|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 14, 2014 19:16:58 GMT
Thanks, that explains why the books I have (which more or less end around 1815/16) don't have skysails as part of their sail plan.
I *think*, or suspect at any rate, that the additional mast coincides with the introduction of iron masts - which is why you can see some ships with four square sails in paintings from the post-1815 era. Educated guess would be that iron masts could handle the stresses better than wood, and certainly the comparatively thin pole above the Royals probably wouldn't have handled much in the way of force without snapping.
I suspect that the Skysails were officially frowned on because of this. But given that ships had boats, and at least one of those boats would have possessed a sail (the larger boats were sea-worthy, and indeed Captain Blithe managed to sail several thousand miles in one). I'm wondering if the 'unofficial' solution was to ask for a spare yard and sail for the boat, and then use them as skysails. The alternative would seem to be using the shrouds as 'yards', basically making a skysail a glorified staysail.
I find this mildly interesting, as my knowledge of sailing plans is rather basic - although to be fair to myself sailors did have a nasty habit of not noting down unusual or unofficial sails or aspects to their ships.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 15, 2014 5:12:52 GMT
Thanks, that explains why the books I have (which more or less end around 1815/16) don't have skysails as part of their sail plan. I *think*, or suspect at any rate, that the additional mast coincides with the introduction of iron masts - which is why you can see some ships with four square sails in paintings from the post-1815 era. Educated guess would be that iron masts could handle the stresses better than wood, and certainly the comparatively thin pole above the Royals probably wouldn't have handled much in the way of force without snapping. I suspect that the Skysails were officially frowned on because of this. But given that ships had boats, and at least one of those boats would have possessed a sail (the larger boats were sea-worthy, and indeed Captain Blithe managed to sail several thousand miles in one). I'm wondering if the 'unofficial' solution was to ask for a spare yard and sail for the boat, and then use them as skysails. The alternative would seem to be using the shrouds as 'yards', basically making a skysail a glorified staysail. I find this mildly interesting, as my knowledge of sailing plans is rather basic - although to be fair to myself sailors did have a nasty habit of not noting down unusual or unofficial sails or aspects to their ships. during the height of the craze of hanging out all the dirty laundry, they would also add extensions to the ends of the yardarms to fly extra sails outboard of the regular sails.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Aug 15, 2014 8:00:12 GMT
I suspect that the Skysails were officially frowned on because of this. But given that ships had boats, and at least one of those boats would have possessed a sail (the larger boats were sea-worthy, and indeed Captain Blithe managed to sail several thousand miles in one). As the risk of going seriously off-topic; most sailing ship's boats, with perhaps the exception of the captain's barge, were designed to be sailed in addition to being rowed. Since this increased both their flexibility and potentially made them independent from the ship. I'm wondering if the 'unofficial' solution was to ask for a spare yard and sail for the boat, and then use them as skysails. While that's a possibility, given the fragility of the sails, masts and yards, I'd think that it would be very rare to find a working sailing ship that wasn't already carrying spare spare sails, masts and yards. I'd guess that the addition of sky- and moon- sails was simply part of the gradual evolution of the sail plan. The first sailing ships had a single main sail or course. As ships became bigger they needed more sail to push them forwards. Since there are practical limits to the size of a single sail, the solution was to add extra masts and/or extend the masts to add extra topsails above the courses. Then as ships continued to grow, they added another mast and top-gallants above the topsails. As ships continue to grow and construction techniques improve to allow longer, stronger masts, you gain royals, then skysails and then moonsails. If you look at some of the last big sailing ships, some of them had four or five masts and six or seven large square sails per mast (with the courses and topsails split horizontally into two to make them more managable). The alternative would seem to be using the shrouds as 'yards', basically making a skysail a glorified staysail. I think that's unlikely since the skysail would have to be above the royal sail and the royal mast didn't have shrouds. Even if it did, that wouldn't give a very effective sail because the shrouds on the upper masts, drop almost vertically to the crosstrees at the top of the mast below and the ratlines on the shrouds would make it impossible to run a sail along in the same way as with a stay sail. According to David Steel's "The Elements and Practice of Rigging, Seamanship and Naval Tactics; Volume 2: The Art of Sail-Making" (2nd Ed. 1809), the "sky-scraper" first appeared as a triangluar sail that was attached to the royal masthead truck by a haliard and spread at the foot by the royal yard. Although it does mention that it's "very seldom used".
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 15, 2014 10:45:20 GMT
during the height of the craze of hanging out all the dirty laundry, they would also add extensions to the ends of the yardarms to fly extra sails outboard of the regular sails. Those are studding sails, and were a common feature (read universal) on sailing ships* in the 1700's. These were wooden poles that slid through hoops on the yard outwards, and as far as I can tell stored there but retracted so they lay along the yard when not in use (which seems to have been most of the time). It is ironic to think that the skysail system being talked about in this thread is actually the kind of sail design that dates to the 15/1600's. Sails at that point were more or less working on the assumption that the best way to gain thrust was to fill a sail as full of wind as possible. Later sails were rigged to bow outwards far less than earlier ships. So using a parachute is closer to sail designs of the 1500's than more modern sails. (*Or at least square rigged men of war. I'm unclear as to if fore and aft designs or merchant ships possessed them. I'd suspect that merchant ships probably didn't have studding sails)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 15, 2014 11:44:16 GMT
So we (modern people) think we are so clever?....
I got involved with a bunch of people that eventually decided that the long sweeping end of an Axe was better pointing upwards than as previously thought downwards. It stuck in things if you threw it.....
So onwards, getting back and ONLY using the tools available at the time, we "Rediscovered" a few tips on how things were made.... I now know how an adze works, and how to use one. I even got challenged on that one by someone playing scrabble.... and they had a dictionary.... Not saying people here dont know, but adze is not an axe, it is "Different"?.... I have numerous antique woodworking tools, and I know how to use all of them, if I dont, I find out.. and that includes history of the thing.... I even have a two foot long Plane. "Stanley" make Why in the world would anyone want one THAT long?.. bloody heavy thing it is as well.... its a Number "8" I think, weighs in at seven or eight pounds?... good for planing down knot holes, I keeps it sharp and oiled, its probably whats known as a "Jointer" plane, but mostly, its good for flattening surfaces gently....
Now of course people would just use a sanding disk or an electric planer.
Back to sails, the people using sail at that time are a forgotten trade, we have "Ships of the line", we have old ships, we have people learning how to use them, but not the old sea-salts who knew instinctively what to do and when, we have lost that experience base, and are now having to re-learn it all.
And in that learning, we are finding they knew a few tricks....
In calm seas, yes they did throw up everything including the table cloth, light breeze, catch as much as you can. Time is Money.
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Aug 15, 2014 12:20:04 GMT
I'd suspect that merchant ships probably didn't have studding sails I think your suspicions would be wrong. Merchant ships certainly did carry the full range of "flying kites". I'd even guess that most of these extra sails probably originated in merchant ships. A large amount of early trans-oceanic trade was speculative. A merchant would buy some produce in a market in one location, hire a vessel and transport the goods to a foreign market in the hope that the selling price would be better than the purchase price. If the product was perishable or a competitor was trying the same thing, then it would be vital to get your product to the market as soon as possible, to obtain the best price. From the point of view of the ship's owners and crew (who may or may not be the same people), a merchant ship would earn a fixed fee for a given load. So a faster ship would be able to move more loads and, therefore, earn more in any given amount of time. In addition, a ship with a reputation for being fast would be in greater demand and be able to charge more for its services. So in the merchant fleet, there would be constant pressure to innovate to improve the average speed of each ship.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 15, 2014 14:06:42 GMT
during the height of the craze of hanging out all the dirty laundry, they would also add extensions to the ends of the yardarms to fly extra sails outboard of the regular sails. Those are studding sails, and were a common feature (read universal) on sailing ships* in the 1700's. These were wooden poles that slid through hoops on the yard outwards, and as far as I can tell stored there but retracted so they lay along the yard when not in use (which seems to have been most of the time). It is ironic to think that the skysail system being talked about in this thread is actually the kind of sail design that dates to the 15/1600's. Sails at that point were more or less working on the assumption that the best way to gain thrust was to fill a sail as full of wind as possible. Later sails were rigged to bow outwards far less than earlier ships. So using a parachute is closer to sail designs of the 1500's than more modern sails. (*Or at least square rigged men of war. I'm unclear as to if fore and aft designs or merchant ships possessed them. I'd suspect that merchant ships probably didn't have studding sails) well, yes and no. a Skysail (brand name) is a parafoil which gets a measurable portion of its thrust from the airfoil shaping, rather than just being a big bag full of air. I think the parachute is not so much a reversion to older designs as a logical continuation of mast design. - find a way to hold your sail up in the good wind without needing a big tower on your boat. as for the transition from deep bellied sails, I think that comes mostly from learning to sail crosswind more efficiently, and learning that being able to flatten your sails gives you better control over them. (as well as having better material to make your sails out of) for example, my on boat can haul the sails almost perfectly flat for extreme wind conditions. - and a modern sailor's adage is "the higher the gale, the flatter the sail"
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 7, 2014 9:04:30 GMT
I have a semi-obvious question..... Large ship, plenty of material to utilise. They had Parachutes, they "Launched" them...... Why?... Why not just rig some kind of mast and do conventional sailing ship type sail?....
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 7, 2014 11:17:25 GMT
I have a semi-obvious question..... Large ship, plenty of material to utilise. They had Parachutes, they "Launched" them...... Why?... Why not just rig some kind of mast and do conventional sailing ship type sail?.... First is the number of men you need to operate a large sail. A 38 gun square sailed frigate with a crew of around 300 men would have needed about 40 of them to trim the sails* at any given moment. That might not sound like a lot, but keep in mind that that is probably a larger crew than a lot of modern frigates have. Which brings us to; Skills. Using and maintaining large sails to ensure that they get the most out of the wind while preventing them from being damaged requires a very specific set of skills and an experienced eye to judge conditions. In (say) the US and British Navies there is probably a fair chance that you will find one or two people who have some experience with tall sailing ships. But you are not going to have enough to operate the sails, nor are you going to find enough people who are able and willing to climb up a mast in bad weather - which is the exact moment you need men up in the rigging to trim the sails. The size and complexity of the mast needed, along with the amount of materials is another factor along with the design of modern ships. The masts needed would be huge, probably close to 200 feet high or more. The problem is that in order to be both effective and stable masts have to rest on the keel - otherwise you are adding a lot of top weight along with passing any force gained from the sails to the top of the ship. That dramatically increases the risk of a breeze rolling a ship over. In order to gain stability you'd have to cut holes in the deck through which the mast could be passed, only doing this on a modern ship is going to result in cutting through power and communication cables and then you are going to realize that there is nothing to rest the mast on or keep in in place. Even if you did manage this much of the force and motion is going to be passed onto bulkheads never designed to handle that amount of force, and worse which are weaker for having holes cut in them. So chances are that making and fitting a mast to a modern warship would result in major damage, and might cause so much damage and stress to the keel the ship either has to be scrapped or at least ends up in a repair dock for several months - instead of a couple of weeks. Then there is complexity. As I noted you'd need a fairly large mast, at least one if not two hundred feet high - you have to make sure that the superstructure doesn't get in the way of the sails. Then you need rigging, both to secure the mast (and this is also likely to cause damage to the ship) as well as to work the sails (including a way for men to get up into the mast). Such a structure would weigh several tons, and you then have to work out how to get that vertical using manpower alone. Plus you have to design such a mast so that it can handle the forces it will be under. Get it wrong and the best you can hope for is that the mast bends, the worst involves the mast snapping or ripping its way free of the hull...which even if it doesn't kill anyone is going to do major damage. You also can't get away with one sail, you need at least two for something the size of a modern ship so that one can counteract the forces from the other and keep the ship from twisting around the main sail. Sailing ships would compensate for this to some degree using stay sails, but with a cobbled together rig of this size you'd have to make two masts. Last of all is defense. Putting a large metal mast up anywhere on the ship is going to mess up radar, resulting in a major blind spot - even if you are not in a combat zone this could still be dangerous since you would not be able to see another ships or even land in that direction until you were practically running into it. The rigging and masts would also get in the way of the ships weapons. In a combat zone this could mean that the last thing you see is the anti-ship missile rocketing out of the launcher and detonating as it hits the rigging you just put up. In none combat zones there is the risk of the Phalanx system mistaking the rigging as an incoming missile...climbing rigging is dangerous enough without your own ship shooting at you with exploding rounds. Using parachutes makes much more sense, even if they provide less thrust than a conventional sail. You don't need to build anything - they will no doubt be attached to the connections used for towing the ship, they can be operated by two people and will not mess up any of the defensive systems. And if it comes to a fight can be furled in seconds. (*A 38 gun frigate would have some 8 men per gun, one of whom was a sail-trimmer. This works out as some 40 men to work the sails in action, keeping in mind that the crews were usually a little larger than the 304 figure this would give. And that the crews for the carronades were not included**) (**The aft carronades were traditionally crewed by Marines, which is a tradition that still holds in the Royal Navy where the aft most turret/guns are manned by Marines not the navy. The other carronades were manned by sailors. It should be noted that Marines could not be ordered up into the rigging or used as 'sailors', although taking a somewhat closer look it does appear that a fair number of Marines were quite happy to climb the rigging and help trim sails in emergencies. Some of them even appear to have been as skilled as most ordinary seamen, if not able seamen.)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 8, 2014 9:02:15 GMT
And "Flying" a parachute above the ship is easier?..... I see your points, but why didnt they keep it simples?....
The control of the parachute, it would need control, to keep it "Flying" in the right direction... what if the wind shifts and goes where you dont want to go?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 8, 2014 15:20:16 GMT
And "Flying" a parachute above the ship is easier?..... I see your points, but why didnt they keep it simples?.... The control of the parachute, it would need control, to keep it "Flying" in the right direction... what if the wind shifts and goes where you dont want to go?... you don't realize just how simple that is. - and in the case of that particular show, they had plenty of options where they could go - they just wanted to go. granted, in the TV show, they unnecessarily complicated it - to make it look more impressive.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 9, 2014 20:08:41 GMT
And "Flying" a parachute above the ship is easier?..... I see your points, but why didnt they keep it simples?.... The control of the parachute, it would need control, to keep it "Flying" in the right direction... what if the wind shifts and goes where you dont want to go?... you don't realize just how simple that is. - and in the case of that particular show, they had plenty of options where they could go - they just wanted to go. granted, in the TV show, they unnecessarily complicated it - to make it look more impressive. SD will so be able to find out about where they could go The Last Ship starts this week on SKY One over here if he can get that channel.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 9, 2014 21:27:24 GMT
And "Flying" a parachute above the ship is easier?..... I see your points, but why didnt they keep it simples?.... The control of the parachute, it would need control, to keep it "Flying" in the right direction... what if the wind shifts and goes where you dont want to go?... As light said, it IS simple. It is a system that can be fitted to any existing ship, takes up no real space, doesn't require you to have 2/3rds of your crew taken off damage control and repairs and best of all doesn't mess up the operation of any other systems - specifically defensive systems. In an emergency ships don't need to move fast, nor do they always have to move on a particular heading. Often just having enough speed that you can use the rudder is enough, if only so you can make sure the ship isn't being hit side on by waves that will roll the ship, slow repairs and potentially cause even more damage if not in extreme cases result in the ship being sunk. Masts in comparison require that you devote a considerable amount of space to carry the equipment and materials needed to build one, a LOT of manpower to put up and would require a major redesign of a ship so that the masts don't get in the way of other systems AND so you have suitable connection points for the masts and rigging. (Attaching metal chains that are supporting several tons of mast to the hull of a modern warship would tear the hull apart...and that is if the hull wasn't already damaged.) All of this for a system that will probably never be used on most ships at all, and on those that do end up using it it is probably not going to be needed for more than a few hours - At which point you either get help, manage to make repairs or have to abandon ship.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 9, 2014 22:36:50 GMT
And "Flying" a parachute above the ship is easier?..... I see your points, but why didnt they keep it simples?.... The control of the parachute, it would need control, to keep it "Flying" in the right direction... what if the wind shifts and goes where you dont want to go?... As light said, it IS simple. It is a system that can be fitted to any existing ship, takes up no real space, doesn't require you to have 2/3rds of your crew taken off damage control and repairs and best of all doesn't mess up the operation of any other systems - specifically defensive systems. In an emergency ships don't need to move fast, nor do they always have to move on a particular heading. Often just having enough speed that you can use the rudder is enough, if only so you can make sure the ship isn't being hit side on by waves that will roll the ship, slow repairs and potentially cause even more damage if not in extreme cases result in the ship being sunk. Masts in comparison require that you devote a considerable amount of space to carry the equipment and materials needed to build one, a LOT of manpower to put up and would require a major redesign of a ship so that the masts don't get in the way of other systems AND so you have suitable connection points for the masts and rigging. (Attaching metal chains that are supporting several tons of mast to the hull of a modern warship would tear the hull apart...and that is if the hull wasn't already damaged.) All of this for a system that will probably never be used on most ships at all, and on those that do end up using it it is probably not going to be needed for more than a few hours - At which point you either get help, manage to make repairs or have to abandon ship. and by total coincidence, hanging a parachute off the bow of the boat will tend to put it in line with wind driven waves.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 10, 2014 5:46:13 GMT
In that case, I call for a test, on water. One will fly a Para-sail, one will use the same size of canvas on a sail rig. Try a sail boat for the actual test.... it may be simpler. I have the idea that the one with the sail will find he has time to steer the ship at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 10, 2014 6:06:41 GMT
In that case, I call for a test, on water. One will fly a Para-sail, one will use the same size of canvas on a sail rig. Try a sail boat for the actual test.... it may be simpler. I have the idea that the one with the sail will find he has time to steer the ship at the same time. no. not a sail boat. a sail boat is designed to have a mast and a sail. a modern US made battleship is not. that is the point Cyber is making. to erect a sail on that ship, they would have had to row it back to shore, chop down a suitable tree with their boarding knives, hand carry it back to the ship. find some way to get the thing vertical, over a portion of the deck that was directly supported from the keel, secure standing rigging to keep the thing vertical, position it correctly so it propelled the ship instead of just making it weathervane, and then figure out some way to make a beefy enough block and tackle to use for a mainsheet. oh, and cut another tree about 1/3 the size of the mast for a boom - or half the size if you wanted to make a square rigger. and then they would have had to cut the parachute apart and re-sew it into a sail.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 10, 2014 6:28:00 GMT
Get a long pole, heck a gun barrel will do. Stand it upright on the ships deck. No one can tell me the deck in certain places wont take that?... Put it on a lump of sheet metal if you must to spread the weight.
Take four rigging lines, run them to where they tie up the boat, on the gunnels, gun emplacements, the forklifting anchor point, or wherever you were going to anchor off that kite you were flying?.... I am sure there are tie-down points at the side of the ship somewhere.
You now have a mast.
Not a big one, but then again, how big does it need to be?..
You have a ship full of clever people, engineers even, I am sure they can find some way of making that better even. Like sticking something inside the gun barrel to join two together to make a longer mast.
Question, how "High" can a cannon be raised?... can it point straight up?....for anti-aircraft work?...can you use that as a mast?....
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 10, 2014 10:52:46 GMT
This is the USS Missouri, one of the last 'big gun' warship designs to be decommissioned. This is the USS Arleigh Burke, one of the newest warships in USN service; In both cases note the size of the gun compared to the size of the superstructure. Any mast you tried to build on those ships would HAVE to be raised above the superstructure. The existing masts are NOT designed or intended to carry sails, they are there to hold communication and sensor equipment. Messing around with them to put sails on them would A; Cripple the equipment placed there, leaving you blind (not good, but might not be all that important outside a combat area) and unable to communicate (VERY bad regardless of the situation). And B; Result in said structure being damaged, which at best means damage you can repair but which renders the mast useless. At worst its going to fall down in part or in whole, either falling right on top of important parts of the ship (the bridge) or falling off the ship entirely. Placement is also a problem. The main mast on any ship is placed as close to the center of the hull as possible, regardless as to how many masts the ship might possess. For modern warships this would be impossible for the crew to do, as there are already structures located there - including parts of the engine you are trying to repair...or where before most of your crew got tasked with putting a mast up. A foremast could, in theory, be placed on the forecastle and in fact very close to the position you'd actually find such a mast on a square rigged sailing ship. But this would involve removing the gun located there, and no crew is going to be capable of removing several hundred tons of turret without outside assistance - Even if they ignore what the Navy is going to say about them having to throw said turret over the side or the fact that they just removed part of their defensive weaponry and would have rendered every weapon system in the bow unusable along with your ability to see what is in front of you. A mizzen mast is a none-starter, because it would have to be placed on the flight deck at the rear. Ignoring that helicopters could take over some of the sensor and defensive tasks normally handled by the ship itself. Blocking off the flight deck prevents you from being able to transport supplies, equipment and personal to any friendly ships in range. Even if you don't have any helicopters yourself those from other ships or friendly ports can use the deck, and this can mean the difference between getting supplies and aid in a few hours or a few days. In fact a main mast would cause major problems for helicopter landings due to the stays most likely getting in the way. Modern warships are not designed to be sailed, and certainly not designed to have masts capable of having sails placed on them for propulsion. They don't have the structural strength and connections needed to support the weight of a mast on the hull. Their designs don't include the need to make sure that the wind can pass freely over the deck to catch a sail, nor are the designs intended to remain stable with several tons of metal 200+ feet above the deck - or for that matter on the deck. Space is, and always has been, at a premium on ships. Even the largest ships have less storage space that you'd think, and what they do have is already taken up with those supplies they need on a daily or at least weekly basis. They just don't have the room to store what would be needed to make even one mast, especially considering that such a thing might be used *maybe* once or twice in the entire life of that particular class of ship. All of which misses out another important point; These are warships. Any emergency propulsion system is going and needs to be designed in the not unreasonable assumption that the most likely reason for loosing engine power is having been hit by enemy fire. You get hit hard enough to knock the engines out that means a hole in the side of the ship and casualties. The LAST thing you need is an overly complex system that would take hours and hours to set up under ideal conditions and requires a lot of personal to construct and operate. OH, and putting up a mast if the ship is listing...not a good idea to add additional weight high up on a ship that is already close to rolling over. The parachute system is cheap, quick to operate, simple to use and doesn't require more than a handful of personal. It can give you enough speed to at least turn and put the damaged sections of the ship to the leeward side if needed - which makes repairs easier and lessens the chances of waves hitting the wound causing more damage - or even at slow speeds can move you just far enough to put you in range of a friendly ship or far enough that a second wave of attackers sent to your original location miss you entirely.
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Sept 10, 2014 11:08:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 10, 2014 11:29:57 GMT
Yes, that does look like an Arleigh Burke.
|
|