Trans RINA, Vol 152, Part A2, Intl J Maritime Eng, Apr-Jun 2010 naval operator valuable which sadly expected to regard that rarely occurs today.


Interestingly in the discussion on Whiting’s paper Sir William White recognised “that gentlemen in possession of


valuable asset..” and so the commercial pressures clearly prevented too much design detail being revealed, beyond “methods and policy of construction”. So it is interesting to see that contributors, both in their papers and in discussion, to this day continue to provide as much design insight as possible to the wider profession through the Transaction papers.


3. SHIP DESIGN 1910 TO 1960


Barnaby’s review in its second half is dominated by the two World Wars as his decades’ titles reveal: “Test of War”; “Swords into Ploughshares”; “Shipbuilding’s slow revival”; “War and Post-War Once Again”; and “Rapid Technical Advance”. The second half century of the Institution commenced by looking back through reviews starting with the 1860 initiation of the Institution. Thus Dr Thearle of Lloyd’s considered “Developments in Mercantile Ship Construction” focusing on the structural design implications in response to the massive growth in size of the average cargo ship, while Sir Philip Watts (the DNC) compared the British and French navies of 1860 and


1910 and highlighted in 1910 the greater


concentration of Capital Ships in the Home Fleet (indicative of the growing German threat). Alongside discussing the new types of naval vessels in service by 1910 Watts compared the speed for a trans-Atlantic transit, which was typically four times that of fifty years before. By 1913 the open discussions on warship design were a thing of the past such that


this had had a


“frankness that was now taboo”, thus discussion of Watts’ paper on the


fast battleships of the Queen


Elizabeth Class was restricted to “a discussion of general principles”.


The merchant ship community were less prolific than the naval community in design related papers over the first four decades in question, often papers were on novel ship types, including Sir E d’Eyncourt and H Narbeth’s 1923 paper on a 600 ft passenger liner able to fly off aircraft – real Post-War “Ploughshare”. More prosaic were L Peskett’s 1914 “design of steam ships from the Owner’s Point of View”, S Carter’s “Standard Cargo Ships”, J Anderson’s “New Merchant Ships” and M Denny’s “Concrete Ships”, all of 1918, with the latter a clear response to wartime material shortages.


Wartime


concerns were still present in 1920 with Prof Welch’s “Merchant Ship Design in Light of War” and even in a paper by the Italian General De Vito in 1929 on “Atlantic Liners” looking at the design of the ex-German Bremen, acquired as war reparations. The 1924 papers by Prof Biles on “Ship design” (largely dealing with Resistance and Propulsion) and by J Anderson & Steele “Passenger ship design”, showed a baseline design and the effects of payload and machinery changes. These were followed, in


The 1940s design papers are again dominated by war and its aftermath. The few merchant ship designs described are specialist: A Taylor’s “Fishing Vessel design” (1943); E Stephens’ “Thames Barges” and the need to replenish the fleet of 10,000 such craft in 1945; and finally Dr Corlett’s “A light Alloy Cross Channel Ship design” in 1949 with a vision of a brighter aluminium future. There was also E Watts’ ”Crew accommodation in Tramp Ships” in 1945 reporting the change from 1914


Merchant ship design issues were more prevalent in the 1930s starting with Sir W Abell’s “Safety at Sea” recording improved sub-division standards for passenger ships and a relaxation for mixed cargo ships and Sir J Biles’ “Draught and dimensions of the most economical ship” showing reduced engine room costs and, daringly, suggesting future 60ft draught vessels. In the mid decade there were papers on fire-fighting arrangements, ventilation and welding, as well as Kent’s paper on optimum lengths for


pitch motion minimisation and


maximum sea worthiness. Sir S Pigott’s paper on the “Special Features of RMS Queen Mary” in 1937 described the great ship, which had been delayed by the Slump and Sir W Abell’s “Channel Train Ferries”, which was notable in ‘fulfilling Scott Russell’s dreams of the 1860s’ to be


contrasted by Admiral Thursfield’s


“Modern trends in warship design” pleading for ‘smaller fighting ships despite the air threat’ and Sir S Goodall’s “Ark Royal” of 1939, a milestone design paper fulfilling the promise of Sir A Johns’ 1934 paper “Aircraft Carriers”, which had outlined the rapid evolution of this new type of Capital Ship.


(design) information…could (not) be information as other than a


1929, by A Wall & A Tabb’s paper “Ship design and arrangements from the passenger’s point of view” and signalled somewhat of a return to normality.


For the first two decades, of this period, naval ship


design was dominated by the run up to and aftermath of the Great War. In 1911 Admiral Bacon’s “Battleship of the Future” and Prof Welch’s “Problem of Size in Battleships” were mainly about disposition of main armament rather than ship design directly. After the war there were numerous review papers, led by Watts’ “Fleet of 1914”, a comparison of the Royal Navy fleet with those of other major navies, and d’Eyncourt’s “Naval Construction during the War” on the vast range of smaller vessels produced to win a global war at sea. Several papers in 1920 and 1921 looked at German designs: “German submarines” (Johns); German warship construction (d’Eyncourt); and Baden (Goodall), while Narbeth’s 1922 paper “Three Steps..” considered the three battleship designs that led to the 1905 Dreadnought. Two major new designs were present by the current DNC: in 1920 “Hood” and 1929 “Battleships Nelson and Rodney”, while examples of “unconventional vessels” were given in two airship papers,


Campbell’s “Airship Construction” and, in 1928, by the designer of the ill fated R101, V Richmond’s “Rigid Airships”.


in 1919, C


©2010: The Royal Institution of Naval Architects


A - 63


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