OF SHIP CONSTRUCTION. 81 



RegardiriG^ the other matters of strength, I have not had sufficient time to digest all 

 this, but the writer has shown that he intended to find all the weak spots, has studied the 

 pros and cons very carefully, and has "weighed them in the balances" but has found the Ish- 

 erwood vessels not wanting. 



Regarding the practical considerations, it is interesting to notice that several shipowners 

 have gix-en Mr. Flodin some very interesting views on the Isherwood system. I am particu- 

 larly interested in the reply of W. R. Grace & Company with reference to the repair dam- 

 age to the shell or bottom — that they have allowed the repairers to cut the longitudinal to 

 suit the repair. This is as it should be dealt with, for there is no reason why the strength 

 of die vessel should be in any way impaired if care is taken in fitting an adequate butt-strap 

 where the longitudinals may be cut. I mention this because I have from time to time found 

 that surveyors have endeavored to point out that the Isherwood system is bad to repair be- 

 cause the longitudinals have to be cut back to bulkheads and original butts. There is no rea- 

 son, of course, for this, and I am pleased to learn one firm at least appreciates this point. I 

 am convinced that there is not an easier vessel to repair than the Isherwood type. 



One point on which the writer might have obtained information with advantage is the 

 question of fabrication. There is no doubt, to quote the words of Mr. Piez, that "the Ish- 

 erwood system lends itself more readily to fabricating than does the vessel of the fish-bone 

 type." 



I was pleased to observe in the paragraph before the conclusion that the writer had 

 raised a point which I am quite sure is not generally considered and is deserving of atten- 

 tion. No doubt this is quite a point in the construction of an Isherwood vessel and an 

 important factor in reducing the working cost of a yard. 



But there is another point that he might also have called attention to, which reduces 

 working expenses, that is, less furnaces are required, as practically no frame bending is neces- 

 sary in the Isherwood type of vessel. 



The President: — Are there any further comments on the paper? 



Mr. John Reid, Member: — Gentlemen, I hold no brief for Mr. Isherwood, and I am 

 not sure that he requires anyone to sound the praises of his activities in shipbuilding, and 

 certainly it is not my purpose to attack his system — I think it has made good. Mr. Hiatt, 

 in his remarks, rather made out that it had not, but everybody knows that is nonsense. The 

 Isherwood system has made good, and that even in destroyers, and made good under the 

 most difficult conditions, but like every other innovation, it started out with too much of 

 a blare of trumpets. You must put all you have behind a new project, to get through the 

 "stick-in-the-mudness" of the average naval architect, trying to save his owners from malt- 

 ing a mistake. Isherwood had to drive through all that; he had to drive through it by ig- 

 noring the naval architect and going to the owner and showing him- why. 



Isherwood in his plan saved steel, he got strength in nearly every direction where he 

 wanted it, and anyone who saves steel today, when you are building 8,000,000 tons of ships 

 in a hurry, is a public benefactor. So he was able to get shipyards, not too highly experi- 

 enced in shipbuilding, working at the problem of shipbuilding, and almost in twenty-four 

 hours, so to speak, had got out all the scantlings which were necessary, so as to order steel 

 and go ahead with the work — you know what that means. 



The Isherwood system can be used in a great many ships today, but it cannot be uni- 



