Ship Of The Line, anyone?

[Kristal]

Most amused, whilst having a look at Robertsons of Woodbridge's website, to find the following paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
Robertsons of Woodbridge have been building boats since 1884, and records of Woodbridge show that Men Of War were built on the site from 1624 to 1700 and then merchant brigs and schooners up to 1853.

A Full price list can be found by clicking here

[/ QUOTE ]

Could we have a forum whipround to get them to knock us up a frigate or something - 38 guns would do - and then embark on a weekend of privateering? I could do with a bit of prize money, and could probably forge a Letter Of Marque in Photoshop...

/<

 

[Mirelle]

Designed by Peter Pett?

Commissioner of the Navy and Chief Surveyor under Charles 1, the Commonwealth and Charles II. Married the daughter of the landlord of the Crown, held the Lordship of the Manor of Woodbridge and Ufford; best known as the designer of the Sovereign of the Seas, which was alas too big to be built at Woodbridge.

38 guns should be OK, though; they built Sixth Rates here.

Wonder how they got over the bar?

 

[Kristal]

Re: Designed by Peter Pett?

Possibly on a spring tide, without carrying any cannon or provision? Or maybe they were Admiral Schank's "sliding-keel" vessels (I believe several of these were built, 5th & 6th raters if memory serves, the forerunner to the drop-keel yacht and centreboard dinghy). Doubtful - I should think the answer is "on a spring tide, with a brave commander".

Still, I think we'd have fun going round all the local sailing clubs dropping coins into people's pints.

Is it true, by the way, that on Napoleonic ships, the helm responded in the opposite direction to the one we have come to expect? In other words, spinning the helm clockwise would induce a turn to larboard? Somebody told me this, citing it as a continuity error in the film of Master & Commander (not quite O'Brian, but good enough IMHO).

/<

 

[Mirelle]

Helm orders, etc.

Helm orders were given in the sense of a tiller, not a wheel, until 1930!

You will recall the much parodied mnemonic verses for the collision regulations written in 1863 by Thomas Gray (the Victorian Secretary to the Board of Trade, not the 18th century poet), which, besides not containing the lines:

"When in danger or in doubt
Wave and shout and rush about!"

do contain, in the original text, the lines:

"Meeting steamers. do not dread
When you see three lights ahead;
Port your helm and show your red ..."

To "show your red" you would put your tiller to port, but your wheel to starboard.

As time went on, and rather fewer ships were steered with tillers, it dawned on folks that it would make sense if the helm orders were reversed to accord with wheel steering.

An International Convention to this effect came into force in 1930 - and produced a litter of collisions, as Officers of the Watch and helmsmen across the globe misunderstood each other!

I recall that James Cameron's film, "Titanic", actually got that detail right, to the puzzlement of many people who watched the film.

The history of the collision regulations is interesting; the orignal rules were drawn up by Trinity House in 1840, and the idea of red for port and green for starboard was copied from railway signals - red for "stop", green for "go", so you stand on when you see a green light, and give way to a red light.

These regulations were British only; they were adopted by an International Convention in 1862 or thereabouts.

The original 1840 rules were better than those we have now, because they did not provide for a "privileged" ("stand on") and "burdened" ("give way") vessel when powered vessels meet. That concept is essential for sailing ships close hauled on opposite tacks, but not otherwise. The mistake, made in 1862, in applying this to steamers, has been perpetrated ever since.

 

[Kristal]

Re: Helm orders, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I recall that James Cameron's film, "Titanic", actually got that detail right, to the puzzlement of many people who watched the film.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'll grudgingly allow Cameron a congratulation on that, however, I still insist that you can't make a romantic drama out of a real human tragedy with real characters!

Thanks for the info, Mirelle. Thing is, would the order "Port your helm" have, at any point, meant "turn the wheel to port", which would put the ship's tiller to port, and effect a turn to starboard? That is what a naval historian of my acquaintance would have me believe...

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Helm orders, etc.

That seems most unlikely, unless wheels were reverse geared. Wheel to starboard means tiller to port, usually.

The order "Port your helm" meant "put the wheel to starboard" before 1930 and "put the wheel to port" after that, so far as I know.

 

[Leon_Steyns]

Re: Helm orders, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Helm orders were given in the sense of a tiller, not a wheel, until 1930!

[/ QUOTE ]

Great thread! The Uffa Fox designed Atalanta 26 cruiser actually uses a whipstaf steering system, that operates in that way (tiller to port will steer the boat to port!).

Also see nice article:
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/wheelpic.html
It's this picture:

And there's also a page regarding the Titanic issue:
http://users.senet.com.au/~gittins/wheel.html

Interesting reading.

I now wonder why that system was ever abandoned?! I'm still sometimes confused in steering (or is that one of my hidden disabilities? /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif)

Greets, Leon Steyns.

 

[Leon_Steyns]

Re: Helm orders, etc.

Hmm, I'll learn to type faster... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The Titanic link to the wheel story contains a nice piece on the "not-so-quite-reverse-steering" for which Titanic is being "credited".

Greets, Leon Steyns.

 

[Kristal]

Re: Helm orders, etc.

That's what I would have thought - the suggestion was that when Aubrey says "Hard a-larboard", and he and coxwain Bonden throw the wheel to port (anti-clockwise, just for clarity's sake), it's wrong. I can't see how, personally - the simplest mechanism for a wheel controlling a tiller by means of ropes or chains allows would be wheel to port, tiller to starboard, rudder to port, turn to starboard...

...now I'm confusing myself!

Nice to see you again, Leon, and thanks for the info! We must rearrange this little ungrudging match (cc: Mirelle, FF and all), especially as hope is renewed after getting Crystal to 8.2kts over the ground last week...

/<

 

[Kristal]

Hang on, all becomes clear...

It's the order that is incorrect, not the movement of the wheel. I suspect that is what my friend was referring to. In which case, Mirelle answered the query the first time.

Sorry - particularly dense today.

/<

 

[Mirelle]

Yes.

You've got it.

 

[Kristal]

Good

However, I am fascinated by Leon's link - I remember now from reading "A Night To Remember" (several times) that there is indeed an allegation of the order "hard-a-starboard" being given - had they turned the wheel to starboard it would have been toward the iceberg, I think. For trained White Star Line seamen it's highly unlikely they'd make a mistake, and now here is the answer.

/<

 

[Santana379]

Re: 8.2kts Over The Ground

And my Drascombe once did 85mph over the ground (behind a Subaru). The key is speed through water /<rystal. FF has managed circa 9.8kts over the ground up the Westerschelde - as you can imagine we were not stemming the tide.

Just for clarity FF (the boat) will be having nothing to do with the challenge. Her skipper intends bringing the Nancy Blackett. Much effort has been put into Nancy's windlass this winter to ensure a good racing start at Pin Mill.

Back to helms. What about putting the helm up and down - are these not commands which have the same logic when appplied to tillers and (normally geared!) wheels?

 

[Leon_Steyns]

Re: 8.2kts Over The Ground

[ QUOTE ]
What about putting the helm up and down - are these not commands which have the same logic when appplied to tillers and (normally geared!) wheels?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, this is being done in the IT industry all the time! Usually, it leads to two large groups of companies offering opposite solutions (or products) - one group promoting "down=port" and the other "up=port" (imagine lots of collisions here). Until the majority of customers decide to take up sides with one of the groups or someone comes up with a reasonable alternative (which of course will cause another someone to cook up an opposing idea).
GOTO Ah /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Greets, Leon Steyns.

 

[Kristal]

Re: 8.2kts Over The Ground

No it isn't. It's Speed Over Ground that wins you races, if you know where to sit in the tidal stream better than your opponent...

 

[Santana379]

Re: 8.2kts Over The Ground

Well of course it is - but the particular tide that gave you a shove up to 8.2kts won't be there on the race round Roughs.

I wasn't suggesting that you can't gain advantage by knowledge of the local tidal streams, merely suggesting that, if a significant proportion of your 8.2kts was thanks to tide, it's not right to attribute it to the boat's/crew's performance. But you know that, and are only trying to reciprocate by winding me up too.....

 

[Kristal]

Naturally...

...however, (and I admit it isn't really very clear from my posting), I actually usually treat an extraordinary achievement (like hitting 8.2kts) more like an act of the Dear rather than anything to do with boat or crew performance.

But yes, of course I'm well aware of all you are saying and merely indulging in a bit of unecessary knife twisting!!

/<