The Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture
By Eur Ing David K Brown MEng CEng FRINA RCNC
Te late David K Brown tells the story of the foundation in 1791 of Te Society for the Improvement of Naval Architecture, the ancestor of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
T
owards the end of the 18th century, a bookseller named Sewell, who oſten visited naval ports, became convinced of the superiority of French warship design and believed that
this superiority was due to their more scientific approach to naval architecture. He took two positive actions himself to remedy the problems as he perceived them; firstly, he made available the covers of a journal, Te European Magazine, which he published, for articles on naval architecture and, secondly, on 14 April, 1791, he called a meeting at the “Crown and Anchor” inn in the Strand, London, of those interested in the “Improvement of Naval Architecture”. Te Society subsequently formed did not have a very long life but it was most influential. Te Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA), Te Royal Corps of Naval Constructors (RCNC) and most British schools of naval architecture trace their ancestry back to the Society.
French Influence
How did this all come about? In 1681, Jean Baptiste Colbert, Minister of Marine to Louis X1V, summoned many of the leading scientists of France to a conference in Paris where the problems of warship design were outlined to them, and their help invited in finding solutions. Te Academy of Science encouraged these studies by offering prizes for the best papers submitted on naval architecture. By the end of the 17th century papers had been published on the
theory of sails, manoeuvring and other techniques. In 1697 Paul Hoste, Professor of Mathematics at the Royal Seminary at Toulon, wrote that “unless the fundamentals of naval construction were fully understood, design would continue to be a process of trial and error”. During the 18th century many books were published in France
and elsewhere on naval architecture. Te most famous is Bouguer’s Traite du Navire (1746) but there were other important works from Euler, Don Juan and Chapman. Te state of naval architecture at the end of the century was summarised in Chapman’s works. Many of these books and papers were translated and published in England, usually quite quickly. Te only British contribution to theory, but a most valuable one, was that by George Attwood on the stability of ships at large angles
of heel, presented in two papers to the Royal Society in 1796 and 1798, though it would be some 75 years before Barnes reduced his work to usable form. Sewell and others believed that British designers were ignorant
and reactionary in ignoring this work but this common verdict needs re-examination French studies on metacentric stability were valid and useful but their hydrodynamics were totally fallacious- about as relevant as the “phlogiston” theory of combustion. Tere was no significant French contribution to structural design
which had to wait for the British work of Snodgrass and Seppings. Captured French ships in Royal Navy (RN) services required far more refit work than British built vessels. Even the “evidence” for the superiority of French designs is dubious, to say the least, and is probably based on unrealiable accounts by both naval officers and naval architects endeavouring to enhance the reputation of their profession or themselves.
The Society
Be this as it may, the belief that British ships were inferior was generally held and a distinguished body assembled at the Crown and Anchor inn in 1791. By June, the Duke of Clarence, himself a naval officer and later King William IV, had agreed to become president of the Society, and the membership included the Earl of Stanhope (a naval innovator of note), Lord Mulgrave (First Lord), Sir Joseph Banks (president of the Royal Society), Admiral Sir Charles Middleton (a former Comptroller, later Lord Barham), Sir Charles Knowles (a hydrodynamicist) and others. Captain Sir John Warren, distinguished both for his intellect and his fighting record, was a vice president. By the next year some 270 people had paid their subscription of two guineas. The principal object of the Society was stated to be “the
improvement of naval architecture in all its branches”. Te Society intended to offer awards of up to £100 for work on the theory of floating bodies and their resistance to motion, to obtain plans of various ships and calculate their capacity, position of the centre of gravity, tonnage and other parameters. Te Society also intended to carry out its own experimental work. Johns noted that the rules of the Society were very similar to those of this Institution and asked
9
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92