staying just far enough ahead to keep her interested. With a dangerous turn to wind- ward, the schooner would then head back upwind towards the convoy, tacking through as little as 100°; the square-rigged frigate would get off a lethal broadside as they passed but if unsuccessful would then have to slowly work her way back, barely making progress to windward while the nimble schooner picked off prizes. The privateer skippers became masters
of playing at wounded duck, to make the downwind chase interesting enough to draw away their larger enemy; but it was a dangerous game if they got within range of the British frigates’ long guns. So why all this history for an audience
usually more interested in modern race- boats and technical advancements? I would hope that a look at the sophistication and aggressiveness of the Baltimore schooners and their skippers might give a sense of kinship with today’s racing skippers. Cer- tainly the motivations were different – they were constantly fighting for their lives and livelihoods. But the Baltimore Clipper of 1812 was as far advanced from the British warship of its day as the incredible foil- assisted Imoca craft are from what most of us sail on our weekends off. Above all it was the ability to point high
while still going fast that astounded the British when they faced these privateers. The elements of wind and water off-
shore today are the same as our ancestors faced, and examining the intelligence applied to the vessels most successful in mastering them should be thought provok- ing. Let’s examine the technology and some solutions to speed under sail that the Baltimore schooners displayed. Balance is the key to making any vessel
go fast, for the fastest yachts today or those of the past. Using the least amount of corrective steering is always a priority. And the huge fore and aft spread of these
54 SEAHORSE
schooners’ sailplans allowed them to correct balance in all wind conditions. The workhorse on a Baltimore schooner
is the foresail (in modern parlance the ‘for- ward mainsail’). Right at the centre of the hull profile the rake of the schooner mast allows a forward spar location while still centring the foresail area roughly amid- ships. The foresail was boomless with sub- stantial overlap of the aft mainsail with working and lazy sheets, just like a head- sail. Laced to the gaff at the top and with hoops to the foremast, it could be instantly furled and set using several brailing lines that neatly pull it up and into the mast. To reef the foresail featured a second
clew and tack, the sail and gaff are lowered and the bottom section of the sail (the bonnet) unlaced along the seam and stowed. Further reefs were put in by gathering up the sail and tying in reeflines in traditional fashion. In heavy winds this sail, well amidships, was powerful and easy to man- age. In light airs it acted like a jib to the mainsail, its overlap accelerating the air- flow to improve both speed and pointing. Further forward was a stoutly stayed
bowsprit with a staysail tacked at its outer end, hanked to a forestay. Overlapping and lashed to it in modular form was a very long and rather dangerous-looking bowsprit extension from which several jibs were set, the outermost one set flying (unattached to a stay). These sails far for- ward were used to balance the large main- sail aft and together make an efficient triple slot effect, feeding accelerated flow to the foresail. In heavy air it took a brave crew to handle this gear and a good skipper was thinking well ahead to reduce sail. The foremast on these schooners was
similarly extended upwards by a topmast, well supported by shrouds, backstays and a set of spreaders. Interestingly there was a pair of ‘running forestays’ on the main- mast, either side of the foresail, running to
the foredeck, to hold up the mast as there was no stay tying it to the foremast. These running forestays were tended on each tack like backstays. Rigging on the Baltimore schooners was
minimal and the three pairs of shrouds were set close together. Near the top, your foot will not fit between them. Being so close together they allowed the topsail yard to be braced close to centreline. This arrangement was essential for pointing while still flying the square topsail. This topsail was always cut so flat that even heading upwind it was the jibs that would lift first; for the same reason careful steering was necessary if it were not to be put aback. The large topsail can be reefed or com-
pletely clewed up, buntlines gathering up slack canvas and only a few hands aloft were required to work this efficient sail. The topsail was a useful manoeuvring tool, use- ful in battle or in docking to control speed and to even put the vessel in reverse or to go sideways. Yet another topsail – the Topgal- lant – was often set above it too. However, in an effort to limit weight aloft this sail was set from the deck, where it was stowed along with its yards and sheets and tackles. Light sails comparable to today’s spin-
nakers or staysails were set in favourable winds. The most common is the Studding sail (Stuns’l) which is also hoisted from the deck. Its head is spread from a yard by which it is hoisted, its outermost bottom corner sheeted to an extension of the lower topsail yard that is run out by a crew aloft. Hoisting the Stuns’l is akin to control-
ling a performance fighting kite as it wants to twist and sail around until stretched in place. In paintings I had always thought of it as simply packing on more area to the square sail. In reality, though, the Stuns’l is a real workhorse as it acts as a very effi- cient ‘jib’ to the topsail, funnelling flow across it. Being always set to windward, it also has a substantial calming effect on the
ALAMY
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
