Yachting Volume I Part 7

Introduced first in the 10-tonner 'Verve,' in 1877, the chain-plates were torn up in an extra heavy squall; but this occurred from the great stability of the boat and the fastening having been insufficient; the rigging screws, however, were blamed for all the trouble, and were laid aside for ten years or thereabouts, until re-introduced in the 5-tonner 'Doris.' Now no racing boat is without them.

Attention was also given to the lightening of deck fittings, skylights, companions, and the like, these in the racing vessels being kept lower and flatter, and the scantling reduced perhaps rather farther than advisable, as one certainly thinks on getting a stream of water down the neck from a leaky skylight.

Bulwarks have been reduced so as to save weight and windage, until in the smaller yachts they have become a mere ledge or foothold, whilst even in the largest cla.s.s the rail is less than a foot from the deck.

Below, fittings have been lightened correspondingly. Cedar, yellow pine, and cretonnes or tapestries stretched on frames or light panels, take the place of the good solid oak and mahogany framing of the years gone by. Indeed, in some of the cla.s.ses under 40-rating, cabin fittings have been dispensed with altogether; although this is not altogether a novelty, as the Marquis of Ailsa, in 'Bloodhound' (built 1874), and 'Sleuthhound' (built 1881), had at first no fittings beyond a seat along each side. 'Thistle' in 1887 was similarly arranged, nor had 'Valkyrie' or 'Vigilant' much more inside than a coat of paint when racing for the America Cup; but these last are of course special cases, where everything was sacrificed so that the uttermost second of speed should be taken out of the yachts. In cruising yachts the cabins are infinitely more elegant and comfortable now than formerly. The good old birdseye maple panelling with rosewood mouldings and gilded 'egg and dart' cornice has given place to tasteful cabinet-work designed in many cases by high-cla.s.s artists. The main cabin of the 'Lethe,' designed by Mr. T. L. Watson, F.R.I.B.A., is a good example of this, and the 'Thistle,' now called 'Meteor,' the property of the German Emperor, has since been very beautifully fitted up from designs by the same gentleman, the photographs reproduced here giving but an indication of the elegance and richness of the interior.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Profile of 'Valkyrie.' Designed by G. L. Watson.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: Profile of 'Vigilant.' Designed by N. Herreshoff.]

One of the happiest combinations of lightness of structure with taste and comfort is in the Prince of Wales's 'Britannia.' The fittings throughout are of polished yellow pine and mahogany, with tapestries and cretonnes above the polished wood dado, the effect being extremely bright, cosy, and unostentatious.

[Ill.u.s.tration: SALOON OF 'THISTLE' (NOW 'METEOR').]

To return to the story of the evolution of the modern racing yacht, no striking change in form was made for some little time after 'America's' advent, beyond, of course, the steady lengthening and deepening of the model. Dan Hatcher, with the 'Glance' in 1855, entered on the wonderful series of successes which culminated perhaps in 'Norman,' 1872. These were all reasonably long boats with nice bows, fine after ends, and of big mid-area and displacement, but beautifully fair and easy all over, and showing a slight but not inordinate hollow forward. In 1866 Mr. Fife, of Fairlie, built the 'Fiona,' and though Clyde builders had already turned out successful yachts, it was 'Fiona' that put the fame of Scotch builders on a solid footing. This beautiful vessel was a cutter of 80 tons, of great length in proportion to beam (73 ft. 6 in. 15 ft. 9 in.) and of large displacement for those days (108 tons); but she had singularly long, fair and easy lines, and, sailed in a masterly manner by John Houston, of Largs, more than held her own with the Solent-built craft.

However, beyond being exceptionally fair and easy, 'Fiona' presented no striking novelty in form, nor did the big cutters 'Kriemhilda,'

'Vol-au-Vent,' or 'Formosa,' built by M. Ratsey, of Cowes, in 1872, 1875, and 1878 respectively, and it is an outsider and amateur yacht-builder that we have to thank for the daring departure in form that was made in 'Jullanar.'

[Ill.u.s.tration: Cutter yacht 'Britannia'--general arrangement plan.]

Prior to 1870 but little was known of the laws governing the resistance to bodies moving through water. It is true that eighty years before this, towards the close of last century, Colonel Beaufoy had made an elaborate series of experiments in towing bodies through water, beginning first in one of the tanks of his father's brewhouse.

These were elaborated in the Greenland Dock near London, and included the determination of the resistance of all manner of shapes, except unhappily s.h.i.+pshape ones, the nearest approach to these being double wedges, and double wedges with a straight amids.h.i.+p piece inserted. But while Colonel Beaufoy also made experiments for the determination of the value of surface friction on planes pulled through the water, no great importance seems to have been attached to these by s.h.i.+pbuilders in general, and the subject of surface friction was more or less lost sight of by them until again brought forward by Maquorn Rankine, first in a series of papers in the 'Mechanic's Magazine,' and more elaborately in his 's.h.i.+pbuilding, Theoretical and Practical,' published in 1866. In this Rankine, basing his deductions on Weisbach's experiments on the flow of water through pipes, concluded on mathematical principles that the entire resistance at moderate speeds of a fair and easy formed vessel was due to surface friction--i.e. the rubbing of the water against the sides and bottom of the s.h.i.+p. Rankine showed also that at higher speeds the forming of waves was a material and ever-increasing element in the resistance.

It is fully twenty years ago that the late Mr. William Froude began to give to the world the results of his experiments on the resistance of planes of different lengths, coated with various substances and towed at varying speeds through the water. These experiments were conducted under the most favourable conditions, and with the nicest regard for accuracy, and practically confirmed Maquorn Rankine's deductions, although it was found that Rankine had somewhat overestimated the value attachable to surface friction, and had also overestimated the increase in frictional resistance, due to increased speed. Still the great fact remained that practically the entire resistance to a fairly formed body, moving through water at moderate speeds, is due to friction and to friction alone.

Rankine's reasoning, early in the sixties, had been too subtle for those fathers of s.h.i.+pbuilding at that date engaged in the art. Able, honest, practical men, most of them could have handled an adze, or maul, with the best of their workmen, and were more at home fairing a sheering batten, or directing a launch, than in a.n.a.lysing speed curves, or investigating strength calculations.

But one or two of the younger and brighter minds in the profession, more especially those who had the advantage of Rankine's direct tuition, felt that the old beliefs as to resistance presented such anomalous and unreconcilable results that they could not be founded on any true law of nature. John Inglis, jun., then a mere boy, inst.i.tuted in Pointhouse s.h.i.+pyard Rankine's method of estimating the resistance of s.h.i.+ps, and for many years was alone in this mode of investigation.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Resistance curves

Model of S.S. 'Merkara.'

SPEED IN FEET PER MINUTE RESISTANCE IN LBS.]

But with Froude's experiments all doubt on the matter vanished. It was no longer a question of 'condemned mathematics.' Froude had the happy knack of writing so that the proverbial schoolboy could understand him; and the schoolboy could see the value of resistance to motion through water weighed out as simply and accurately as a pound of currant bun. These experiments for the determination of the frictional resistance of water, published in 1874, were supplemented presently by experiments on models of actual s.h.i.+ps, and also by towing a full-size s.h.i.+p, the 'Greyhound,' her resistance at various speeds being recorded by means of a dynamometer on board the 'Active,' the vessel towing her. The results of the experiments on model and s.h.i.+p were set out in a curve, when it was found, after the necessary corrections were made, that both curves were of precisely similar character. A basis of comparison between model and s.h.i.+p was thus established, the measure of this being set forth in what is known as Froude's law of comparison, which may thus be stated. The equivalent speed of a s.h.i.+p and the model it represents will vary as the square root of their lengths. Thus, in the case of a s.h.i.+p 100 feet long represented by a model 4 feet long, the equivalent speed of the s.h.i.+p would be five times that of the model, and at these equivalent speeds would present similar phenomena connected with resistance as the model does. This fact enormously increased the knowledge of investigators, and it was belief in it that gave the writer absolute confidence in carrying out the design of the 'Vanduara,' though he possessed experience in small boats only. Mr.

Froude also split up the several elements of resistance to motion through the water into their component parts, a.s.signing a value to each, and showing what was due to surface friction and eddy-making, and what to wave-making. Scott Russell had already argued for a given length of fore and after body for any given speed, and this was recognised by yacht-builders to some extent by their gradually lengthening out their vessels; but the disadvantages as well as the advantages of length could only be thoroughly realised on investigating Froude's experiments. An example is given of such an experiment in the diagram, which shows the resistance curve of a model of the 'Merkara,' built by Messrs. Denny Bros., at Dumbarton, where the several resistances are shown, each in its place. In this diagram the resistance due to surface friction is indicated by the dotted line, and the total resistance by the full line. Up to a speed of 250 feet per minute (for the model) the resistance is almost entirely due to skin friction, but after that the wave-making becomes more and more serious until at 370 feet per minute the wave-making takes more power than the surface friction.

While surface friction thus plays a very large part in the resistance of all vessels, and more especially in that of ocean-going steamers and s.h.i.+ps, which from their large dimensions seldom attain serious wave-making speeds, yet undue importance may be placed upon friction, and, in the smaller yachts, especially, surface may be inordinately cut away. A notable example of this was the 'Thistle,' built in 1889 to compete for the America Cup; here the surface was so cut down that sufficient lateral plane was not left to hold her to windward, and although she sailed the water as fast as the American champion, the 'Volunteer,' she drifted bodily to leeward.

A short history of Mr. Froude's discoveries in resistance was advisable before touching on 'Jullanar,' as this wonderful vessel, whether the result of intuition or of early and immediate appreciation of Froude's investigations, was a remarkable example of the modern theories regarding naval architecture.

The same year that 'Jullanar' was built, I designed my first racing yacht, the 5-ton 'Clotilde,' but whilst I had the advantage, through my friend Mr. John Inglis, jun., of specially early access to Professor Froude's investigations, I cut her away in a somewhat timid fas.h.i.+on, though sufficient for her at that time to be compared to a 'cart-wheel,' with the accompanying prediction that she might 'run on land, but would never sail in salt water.'

Meanwhile, with splendid audacity, and with no timid reverence for precedent, Mr. Bentall built the 'Jullanar.'

An Ess.e.x plough and agricultural implement maker, Mr. E. H. Bentall had but little training in naval architecture, but from boyhood had been fond of yachting and of yacht modelling. He fancied he could do something in the way of improving the form of the existing racing yacht. After cutting several half-models, he got one that pleased him, and on a piece of his own property adjoining the Blackwater river in Ess.e.x, the famous yawl, afterwards to be known as 'Jullanar,' was laid down.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 'JULLANAR'

_126 tons. Built by E. H. Bentall, Esq., 1875._]

Great length was taken in proportion to beam, as length means capacity for speed, and beam in those days was doubly taxed. Draft was untaxed, and was used boldly to obtain stability and weatherly qualities; but while such proportions would have been impossible with the ordinary form of forefoot and sternpost, as the boat would have been clogged up with wet surface, this was got over by cutting all deadwood clean away both forward and aft, in such daring fas.h.i.+on as was not attempted until 'Thistle' was built, years afterward and I should not have essayed such a form of profile in her had not 'Jullanar's' success given me a precedent. Add to these features the fact that every line in the vessel was easy and fair, and the only wonder is that the famous yawl was not even more phenomenally successful than she was.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 'Jullanar'--mids.h.i.+p section.]

Mr. Hunt, publisher of 'Hunt's Yachting Magazine,' has kindly supplied the following measurements of the 'Jullanar,' which were given to him by Mr. Bentall himself, when he would not let anyone else have them.

Coming therefore from the fountain-head they are accurate, and should be preserved as a register of detail.

_'Jullanar'[3] 126 tons, yawl_

ft. in.

Length over all 110 6 Depth of hold 12 0 Length on load-line 99 0 Beam extreme, one sixth of load-line 16 10 " on water-line 16 5 " on deck 16 8 Depth after under load-line 13 6 " at forefoot load-line 1 6 " at mids.h.i.+p 13 6 Height of freeboard aft 6 3 " " forward 7 9 " " mids.h.i.+ps 3 8 Height of freeboard bulwarks 2 0 Rake of sternpost, upright Distance the greatest transverse section is abaft centre of vessel at load-line 10 6

Distance of centre of gravity of displacement below water-line 3 4 Length of mainmast 75 0 " deck to hounds 53 0 " masthead 9 6 Diameter at deck 1 4 Length of main-topmast, fid to pin 38 6 " main-boom 56 6 Diameter centre of main-boom 1 0 Length of main-gaff 40 0 " bowsprit outboard 24 6 " gaff topsail-yards, No. 1 63 0 " " " No. 2 46 0 " " " No. 3 22 0 " mizzen-mast 51 6 " deck to hounds 36 0 " mizzen-boom 26 0 " mizzen-yard 35 0

[Footnote 3: _Vide_ 'Arabian Nights,' the 'Princess Jullanar of the Sea.']

To my mind the genius, daring, and originality of mind of Mr. Bentall were even more fully displayed in the design of the unsuccessful 'Evolution' than of the successful 'Jullanar.'

[Ill.u.s.tration: 'Jullanar,' yawl, 126 tons, 1875. Designed by E. H.

Bentall, Esq.]

The 'Evolution,' as her name implied, was the logical outcome of the then tonnage rule, and of the laws of resistance rediscovered, or at least popularised, by Froude. It seems self-evident now that with a belief in these laws only one type of boat could be the result; but Mr. Froude alone had the courage of his opinions, and built the extraordinary 10-tonner which, if it did nothing else, scared the authorities into changing the tonnage rule. 'Evolution' was by far the longest of the 10-tonners, her dimensions being 51 ft. 6 ft. 6 in.--indeed about the same water-line length as the twenties. To get moderate wet surface the ends were cut away; but as 'Jullanar' already represented the utmost that could be done in that direction, while preserving a fair line of keel, this was cast aside in 'Evolution,'

and the profile was that of a true 'fin' boat. More than this, it was found after a trial sail or two that she was very deficient in stability when the lead slab forming the keel was recast in the form of a bulb on the bottom of the plate, the completed design simply forming one of our modern bulb fin keels, but of course, owing to the 94 rule, with vastly less beam. 'Evolution' was not a success because of her insufficient stability, but with the meagre data in possession of the designer as to the stability of boats of this cla.s.s, it would have been marvellous had the difficulty been overcome in a first trial. To those able to see the beauties in a design, it matters less whether the ultimate outcome has been successful or not, and while to 'the general' nothing succeeds like success, a few have a kindly sympathy and hearty admiration for those who have laboured, that _we_ may enjoy the increase. Many of the best and kindest thoughts and brightest ideas never reach fruition in this world, and so in the mechanical arts there is often more genius displayed in a failure than in a success, with this difference, that a mechanical idea seldom dies, but, 'blossoming in the dust' of one brain, is plucked and worn by another. 'Evolution' lay dead for fifteen years. She has had a striking resurrection on both sides of the Atlantic.

[Ill.u.s.tration:

FT L.W.L. 50.75'

D. BEAM. 6.395'

EXTR. BEAM. 6.50 DRAUGHT 10.00

'Evolution,' October 12, 1880, 10 tons, Y.R.A. Designed by E. H.

Bentall, Esq.]

In the autumn of 1886, as has been stated, the tonnage rule was changed to that of rating, the only taxed dimensions being length on water-line and sail-area. This change, though at once affecting dimensions, did not materially affect form, though even in the earlier boats designed under this rule more hollow was given to the sections, this being of course a necessity, as with the added beam abnormal displacement would otherwise have been the result. But displacement was not immediately cut down, and for a given length of load-water-line yachts had quite as much displacement as formerly; 'Thistle,' 120-rating, and 'Mohawk,' 40-rater, the only two large yachts built the first year for the new cla.s.sification, both being wholesome big-bodied boats, with 130 and 58 tons displacement respectively. Overhang naturally increased somewhat, as it was apparent that this could be more usefully adopted with a shallow-bodied boat than with a narrow one, it being evident that the natural way of forming the stem and counter was to follow the general b.u.t.tock lines of the fore and after body. This overhang on the fairly deep boats built up till 1890, so far from being objectionable, was a distinct advantage, as it gave a fine, easy, and at the same time lifting, bow in a sea, eased the bow riband lines when the boat lay down and was hard driven reaching, and carried the side fairly out aft in the long counter.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Mids.h.i.+p section

Profile of lines of 'Meteor' (late 'Thistle'). Designed by G. L.

Watson, 1887.]

But beam was now steadily increasing, as untaxed dimensions are apt to do, while extreme draught also increased, and these two giving ample stability, displacement was more and more cut down. Length still had to be got somehow, but length ran up wet surface, and in the 'cla.s.ses'

for every foot of length a considerable amount of sail-area had to be given, making, as it were, a direct and indirect tax thereon. With an ordinary form of profile, the longer yachts would have been clogged up with wet surface; so profiles first imitated 'Jullanar' and then 'Evolution,' while displacement was cut down to a minimum, to give an easily driven form, and stability got in another way, by lengthening the righting lever of the ballast, by giving immense draft of water, and in the smaller cla.s.ses concentrating this ballast in the form of a bulb, as in the altered 'Evolution.' With the shallow body, overhang has of course increased, the flat section carrying out naturally into overhangs forward and aft, which almost double the water-line length of the boat on deck. That such a type of boat sails fast for a given sail-area and water-line length is beyond dispute, but this exhausts almost all that can be said in its favour. For 1/2-raters, 1-raters, and 2-1/2-raters, the type is perhaps suitable enough, as these are only used as day boats, and extended cruising was never contemplated in them. But from 5-up to 40-rating the type is nothing like so good as that of the boats built prior to 1890. Expensive to build, expensive to handle, without head-room, or indeed room of any kind inside, they would thrash themselves to pieces in any sea but for the admirable manner in which they have been put together. A season, or at most two, sees the end of their success as racers; then they must be broken up, or sold for a mere song, as they are quite useless for cruising. So strongly was this felt by the various yacht-builders and designers, that in the autumn of 1891 they, in response to the invitation of the Yacht Racing a.s.sociation, addressed a joint circular to that body, and, with I think exceptional abnegation of what looked to be their more immediate interests, pointed out the undesirability of the present type of yacht, in the following letter:--

Langham Hotel, London: October 6, 1892.

We (C. P. Clayton, William Fife, jun., Charles Nicholson, Arthur E. Payne, H. W. Ridsdale, Joseph Soper, and G. L.