SS3 Question

[Carthaginian]

5% sounds a bit heavy to me- let's do some figuring here.

http://www.offshoresailsrts.net/en/sailcloth_weights.html
For reasons lost in history, sailcloth weights are quoted in weight per sailmaker's yard, which is 28" wide. So, a sailmaker's yard is 7.0 ft^2 (according to my shaky math). HEAVY WEIGHT cotton sail cloth weighs about 13.5oz. to a Sailmaker's Yard, or 17oz. to a standard Yard.

I'll use H.M.S. Defense, since I have figures for her handy (thanks to Wiki).
H.M.S. Defense had a barque rig, intended to function as a primary source of propulsion (aprox. 10 kts.); given that her sped under steam was only a quarter knot faster, this is a very respectable clip. H.M.S. Defense carried 24,500 sq ft of sail. If we say that this was of the heaviest sail cloth available on our chart- 17oz. per standard yead- that leaves us with this:

24,500 sq. ft.
----------------- = 8167 (aprox.) sq. yds. * 17 oz./1 sq. yd. = 138,839 oz. / 16 oz./1 lb. = 8677 lbs (aprox.)
       3 ft

This means that the entire weight of sail for the H.M.S. Defense would have been under 5 tons.
This is massively less than 5% of her standard tonnage of 6,150 tons; in fact, H.M.S. Defense carried only 0.04% of her weight in sailcloth! Now, adding sundry weight of rigging, masts, etc into the equation might drive the weight up quite a bit, but I SERIOUSLY DOUBT that you'd wind up with a weight of 307.5 tons for the lot.

I counter-propose that we use 1% for an 'auxiliary rig' which would give 1/2 the ships maximum speed in Springsharp, and 2% for a 'full rig' which will give the ship 2/3 the ships maximum speed in Springsharp. THis seems a bit more realistic... doesn't it seem?

[Ithekro]

I could go for that.  There will be a number of iron hulled sail vessels still in service...several made in the 1870s even.  Some wood ones too.

What I'm looking for is what is the proper torpedo launcher for ships like HMS Shah that fired the first Whitehead torpedo in combat in I think 1876 or 1877.  I know Whitehead objected to the British use of above water tubes on HMS Lightning iin 1879 since he felt the torpedoes were too delicate for that.

Also there are still Spar Torpedo Boats in use.

[miketr]

Random comments in no real order. 

1)  Ships carried extra sail cloth, ditto ropes, spars, etc.  Rigging weighed alot and all of the cloth / ropes had to be supported so thats more weight.

2) The idea of lighter sail for reduced speed sounds reasonable.

3) I tried to look around for weight on rigging etc and struck out.  Anyone find anything solid?

[Carthaginian]

Random comments in no real order. 

1)  Ships carried extra sail cloth, ditto ropes, spars, etc.  Rigging weighed alot and all of the cloth / ropes had to be supported so thats more weight.

2) The idea of lighter sail for reduced speed sounds reasonable.

3) I tried to look around for weight on rigging etc and struck out.  Anyone find anything solid?

MikeTR:

Nothing you can SUGGEST would make me believe that the ship carried MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of sail weight in 'associated and backup' weight. Nothing you can say would even come close to making me think that. I have also been unable to find exactly what masts, spars and rigging would weigh; BUT given a little time, I could easily find the weight of that much wood.


WORKING ON H.M.S. VICTORY ATM... BRB

ON SECOND THOUGHT...
Ok, the details on this too scant- even on the H.M.S. Victory's own website- for a casual search.
I can say that H.M.S. Victory had pine masts and an oak hull, and that Longleaf pine is about 37 lbs./cu.ft. and that white oak is about 46 lbs./cu.ft.
I can also find that H.M.S. Victory had 23 miles of rope, carried 2/3 of her complement of 37 sails as 'reserves' and had 768 blocks in her rigging.

Without certain things- diameter of the various ropes, diameter and reduction of the masts and bowsprit, dimensions of the various yards- it is impossible to get any idea of the weight of rigging. Also, and possibly the most glaring omission, is whether or not the displacement listed even includes the weight of such gear or if it is simply hull displacement... in which case, it would include the masts as an integral part of the ship rather than an additional weight. :'(

[miketr]

MikeTR:

Nothing you can SUGGEST would make me believe that the ship carried MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of sail weight in 'associated and backup' weight. Nothing you can say would even come close to making me think that. I have also been unable to find exactly what masts, spars and rigging would weigh; BUT given a little time, I could easily find the weight of that much wood.

What is with this response?  This came across as aggressive at best, I am sorry if I have misread your post but you went out of the way to bold and all caps some of your reply.  The internet is an imperfect medium for communication.

Look up thread I said 500 tons was way too much, what made you think my response in anyway thinks I am in favor of hundreds of tons of of weight? 

Michael

[Carthaginian]

What is with this response?  This came across as aggressive at best, I am sorry if I have misread your post but you went out of the way to bold and all caps some of your reply.  The internet is an imperfect medium for communication.

Aggression - None meant.
Extreme Emphasis - Most certainly.

I've hauled a few hundred feet worth of logs around at a time in my day... they aren't that heavy wet. Dried down to a very low moisture content, they are a lot lighter than they are when we haul them to the mill. You could fit all the Victory's masts onto a few log trailers (I'm looking at volume rather than weight here). They couldn't require 175 tons to account for them. The sails were approximately twice what I figured for Defense- so about 10 tons, 16 tons with spares included.

Yes, the internet is imperfect for communicating emotions... but I think that (for better or worse, and mostly worse) my choice of words expresses my emotions far better than my font options. This is someone who has hauled the equivalent of Victory's bowsprit (24" logs) behind a truck while the wood was still dripping sap. I'm not convinced that it involves quite that much weight.

[miketr]

DELETED