Re: [bolger] More on The Ship
Endeavour was originally a collier, probably a brig, though I don't recall,
hauling coal from the north of England to London and other big cities.
Lots of sailing in and out of harbors (there were no tugs in those days)
and in the confines of the channel. I remember eading somewhere about the
collier brigs and how handy they were in the experienced hands of a good
skipper, who'd work the winds and tides and sometimes sail the ship
backwards if necessary in a tight spot. Cook learned his trade in Whitby
colliers, BTW, and specifically chose colliers for his expeditions.
hauling coal from the north of England to London and other big cities.
Lots of sailing in and out of harbors (there were no tugs in those days)
and in the confines of the channel. I remember eading somewhere about the
collier brigs and how handy they were in the experienced hands of a good
skipper, who'd work the winds and tides and sometimes sail the ship
backwards if necessary in a tight spot. Cook learned his trade in Whitby
colliers, BTW, and specifically chose colliers for his expeditions.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 20:15:06 +1300, Stuart wrote:
> I didn't see the show, I was relaying what I was told while standing on the
> quarter deck of the Endeavor replica. If you have a look at the rig on
> Endeavor, there is no boom on the aft most sail (gaff?) and the majority of
> the sail balance appears to be further forward than is now common. Also with
> the relatively flat bottom, there probably not that much lateral plan.
>
> Remember that the Endeavor was not a military ship, nor was it designed for
> a voyage anything like it was used for. It was a coal barge.
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
The trouble with the school of experience
is that the graduates are too old to go to work. <Henry Ford>
--- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
Peter
> Be warned: Your reply smacked of an unwonted air of lasciviousnessand we are sober and serious here.
>Sniffle.......
> Jim
>
Peter
In a message dated 10/25/02 10:25:15 AM Central Daylight Time,
garth@...writes:
officers! And why Capt. Bligh ended up making his epic small boat journey!
Capt. Cook, who has some reputation as a humanitarian, did not spare the lash
either. I've recently returned "Blue Latitudes" to the library, but I think
the author claims (relying on Beaglehole) that one in four of Cook's crew
were flogged on his third voyage.
It must have been a fine line between obedience and mutiny in those days. It
is not surprising that the Royal Navy had to resort to impressment to supply
its fleets. That impressment largely succeeded is rather surprising. What is
astonishing is how well the often-impressed, ill-nourished, ill-treated,
ill-clothed, ill-paid seamen performed inspite of all the hardships. I have a
very slight acquaintance with the west coast of France. Blockading that coast
with square-rigged ships during the Napoleonic Wars was a feat of seamenship
and endurance under stress that awes me. It must have been just plain hell
for the crews.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
garth@...writes:
> Everyone lived inAnd vice versa - that's why the marines were bunked between the crew and the
> miserable fear of their superiors.
officers! And why Capt. Bligh ended up making his epic small boat journey!
Capt. Cook, who has some reputation as a humanitarian, did not spare the lash
either. I've recently returned "Blue Latitudes" to the library, but I think
the author claims (relying on Beaglehole) that one in four of Cook's crew
were flogged on his third voyage.
It must have been a fine line between obedience and mutiny in those days. It
is not surprising that the Royal Navy had to resort to impressment to supply
its fleets. That impressment largely succeeded is rather surprising. What is
astonishing is how well the often-impressed, ill-nourished, ill-treated,
ill-clothed, ill-paid seamen performed inspite of all the hardships. I have a
very slight acquaintance with the west coast of France. Blockading that coast
with square-rigged ships during the Napoleonic Wars was a feat of seamenship
and endurance under stress that awes me. It must have been just plain hell
for the crews.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Peter,
Bah! Mockery I say. Hie thee to thy workshed and press on with your labors on that neat new vessel
and stop this idle chatter. Use a blowtorch if you must to kick off the 'poxy. Shovel the snow. Break
away the ice. And press on, always onward.
Be warned: Your reply smacked of an unwonted air of lasciviousness and we are sober and serious here.
Jim
Peter Lenihan wrote:
Bah! Mockery I say. Hie thee to thy workshed and press on with your labors on that neat new vessel
and stop this idle chatter. Use a blowtorch if you must to kick off the 'poxy. Shovel the snow. Break
away the ice. And press on, always onward.
Be warned: Your reply smacked of an unwonted air of lasciviousness and we are sober and serious here.
Jim
Peter Lenihan wrote:
> Jim,
> I certainly could warm to that idea provided the "keel" be the
> warm soft under-belly of an inflatable raft in clean warm water no
> deeper then say 6 feet. Is it proper to "keel-haul" in pairs and what
> is considered the inside scoop on dress code for such potentially
> revealing activities?
> I am confident that,considering your wealth of knowledge regarding
> things maritime,you will indulge my humble request.
> Sincerely,
> Peter Lenihan,always eager to broaden my knowledge base for the Pesky
> Crews on going edification,(besides,I can always blame Jim if things
> go crazy),along these windy shores.........
>
> --- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> > So, some things have changed. Regard Peter Lenihan's abject
> surrender to the whims of his crew.
> > Exotic cooking, indeed! Keelhaul them all, I say!. But I sail alone.
> > Jim
> >
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Peter, we are talking about "keel" hauling, not "ashes" hauling!
:-)
:-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lenihan" <ellengaest@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: More on The Ship
> Jim,
> I certainly could warm to that idea provided the "keel" be the
> warm soft under-belly of an inflatable raft in clean warm water no
> deeper then say 6 feet. Is it proper to "keel-haul" in pairs and what
> is considered the inside scoop on dress code for such potentially
> revealing activities?
> I am confident that,considering your wealth of knowledge regarding
> things maritime,you will indulge my humble request.
> Sincerely,
> Peter Lenihan,always eager to broaden my knowledge base for the Pesky
> Crews on going edification,(besides,I can always blame Jim if things
> go crazy),along these windy shores.........
>
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> > So, some things have changed. Regard Peter Lenihan's abject
> surrender to the whims of his crew.
> > Exotic cooking, indeed! Keelhaul them all, I say!. But I sail alone.
> > Jim
> >
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Jim,
I certainly could warm to that idea provided the "keel" be the
warm soft under-belly of an inflatable raft in clean warm water no
deeper then say 6 feet. Is it proper to "keel-haul" in pairs and what
is considered the inside scoop on dress code for such potentially
revealing activities?
I am confident that,considering your wealth of knowledge regarding
things maritime,you will indulge my humble request.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,always eager to broaden my knowledge base for the Pesky
Crews on going edification,(besides,I can always blame Jim if things
go crazy),along these windy shores.........
I certainly could warm to that idea provided the "keel" be the
warm soft under-belly of an inflatable raft in clean warm water no
deeper then say 6 feet. Is it proper to "keel-haul" in pairs and what
is considered the inside scoop on dress code for such potentially
revealing activities?
I am confident that,considering your wealth of knowledge regarding
things maritime,you will indulge my humble request.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,always eager to broaden my knowledge base for the Pesky
Crews on going edification,(besides,I can always blame Jim if things
go crazy),along these windy shores.........
--- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> So, some things have changed. Regard Peter Lenihan's abject
surrender to the whims of his crew.
> Exotic cooking, indeed! Keelhaul them all, I say!. But I sail alone.
> Jim
>
Hi Nels,
I did specify 'clipper ship captains'. They were something of a breed apart. They were often referred
to as 'Bully boys'. Their exploits were written up in the newspapers of the day. I have read them
referred to as the astronauts of their time. And to maintain their reputations they drove their ships
and crews right down to the ragged edge. Ashore, they were admired for it, afloat they weren't. In
the United States, they were probably most responsible for the enactment of laws protecting seamen
and a labor lawyer can probably build the case that they were the initiating force for the rise in
maritime trade unions here.
Britain did it better, and so, especially, did Germany. Which is why commercial sail was successful
in Germany well into the twentieth century. Even today the Germans are still tinkering with ideas
about how to make sailing ships commercially viable.
So, some things have changed. Regard Peter Lenihan's abject surrender to the whims of his crew.
Exotic cooking, indeed! Keelhaul them all, I say!. But I sail alone.
Jim
Nels wrote:
I did specify 'clipper ship captains'. They were something of a breed apart. They were often referred
to as 'Bully boys'. Their exploits were written up in the newspapers of the day. I have read them
referred to as the astronauts of their time. And to maintain their reputations they drove their ships
and crews right down to the ragged edge. Ashore, they were admired for it, afloat they weren't. In
the United States, they were probably most responsible for the enactment of laws protecting seamen
and a labor lawyer can probably build the case that they were the initiating force for the rise in
maritime trade unions here.
Britain did it better, and so, especially, did Germany. Which is why commercial sail was successful
in Germany well into the twentieth century. Even today the Germans are still tinkering with ideas
about how to make sailing ships commercially viable.
So, some things have changed. Regard Peter Lenihan's abject surrender to the whims of his crew.
Exotic cooking, indeed! Keelhaul them all, I say!. But I sail alone.
Jim
Nels wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> > Put simply, ship captains were bastards to work for, all of them.
> Their reputation depended on how hard
> > they drove the ships and their crew.
> > Their fortunes depended on how little they spent on the crews.
> Those beautiful ships were notoriously
> > undermanned and the American ones, at least, always sailed on the
> edge of mutiny (which happened a
> > lot). The food was poor and the working conditions were anything
> the captain said they were to be.
> >
> Jeez Jim - Sounds like things haven't changed all that much have
> they?!
>
> Nels
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Garth,
Sorry,but a whip just won't cut it with my Pesk Crew.She insists
on feathers,warm oils and gentle lighting.And I,fool that I
am,recieve 5 star gourmet cooking,great good humour,and constant
companionship!
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me and I would be crazy to
want to change that.........
Peter Lenihan,spoiled rotten and driven to maddness by my Pesky
Crew,along the banks of the St.Lawrence........
Sorry,but a whip just won't cut it with my Pesk Crew.She insists
on feathers,warm oils and gentle lighting.And I,fool that I
am,recieve 5 star gourmet cooking,great good humour,and constant
companionship!
Sounds like a pretty good deal to me and I would be crazy to
want to change that.........
Peter Lenihan,spoiled rotten and driven to maddness by my Pesky
Crew,along the banks of the St.Lawrence........
--- In bolger@y..., "GarthAB" <garth@b...> wrote:
> I hereby suggest that all Bolger boat
> builders acquire a cat-o-nine-tails for management of recalcitrant
> crew.
--- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
they?!
Nels
> Put simply, ship captains were bastards to work for, all of them.Their reputation depended on how hard
> they drove the ships and their crew.Those beautiful ships were notoriously
> Their fortunes depended on how little they spent on the crews.
> undermanned and the American ones, at least, always sailed on theedge of mutiny (which happened a
> lot). The food was poor and the working conditions were anythingthe captain said they were to be.
>Jeez Jim - Sounds like things haven't changed all that much have
they?!
Nels
> The visits of 'The Tall Ships" have shown us all again how handsomethose vessels were. But, but,
> but, they were truly awful places to work, especially as the age ofsail drew to a close. Put simply,
> clipper ship captains were bastards to work for, all of them.For more on this delightful topic, get a copy from your local library
of "Sea Life in Nelson's Time," by John Masefield (1905, reissued
several times since).
The chapter on punishment in the Royal Navy is simply
astonishing. Twenty pages or so of graphic detail on flogging,
caning, keelhauling, etc. There are descriptions of the state of a
man's back after twenty lashes (stripped of skin); or after
being "flogged round the fleet," which essenitally reduced you to
hamburger and your corpse was left to be taken out on the tide. There
was brutal corporal punishment for the slightest offenses; and death
for things such as refusing to obey an order. Everyone lived in
miserable fear of their superiors. Then of course, came a sea battle
and you could get blown to bits.
To keep this post on topic, I hereby suggest that all Bolger boat
builders acquire a cat-o-nine-tails for management of recalcitrant
crew. Maybe Chuck at Duckworks can get a wholesale deal for us. . . .
All best,
Garth
PS Read also all the C.S Forester novels featuring Horatio
Hornblower. Good bloody fun.
I have some background in that area, having worked in the weather
business for over 30 years. There used to be a couple of very good
books that were available, but I am sure they are long out of print.
One of them was called "Weatherwise" actually.
Probably the best courses available from a practical sense are taught
as part of the ground school courses in flight training schools.
These are sometimes offered as a night class separate from the main
course.
A basic understanding of pressure systems and airmass movements,
together with cloud form identification is what is required. It is
the air pressure differences that cause the winds to blow and the
airmass characterstics join in to create the cloud types.
There is an incredible amount of weather data available on the
internet, so a laptop would be invaluable on any long distance
voyages. (You don't even need a weatherfax anymore.) Small self-
contained weather stations are also incredibly accurate thanks to
micro computers, electonics and space age plastics. A basic unit
would provide wind, temperature and pressure and can feed directly
into your laptop, along with the GPS data. For a couple K you can
even obtain infrared night vision goggles that allow you to view
the "celestial dome" at night. (I kid you not - that is the
meteorological name for the sky;-))
Next time I'm at a good bookstore I will check out what is available
in that regard and let you know.
Nels
business for over 30 years. There used to be a couple of very good
books that were available, but I am sure they are long out of print.
One of them was called "Weatherwise" actually.
Probably the best courses available from a practical sense are taught
as part of the ground school courses in flight training schools.
These are sometimes offered as a night class separate from the main
course.
A basic understanding of pressure systems and airmass movements,
together with cloud form identification is what is required. It is
the air pressure differences that cause the winds to blow and the
airmass characterstics join in to create the cloud types.
There is an incredible amount of weather data available on the
internet, so a laptop would be invaluable on any long distance
voyages. (You don't even need a weatherfax anymore.) Small self-
contained weather stations are also incredibly accurate thanks to
micro computers, electonics and space age plastics. A basic unit
would provide wind, temperature and pressure and can feed directly
into your laptop, along with the GPS data. For a couple K you can
even obtain infrared night vision goggles that allow you to view
the "celestial dome" at night. (I kid you not - that is the
meteorological name for the sky;-))
Next time I'm at a good bookstore I will check out what is available
in that regard and let you know.
Nels
> I read a book a while back where the author, who made a
> single handed Atlantic crossing, used as a tool for weather
> prediction a book with many pictures of cloud and sky with
> an explanation of each and what it meant weather-wise.
> He didn't identify the book. Does anyone have a clue?
>
> hal
The SAS survival handbook has a section on weather prediction although any
GCSE school geography revision guide will also contain general information.
Otherwise a trip to the library to look up meteorology might work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Lynch [mailto:hal@...]
Sent: 25 October 2002 03:32:PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: More on The Ship/weather
GCSE school geography revision guide will also contain general information.
Otherwise a trip to the library to look up meteorology might work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Lynch [mailto:hal@...]
Sent: 25 October 2002 03:32:PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: More on The Ship/weather
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 05:15 PM, Nels wrote:
> I would
> also be willing to bet that to be a captain you would have a
> tremendous intuitive understanding of weather trends, and the ability
> to read the winds and clouds and currents etc.
I read a book a while back where the author, who made a
single handed Atlantic crossing, used as a tool for weather
prediction a book with many pictures of cloud and sky with
an explanation of each and what it meant weather-wise.
He didn't identify the book. Does anyone have a clue?
hal
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=17050657
91:HM/A=810373/R=0/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=17050657
91:HM/A=810373/R=1/*http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info?.refer=blrecs>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=212804.2460941.3878106.2273195/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=810373/rand=866565134>
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
...
This email is for the intended addressee only.
If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate
or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email.
The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of Astrium Limited.
Nothing in this email shall bind Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 05:15 PM, Nels wrote:
single handed Atlantic crossing, used as a tool for weather
prediction a book with many pictures of cloud and sky with
an explanation of each and what it meant weather-wise.
He didn't identify the book. Does anyone have a clue?
hal
> I wouldI read a book a while back where the author, who made a
> also be willing to bet that to be a captain you would have a
> tremendous intuitive understanding of weather trends, and the ability
> to read the winds and clouds and currents etc.
single handed Atlantic crossing, used as a tool for weather
prediction a book with many pictures of cloud and sky with
an explanation of each and what it meant weather-wise.
He didn't identify the book. Does anyone have a clue?
hal
I didn't see the show, I was relaying what I was told while standing on the
quarter deck of the Endeavor replica. If you have a look at the rig on
Endeavor, there is no boom on the aft most sail (gaff?) and the majority of
the sail balance appears to be further forward than is now common. Also with
the relatively flat bottom, there probably not that much lateral plan.
Remember that the Endeavor was not a military ship, nor was it designed for
a voyage anything like it was used for. It was a coal barge.
Stuart
on 25/10/02 6:45 PM,jhkohnen@...atjhkohnen@...
wrote:
quarter deck of the Endeavor replica. If you have a look at the rig on
Endeavor, there is no boom on the aft most sail (gaff?) and the majority of
the sail balance appears to be further forward than is now common. Also with
the relatively flat bottom, there probably not that much lateral plan.
Remember that the Endeavor was not a military ship, nor was it designed for
a voyage anything like it was used for. It was a coal barge.
Stuart
on 25/10/02 6:45 PM,jhkohnen@...atjhkohnen@...
wrote:
> I wonder if the original poster misunderstood what they were saying on the
> show. If they said that the Endeavour could only tack through 160 degrees,
> that's plausible. That would mean she couldn't make a course closer than
> 80 degrees off the wind on each tack, only 10 degrees closer than a beam
> reach.
>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:23:54 EDT, Mike Masten wrote:
>> How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail to such a
>> narrow directional band?
>> Mike Masten
>> In a message dated 10/23/02 10:57:01 PM,scrawford@...writes:
>>
>>> The Endeavor could only sail in a range of about 160 degrees, in other
>>> words
>>> it couldn't even sail straight across the wind. It had to be at least partly
>>> down wind or not at all.
I wonder if the original poster misunderstood what they were saying on the
show. If they said that the Endeavour could only tack through 160 degrees,
that's plausible. That would mean she couldn't make a course closer than
80 degrees off the wind on each tack, only 10 degrees closer than a beam
reach.
show. If they said that the Endeavour could only tack through 160 degrees,
that's plausible. That would mean she couldn't make a course closer than
80 degrees off the wind on each tack, only 10 degrees closer than a beam
reach.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 08:23:54 EDT, Mike Masten wrote:
> How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail to such a
> narrow directional band?
> Mike Masten
> In a message dated 10/23/02 10:57:01 PM,scrawford@...writes:
>
> >The Endeavor could only sail in a range of about 160 degrees, in other
> >words
> >it couldn't even sail straight across the wind. It had to be at least partly
> >down wind or not at all.
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful
for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. <H. L. Mencken>
Maybe those two big propellers the modern Endeavour drags around have
something to do with her poor performance on the wind. She can't even manage
a beam reach? That's a bit hard to believe.
In the original Endeavour's day sails were made of flax (linen) and didn't
hold their shape well. By the beginning of the 19th century American ships
were beginning to sport cotton sails, which could be woven tighter and held
its shape better, improving windward performance. By the end of that century
several improvements had been made in the rigging of square riggers, notably
wire standing rigging and mounting the yards on trusses in front of the
masts so they could be braced up more sharply, increasing windward
performance even more. But even in the 18th century square riggers could
sail upwind, at least as bit, though it must have been heartbreaking to try
to beat to windward very far.
something to do with her poor performance on the wind. She can't even manage
a beam reach? That's a bit hard to believe.
In the original Endeavour's day sails were made of flax (linen) and didn't
hold their shape well. By the beginning of the 19th century American ships
were beginning to sport cotton sails, which could be woven tighter and held
its shape better, improving windward performance. By the end of that century
several improvements had been made in the rigging of square riggers, notably
wire standing rigging and mounting the yards on trusses in front of the
masts so they could be braced up more sharply, increasing windward
performance even more. But even in the 18th century square riggers could
sail upwind, at least as bit, though it must have been heartbreaking to try
to beat to windward very far.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:50:56 -0400, Jim wrote:
> ...
> Perhaps, and just perhaps, the Endeavor can't be worked to windward but
most square rigged vessels
> certainly could be, and were.
> ...
> I'm sorry that the Endeavor's crew couldn't make her go to windward. But
I'm glad that other ships
> could. Those were the ones that came home again.
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
Hanging is too good for a man who makes puns;
he should be drawn and quoted. <Fred Allen>
Nels,
Most of the maritime nations took great efforts to determine the most favorable sailing directions
for the great trading routes. Things like requiring that copies of ships logs be submitted so that
the data could be extracted etc. The information gathered often had the importance of national
secrets simply because it gave its holders such a great commercial advantage.
With respect to intuitive knowledge, I think that it had more to do with the reality of having been
sent to sea as a child and having grown up aboard vessels which were utterly dependent on the
vagaries of the wind to make their voyages successful. Because it was that important it got paid a
lot of attention.
The visits of 'The Tall Ships" have shown us all again how handsome those vessels were. But, but,
but, they were truly awful places to work, especially as the age of sail drew to a close. Put simply,
clipper ship captains were bastards to work for, all of them. Their reputation depended on how hard
they drove the ships and their crew.
Their fortunes depended on how little they spent on the crews. Those beautiful ships were notoriously
undermanned and the American ones, at least, always sailed on the edge of mutiny (which happened a
lot). The food was poor and the working conditions were anything the captain said they were to be.
Imagining the advantage they felt when they installed a steam engine is something that we can do.
They didn't. My great grandfather's shipyard in Kennebunkport, Maine kept right on building wooden
sailing ships until the late eighteen hundreds and the number of buyers decreased below the
profitability line. The family stories are all to the effect that they hated steam and that they felt
that there was no sensible reason to go over to iron ships while wood would do. The wooden ships,
after all, were cheaper to build.
The sailboats that Phil Bolger designs today are better in almost every respect than even such
graceful beauties as the Flying Cloud, the Red Jacket, Rainbow and all the others. Phil's boats are
safe, fast, and comfortable. They won't capsize or lie down on their beam ends as the clippers
sometimes did, and yes, Phil's do have engines.
Jim
Nels wrote:
Most of the maritime nations took great efforts to determine the most favorable sailing directions
for the great trading routes. Things like requiring that copies of ships logs be submitted so that
the data could be extracted etc. The information gathered often had the importance of national
secrets simply because it gave its holders such a great commercial advantage.
With respect to intuitive knowledge, I think that it had more to do with the reality of having been
sent to sea as a child and having grown up aboard vessels which were utterly dependent on the
vagaries of the wind to make their voyages successful. Because it was that important it got paid a
lot of attention.
The visits of 'The Tall Ships" have shown us all again how handsome those vessels were. But, but,
but, they were truly awful places to work, especially as the age of sail drew to a close. Put simply,
clipper ship captains were bastards to work for, all of them. Their reputation depended on how hard
they drove the ships and their crew.
Their fortunes depended on how little they spent on the crews. Those beautiful ships were notoriously
undermanned and the American ones, at least, always sailed on the edge of mutiny (which happened a
lot). The food was poor and the working conditions were anything the captain said they were to be.
Imagining the advantage they felt when they installed a steam engine is something that we can do.
They didn't. My great grandfather's shipyard in Kennebunkport, Maine kept right on building wooden
sailing ships until the late eighteen hundreds and the number of buyers decreased below the
profitability line. The family stories are all to the effect that they hated steam and that they felt
that there was no sensible reason to go over to iron ships while wood would do. The wooden ships,
after all, were cheaper to build.
The sailboats that Phil Bolger designs today are better in almost every respect than even such
graceful beauties as the Flying Cloud, the Red Jacket, Rainbow and all the others. Phil's boats are
safe, fast, and comfortable. They won't capsize or lie down on their beam ends as the clippers
sometimes did, and yes, Phil's do have engines.
Jim
Nels wrote:
> You are right, they weren't called the trades for nothing. I would[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> also be willing to bet that to be a captain you would have a
> tremendous intuitive understanding of weather trends, and the ability
> to read the winds and clouds and currents etc.
>
> I have read that to make 100 miles to windward they might stay on one
> tack for days until the winds changed enough to take the other tack.
> So for example sailing from Los Angeles to San Fransico the ship may
> go several hundred mile offshore and end up sailing hundreds of miles
> further. If you miscalculated you could end farther away than when
> you began.
>
> Just imagine the advantage when they first put a steam engine in one.
> And them imagine the added danger of having to prevent the whole
> thing burning or blowing up.
>
> The big clipper ships must have been really something to see. Imagine
> climbing around the upper riggings in them!
>
> Nels
>
>
You are right, they weren't called the trades for nothing. I would
also be willing to bet that to be a captain you would have a
tremendous intuitive understanding of weather trends, and the ability
to read the winds and clouds and currents etc.
I have read that to make 100 miles to windward they might stay on one
tack for days until the winds changed enough to take the other tack.
So for example sailing from Los Angeles to San Fransico the ship may
go several hundred mile offshore and end up sailing hundreds of miles
further. If you miscalculated you could end farther away than when
you began.
Just imagine the advantage when they first put a steam engine in one.
And them imagine the added danger of having to prevent the whole
thing burning or blowing up.
The big clipper ships must have been really something to see. Imagine
climbing around the upper riggings in them!
Nels
also be willing to bet that to be a captain you would have a
tremendous intuitive understanding of weather trends, and the ability
to read the winds and clouds and currents etc.
I have read that to make 100 miles to windward they might stay on one
tack for days until the winds changed enough to take the other tack.
So for example sailing from Los Angeles to San Fransico the ship may
go several hundred mile offshore and end up sailing hundreds of miles
further. If you miscalculated you could end farther away than when
you began.
Just imagine the advantage when they first put a steam engine in one.
And them imagine the added danger of having to prevent the whole
thing burning or blowing up.
The big clipper ships must have been really something to see. Imagine
climbing around the upper riggings in them!
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., Stuart Crawford <scrawford@p...> wrote:
> I think that routes were mostly worked out on trade winds, so that
they
> could usually travel where they wanted if they chose the right time
of year.
> Although before the discoverers discovered how, where and when the
trade
> winds worked, I guess they guessed and hoped and took a long time
to get to
> where they were going and probably a lot longer getting back with
less crew
> than when they started.
>
> Stuart
>
> on 25/10/02 1:23 AM, teakdeck@a... at teakdeck@a... wrote:
>
>
Good answer Jim,
A well designed and crewed square rigger can certainly sail to
weather (windward if you like).
I've never understood the "gentlemen don't sail to weather" crap, or
maybe I do. I always associate that phrase with unscuffed
topsiders, high socks and highballs in a deck chair at the yacht
club or in the cockpit of a boat permanently snugged up stern-to at
the dock. Admittedly long distance sailing upwind, especially if
it's blowing, is something only a sadist might like. On a day sail
or when racing, to windward is where I get the most pleasure and the
most feeling from the boat. Heck, I like the heel and the gust of
wind that brings the rail down. Downwind is for rafts and where you
have to go to get around the course.
Now, with the wind up and a big spinnaker, things change a bit and
it gets downright exciting sometimes. Broaches, death rolls - count
the bodies still in the boat, and so on.
Tom Lathrop
A well designed and crewed square rigger can certainly sail to
weather (windward if you like).
I've never understood the "gentlemen don't sail to weather" crap, or
maybe I do. I always associate that phrase with unscuffed
topsiders, high socks and highballs in a deck chair at the yacht
club or in the cockpit of a boat permanently snugged up stern-to at
the dock. Admittedly long distance sailing upwind, especially if
it's blowing, is something only a sadist might like. On a day sail
or when racing, to windward is where I get the most pleasure and the
most feeling from the boat. Heck, I like the heel and the gust of
wind that brings the rail down. Downwind is for rafts and where you
have to go to get around the course.
Now, with the wind up and a big spinnaker, things change a bit and
it gets downright exciting sometimes. Broaches, death rolls - count
the bodies still in the boat, and so on.
Tom Lathrop
--- In bolger@y..., Jim Pope <jpope@a...> wrote:
> David,
> Perhaps, and just perhaps, the Endeavor can't be worked to
windward but most square rigged vessels
> certainly could be, and were.
> The westward rounding of Cape Horn was not always done to leeward
or on a beam reach. Some of those
> ships spent months trying to make good a few hundred miles to
windward against the gales that roared
> down along the 'Roaring Forties' against them..
> The relief and joy of their sailors when they were finally able to
ease sheets and steer to the
> northward is well documented.
> Now, they didn't go to windward very well. That's true, and being
embayed (trapped against a lee
> shore inside a bay the shape of which made tacking to windward
almost impossible) was a dreaded fear
> among sailors.
> I recently leafed through a book on the last days of commercial
sail which contained a number of
> photographs of large ships under sail, some taken from their decks
looking up, and some of those were
> of the ship while close hauled.
> Contrary to popular opinion, I think, the sails weren't the round
bags so fondly painted by shore
> bound artists, but rather taut, well shaped, quite aerodynamic,
inclined planes to the wind. They
> provided pretty good drive to the ship.
> The factors working against her were the enormous amount of
rigging necessary to hold up the masts,
> given their limited strength of materials, and the large amount of
leeway that the hull made until
> the ship had pretty good way on.
> I'm sorry that the Endeavor's crew couldn't make her go to
windward. But I'm glad that other ships
> could. Those were the ones that came home again.
> Jim
>
> David Ryan wrote:
>
> > >How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail
to such a
> > >narrow directional band? When the first Endeavor was anchored
offshore and
> > >the breeze was onshore, that boat was parked there for the
duration? They had
> > >to be ready at any moment for an offshore breeze to leave port?
> > >
> > >When the wind was not going in the direction they wanted to go,
did they take
> > >down sail and just drift in the wrong direction until the wind
changed
> > >direction? I've often wondered about this but I don't have it
clear in my
> > >head.
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I think that routes were mostly worked out on trade winds, so that they
could usually travel where they wanted if they chose the right time of year.
Although before the discoverers discovered how, where and when the trade
winds worked, I guess they guessed and hoped and took a long time to get to
where they were going and probably a lot longer getting back with less crew
than when they started.
Stuart
on 25/10/02 1:23 AM,teakdeck@...atteakdeck@...wrote:
could usually travel where they wanted if they chose the right time of year.
Although before the discoverers discovered how, where and when the trade
winds worked, I guess they guessed and hoped and took a long time to get to
where they were going and probably a lot longer getting back with less crew
than when they started.
Stuart
on 25/10/02 1:23 AM,teakdeck@...atteakdeck@...wrote:
> How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail to such a
> narrow directional band? When the first Endeavor was anchored offshore and
> the breeze was onshore, that boat was parked there for the duration? They had
> to be ready at any moment for an offshore breeze to leave port?
>
> When the wind was not going in the direction they wanted to go, did they take
> down sail and just drift in the wrong direction until the wind changed
> direction? I've often wondered about this but I don't have it clear in my
> head.
>
> Anyone able to help?
>
> Mike Masten
> Chapelle regard the trading schooners of the mid 19th century asthe
> zenith of all-around sailing design. He also goes on to argue thatHaving raced, and handicapped, my observation is that to an amazing
> every development that follows the conversion from wind to steam is
> nothing more than clever gambits to outsmart always changing
> race-committee rules.
extent, all somewhat similar boats go the same speed downwind.
However, they differ very greatly upwind. If boat A is rated 60
sec/mile faster than boat B on a windward/leeward course, A will
probably gain 55 seconds on the upwind and 5 on the downwind.
Progress is mostly focused on upwind sailing.
> One thing's for certain: Gentlemen do not sail to weather!On behalf of Mr. Bolger, let me quote the footnote from page 214 of
30-Odd Boats:
"I wish people wouldn't write 'beating to weather'; it feels to me
like scraping my nails on a blackboard. The direction is windward.
Weather is an adjective: the weather rail, a weather shore. I know
towering authorities use them indiscriminately, but I say, why are
there two different words if they mean the same?"
Peter
David,
Perhaps, and just perhaps, the Endeavor can't be worked to windward but most square rigged vessels
certainly could be, and were.
The westward rounding of Cape Horn was not always done to leeward or on a beam reach. Some of those
ships spent months trying to make good a few hundred miles to windward against the gales that roared
down along the 'Roaring Forties' against them..
The relief and joy of their sailors when they were finally able to ease sheets and steer to the
northward is well documented.
Now, they didn't go to windward very well. That's true, and being embayed (trapped against a lee
shore inside a bay the shape of which made tacking to windward almost impossible) was a dreaded fear
among sailors.
I recently leafed through a book on the last days of commercial sail which contained a number of
photographs of large ships under sail, some taken from their decks looking up, and some of those were
of the ship while close hauled.
Contrary to popular opinion, I think, the sails weren't the round bags so fondly painted by shore
bound artists, but rather taut, well shaped, quite aerodynamic, inclined planes to the wind. They
provided pretty good drive to the ship.
The factors working against her were the enormous amount of rigging necessary to hold up the masts,
given their limited strength of materials, and the large amount of leeway that the hull made until
the ship had pretty good way on.
I'm sorry that the Endeavor's crew couldn't make her go to windward. But I'm glad that other ships
could. Those were the ones that came home again.
Jim
David Ryan wrote:
Perhaps, and just perhaps, the Endeavor can't be worked to windward but most square rigged vessels
certainly could be, and were.
The westward rounding of Cape Horn was not always done to leeward or on a beam reach. Some of those
ships spent months trying to make good a few hundred miles to windward against the gales that roared
down along the 'Roaring Forties' against them..
The relief and joy of their sailors when they were finally able to ease sheets and steer to the
northward is well documented.
Now, they didn't go to windward very well. That's true, and being embayed (trapped against a lee
shore inside a bay the shape of which made tacking to windward almost impossible) was a dreaded fear
among sailors.
I recently leafed through a book on the last days of commercial sail which contained a number of
photographs of large ships under sail, some taken from their decks looking up, and some of those were
of the ship while close hauled.
Contrary to popular opinion, I think, the sails weren't the round bags so fondly painted by shore
bound artists, but rather taut, well shaped, quite aerodynamic, inclined planes to the wind. They
provided pretty good drive to the ship.
The factors working against her were the enormous amount of rigging necessary to hold up the masts,
given their limited strength of materials, and the large amount of leeway that the hull made until
the ship had pretty good way on.
I'm sorry that the Endeavor's crew couldn't make her go to windward. But I'm glad that other ships
could. Those were the ones that came home again.
Jim
David Ryan wrote:
> >How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail to such a[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >narrow directional band? When the first Endeavor was anchored offshore and
> >the breeze was onshore, that boat was parked there for the duration? They had
> >to be ready at any moment for an offshore breeze to leave port?
> >
> >When the wind was not going in the direction they wanted to go, did they take
> >down sail and just drift in the wrong direction until the wind changed
> >direction? I've often wondered about this but I don't have it clear in my
> >head.
>
>
>How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail to such aI think you've more or less summed it up, Mike!
>narrow directional band? When the first Endeavor was anchored offshore and
>the breeze was onshore, that boat was parked there for the duration? They had
>to be ready at any moment for an offshore breeze to leave port?
>
>When the wind was not going in the direction they wanted to go, did they take
>down sail and just drift in the wrong direction until the wind changed
>direction? I've often wondered about this but I don't have it clear in my
>head.
World exploration and world trade were not built on beating to
weather. It's not good for your boat, it's not good for your crew,
and a boat the goes to whether well is not (by the broadest
definition) very efficient. Even now, with the dominance of weatherly
sloops, many people who start in the Eastern Pacific end up in the
Southwestern Pacific think it's easier to either: a) sell their boat
or b) continue heading West to get home
Chapelle regard the trading schooners of the mid 19th century as the
zenith of all-around sailing design. He also goes on to argue that
every development that follows the conversion from wind to steam is
nothing more than clever gambits to outsmart always changing
race-committee rules.
Perhaps modern materials and labor costs tip the balance away from
Chapelle and towards the jib-headed racing crowd. Bolger invokes just
that argument to "justify" his Birdwatch-type design; citing the
properties of two modern materials -- plywood and lexan. But without
the hard edge of commerce to test any of these statements, whether
any of this is true is liable to be the subject of debate for the
foreseeable future.
One thing's for certain: Gentlemen do not sail to weather!
YIBB,
David
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
How did these ships explore the world when they could only sail to such a
narrow directional band? When the first Endeavor was anchored offshore and
the breeze was onshore, that boat was parked there for the duration? They had
to be ready at any moment for an offshore breeze to leave port?
When the wind was not going in the direction they wanted to go, did they take
down sail and just drift in the wrong direction until the wind changed
direction? I've often wondered about this but I don't have it clear in my
head.
Anyone able to help?
Mike Masten
In a message dated 10/23/02 10:57:01 PM,scrawford@...writes:
narrow directional band? When the first Endeavor was anchored offshore and
the breeze was onshore, that boat was parked there for the duration? They had
to be ready at any moment for an offshore breeze to leave port?
When the wind was not going in the direction they wanted to go, did they take
down sail and just drift in the wrong direction until the wind changed
direction? I've often wondered about this but I don't have it clear in my
head.
Anyone able to help?
Mike Masten
In a message dated 10/23/02 10:57:01 PM,scrawford@...writes:
>The Endeavor could only sail in a range of about 160 degrees, in other
>words
>it couldn't even sail straight across the wind. It had to be at least partly
>down wind or not at all.