884 
FOREST AND STREAM 
Length. 
Beam. 
Racing Length. 
Speed. 
1*4 
Midship section area, 1 
*q. ft. 
Over all. 
Erect, L.W.L. 
Heeled, L.W L. 
o 
V 
Heeled. 
Draft. 
Girth. 
Displacement, lbs, 
Ballast, lbs. 
Righting moment, 
ft lbs. 
Sail area. 
j Displacement 
coefficient. 
Old rule, 
h. C. V. C. 
Hyslop rule. 
Y R U. rule. 
Equivalent based 
on speed. 
Knots per hour. 
Seconds per mile. 
Righting moment, 
lus. per sq. ft. sa 
D 1 • 
<rt ~ 
• rt 
G 1 
, Cr* 
B " 
ft u 
n P- 
H 
Lateral plane area 
sq. ft. 
82.0 
1T.5 
26.0 
8.25. 
3.25 
J 0.38 1 
,1 6-0 f 
14.0 1 
It.o \ 
7.1 
12.92 
1,750 
1,000 
7.100 
500 
5655 
19.95 
22.87 
28.8 
39.7 
5.8 
612.0 
14.2 
0.06S 
84 
2.8 
21s 
32.92 
21.0 
24.0 
7.25 
7.0 
14.0 
6,780 
3,600 
17.500 
550 
61.855 
22.85 
28.0 
25.2 
18.0* 
4.76 
1022 
31.8 
0.119 
65.6 
9.75 
44.0 
29.9 
32.0 
8.88 
7.0 
21.0 
9,500 
5,500 
29.500 
1000 
46.9:8 
80.7 
40.5 
84.9 
48.3 
6.20 
580 
29.5 
0.072 
72.0 
' 10.6 
C. B 
44.8 
28.5 
82.0 
13.25 
8.5 
)3.5 1 
i9.5 f 
18.7 
12,500 
5,000 
36.000 
1560 
55. 5# 
84.0 
89.0 
87.8 
89.0 
5.8 
616 
23.0 
0.072 
L12.0 
12.4 
50.0 
80.0 
36.0 
io.o 
7.5 
)2.0 i 
16.5 f 
7.9 
21.2 
17,500 
6,300 
58.000 
1250 
57# 
34.75 
37.9 
87.8 
40.2 
5.9 
610 
42.5 
0,08 
100.2 
16.0 
56.0 
35.7 
38.0 
12.4 
9.25 
.22.0 
3T,000 
16,000 
90.000 
2150 
51. 5* 
42.6 
44.2 
44,7 
42.6 
6.0 
600 
86.8 
0.08 
195.0 
31.4 
S. C. V. C Rule. 
L W.L. 4 *'S A. 
Hyslop Ri.le 
L.W.L.+ *'S.A.+ 2 (B. % D.) — 6 s s ^M. 
Y R. U. Rule. 
L.W L.-VB +0.75 G + .5 VS A. 
Equivalent racing length taken from allowance tables. 
* Actually about lO.u. 
As the subject is a somewhat difficult one, we feel 
that we would expedite the work if we could meet 
representative to discuss the question and arrive at a 
basis for further action. Could you not arrange to meet 
us in Montreal? We shall be glad to see you at any 
time that is convenient for yourselves. Yours very 
trulv, J- C. C. Amon, Sec'y- 
Yacht Measurement. 
Editor Forest and Stream: 
In the consideration of the new measurement rule, we 
may lay down these two axioms: 
A. If it fails to tax present racing machines so as to 
practically prevent their winning races against other- 
wise desirable yachts, it is a failure. 
B. If it permits the building of a racing machine of 
any different or new type that can win against a whole- 
some yacht, it is a failure. 
Let us investigate these two points: 
First. Yachts of known elements can be compared to 
ascertain whether or not Axiom A is met. For this 
purpose I have taken the published speed records of the 
'98 20-footers, the Seawanhaka Corinthian* 21ft. knock- 
abouts, a fast 34ft. centerboard sloop that has won a 
majority of races in her class, a fin-keel .34ft. sloop, the 
Herreshoff 30-footers and a yacht of the 43ft. class of 
the conventional type, and have compared them in the 
table herewith given. These dimensions are taken from 
published records, with the filling in taken from sketches 
made by me, and while not strictly correct, are very near- 
ly so. The speeds are taken from the times 
actually required to cover courses of known dis- 
tances, eliminating all races in which there was 
a report of flukes or changes of wind. The 20s and 
the 30s are strictly racing machines. The center- 
board 34 has relatively small accommodations. The 
fin 34 and the 43ft. yachts have about the same accom- 
modations. 
From your point of view the 21 and the 43ft. yachts 
would be considered of a wholesome type. From my 
point of view none of them are, unless it might be the 
fin 34. since the other two yachts have both an excessive 
displacement compared with available room, and re- 
markably slow speed as compared with their driving 
power (sail area). 
The table shows the various dimensions when erect 
and when heeled to the sailing angle: the displace- 
ments, ballast, righting moment and sail area. The rac- 
ing length is computed according to the old rule, the 
Hyslop rule and the Y. R. U. rule; the depth in the 
Hyslop rule being taken as the depth of keel in center- 
board yachts exclusive of the centerboard. The column 
headed "Seconds per mile" is useful in determining 
the column headed "Equivalent racing length," which 
latter shows the racing length at which the various 
yachts should sail in order to equalize their chances to 
win prizes in ordinary Sound racing weather. 
It will be seen that in the two racing machines an 
enormous increase of racing length must be imposed by 
the rule; that in the case of the 21-footers an enormous 
decrease must be made, and if the various elements given 
are carefully studied, three facts must show with start- 
ling distinctness: 
(a) The absolute failure of any of the rules to meet 
existing conditions of yacht designing. 
(b) The impossibility of making any rule which wall 
meet these conditions if the elements of the rule are 
determined from the yacht when riding on an even keel. 
(c) The absurdity of the assumption that any indirect 
method will give a correct measure of the displacement, 
righting moment or speed of a yacht. 
Second. Either the Hyslop rule or the Y. R. U. rule 
is in its elements absolutely hopeless, since the measure- 
ment of L.W.L.. when erect, puts a premium on the 
flattened elliptical wa'erline which may be carried so 
far as to produce a yacht with greater beam than L.W.L. 
for measurement purposes, but which, when heeled to 
the sailing angle, will have a waterline of elongated el- 
liptical form, small displacement, small skin friction, 
large righting moment, and very fast; the element of 
sail area being the one element which should be 
at a maximum, would be made so by cutting 
down the other elements. The elements of beam and 
draft, while restrictive, do not have any influence 
on increasing displacement. The element of g : rth tends 
to the production of an exceedingly undesirable form. 
The element of midship section is one which can be 
easily evaded, as I demonstrated last March. 
It may be thought that the ultimate development of 
the racing machine has been attained bv Mr. Dugs?an 
in Dominion^ but I am constrained to differ, since I find 
it easy to design a yacht with as good an inclined water- 
line, greater righting moment, and. in my judgment, 
fullv as fast, having but a single hull. 
With all of the elements of the rule then tending to- 
ward the design of a yacht of a most objectionable form, 
the simple question remains as to how large such a 
yacht can be built. This is a purely engineering prob- 
lem. As such I have no hesitation in affirming that 
certainly a 43ft. class yacht can be built, and I believe 
that a 90ft. class yacht can be built, which would follow 
all of the principles of form shown in the 20s. which 
could race certainly throughout one season and per- 
haps two, and which would be absolutely worthless 
except as a racing machine. The fact that Challenger 
and Seawanhaka practically broke up under the strain 
of a few races simply shows that engineering principles 
were not applied to their construction. 
The argument made in favor of the Y. R. U. rule, that 
it is giving satisfaction in England, is completely refuted 
by the showing made of its futility when applied to 
existing yachts. 
With the demonstration then of the absolute worth- 
Jessness of the old Seawanhaka rule, the Hyslop rule and 
the Y. R. U. rule, does it not seem a pity that those 
who advocate these rules do not refute the arguments 
which I have raised against them, or abandon them. 
I have repeatedly challenged a discussion in your 
columns of the fundamental principles involved in the 
determination of a measurement rule, both by making as- 
sertions and by asking pertinent questions, without elicit- 
ing a response. Does it not therefore seem a fair 
assumption to make that those who profess to have 
carefully studied the subject, and must therefore have 
their side of the case freshly and strongly in their minds, 
do not dare go before the yachtsmen of the world with 
a statement of it that cannot be disavowed in case they 
are proven to be entirely wrong. One explanation I 
know of. and that is that they do not read your paper, 
this in itself being a confession of lack of real interest 
and ignorance. Geo. Hill. 
The Flying Proa. 
Stottville, N. Y.. Sept. 15 — Editor Forest and Stream: 
The following description of the proa is given by Anson 
in his "Voyage," with an illustration: 
The construction of this proa is a direct contradic- 
tion to the practice of all the rest of mankind. For, as 
it is customary to make the head of the vessel different 
from the stern, but the two sides alike, the proa, on the 
contrary, has her head and stern exactly alike, but her 
two sides very different. The side intended to be 
always the lee side being flat, while the windward side 
is built rounding, in the manner of other vessels. And, 
to prevent her oversetting, which from her small 
breadth and the straight run of her leeward side would, 
without this precaution, infallibly happen, there is a 
frame laid out from her to windward, to the end of 
which is fastened a log, fashioned into the shape of a 
small boat and made hollow. The weight of the frame 
is intended to balance the proa, and the small boat is 
by its buoyancy, as it is always in the water, to pre- 
vent her oversetting to windward; and this frame is 
■usually called an outrigger. The body of the proa, at 
least of that we took, is formed of two pieces joined 
endways and sewed together with bark, for there is 
no iron used in her construction. 
She is about 2in. thick at the bottom, which at the 
gunwale is reduced to less than 1. The dimensions of 
each part will be better known from the uprights and 
plans contained in the annexed plate, which were drawn 
from an exact mensuration; these I shall endeavor to 
explain as minutely and distinctly as I can. 
Fig. 1 represents the proa with her sail set, as she 
appears when seen from the leeward. 
Fig. 2 is a view of her from the head, with" the out- 
rigger to the windward. 
Fig. 3 is the plan of the whole; where AB is the lee 
side of the proa; CD the windward side; EEGH the 
outrigger or frame laid out to windward: KL the boat 
at the end of it; MNPQ two braces from the head 
and stern to steady the frame; RS a thin plank placed 
to windward to prevent the proa from shipping water; 
this serves too for a seat to the Indian, who bales, and 
sometimes goods are carried upon it. I is the part of 
the middle outrigger on which the mast is fixed. The 
mast itself is supported. Fig. 2, by the shore CD, and by 
the shroud EF, and by two stays, one of which may 
be seen in Fig. 1, marked CD, and the other is hid by 
the sail. 
The sail. EFG in Fig. 1. is of matting, and the mast, 
yard, boom and outriggers are all made of bamboo! 
The heel of the yard is always lodged in one of the 
sockets T or V, Fig. 3, according to the tack the proa 
goes on. And when she alters her tack they bear away 
a little to bring her up to the wind; then by easing the 
halyard and raising the yard, and carrying the heel of it 
along the lee side of the proa, they fix it in the opposite 
socket; while the boom at the same time, by letting 
My the sheet M, and hauling the sheet N; Pig. r, shifts 
into a contrary situation to what it had before, and 
that which was the stern of the proa now becomes the 
head, and she is trimmed on the other tack. When it 
is necessary to reef on furl the sail, this is done by 
rolling it around the boom. 
The proa generally carries six or seven Indians, two 
of which are placed in the head and stern, who steer 
the vessel alternately with a paddle, according to the 
tack she goes in; he in the stern being the steersman. 
The other Indians are employed either in baling out 
the water which she accidentally ships or in setting or 
trimming the sails. Thus much may suffice as to the de- 
scription and nature of these singular embarkations. 
1 must add that vessels, bearing some obscure resem- 
blance to these, are to be met with in various parts of 
the East Indies, but none of them, that I can learn, to 
be compared with those of the Ladrones, either for their 
construction or celerity, which should induce one to 
believe that this was originally the invention of some 
genius of these islands, and was afterward imperfectly 
copied by the neighboring nations. 
We must remember that all this was written over 
one hundred and fifty years ago. It will be seen by 
above description that in tacking a proa the whole sail 
goes outboard to leeward and is reversed; rather a dubi- 
ous operation in a heavy sea or hard blow. 
On account of her light construction a proa cannot 
hold her way long, so all danger from a back sail 
would be avoided. The rolling gear, so much used on 
small craft in England, would seem to have had its 
origin in the sail of these old-time proas. R. C. Leslie 
speaks of the proa of the Friendly Islands, first seen 
by Tasman in 1643, and says that it is of far more 
homely form than one found at Ladrones and de- 
scribed by Anson. Leslie says that the proa of Friendly 
Islands is most interesting from the way the yard is 
supported by a mast raking forward, like the "trin- 
chetto," or foremast, of an Italian felucca. Speaking of 
possible origin of the proa's rig, Leslie says he believes 
the natives of Friendly and Ladrone groups to be of 
Malay origin. As the lateen sail is the sail of the In- 
dian Ocean, it would seem to have traveled east into the 
Pacific, through the Malay Islands, and probably west 
toward the Mediterranean, up the Red Sea, via the Arab 
Elbow. Leslie also spells the name proah, but does 
not give his authority. This theory may account for 
the sail, but does not trace the peculiar hull construc- 
tion. 
Woodes Rogers, the English privateersman, visited 
the island of Guam in Ladrone group in March, 1709, 
and his account of the proa agrees well with "that given 
by Dampier and Anson. While Rogers' ships were 
working up to island the captain records, "there came 
several flying prows to look at the ships; they run by 
us very swift; but none would venture aboard." 
As Rogers' ship was probably not doing better than 
four or five knots, close-hauled, this gives us no line on 
speed of proa. 
While this little English fleet laid at Guam, refitting 
after a long, hard voyage across Pacific, they treated the 
Spaniards with great consideration, paying for what 
they wanted and establishing a fair trade with natives 
and Spaniards. 
In return for this kindness, when fleet was ready to 
sail, the Spanish commander presented Rogers with a 
proa, having noticed the captain's interest in these 
curious craft. Rogers took this proa on deck and car- 
ried her to England, thinking, as he says, "it might 
be worth fitting up to put in the canal in St. James Park 
( London) for a curiosity, since we have none like it 
in this part of the world." 
Rogers figured the speed of the proa at 20 miles or 
better. 
It is possible that it was this proa of Rogers', or one 
built on her lines, referred to by Anson as having shown 
such wonderful speed when tried at Portsmouth. Eng- 
land, early in that century. A. C. Stott. 
The New Y. R. U. Rule. 
The general features of the rule adopted by the Y. 
R ; U. of N. A. were given in connection with the report 
of the meeting; the full details are as follows: 
Measurement. 
1. Yachts shall be rated by racing measurement, 
which shall be determined by adding together the load 
waterline length, the beam, .75 cf the girth X -5 of the 
square root of the sail area, and dividing the sum by 2. 
L W.L.-t B. J- 75 G. J-.5 ♦ STA. fl 
— 3 ' — =E - M - 
2. The load waterline length shall be the distance in 
a straight line between the points furthest forward and 
furthest aft where the hull, exclusive of the rudder stock, 
is intersected by the surface of the water, when the yacht 
is afloat in racing trim in smooth water, with any person 
