WEIGHT AND SUPPORT IN SHIPS. 
419 
derable portion of the length ; the guns are also distributed along the broadside ; and 
the weight of hull is nearly uniform, except at the extremities. We should naturally 
expect, therefore, that the weight would considerably exceed the buoyancy at the bow 
and stern, and that the buoyancy would exceed the weight throughout the amidship 
section. The curves in Plate XVI. fig. 2 show that this is actually the case. They are 
constructed and marked similarly to those of the ‘ Victoria and Albert.’ In this case 
there are only two water-borne sections R 1 R 1 , R 2 IP. The first is about 80 feet from 
the stem, and before it the weight exceeds the buoyancy by about 420 tons ; the second 
is 70 feet from the stern, and on this length there is an excess of weight of about 450 tons ; 
between R ! II 1 and R 2 R 2 , a length of 250 feet, the buoyancy exceeds the weight by the 
sum of these excesses — 870 tons. It will be observed that at the stern the curve of 
buoyancy D D in fig. 2 is ended at some distance before the curve of total weight W W ; 
the same thing, although in a less prominent degree, is observable in fig. 1. The over- 
hang of the stern above water is the cause of this method of ending the curves ; and in 
the ‘Minotaur’ the distance between the points where they terminate is greater than in 
the ‘ Victoria and Albert,’ because she is a larger ship and has a screw-propeller. 
My third illustration is taken from the ‘ Bellerophon,’ for which ship the curves of 
total weight, weight of hull, and buoyancy shown in fig. 3 have been constructed in the 
manner previously described for the ‘ Victoria and Albert.’ This case may be taken as 
a representative of the distribution of weight and buoyancy in iron-clads of moderate 
length and proportions, with central batteries and armour-belts, and with a fall-back 
stem. The advantages of this bow in giving increased buoyancy are well illustrated by 
the fact that the foremost water-borne section R 1 R 1 in Plate XVI. fig. 3 is only 40 feet 
from the bow, and that the excess of weight over buoyancy on this length is only 45 tons. 
In the ‘ Minotaur,’ as we have seen, the foremost water-borne section is 80 feet from the 
bow, and the excess of weight on this length is 420 tons. Part of this difference is un- 
doubtedly due to the different arrangement of the armour of the two ships ; but as the 
‘ Bellerophon ’ has an armoured bow-battery about 20 feet long, in wake of which the 
armour-plating reaches up to the height of the upper deck, and as the ‘ Bellerophon’s ’ 
draught of water is much less, forward, than that of the ‘ Minotaur,’ it will be obvious 
that the very different form of the bows greatly influences the case. The aftermost 
water-borne section R 4 R 4 in the ‘ Bellerophon ’ is about 50 feet before the stern, the ex- 
cess of weight on this length being about 220 tons; it will be remembered that for 70 
feet of the after part of the ‘ Minotaur ’ the weight exceeds the buoyancy by 450 tons, this 
large excess being due, in great part, to the armour-plating on the stern *. In the ‘ Bel- 
lerophon’ (as in the ‘ Victoria and Albert ’) there are four water-borne sections, the excess 
of weight over buoyancy on 70 feet of the length amidships between R 2 R 2 and R 3 R 3 
amounting to 250 tons. This excess is caused by the concentration of the weights of the 
armour and armament of the central battery in a comparatively short length amidships ; 
* The ‘Minotaur’ is a much larger ship than the ‘Bellerophon;’ hut the difference of size is almost entirely 
a difference of length, the breadths and heights of the two ships differing comparatively little. 
