Working out the correct height of the masts from the Deck

[DaveBaxt]

I am currently having problems working out whether or not the lower masts are the correct height from the deck. According to the book ''The rigging of ships by RC Anderson the Cap of the mizzen mast should be about half way up the mast head of the main mast and it is not . It is much lower. So something is not quite right. What made me check this is due to when checking the clearance between shrouds and the bulwark capping rail is less than zero, ie they are touching. Although the mizzen channel is only half the width of the main channel, I have checked that the channel is in the correct position, as is the wale upon which the channel is fitted.

              When reading from the length of masts in various books etc it is always in relation to the Beam of the vessel or length of the keel between perpendiculars.but I can,t find if the length of the mast includes the part under the deck ( below the partners)  Also are the lengths given on the drawings likely to be the total lengths ie also including whats underneath the deck? I think to resolve this problem I will need to increase the width of the mizzen channel and or increase the height of the lower mast but first I would like to work out the correct heights of the lower masts above the deck

                                I am also not sure why the channels are all different sizes as on my previous model the Bounty.I appreciate that the length would be different as would the load be less, however this where the width would need to be possibly the greatest as this is were the capping rail is the highest  above the channel and the mast height is the lowest. Hope this makes sense. Best regards Dave

                         

[Bob Cleek]

I suppose it depends on who's measuring the mast. Generally, shipyard terminology would include the length of the mast between the partners and the step, since the yard has to build a mast that long. Height above the partners, or the waterline for that matter (for navigational purposes), are usually designated as such. Since you are building a model of H.M.S. Endeavour, I expect there are plans readily available to answer your question. If your mizzen looks lower than the many pictorial representations available, it's probably too short, no? That the angle of the shrouds causes them to fail to clear the cap rails certainly seems to suggest the hounds are too low.

 

Here's a couple of contemporary paintings of H.M.S. Endeavour. You be the judge:

 

 

By Samuel Atkins (c.1760-1810) - National Library of Australia, nla.pic-an5921609, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7458795

 

 

By Thomas Luny - http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-an2280897, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7351149

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Bob Cleek

[DaveBaxt]

Thank you Bob for taking up your valuable time and finding those paintings of the Endeavour which has helped me a great deal in deciding the height of the mizzen lower mast . Although it does not quite work out as what is written the same as in RC Anderson book it is still  looks to be higher than what is in the drawings supplied with the kit. However I will first work out the correct lengths of the main and fore masts including below the partners and the see where I after that.

               After beginning to wonder if I were the only builder to have this issue with this particular kit and searching through a number of build logs  and finding that most of which did not , there was however one or two who ended up increasing both the height of the mizzen mast and/or increasing the width of the channel. Best regards Dave

Edited December 7, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[shipaholic]

The correct height for a mizzen lower mast is that the top of the mizzen cap is level with the main mast top. Many models of Endeavour including the full size replica have a shorter mizzenmast which is not correct

Edited December 7, 2021 by shipaholic
Pic added

[DaveBaxt]

12 hours ago, shipaholic said:

The correct height for a mizzen lower mast is that the top of the mizzen cap is level with the main mast top. Many models of Endeavour including the full size replica have a shorter mizzenmast which is not correct

Thank you Shipaholic for posting this picture as this is  exactly what I am after and does indeed show the mizzen cap level with the main mast top so I can now move forward with this. For the record even without the wider  channel I think the shroud would still touch the upper cap rail so again I think you are correct that the channels should all be the same width. I can,t understand why Caldercraft would make it this way as yet I have not found any evidence to suggest they are all different widths.

[shipaholic]

Yes Dave I made my mizzen channels the same width as the fore and main ones. The mizzen shrouds are the correct distance away from the quarter deck rail. I think Caldercraft are following the drawings in the AOTS book which show much narrower mizzen channels. That book has many mistakes,

Cheers

Steve

[DaveBaxt]

50 minutes ago, shipaholic said:

Yes Dave I made my mizzen channels the same width as the fore and main ones. The mizzen shrouds are the correct distance away from the quarter deck rail. I think Caldercraft are following the drawings in the AOTS book which show much narrower mizzen channels. That book has many mistakes,

Cheers

Steve

Thank you once again for the photo of your beautiful model of the Endeavour which confirms the width of the channels. It is also interesting to hear what you have to say regards the AOTS books. I was thinking it is I shame I have not got this book for the Endeavour and now I am not so sure due to a few people saying there are a number of inacuracies. I do however have the AOTS HMS Diana and so for one of the reasons I was considering her for my next build.. Best regards Dave

[shipaholic]

More confirmation that the mizzen channels were the same width as the main channel is indicated on this original draught, which is the one I used to base my model on. The chains are the same length from channel to the hull indicating that the main and mizzen channels are the same width.

There is another draught that everyone tends to use which has a different arrangement of the rails and has shorter chains on the mizzen indicating a narrower mizzen channel, but I believe that draught is not the correct one. That draught was used as a reference by AOTS

In the photo of my model it appears that the mizzen channel sits back from the mast but that is just the camera angle playing tricks with perspective. The front deadeye of each channel is in line with the rear of the mast as in the drawing

Cheers

Edited December 8, 2021 by shipaholic
More text added

[DelF]

Hi Dave

 

Although she was originally built as a collier, the Earl of Pembroke, when she was bought by the Navy she was extensively modified for the expedition to the South Seas. I haven't read whether or not these mods included bringing the masts and rigging up to Navy standards but it seems likely, especially as the refit cost almost as much as the ship. 

 

Anyway, that preamble is just to explain why I checked the Royal Navy Establishment in force at the time in James Lees  The Masting & Rigging of English Ships of War. Given her beam, Endeavour's main mast would have been 70' 7" and her mizzen 60' 8" - about 10 foot difference. These are the overall lengths to where the masts are stepped in the hold. At the time, mastheads  were 5" long for every yard the mast was long, which would make the main masthead 9' 9.5" - about 10 feet, confirming that the mizzen  cap would have been level with the main top. 

 

Derek

[DaveBaxt]

6 hours ago, DelF said:

Hi Dave

 

Although she was originally built as a collier, the Earl of Pembroke, when she was bought by the Navy she was extensively modified for the expedition to the South Seas. I haven't read whether or not these mods included bringing the masts and rigging up to Navy standards but it seems likely, especially as the refit cost almost as much as the ship. 

 

Anyway, that preamble is just to explain why I checked the Royal Navy Establishment in force at the time in James Lees  The Masting & Rigging of English Ships of War. Given her beam, Endeavour's main mast would have been 70' 7" and her mizzen 60' 8" - about 10 foot difference. These are the overall lengths to where the masts are stepped in the hold. At the time, mastheads  were 5" long for every yard the mast was long, which would make the main masthead 9' 9.5" - about 10 feet, confirming that the mizzen  cap would have been level with the main top. 

 

Derek

Thank you for that Derek and please forgive my ignorance but if those mast lengths include the section below the deck how cam we then work out the length of the main mast above the deck and then work out every thing else from that. Also when looking at James lees The Masting of Rigging of English ships of War . I thought it only covered rated ships. If the Endeavour is not rated, what is her classification. Fortunately I am the proud owner of James Lees book  but I am unfortunately too ignorant to find such information as your good self. However I am a willing student. best regards Dave

Edited December 8, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[DaveBaxt]

9 hours ago, shipaholic said:

More confirmation that the mizzen channels were the same width as the main channel is indicated on this original draught, which is the one I used to base my model on. The chains are the same length from channel to the hull indicating that the main and mizzen channels are the same width.

There is another draught that everyone tends to use which has a different arrangement of the rails and has shorter chains on the mizzen indicating a narrower mizzen channel, but I believe that draught is not the correct one. That draught was used as a reference by AOTS

In the photo of my model it appears that the mizzen channel sits back from the mast but that is just the camera angle playing tricks with perspective. The front deadeye of each channel is in line with the rear of the mast as in the drawing

Cheers

OOps it looks like I have used the wrong draught as I have indeed set the mizzen channel further aft and have not lined up the front dead eye with the aft of the  mast. I now think its possibly too late to change this now. I also asked the question in a previous post regarding the position of the mizzen channel and I think the answer I got was  believe to avoid the swivel guns posts. I have now placed the Mizzen channel so that the swivel gun post is in between shrouds 2 and 3 and will hopefully miss the swivel gun when this is mounted.

I also used this draught which someone sent me when I asked the question in a previous post.

Edited December 8, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[DelF]

40 minutes ago, DaveBaxt said:

Thank you for that Derek and please forgive my ignorance but if those mast lengths include the section below the deck how cam we then work out the length of the main mast above the deck and then work out every thing else from that. Also when looking at James lees The Masting of Rigging of English ships of War . I thought it only covered rated ships. If the Endeavour is not rated, what is her classification.

Hi Dave

 

I don't believe Lees only covers rated ships. As a fully ship-rigged vessel refitted in a naval yard I'm reasonably confident her masts and rigging would have followed RN standards of the time. In fact, James Lees built and rigged his own model of Endeavour which is shown in several photos in the book - see especially Photos 64 & 65 which appear to confirm the respective sizes of the masts. 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question about the length of the mast above the deck. Proportions such as the length of the masthead are worked out from the total length of the mast, not from the part above deck. Also, if all three masts are stepped into the keel then they all have the same baseline and any differences in their height will show up at their tops, regardless of how much of each mast shows above the deck.

 

Although a great resource, Lees' book can be difficult to wade through. Have you looked at Danny Vardas' spreadsheet? If not, it's a great resource available in the Articles Database on the forum, and will do all your calculations for you. 

 

It sounds like you're on a similar journey to me. I didn't know any of this stuff a few years ago (and I'm sure there's a lot more I still don't know!) but it's great fun researching all these arcane facts. For me, it adds greatly to the pleasure of model shipbuilding, and I hope you're enjoying it too.

 

Derek

[DaveBaxt]

15 minutes ago, DelF said:

Hi Dave

 

I don't believe Lees only covers rated ships. As a fully ship-rigged vessel refitted in a naval yard I'm reasonably confident her masts and rigging would have followed RN standards of the time. In fact, James Lees built and rigged his own model of Endeavour which is shown in several photos in the book - see especially Photos 64 & 65 which appear to confirm the respective sizes of the masts. 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question about the length of the mast above the deck. Proportions such as the length of the masthead are worked out from the total length of the mast, not from the part above deck. Also, if all three masts are stepped into the keel then they all have the same baseline and any differences in their height will show up at their tops, regardless of how much of each mast shows above the deck.

 

Although a great resource, Lees' book can be difficult to wade through. Have you looked at Danny Vardas' spreadsheet? If not, it's a great resource available in the Articles Database on the forum, and will do all your calculations for you. 

 

It sounds like you're on a similar journey to me. I didn't know any of this stuff a few years ago (and I'm sure there's a lot more I still don't know!) but it's great fun researching all these arcane facts. For me, it adds greatly to the pleasure of model shipbuilding, and I hope you're enjoying it too.

 

Derek

Derek. Thank you for your quick response. When I say the height above deck . That is really the only thing I can measure . Allthough I can measure how what is below the deck but what does this tell me if anything. If all the measurements are taken from the bottom of the keel then I could follow. I must be missing something somewhere and perhaps need to study some more.

                                                  When using the Caldercraft drawing They give the total length of 293 mm inlcuding the mast head. Now according to RC Andersons book The rigging of ships in the days of the sprit sail , the main mast is anywhere between 2 and 3 times the breadth of the ship .

 The breadth of my model is 145mm . So this works out fine if the mast is twice the breadth but is usually more if it is a smaller ship. So What does this actually tell me and how can I work out the hieight of the mast above the keel or how high above the deck or any base line to work from. If I use the Caldercraft measurement then thats fine but how do I work out if this is indeed the correct height ? If I take the measurement from RC Andersons book and fit this onto the ship , again how do I know this is the correct height. Where am I measuring from if not the deck , Perhaps its the keel ?Too be fair it is very interesting but as I have only been building models for just over a year and only my second period ship. I know everyone is trying to help me and it is very much appreciated however at the moment I am feeling  a bit of overload.There is rather a lot information out there and a lot of it is conflicting and altogether confusing. Hopefully one day the penny will drop and I will see the light. 

[shipaholic]

5 hours ago, DaveBaxt said:

OOps it looks like I have used the wrong draught as I have indeed set the mizzen channel further aft and have not lined up the front dead eye with the aft of the  mast. I now think its possibly too late to change this now. I also asked the question in a previous post regarding the position of the mizzen channel and I think the answer I got was  believe to avoid the swivel guns posts. I have now placed the Mizzen channel so that the swivel gun post is in between shrouds 2 and 3 and will hopefully miss the swivel gun when this is mounted.

I also used this draught which someone sent me when I asked the question in a previous post.

This draught is the one showing the Earl of Pembroke before refit with the proposed changes. Notice that the channels are shorter with one less deadeye on the fore and main channels 

[Dr PR]

Dave,

 

You certainly aren't the only one to have had problems deciphering the meaning of "mast length."

 

The problem I have found is that different authors use different definitions for "mast length" and never bother to explain what they are talking about. For example, James Lees "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" never says what he means by mast length (at least I have been unable to find it after reading the  book several times). We are just supposed to read his mind and know what he means. I'm not picking on Lees. Almost every other author I have read makes the same error - we are supposed to know what they mean. Harold Underhill is the only author I have found who says unambiguously what he means by "mast length."

 

However, I have been able to figure out what most authors mean, and there are three different definitions of mast length that are used. I have attached a drawing illustrating the various ship dimension terms and measurements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most common definitions of "mast length" are:

 

Measured length - from the bottom of the mast heel (foot) to the highest point (top of mast head). I think this is what Lees means in his book. Underhill also uses this in most cases.

 

Hounded length - this is the most commonly used definition. It is from the heel (foot) to the hounds. This is the length used in many of the period tables of dimensions. However the meaning of "hounds" is almost never given, leaving that to your imagination.

 

The term "hounds" has numerous meanings among authors, usually the part of the mast the trestletrees of the top rest on. But some authors also include the part of the mast below the top where the cheeks attach, and one even says the hounds extend down 1/3 of the "mast length" (whatever that is). Usually the writer doesn't say if the "hounded length" extends to the bottom or the top of the hounds. Again, Underhill is the only author I have found that explicitly defines the term "hounds" (the point at the top of the cheeks that the trestletrees rest on).

 

I have also found authors who used the "deck to top" and "deck to hounds" measurements for "mast length" but these are not too common.

 

Mast length is often calculated from other undefined terms. "Breadth" or "molded breadth" is most common, and I think the meaning is clear (the "beam" in modern terms, or the widest dimension of the hull). However some formulas base the dimension on hull length, and, of course, they rarely say what they mean. For more modern ships it is the "length between perpendiculars" (distance along the normal load waterline between the foremost point on the hull - fore peak - and the aft most point on the hull -aft peak - which is the center of the rudder post on wooden ships). Some older authors use "length on deck" ((length of the longest continuous deck inside bulwarks) Many formulas use the "line of flotation" (length at waterline between rabbets - grooves in the stem (bow) post and stern post that hull planking fits into).

 

Hope this helps more than it confuses.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Dr PR

[DaveBaxt]

14 hours ago, DelF said:

Hi Dave

 

I don't believe Lees only covers rated ships. As a fully ship-rigged vessel refitted in a naval yard I'm reasonably confident her masts and rigging would have followed RN standards of the time. In fact, James Lees built and rigged his own model of Endeavour which is shown in several photos in the book - see especially Photos 64 & 65 which appear to confirm the respective sizes of the masts. 

 

I'm not sure I understand your question about the length of the mast above the deck. Proportions such as the length of the masthead are worked out from the total length of the mast, not from the part above deck. Also, if all three masts are stepped into the keel then they all have the same baseline and any differences in their height will show up at their tops, regardless of how much of each mast shows above the deck.

 

Although a great resource, Lees' book can be difficult to wade through. Have you looked at Danny Vardas' spreadsheet? If not, it's a great resource available in the Articles Database on the forum, and will do all your calculations for you. 

 

It sounds like you're on a similar journey to me. I didn't know any of this stuff a few years ago (and I'm sure there's a lot more I still don't know!) but it's great fun researching all these arcane facts. For me, it adds greatly to the pleasure of model shipbuilding, and I hope you're enjoying it too.

 

Derek

Derek I have had a look at James Lees book and pages 44 & 65 and it clearly shows that the mizzen cap fall short of the main mast top and not as you and others are suggesting  are level but look to be similar to the Caldercraft plans. However the only thing that seems to work for me at the moment is to either raise the height of the mizzen or increase the width of the mizzen channel. I have now already completed the latter but still there is very little clearance if any between the shrouds and the cap rail I we therefore need to increase the length of the mizzen mast so that the cap reaches the main mast top. I am also assuming that the mizzen mast head is of the correct proportions. At the moment I can only assume that Caldercraft have given me the correct lengths of the other masts ( hopefully the main mast is not too long haha) As yet I am nowhere near building the masts and therefore do not need to make them so sill have lots of time before I decide on what my mast lengths should be.

                     I would just like to thank everyone for taking up their time to help me including your good self in  what is truly a very complex subject. Maybe if I do some more calculations using Lees or other resources for all of the masts and then compare their heights from  the keel I might have  a better idea of their heights  in relation to each other. Best regards Dave

[DaveBaxt]

38 minutes ago, Dr PR said:

Dave,

 

You certainly aren't the only one to have had problems deciphering the meaning of "mast length."

 

The problem I have found is that different authors use different definitions for "mast length" and never bother to explain what they are talking about. For example, James Lees "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" never says what he means by mast length (at least I have been unable to find it after reading the  book several times). We are just supposed to read his mind and know what he means. I'm not picking on Lees. Almost every other author I have read makes the same error - we are supposed to know what they mean. Harold Underhill is the only author I have found who says unambiguously what he means by "mast length."

 

However, I have been able to figure out what most authors mean, and there are three different definitions of mast length that are used. I have attached a drawing illustrating the various ship dimension terms and measurements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most common definitions of "mast length" are:

 

Measured length - from the bottom of the mast heel (foot) to the highest point (top of mast head). I think this is what Lees means in his book. Underhill also uses this in most cases.

 

Hounded length - this is the most commonly used definition. It is from the heel (foot) to the hounds. This is the length used in many of the period tables of dimensions. However the meaning of "hounds" is almost never given, leaving that to your imagination.

 

The term "hounds" has numerous meanings among authors, usually the part of the mast the trestletrees of the top rest on. But some authors also include the part of the mast below the top where the cheeks attach, and one even says the hounds extend down 1/3 of the "mast length" (whatever that is). Usually the writer doesn't say if the "hounded length" extends to the bottom or the top of the hounds. Again, Underhill is the only author I have found that explicitly defines the term "hounds" (the point at the top of the cheeks that the trestletrees rest on).

 

I have also found authors who used the "deck to top" and "deck to hounds" measurements for "mast length" but these are not too common.

 

Mast length is often calculated from other undefined terms. "Breadth" or "molded breadth" is most common, and I think the meaning is clear (the "beam" in modern terms, or the widest dimension of the hull). However some formulas base the dimension on hull length, and, of course, they rarely say what they mean. For more modern ships it is the "length between perpendiculars" (distance along the normal load waterline between the foremost point on the hull - fore peak - and the aft most point on the hull -aft peak - which is the center of the rudder post on wooden ships). Some older authors use "length on deck" ((length of the longest continuous deck inside bulwarks) Many formulas use the "line of flotation" (length at waterline between rabbets - grooves in the stem (bow) post and stern post that hull planking fits into).

 

Hope this helps more than it confuses.

 

 

I think I understand the teminology bu  it is really nice to see it written down like that. So thank you for taking up your time for hunting that out for me as it is something I can keep and refer back to time and time again. Best regards Dave

[DaveBaxt]

57 minutes ago, DaveBaxt said:

I think I understand the teminology bu  it is really nice to see it written down like that. So thank you for taking up your time for hunting that out for me as it is something I can keep and refer back to time and time again. Also I have one question if I may ask. Which length that Lees and others refer to. Is it the Length between perpendiculars? Best regards Dave

 

[DaveBaxt]

I tried to work out the length of the Main mast using Lees formular of the length of the ship + the Maximum Beam( outside ) divided by to but rightly or wrongly have made a number of assumption. I have used the length between perpendiculars so I have came up with 324mm  

Mast length using Caldercraft drawing is 293mm. Although this looks to be longer than the calculations I have just made, my previous point is that the difference could be that the amount below the partners could be different . The amount the mast goes under the deck is governed by the recesss in the one of the bulkheads. Can I therefore assume that Caldercraft have the height above the deck correct or is there another calculation for the length of the partners or the length above the deck? Hope this makes sense.

[DelF]

2 hours ago, DaveBaxt said:

Derek I have had a look at James Lees book and pages 44 & 65 and it clearly shows that the mizzen cap fall short of the main mast top

Sorry Dave, I don't know how I let my eyes deceive me on that one. It's strange, because it makes the mizzen look very short especially compared to other models of the period (such as plate 61 of the Victory of 1737) where the mizzen cap looks almost on a level with the main top - which is what you'd expect from the proportion calculations I mentioned earlier.

 

16 hours ago, DaveBaxt said:

When using the Caldercraft drawing They give the total length of 293 mm inlcuding the mast head. Now according to RC Andersons book The rigging of ships in the days of the sprit sail , the main mast is anywhere between 2 and 3 times the breadth of the ship .

 The breadth of my model is 145mm

I think this is a separate issue. 293mm must be the overall length of the mast from the heel of the main mast to the truck of the main topgallant. When I cited the length of the main mast I was referring to the first of the three components of the mast, ie the main mast, main topmast and main topgallant. The main mast length is proportionate to the beam, the other two to the main mast. The overall height of the mast is these three added together minus the two overlaps. 

 

Just seen your latest post - I'll stop this now for a quick response.

[DelF]

Hi Dave

 

See my previous post. I definitely think you must be (understandably!) confusing the overall length of the main mast with the length of the first and largest component, also called the main mast. Also, the formula in use in Endeavour's day did not include the length - that was only used before 1719 and after 1793. The formula for the main mast (assuming Endeavour was refitted per RN standards) would have been beam X 2.28; main topmast = main mast X 0.6; main topgallant = main mast X 0.49.

 

 

[DelF]

2 hours ago, Dr PR said:

For example, James Lees "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War" never says what he means by mast length

I agree he could have been more explicit. However in the first page of text he describes the taper of the fore and main masts from the heel to the head, so it's clear to me he's referring to the whole mast from then on. His work is based in large part on the instructions given to dockyards on the construction of masts and other spars, so when a mast length is given (and parts of the mast such as the head are specified in proportion to that length) that dimension must surely refer to the overall length.

[allanyed]

Dave I did not check but I assume Derek's figures are right .   Using those 70'7"  and 60' 8" mast heights from the steps to the top I superimposed these on the low res profile drawing of Endeavour from RMG so you can pick a spot on the decks from which to measure.  Hope this helps.  If this is not working, PM me and I can forward as an attachment.   I can send in whatever scale you want.  

Allan

 

 

 

[DaveBaxt]

First of thank you Derek for your persistance and your patience .I can,t thank you enough . Hopefully now I will be nearer to understanding the formulae and will eventually be able to work out the size of the whole mast including the 3 componants the lower main mast , the op mast and the top gallant and the percentages. So am I right in thinking I can now work out the length of the lower mast  being Main(whole mast) - top mast - topgallant - overlaps( mast heads) = lower mast.

Allan Once again I thank you for your help. I am not sure what I can do with the drawing you have sent me but what I have noticed is where the measurements are taken from. Once I have figured out what Derek has been so kind to help me with and I have worked out what the length of the main mast is for my model can I not then put it up against my model using your base line which looks to beat the bottom of the false keel. Once I have the dimensions of the main mast I can hopefully work out the lengths of the other two mast and again these will be the whole mast . Hopefully I can then use Derek's proportions to work out the individual componants of each mast.

               Also Allan if I am still struggling perhaps you could send me the mast sizes 1:64 but I am not sure how that would work .Entually I hope to be able to figure all this out for future builds .I hope I am making sense of all this. Best regards Dave 

Edited December 9, 2021 by DaveBaxt

[allanyed]

Let me know if the drawing below is readable for you.  For a scale of 1:64  the main mast, from the upper deck to the top of the mast is 9.46"   The mizzen is 6.77" from  the  quarter deck  to the top of the mast.  I am also sending via PM 

Cheers

 

Allan

[DaveBaxt]

4 hours ago, allanyed said:

Let me know if the drawing below is readable for you.  For a scale of 1:64  the main mast, from the upper deck to the top of the mast is 9.46"   The mizzen is 6.77" from  the  quarter deck  to the top of the mast.  I am also sending via PM 

Cheers

 

Allan

Ok Allan I think I might be making some progress or at least I think I know where Caldercraft are getting there mast lengths from. After consulting 'Historic Ship Models' by ZU Monfields book and using his figures of Mian Mast 2.480 x Breadth ( models breadth is 145 mm which equates to 380mm

Fore mast 2.250 x 145 mm = 326mm and the mizzen mast 1.583 x145mm =229mm. Now taking the above drawing and using the bottom  of the keel as the datum these measurements give an  approximate height of the masts when the dowels are placed in the holes. The mizzen mast also equates to the Caldercraft height and would suggest this is also correct but falls well short of the drawing supplied by Shipaholic. I am not suggesting he is wrong in anyway and all very interesting stuff but this height still doesn't work for me and will still need to increase  the mizzen height so the shrouds clear the cap rail.

Looking at your drawing and taking where the heel of the mast is and I raised all three mast to a so the are raised say 20 mm I think the mizzen shrouds would then clear the cap rail. I am still not sure which way to go with this but will probably adopt shipaholics idea of just raising the height of the mizzen so the cap is inline with the lower main mast top. Again I would just like to thank everyone for there input and any further discussion is welcome. Best regards Dave