After 150,000nm of sailing the Pride of Baltimore (opposite) sank in a tropical storm in 1986 with the loss of four crew. Pride was built true to the original craft, which were not infrequently overwhelmed and even sailed under in strong conditions. Inevitably on Pride II there were more concessions to modern safety standards. Like the original fast schooners, Pride I had no watertight compartments, little headroom down below and in pursuit of lightness and speed carried only a modest 40 tons of lead ballast which was externally attached to her timber keel. Pride II carries 40 tons as internal ballast plus a further 20 tons of lead ingots that are attached externally as before. Most obviously Pride II features significantly higher freeboards for increased headroom and to reduce the chances of her being overwhelmed like her more authentic predecessor. The result is a larger vessel, 15 per cent bigger externally with 50 per cent more volume; so more of a keen representation than a newly built original… but our modern world is not so keen on those any more
beam moved aft of amidships making for a finer entry below water, though the yachts were still relatively beamy for their length. The stem angle was raked and forefoot rounded, while the sternpost was heavily raked aft further reducing wetted surface. A unique and distinctive feature was the
departure from having the keel line roughly parallel to the waterline. These Chesapeake vessels had keel profiles dramatically reduced forward and were deepest at the rudder post. A benefit of this profile was the larger, high aspect rudder it presented. Rudders on traditional ships of the
1800s were amazingly small and ineffi- cient, tacked onto the end of a long hull, making them more of a trim tab than a steering device. By contrast the cut-away forefoot of the sharp-build made for better tracking with greatest drag aft (like feathers on an arrow) and improved steering from less lateral plane forward. Half a century later the famous schooner America took these same design features to an extreme that made her so successful. The Chesapeake privateer schooners
were both dramatic and unique in appear- ance. In contemporary paintings they look extreme and beautiful, even in their usual unadorned state as they seldom carried ornamentation at the bow or stern. In their day there was nothing like them in
‘On the 19th arrived in this port after a cruise of five months. I was chased during that time by 35 frigates and brigs of war and always outsailed them with ease. The Admiral on the Leeward Island station offered consider- able reward for the Comet, as being the greatest plague to him of any vessel ever on those seas… but directed his smallest class of gun vessels to run away from her’
– Captain Thomas Boyle, aboard privateer schooner Comet. Beaufort, North Carolina
appearance or speed. When captured, they were quickly hauled in drydock and their lines taken off in fascination. These Chesapeake vessels were rela-
tively small, the largest being around 90ft on deck. The schooner rig was used for its ability to go upwind with large fore and aft sails. For offshore, offwind work they used square, flat-cut topsails (which when braced up sharp went to windward quite well) on their foremast and a broad assort- ment of light sails and multiple jibs many set on an absurdly long bowsprit – the latter not unlike today’s offshore racers. Their most apparent, distinctive and
impressive feature was the extreme 17° aft rake of the two masts. Many explanations for the extreme rake are offered, such as that the rake made it easier to firm up the headsail luffs, allowing for lighter rigging; it put the square-topsail and foresail nearer to amidships; and it lifted the boom end when eased out running, reducing the risk of it breaking in the quarter wave. There is also considerable weight in the argument that the dramatic rake simply
SEAHORSE 51
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 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116
