414 



FOREST AND STREAM, 



[Deo. 16, 1886. 



KEEL VERSUS CENTERBOARD. 



EiUlor Forefft and Stream: 



In yotir issue of Sept. 16, HiHDinarizmg the i-esults of tlie America's 

 Cup races of ISTti, you raise a question wMch seems to meth.emqst 

 important which can he discussed hy American yachtsmen, viz: 

 that the possibilities of speed for all-round racing craft are greater 

 mth the keel boat than ^\^tll the modern Puritan-T\! ax-flower 

 centerboard type; and that if the Cup is to remain much longer in 

 this country, its defense will hare to be Intrusted to keel yachts 

 but Little ditfering from tlie English challenger. No more bene- 

 ficial re.sult could befall American yachting than the establish- 

 ment of this opinion, for the introduction of large keel yachts 

 would be followed by holder open sea sailing than will probably 

 attend the building of the large centerboards for some time to 

 come. But, on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that the 

 special purpose of the building of these large yachts (and the re- 

 mark is fully as true of the large cnttera as of the large sloops) is 

 not to secru-e good heavy weather open sea cruisers, but yachts 

 capable of the liighest speed in the average conditions of yacht 

 racing. By their aU-round speed in racing and by no other 

 criterion will these vessels be judged. E\^en granting superiority 

 to the keel vessels as a hea^T weather cruiser, unless their speed 

 la at least equal to the speed of Mayilowcr and her impro\-cd suc- 

 cessors, they cannot hope for preeminence among our yaclitH. 

 Consequent] j% I say, the issue raised by you is the most important 

 which American yachtsmen can discuss, and in the hope of dra\v- 

 ing out fi-om the Forest a>'D Stream a full statement for the 

 faith that is in it I have put together the salient points of the 

 adverse ai-gument which bear stronglj' against its opinion, 



As I understand the article iu question, the Forest and Stream 

 there expresses its belief that as aU-round racers in average yacht- 

 ing weatner, the large vessels of Puritan-Mayflower tyi^e liave a 

 somewhat greater speed than the best of the existing narrow- 

 beamed cutters, J rex, Galatea and Genesta. But, tUat these 

 narrow vessels have not by any means exhausted the possibilities 

 of the keel boat, rather, by a slight increase of beam and conse- 

 quent changes of form, keel boats will be produced which, over 

 large averages of i-aces, will prove to be faster than the fawtesl 

 successors of Mayflower, and consequently that Americans must 

 build such keel boats, if for any considerable length of time they 

 are to keep the America's Cui). 



To put the pith of the counter argument in a few eentencos at 

 the beginning. Mr. Hui gess, by slightly increasing the depth of 

 the centerboard boat, and hanging the ballast on the lowest 

 point, on the keel, while retaining nearly all the beam of the old- 

 time sloop, in combination ^^dth beautiful modeling of the under 

 water body, has in'odnced a type in the large si^es with all these 

 remarkable qualities: 



1 Their initial stability has become so great that they possess a 

 sail power far in excess of existing cutters of equal length. 



2. The low-hung ballast, together with large size, has given them 

 ultimate stability sufficiently gi-eat to enable them to carry theii- 



freat sail power through a wide range of weather, in fact through 

 y far the gi-eater number of races to be sailed in any one season, 

 or almost all weather, except very unusual, in a number or 

 seasons. 



3. By the small draft which the centerboard permits, their 

 immersed frictional surface is kept small, and probably the chief 

 source of resistance is kept low. 



4. By the use of the centerboard, with moderate draft, the 

 windward ability iu ordinary weather of these vessels is among 

 the highest of any sailing vessels afloat. 



A few words may be necessary to substantiate these assertions. 

 It being always understood tliat large vessels (80ft. watorline and 

 over) arc referred to, since they confessedly stand at the head, 

 lioth in England and this country. 



The comparisons of two years betrween the large cutters and the 

 large sloops ha^ e demonstrated the value of the greater initial 

 stability of the latter. 03 enabling them to carry sail power in 

 moderate weather far beyond that of the cutters. Taking the 

 published figures, according to the New York Y. C. rule, we find : 

 Displacement. Sail Aj-ea. 



Puritan 105 tons. 7fif5S sq. ft. 



Genesta 145 tons. 7,387 sq. ft. 



Mayflowei- 110 tons. 9,00ti sq. ft. 



Galatea 1-57 tons. 7,146 sq. ft. 



Genesta'B sail area must be a mistake, as it is given as greater 

 than Galatea's, although aU the latter'a spar measurements are 

 larger. But taking the figures as they stand, we find that for every 

 ton displacement, Puritan lias 76 sq. ft. of sail, Genesta 4S ; May- 

 flower 81, Galatea 46. No further proof of my statement is neces- 

 sary. 



That the ultimate stability of the new type is all that is needed 

 to enable them to carry their sail through the average of racing 

 weather, was demonstrated beyond dispute by Pui-itan's easy per- 

 formance in the strong wind and ugly sea of the Goelet Cup race 

 of 1885, and was again indicated by her Avork in the last Cup race 

 of that year during the 35-mile-an-hour squall when, with her 

 three lower sails, she was carrying a press of canvas certainly 

 considerably iu excess of all Genesta had, Including the galftop- 

 sail. Sachem, in the race with Miranda last Septemoer, indicated 

 the same thing. All tlie reports of that race agree that the super- 

 ior weatherliness of .Sachem under canvas iu that strong wind and 

 tumbling sea was pronounced. But at any rate Puritan has set- 

 tled the matter. 



That the immersed friction surface of the new type is less than 

 that of existing cutters of equal length, is a fact of measurement 

 about which tuere is no dispute. In your issue of Oct. SI, I gave 

 strong reasons for believing that the result is that within the 

 range of ordinary speed (up to nine miles an hour) the resistances 

 of the new type are less than those of the cutters. 



Finally the ability of these new centerboards to point and fetch 

 10 windward has been proven m the last two years to be at least 

 equal to those of the very best keel boats afloat. As for mild 

 weather, the Forest and Stream has stated that Puritan and 

 Mayflower fetched higher than Genesta and Galatea. Puritan 

 was not iTifcrior to Genesta in the last 1885 race, and Sachem, in 

 heavy weather, was easily superior to Miranda. Their at least 

 equal ability in average racing weather to the best cutter in this 

 respect needs no other defense. 



So the modern centerboard boat has combined great sail power, 

 high stability and great windward performance , witli small re- 

 sistance in average conditions, dependent upon small immersed 

 sui'face. 



How is it with the proposed keel boat? 



I presume that she vnll have 3 to 4ft. more beam than Galatea, 

 say 19ft. on a waterline of S.M t. If the beam is kept as low as 17ft. 

 it is reasonable to expect her initial stability to still be too low to 

 enable her to carry sail power comparing with that of the large 

 centerboard. 



Now, this increase of beam means that entrance and run will be 

 blunter than those of the narrow-beamed cutter. In this respect 

 she will stand between the narrov/ beam and the centerboard. 

 Her wave-making resistance nnll naturally be gi-eater than that of 

 the existing cutter, and, though less than that of the centerboard, 

 her superiority in this respect will be less than is that of the pres- 

 ent cutter. 



To stand a chance of success she must be able to point and fetch 

 at least as higJi as the present cutter, and as her sail power and 

 the force to drive her down to leeward will be greater, it seems 

 evident that the area of her longitudinal immersed section cannot 

 he practically diminished beyond tliatof the present tj^pe of cutter 

 without risk of producing inferior windward abilitv. Conse- 

 quently, for a given length we may reasonably expect 'to see her 

 draft as great as the present cutter's. Now, greater beam, with 

 equal length and draft, means greater displacement in a rapid 

 degree; and probably her displacement cannot he much reduced 

 (because her stabilitx- must be maintained) by high bilges jaid very 

 hollow floors. But this greater displacement on a greater beam 

 means decidedly increa.^ed friction surface, and the outcome will 

 be that the keel boat (as compared with existmg cutters* will be 

 less superior to the sloop iu the matter of wavc-inaking and con- 

 siderably more inferior in the matter of skiu resifitance. 



As to sail power, even -with 19ft. beam, the keel boat is still 4f t. 

 less beam than Mayflo^^■er. It is not unreasonable to say that her 

 Initial stability yvill not admit of sparring the keel boat with the 

 large spars of PuritBU and May/lower. Her sail power will be 

 greater than the existing cutter's, but her dippla,coment and fric- 

 tion surface Avill be also greater, and her sail power will .still be 

 inferior to the centerboards. In other words, it appears probahle 

 that without greater car* your keel boat will exemplify thaterror 

 which the Forest and Stream has so denounced and found ex- 

 hibited in Atlantic— that she wOlbe "both -wide and deep." 



So, for all-round racing it seems to me the future keel boat has 

 a very heavy contr.y cT in ujKlertakliig to prove its superiority of 

 speed oTOr Mayflower and her apeed'er successors wluch are cer- 

 tain to come. 



Undoubtedly most of your cutter readers will forthwith declare 

 that all this is pretty on paper, but there are Madge and Shona 

 aad Clara, etc., tl^e equals or superiors of any ceoiterboards of 

 their inches, and consequently suTerlority may be Tooted for in 



the large sizes of cutters with equal confidence. If thev will read 

 an interview with Lieut. Honn, iu the SiO) of Sept. 34, thev win 

 tind some reasons why such an argument cannot hold. It seenis 

 to_ me to bo tujidamentally fallacious. W]mt we have to deal 

 •with m racing yachts is always relative porformnnee in the range 

 9f weather met with in racing. Now mere increa.se of si^e s-jtcs 

 mcreaseof stability whicli outruns altogether the rate at whirh 

 saal area increases, and mere increase of length makes a boat a 

 good performer In a seaway, which will be fatal to a shorter ves- 

 sel ot the same type. For illustration: Suppose we ha7e a cutter 

 and a sloop each U'8ft. long, and that the sloop under hprPailis 

 tender in fresh breezes, ao that the cutter asserts au easy anpeti- 

 ority. JNowmake them 8'4ft. long, and increase all other dimen- 

 sions threefold, and give them spars three times as long uk hefotR 

 (which in practice we would not do). Their weights, or clis'ilafp- 

 ments, wiU have increased 27 times, while their sail area, or u]3set- 

 tmg force, wiU have increased only 9 times. Conse(iueatli,', we 

 m^'very easily have attained with the large sloop a stability 

 sufhcient for all the weathers usually sailed in, and at the same 

 time her great length will make her a very good perfoi-mer in a 

 seaway which would have drowned out the small vessel. The big 

 sloop will have all the stability and weatherliness needed for hicrh 

 speed, and the greater ultimate stability of the big cutter, aiid 

 possibly greater weatherliness will become, for all ordinary 

 racing, abstract considerations of no practical iniponanco, wlul'e 

 the relatively high fnitial stability of the sloop and small im- 

 mersed surface Avill rernain. 



•lust this has happened in the case of Puritan and Mayflower, 

 and It has been added toby the beautiful modeling and harmoni- 

 ous adjustment of all parts of these vessels. D. W. B. 



No^^ 8, 1886. 



[Our correspondent is correct in his assumption that for vacht 

 racing thp-only criterion is speed, and that while it is in every 

 way desirable to encourage the typo of boat that is seaM ortl'v and 

 comfortable as well as fast, that the one that takes the prizes will 

 be, not the handsomest nor the roomiest, but the f.iptei-t The 

 position which the Forest and Streaai has taken witii respect to 

 the international races and their results is suhstiiti.'iallr as he has 

 stated it, but may be restated more f uUv as follows: Wliite ad- 

 mitting the vast improvements of the Bm-gess boats ov. r their 

 predecessors we are unwilling to concede the hastv and extrava- 

 gant claims made by some of their admii-erSj or the rorrectness tvf 

 the grounds on which these claims are based. The new typo pos- 

 seases many merits; both Puritan and Mayflower nre fast, able 

 and seaworthy; but we are not readv to join the raanv voiecs that 

 are crying Eureka, and to settle do'wn comfortably m the 'oeliet 

 that the "North Pole" of yacht designing has been reached and 

 that there is nothing beyond. Very much to the conti arv. while 

 admitting the great step that Puritan's designer luis made, we be- 

 lieve that it is only a step, and a comparatively short ojie. tow u d 

 a something as yet very far beyond. Just now, ho^^\ e\-er, in par- 

 ticular when our pleasure navy, though a grade abo^■e our national 

 navy and merchant marine, is very tar from what it shcuid bo; 

 and when its future should engage the earnest attention of evcrv 

 fi-iend of yachting. It is most important that a correct estimate 

 should be had of the new boats and their relative perfonnaiiees. 

 As believers in a difEerent class of boat it is not a pleasant task to 

 make comparisons which may seem invidious or to appear to dis- 

 parage in any way the two boats which have successfullv de- 

 tended the America's Cup: but the whole future oJ: American 

 yachting, to say nothing of the chances of ha^inc;- to meet next 

 year a m^re formidable rival than has vet crossed, demands now a 

 careful consideration of the races of 1885 and 18S0. 



Naturally and properly a certain amount of prestige attaches to 

 the viotorioiis vessel from the mere face of the n-suUs, and for 

 this due credit must be given; but beyond this are far deeper and 

 more important questions. Of the four Cup races sailed in '.S5and 

 '8C, all were won by the American boats, a tact on the one side. 



Of these races three were sailed in weather that can be onlv 

 charaC'terized as at the extreme limit at which a race is i)ossil)le, 

 not one of the three being sailed in a true breezy from start to 

 finish, or without one of the boats lying at times becalmed and 

 dead. The results proved something, but not much, as a founda- 

 tion for building a national type upon that a coming tieneratjon of 

 yachtsmen shall be proud ot. They proved, and all the other 

 trialt between the same boats in which the race ^vas not made 

 within the limit, corroborate this proof, that in very light w eather. 

 the lightest in which a race is possible, the two Btu sess iiorU s arc 

 faster than the two Webb cutters which opposed them. This of 

 itself is nothing in support of the type when it is considered that 

 in the same weather a big skimming dish, that would not be tol- 

 erated now even in America, could in all probability have done as 

 much. 



Of the four actual races one only w&b sailed under conditions 

 which must l!e accepted as satisfactory to all; a breeze of ample 

 strength and lasting from start to finish. This race, as all kiinv.-. 

 was won by Puritan, but by so small a margin that, after witness- 

 ing the race and weighing the arguments since made and the addi- 

 tional facts not known generally at first, we must adhere to our 

 original opinion that the honors were very even between the t\vo, 

 and that in such weather the boats were practically equal; while 

 we may now supplement this with the opinion tliat had iMayflower 

 been in Puritan's plac« she would have been badly beaten. This 

 season, at least, the chances have been in favor of the American 

 boat, as every race was in light winds, when her stability was 

 little taxed and she reaped the extreme of good from a sail area 

 that would have punished her severely i" a strong blow. Galatea, 

 on the other hand, had a reserve of stability that she nevei' for a 

 moment drew on, and a sail spread far too small for such weatliei' 

 as every race day was hlessed with. To sum up, then, el ther of the 

 American boats are far better in a drift, than their opponents, a 

 fixed fact as far as it goes; in a strong lower-sail breer-^e they are, 

 as far as tried in the case of Puritan and Genesta mentioned above, 

 equal; and beyond this nothing is really kno^vn. 1 n steady whole- 

 sail breezes the probabilities are that the American boats would 

 outsail the others, but they have never met under these conditions; 

 and in such weather as Genesta and Dauntless went through last 

 year the narrow boats would be likely t« win from either of the 

 others. This does not agree with the claims made last year that 

 Puritan was half an hour better than Genesta in the final race, 

 but it is more in accordance with the facts. If we are wrong in 

 our views and have underrated the boats, time will show it and 

 we shall be the only sufl'erers ; other Puritans wiU be built and 

 America will still hold the first place in yachting. If we are 

 right in our estimate, then it is time to consider what can be done 

 toward a still more perfect craft, and what is the next step; for 

 all improvement is by slow, but regular progression. 



Loolcing at "D. W. B.'s" arguments for the Burgess boats his 

 fli-st claim is for excessive stability. In such light weather as 

 has prevailed they are fuUy able to carry their sail, and l'iirif:in 

 has sailed twice in harder weather, in the latter iristanec at least, 

 having all the wind she could take care of without a, derdded loss 

 of speed. Mayflower on her first trial was sadly lacking iri stabil- 

 ity, and while she has been improved since, she is very tender and 

 none too well able to carry her spars and canvas, iu facta fc.v 

 races in a strong lower sail breeze would probabfv demon-lrnre 



ference of 1,100ft. or nearly 13 per cent., and it seems evident tluu 

 for ordinary racing \veather Mayflower could reduce her sail with 

 advantage, Vhile Galatea could increase hers until the diflereuce 

 would be very much less. 'VVnien sailing together on sevei-al occa- 

 sions, even in moderate ati's it was noticeable that the wide boat 

 heeled to as great an angle as the narrow one. 



The chief argument adA-anced by our correspondent is the differ- 

 ence in immersed surface, which he assumes is far less in the wide 

 than in the narrow and deep type. We have not tlie figures for 

 the four vessels, so cannot make an exact comparison; but a little 

 reflection will show tliat the two types; are about etinal, :ni'l it 

 would be possible to design a boat of Galatea's disphicemeni, ana 

 of more beam tbat would have a smaller area of immersed sur- 

 face than Mayflower. Referring to the midshi i) sect i ous publislicd 

 last week, it will be found on measuring that tne tfii-tli of Cinder- 

 ella, from waterline to waterline, tinder keel, is b'_t little less than 

 the other two, the design representing a mean between the wide 

 and narrow types. Now the immersed sm-face is measured by the 

 girth at regular intervals and the lengths of each waterline taken 

 along the boat's skin. The wide boat is not as deep at midships 

 as the narrow, though her girth is nearly as great; but with Icks 

 rocker she carries her depth further fore and ait, so that the sum 

 of her girths would difEer little from that of the other boats. As 

 to waterlines. the length of loadline in a boat Kift. wide is neces- 

 sarily much greater than in one only Sft. Avide, and while^ there 

 \villDe more waterlines in the latter they are not only shorter 

 through the lessened beam, but also through the cutting away of 

 forefoot and rake of sternpost. No account has lieen taken of the 

 centerboard, but even vvithout this the gain in immersed surface 

 is but little, and with board down it may disappear entirely. Be- 

 yond this, while a small immersed surface is desirable, there are 

 other considerations of far more importance, and the sliape in 

 which the surface is put is likely to tell fur more than a few feet 

 of area, one way or the other. 



As to the last point, the boats have certainly proved weatherly, 

 but on the other hand, in the light weather the two large cutters 

 ^are proved conspicuously lacking in this quaUty, and 

 so difEerent from the other cutters, large and small, that 



have been seen here, that It Is fair to assume that it 

 IS . partly due to the form of the boats, and that this fault 

 migju lie avoided m a different model. As the wind increases the 

 cutter holds better to wmdwvard, and the fatUt was most apparent 

 when merely drifting, as in the start of the first race in ISS^f. The 

 design lately given in our colunms shows verv much such a boat 

 as we had hi mmd, and though smaller, a comparison of her with 

 ( inderella and Clara would give conclusious that would hold true 

 m the case of larger boats. This design shows tbat it is possible 

 to combine a displacement greater than Clara's with more beam 

 and less depth, and yet retain a very easy form. The .sail area of 

 ...,on"°^"^r^'^''^'. ^"^''-'"''^ ^0 o.tsaft., N. Y. Y. C. rule, compared with 

 .:i,.i.-U tor Clara and 3.899 for Cinderella, the immersed surfaces vary- 

 Htg IniL, liUle, and she would in all respects be very different from 

 tne boats 'ooth wide and deep" which we have condemned. 



v> hat a similar boat 85ft. long ^vould do, is as vet a matter of 

 conjecture, but it would seem tbat the dilficulty of obtaimng the 

 HCtvantas-es due to depth in a small boat, without loo much draft, 

 would largely diaaiipear, that 13ft. Om.,thc draft of Galatea, would 

 ne rniieh more efl'ective in the nioelitun boat than in the extreme, 

 and tliat lateral resistance need not be sacrificed to the same ex- 

 tent, nor need a draft of 17ft. he taken to carrv the boat to wind- 

 ru^ri" I1 ^"'^ V'Jn , e-^tremes. :May!lower and Galatea, and 

 Cmdciella and Clara, have been tried, is it not prob;..ble that there 

 isdpoiiitbetvvcenthetwo Mi.ere a maximum of good qualities 

 mav oe had with rcwer of the di.sadvnutages of both tynps'* This 

 IS ttie point to which wo would call attention, However ^-ood the 

 present boats may be there is no safety in a blind confidence in 

 them; what has been done in 1885 and 1886 is not enough but must 

 be suptilemented by constant and steady work if as good results 

 arc to he had in the future.l 



THE LYMAN YIELDING MAST. 



THE idea of a yielding mast that will give wav under the 

 pressure of a hard puff or a sudden squall, and so relieve the 

 boat, i.s by no mentis a new one, and various devices have been 

 tned at times in the form of a pivoted mast controlled by spiral 

 springs at tiie heel. None of these have proved successful owing 

 to inherent faults, the ordinary coil spring not being suited to the 

 purpose, and none have stood the test of a practical working. 



Some years since the idea of a heeling mtist attracted the 

 attention of :,iv. V, iliiara Lyman, of Middlefield, Conn., au inventor 



with the a|)[iaralus and tried under vai ious conditions of wind'and 

 w.ater until most satisfactory results were obtained. 



I'ho means employed is a ^-ariuble spring readily ad,1usted so as 

 LO hold the mast r'erfectl^- rigid or to allow it to give to the least 

 puft. Besides beine; adjustable the pressure increases regukirly as 

 the angle of the most is greater. A\'ilh this mast rhe speed of" the 

 boat IS increased in squally weather, as she may be kept on her 

 course without continual luftlng, and the consequent loss of head- 

 way IS avoided. 



The drawings show the gear as fitted to a centerboiird boat 16ft. 

 long, the general arrangement being show-n in the deck plan and 

 longitudinal section, while the details are given on a larger scale 

 in Fi"S. I. toini. Thefirstflgnreshowsatransversesectionatmast. 

 Fig.II. shows a longitudinal section at the same point. Fig.IIl. shows 

 au elevation at after end of centerboard trunk looking forward, 

 and Fig, IIII. shows the oiter end of ti'unk in plan. A is 11 stump 

 mast stopped in the usual manner, and rising but a short distance 

 above the deck. The mast proper. B. is joined to this stump by a 

 •?4in. ii'-'H bolt pa ssing through the two as in Kigs. I. and 11., so as to 

 allow B to swing freely. The deck is cut away as sho\\Ti, the open- 

 ing being cased in to a height of about 8in. to keep out any water. 

 The mast is com rolled by two torsion springs, C C, pieces of lin. 

 round tool steel (not hardened), long enough to reach from the 

 alter end of the centerboard trunk to the mast. At the after end 

 each is turned up at a right angle, leaving an end about Sin. lon^, 

 Fig. 111. Each end is forked, with two higs, M M, between which 18 

 hung a niu, L, one with a right hand and one v^ith a left hand 

 thread. In tliese two nuts is fitted a right and left hand screw, 

 N N, %m. diameter and with six threads to <he iueh. In themid- 

 dle where the two threads meet is a sotuii e boss fur a wench. 



By turning tlie double screw in one directicn the ends of the two 

 springs are thrown apart, and by turning in tlie other they are 

 brought together. To keep them in their relati\'e positions two 

 blocks of wood, N N, are fitted, being hinged to c;ieli other at the 

 bottom by two iron pIates,shown in Figs.III. and IIII- Each block is 

 hollowed out on the outer side to receive its rod. The springs 

 1 icing joined together, one always acts to reinfori'e the other; a 

 feature not found in any combination of spiral springs. In aU the 

 iigui-e P is the centerboard trunk- 

 Each r"d IS turned un at right angles. Fig. 11.; and Is also curved 

 to fit more closely the side of the boat. Fig. I.; the two crossing 

 ea' h other as in Fig, I. Thev are held in place by a strap, D, of 

 2>:|<iin. iron bolted to the keel. 



The lower end of the mast, B, is shod with a forked forging of 

 iron, one arm extending up on each side of the mast to 4in. above 

 the top of the stump mast, ao as to strengthen the mast where 

 weakeued by the bolt. The lower end forms two lugs between 

 which tlie rods are held. The heel of the mast is held in place, 

 and at the same time allowed to oscillate freely, by the rod, K, 

 bolted to tlie deck at its after end and with a ball and socket joint 

 at the fore end, where it is joined to the mast (Fig. II.). 



The springs, C C, are connected ^vitb the heel of the mast by two 

 pairs of short rods, E E and F F. The longer rods, E E, are each 

 TJ-oin. long and J^iX^^in, section. There are two holes in each for 

 igin. bolts, Gt{,in. apart. On the inner end of each is a projection 

 I'm. long, forming a stop, and preventing the rods from rising too 

 1 ligli , One end of eac-h rod is bolted to each spring. The rods F F 

 aie tin, between centers of the tioles, and each is bolted to a long 

 rod, E, at one end, the other being connected to the iron at foot of 

 mast by a pin \\ liieh forms a continuation of the ball portion of 

 the joint ot the bar, K. This pin passes through the two lugs of 

 the forging on the heel of ma.st and through the two rods, F F, 

 Fig. II., thus allowing a free movement iri a thwartiildps direc- 

 tion. It the mast be heeled to starboard, aa shown in Fig. I., the 

 lower end goes toiJort and Itii ough the two rods the pull is trans- 

 mitted to the starboard spring, wliich takes the position shown by 

 the dotted lines. Fig. I., the strain being trunsmitted to the oppos- 

 ite spring as well through the screw joiiit at the after cud. Wlien 

 the mast heels to port the pull comes first on flic iiort spring and 

 is transmitted to the other in turn. If the after ends of the 

 sprintrs are brought closer together hy the double Ecrew the pres.s- 

 ure is" increased, and if the screw is slacked off the mast will heel 

 more readily. 'iVhen a puff strikes the boat there is no necessity 

 to start sheet or to Infl'. and the boom need not he allowed to drag 

 in the water. The de\ice is adapted to all sizes and classes of satl- 

 boai s and canoes. It has been patented by Mr. Lymau, but being 

 bnsilv engaged with his other inventions at present lie is not pre- 

 pared to manufacture it, but will allow anyone to apply it for 

 bnaself on payment of a small royalty. 



The foregoing apparatus has been tried in practice on an actual 

 boa t aud fully perfected in ail its details, a representative of this 

 journal having witnessed a successful trial of the arrangement 

 and being able to testify personally to its utility to the full extent 

 claimed. 



THE CLYDE CHALLENGER AND NEW YACHTS.-While 

 there are rumors of several yachts to be built before spring, noth- 

 ing definite is decided on vet , as all arc waiting to learn the size 

 of the new Scotch yacht. Mr. Burgess has ciibled lo Mr. Watson 

 to know the length of ^vat(;rline of the new craft, but the ans\ver 

 did rot give it, and the Clyde men evidently intend to keep the 

 riKittrr secret as long as possible. Of course until the size ia 

 1: now 11 no one will venture to build a boat to meet her, as no one 

 will care to risk a size that, maybe out of the running entirely. 

 Cf.nMd.-rincr that the New York Y. C. were asked to set the size of 

 boLil the:.- would prefer, .and declined to do so, it is rather amusing 

 now 10 see all hands -waiting until the Clyde men are read.v to en- 

 lighten them in turn on the subject. Four boats are now spoken 

 of, one for Mr. Oliver Iselin, from a Burgess design; one for Dr. 

 Barron, who has just sold Athlon to Mr. E. B. Havens : one for 

 Mr. ,T. R. Maxwell, and one fcr Mr. Wm. Ziegler, owner of the 

 .sloop Thistle. All of these are intended to be ot the supposed si^e 

 of the challeoger, 70 to 75ft. 



A CURIOUS STEAM LAUNCH.— Mr. S. Avers, at his new shop 

 at Bay Ridge, is coinpleting a curious steam launch for the U. S. 

 Fish Commission. The now boat is 39ft. over all, 33ft. L.W.l>.. and 

 7ft. beam. Tlie depth is Sft. and draft is I6in., with a displacement 

 of 15,320Ibs. Toward the stern the keel cuiwes up quickly, while the 

 bilges are kept low and continued out aft, making a semi-circular 

 cavity under the overnaug, in which the screw works, being 

 protected greatly from the chances of damage and fouling. Mr. 

 Ayers has also nearly completed a twin screw launch to go to St. 

 Domingo. She is 45ft. over all, lOtt. beam, Sft. (hu. hold, 

 2ft. 6ia. draft. There are two single engines, 7x8. by the 

 N. Y. Safety Steam Power Co. The scre-ws, 4-bladed, of gunraetal, 

 are SCin, iu diameter. The steel shafts. 2i/i\n. in diameter, are 

 bushed ontside with ^.^in. brass tube. The launch wiM have a 

 movable cabin house. 



