the image that was mistaken for her.  Because in that image it does show that she had a main and mizzen masts that were composite and a single stick mast for her fore.  It does show that she did indeed have her fore rail on her poop cabin modified when her boats were shifted to the Boy's cabin roof.   It's just odd to see mods being done in this image to whatever ship that is, that were done to Glory.

 

It's all odd to me.  This is why building an accurate model of her during any particular point in time has to be so critically researched...because she changed so much.

 

Rob

[ClipperFan]

4 hours ago, Vladimir_Wairoa said:

Apreciated Richard, thank you. I will go to drawingboard  by evening. My assumption masts position might be off also proves some photos. Distance of  foremast is way forward in his placing i can say for sure. V. 

Vladimir,

In Lars Bruzelius's excellent website there are many descriptions of Clipper Ships of many nations. Much of Duncan MacLean's articles for Boston Daily Atlas are included. The specific distances of all three masts of McKay's Extreme Clipper "Staghound" are precisely listed. Distance between perpendiculars on deck was 215'. Here are the distances, (c) = center:

 

Stem to Foremast (c) 50'

Foremast (c) to Main Mast (c) 67'

Main Mast (c) to Mizzen Mast (c) 56' Mizzen Mast (c)  to Sternpost 42'

 

Math determines percentage of deck results with these calculations for "Glory of the Seas" known to have had a 250' distance on deck between perpendiculars:

 

50' ÷ 215 = 23% x 250 = 58'

67 ÷ 215 = 31% × 250 = 78'

56' ÷ 215 = 26% × 250 = 65'

42 ÷ 215 = 19.5% × 250 = 49'

 

Of course, this is making an assumption. McKay followed same formula for placement of masts. If he did, then these would be the same distances for "Glory of the Seas":

 

Stem to Foremast (c) 58'

Foremast (c) to Main Mast (c) 78'

Main Mast (c) to Mizzen Mast (c) 65'

Mizzen Mast (c) to Stern Post 49'

 

Of course, if there's photographic evidence that clearly contradicts these conclusions, I would say that would be our most reliable source.