196 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[Oct. o, 1882 



§}nchting m\& §/iitwewg. 



SCHOONERS OF THE DAY. 



poNI'lNI'IM. the review of the principal types_ of schooners from 



greater than in am 



and rise forward t 

 I Man in another. <: 



ailabli- 

 ■ end's. 

 isually 



stand 



raoli- 

 dislri- 



loes not fulfil the same demands in as great a degree on account of 

 ler flaring side, slow bilge and hollow floor ; and in her case 

 extreme dimensions would, lead us into a more serious error 

 n consequence, as those dimensions would imply a circum- 

 cribed rectangle from which the Montauk has departed to 

 l greater extent than the Halycon ; while Montauk's great beam 

 neasures only the width oJ' her deck, f hat or i lalycon measures more 

 rly the boat. In the first, ease the figure is fictitious altogether. 



the second it is more in accord with fact, 

 line, has 2-3. 5ft. beam, a proportion reprt 

 with 94.75ft. loan hue, has 25.3ft. beam, or 

 apparently only a tri tie less beam than the 

 con. If now we ay-rage their widths to g( 

 a much greater divergence will become a; 



numbei in I ' ! ' i , ml Iheavetage 

 tauk 18ft. Sin., or actually /ess than in Hf 

 sideriug the difference in length of the yac 

 long; the proporticiu between that, and hen 

 -"4 the proportion bet wee 



:!H.T5fr.Ioi 

 s 5.011. Tur 



.nd for Mon 



eg the. 



jnto ( 

 Tha 



the 



Hah-eon, with ru.-'lft. load 

 s.-nted by;;. 87. Montauk, 

 in the proportion of 3.74 ; 

 eery wide example, Haly- 



ts. But Halycon is 79,3ft. 

 san beam is 4.85. Montauk 

 that and her mean beam 

 lave for Halcyon, 10.215. 

 tean beam of Halcyon i. 



In othei 



lid have 

 but 16ft, 8in. This, then, 

 king-beams'' of the two 

 ry beamy boat. We have 

 es. As a matter of fact, 

 „- , the Montauk is a boat of 

 small beam. 



Let us now turn to depth. Montauk has been called a deep 

 schooner. Whether she really is or not the ioHoiving will tell. Hal- 

 cyon has 7. Oft. dee!; to rabbet' on 70.3ft. length, a proportion of 0.098. 

 Montauk has 10ft. hold on 01.15 ft. load line, a proportion of 1.105 or 

 only one-eleventh more. Not a very great deal, remembering the 

 extremely shoal type of which Halcyon is a representative. But 

 this is only a comparison of figures. What relation have their 

 average depths, the depths of the boats viewed as bodies rather than 

 the mere tape-line dimensions taken at an extreme and exceptional 

 point in the hull? How do their mean depths compare? Proceeding 

 as before, measuring the depths amidship at a number of points 

 uthwartships, and dividing by [tin! number un- a mean, we find Hal- 

 cyon to have an average of ikbiijfi,, and jIonl.n.u k in it sft. Referred 

 to length Halcyon's mean depth is expressed by the decimal 0.078, 

 and that of .Montauk by us I. In body the latter proves to be only 

 u>o -tUnieouth deeper. Whether such a trilling disibiction justifies 

 calling one a. shoal and the other a deep boat by contrast the reader 

 can answer for himself . 



Summarizing the foregoing, we conclude that i 

 orthodox flat," wade American type, Montauk rx 

 narrower boat with small mcrea-e in depth in poir 

 deception bare figures may present in contradietic 



The- real position of veys-is of her kind in the ar 

 he dearly assigned by folio 

 antipodes of Haley. 



is opposed to the 

 mst be deemed a 

 it of fact, whatever 



well-known British seboon. 

 who has awed all schooners 

 given cutlers a lively bout to 



The diagram on page ilfi sh 

 nly less than that of Montauk 



i; a similar (ram of thoughts, with the 

 ;. For this purpose we have selected 

 i' Miranda, the famous Harvey flyer, 

 off the course in British waters and 

 windward upon many an occasion. 

 iws that her beam, though consider- 

 veragemuch better and reduce 



ud a 



n example of the oi >oosite I yp. , 

 :its the real state of affairs, A 

 or practical purposes and from 

 -cause that section will average 

 an honest comparison is to be 

 rv is to be derived therefrom. 

 be taken into account, and that 

 of the question and the theory 

 ' hilt upon quicksand. 



a both sections a 



eof September ., 



i-l '■:- -.. uoi . i, ., 'I ■ vim II r Il-i.b- 



a model of great beam. Her width is 

 own m a plumb side, a low, short bilge, 



section approaches that of a rectangle, 

 hi the features imparted to it by its ex- 

 )ther hand, the section of the Montauk 



the difference exhibited he,- figures taken at the extreme points, be- 

 cause she carries her beam well up and down, while the American 

 craft is all flare. Thus compared to length we found the ratio of 



hi nitr. tik's i-;;w;ii' b .mi h - lb. by .vldle beb ,r ];„ llrifisii v- ■:-.-'"! e 

 18.8 divided by 03.5, or 0.203, indieaiing apparently one-quarter less. 

 ■■''Iii-idaf ■.•■•uee" becomes materially reduced huweVer, when form is 

 allowed the influence it should have in oo.r eoneltislons. The ratio of 

 Moutauk's mean beam ascertained above is 0.176. For Miranda we 

 And it by the same method 0.143, the lowest width being taken Sft. up 

 from bottom of keel. The difference between these is 0.033, or be- 

 tween one-fifth and one-sixth less beam than llontauk instead of one- 

 quarter as derived from the bald figures, or, to put it in a plainer 

 way, while figures lead us to suppose a difference or ibbl in the beams 

 of the two yachts, the average of their bodies shows onlyO.19. We 

 are aware that this has been" obtained only from a consideration of 

 midship sections and not from the whole bodies, SO that the result 

 might need modification according as one yacht is fuller fore and aft 

 than the other, but we can accept liie midship sections as general 

 indices of type to avoid mrther complication which would on the 

 whole not affect these deductions. Stated in a general way then, 

 although figures indicate Miranda's beam to Pea. quarter less in 

 proportion to leimth man Mviitauk's. it ii m reality only a fifth less. 



With regard to dopth. the ratio for Montauk is 0.105 and for Miranda 

 fbv Llovds) 13.6ft divided by 92.5, or 0.133, so far as figures go. But 

 the proportions are for Hontauk O.QS-f and 

 0.8:1) I., hju. Now by extreme figure-- th.i 

 rsas bit i.j,: a.i less it 103 1; that is; Miranda 

 b_-jir.ii than the Amerbian schooner. But 



depths the difference is 0.108 less 0.084 or 



0.022, which bears to Montauk's mean the relation expressed by the 

 decimal 0.362. In other words mean depth reduces the excess of 



Vib-^-mofavrrigirg 



difference in depth appe; 

 had relatively 0.295 more 

 by a companso" '" 



