WHY square sails point better than sloops.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

As a "native speaker" of a language other than English, let alone Australian and American, I've always enjoyed how tolerant these divers languages are of lack of vocabular precision. No wonder English, however grammatically corrupt, has become the world's lingua franca :-)!

I can hardly wait, now, for further illumination of the characteristics of the sundry kinds of sails.

Cheers :-)!

TP

In fact, it was an excellent example of classic gibberish, not often heard outside of certain political circles. Similar to gobbledygook, but without the impediment of reaching an actual point.

[AndyEss]

Originally Posted by thinwater

In fact, it was an excellent example of classic gibberish, not often heard outside of certain political circles. Similar to gobbledygook, but without the impediment of reaching an actual point.

his philosophical musings didn’t even reach the entertaining value of true frontier gibberish, albeit that is a relatively high hurdle to straddlle,

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by Adelie

The reason the triangular rig replaced gaff and square rigging for vessels of our size (20-60') is that they are faster racing and ultimately cheaper up front to build. In the long run the costs even out because it is my sense that marconi rigs are harder on sails and the total sails catches up because they require more sails over time.

For larger commercial vessels the economical choice is still between gaff and square rig and depends on the size of the vessel and how much upwind sailing is anticipated in service. Larger vessels needed to be square rigged otherwise the size of individual sails get too big. This is becoming somewhat alleviated by the advent of certain technology like roller furling being scaled up to industrial size.

Navies used fore and aft rigs for smaller vessels in certain uses but square rig was used on the largest vessels. While cloth technology was improving enough to consider larger fore and aft rig ships in the 1800s steam developed and sail went completely by the wayside for military use.

The reason gaff rig was not used on larger vessels was because of the immense loads on sheets and halyards. This changed of course when steam winches became available and large gaff schooners were built in the US.

Square rigs are easily adjusted manually for vessels of any size. Later ships used hand driven winches that could adjust all sails on one mast at a time. This is due to the fact that the pivot point of the sails is at the center of effort, so little force is exerted on the braces.

[waterman46]

Just as a minor point of info, square-rigged vessels generally "wear" not "ware") in heavy conditions to change tack by heading downwind. In good conditions, such as moderate seas and winds, a square-rigged vessel can actually tack. But if wind is strong it is not possible since the sails, which cannot be luffed while head to wind, put too much stress on the forestays.

Don't ask me how I know this trivia, all that is lost in time rather like the ramblings of the OP.

[seandepagnier]

What about the effects of modern sailcloth? It is said the viking boats could make 120 degree tacks or better because of a special type of sheep specifically breed for sailcloth. I don't know much more, but apparently compared to other materials in that time, it allowed much better pointing. Then with oars it is clear they did not get trapped in windward bays and could certainly use the oars to help tack as well.

There are many reports of square rig boats being sailed off lee shores in gales. They were also able to fly triangular sails rather than square sails at times. The ship with most sail area Preußen with 5 masts tacked around cape horn, and tacked into harbor. It has more to do with the vessel capabilities and captain than the square rig as to being lost on the rocks.

Now we know the junk rig is probably superior for most cruising (and commercial) purposes for ease of use, and lower cost of materials needed.

[MartinR]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

There are many reports of square rig boats being sailed off lee shores in gales. They were also able to fly triangular sails rather than square sails at times. The ship with most sail area Preußen with 5 masts tacked around cape horn, and tacked into harbor. It has more to do with the vessel capabilities and captain than the square rig as to being lost on the rocks.
.

Of course it has a lot to do with the ship. And ships like Preussen could stand up to the storms, actually that was what they wanted.

But, in spite of that, square riggers are at a basic disadvantage. A normal square rigger can sail about 6 points off the wind, a gaffer 5 points and a modern sloop 4 points.

[CruiseN]

Originally Posted by ArlyB

The reason Bermuda/Marconi rigs (modern fore-aft sails) as on the modern sloop, replaced square riggers is that they point higher than square rigged ships and the king's navy couldn't catch them.

True.
Wasn't storm energy though.

I like old race cars, they look like Bermuda rigs.
Air dam providing suction which translates as lift with sail.
Air dam creation a large low volume pressure eye, feeding out rear to be leached by spoiler.
Although a drag, know a hi lo shoot for wind above or in sails case, a leeward flow sail of not as heavy sheet.

Storm energy, Bermuda rigs can't handle energy and either reduce or fly spinnaker at lower angle whereas square riggers are air damming their sails to gain lift. Unlike Bermuda triangle; sails that punch INTO wind. Heavy sheets. Amazing how a low pressure zone doesn't collapse. Trident of wind upon hit of sail system is only protection cloth has from folding a true tale.
Simply amazing aye?

We practice leeward flow sail for that reason. Just incase ever needed.

[CruiseN]

Originally Posted by waterman46

Just as a minor point of info, square-rigged vessels generally "wear" not "ware") in heavy conditions to change tack by heading downwind. In good conditions, such as moderate seas and winds, a square-rigged vessel can actually tack. But if wind is strong it is not possible since the sails, which cannot be luffed while head to wind, put too much stress on the forestays.

Don't ask me how I know this trivia, all that is lost in time rather like the ramblings of the OP.

It'd be near impossible to set leading edge from above. A system of sail is a system of flow and they wouldn't have the hull speeds during tacks to blow sail backwards then forwards again. Be like wind bearing the tree trunk. Had enough of a gorgeous lady punching a hole through the energy so rather than being tack, taking punching array out.

Probably explains why our ship wrecks are where they are.. navigation slightly out, no run way to come about and ACCELERATE . Lots of coves look like harbour webbs when it's rough.

My terminology out whilst idiotic spans of thoughts claim I as gibberish.
Blooming moor ons in dancing streams.
Fair winds to ewe and crew.

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by CruiseN

It'd be near impossible to set leading edge from above. A system of sail is a system of flow and they wouldn't have the hull speeds during tacks to blow sail backwards then forwards again. Be like wind bearing the tree trunk. Had enough of a gorgeous lady punching a hole through the energy so rather than being tack, taking punching array out.

Probably explains why our ship wrecks are where they are.. navigation slightly out, no run way to come about and ACCELERATE . Lots of coves look like harbour webbs when it's rough.

My terminology out whilst idiotic spans of thoughts claim I as gibberish.
Blooming moor ons in dancing streams.
Fair winds to ewe and crew.

Let me word it differently.

We understand what you are saying. But if you can't bother to write in proper English, it's not worth our bother to read it. We can't care about your message if you can't care enough to write clearly. It aint' poetry.

Harsh, I suppose.

[TrentePieds]

Sean sez: "...because of a special type of sheep specifically breed for sailcloth. ..."

Ooh, ahr :-)! T'me forebears, the vikings, who were actually farmers in real life, 'cept if there was a wealthy monastery to knock over somewhere beyond the Western Sea such as at Lindisfarne, a sheep was "et Faar" (pronounced "fore"). And that, I'll wager my limit (35¢ Canadian), is where we get the term "foresail". Don't you think ;-0)?

There may be one or two amongst us who as members of the USCG trained in Eagle. For them what don't know it, she was taken from the Germans as "reparations" after Hitler's War. Just for the sake of accuracy, let it be repeated that her name on launching from Blohm & Voss' yard in Hamburg in the summer of '36 - WAAAY before most of you were glints in yer gaffers' eyes - was Horst Wessel. Quite neat that Horst Wessel is a vessel, nicht wahr? Where wuz I? Oh yes - young Horst was a dead keen lad, a "brownshirt" busily recruiting for the Far Right and so obnoxious to some, specifically his landlady 'cos he never paid his rent, that in 1930 he became just plain dead -no keen about it - because he took a slug in the head. Just up Joe Goebbels' alley. Joe beatified Horst. And a song was made about him. Was it mere co-incidence that that song went to the tune of the German version of "How Great Thou Art"?

Now, since someone mentioned Preussen and that she "tacked" around Cape Stiff: I consider that HIGHLY unlikely. Not to get too picky, but square riggers don't "tack". IF they bring the wind on the other side by turning through the eye of the wind, they are said to "go about" or be "brought about". They will then be "on the other tack", and the tacks (the weather lower corners of the courses) will have to be shifted forward on the new weather side. It can be done in light weather with a well drilled crew, but would not be done in the roaring forties in a desperately shorthanded ship. Why would it be when you can simply "wear ship"? Now, Boye Petersen, the master of Preussen, was really Danish, so he might well have used the term for "wearing" that Danes use to this day: "kovende", meaning to turn like a cow. Those of you with an affection for beef still on the hoof will know that cows, when it comes on to blow, turn arse to wind (particularly if it is raining as well as blowing), i.e. they do a "cow turn", And so will the skipper of a square rigger if he has any common sense.

Hej och hå, Jungman Jansson :-)!


TP

[Don C L]

I thought I was a native speaker of English, now I am not so sure. But since I was a linguistics major in college, I look forward to more installments.

[CruiseN]

Thank you for understanding.
Maybe I don't type English well but I've always believed the only true English is such languaged by whom the English crown of moment be. eg at such time; her majesty Queen Elizabeth ii. The rest of us are derivatives of such if choosing English language.

I'm simply saying that sailing isn't easy to understand.
Thank you again above, regarding Junk rig? I'll need to re-read but briefed quickly and read efficiency of transportation via sail using heavy sheets.

To help me understand sailing, we started off on a shallow plane vessel because of ease to trailer such. Pros included ability to launch laden off beach without need to wet trailer wheels. Cons included ability to use energy in heavy weather. For purposes of cruising, immediate investment became more reefing points to reduce sails. Both main and jib.

Use it or lose it. A simple Bermuda rig. Although a smaller sail was less energy in big energy systems. I'd rather use 99% of 10% in a controlled manner than 10% of 100% in a wind forced manner rather than a sailed flow.

Some of you guys use heavier plane angles which improve sail use ratios at expense of water tension on plane during light winds. I'd rather that choice of plane for safety during heavy winds. An allowance to spill energy from system. Such allowance saved our buts..

Still a fixed luff system though unless spinnaker is flowing and our broad shouldered spinnaker is much less true than a yardstick square main.
I can't appreciate tales of bare pole pure need of sail with 100% luff married to 100% foot dancing to keep.

I'd rather the better beat ability of a crewed square rig at sea than a sloop because she will run hard at.
Meanwhile, sloop running hard at via a wider view or getting drenched in a much reduced pace if sailing.

Just a forum though. Fun part learning flow. We reduce to maintain energy use here. Others use heavier planes. Allsorts really, aye.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Don C L

I thought I was a native speaker of English, now I am not so sure. But since I was a linguistics major in college, I look forward to more installments.

Always entertaining but never understood
Konfused am eye four every post hole.

[CruiseN]

Ever felt the energy of a relaxed Great White shark?
Just imagining the energy of a square rig running to the wind. Deck alot drier than a slower beat. That's Watt eye meant and a usable luff that isn't fixed means a higher stability of a fulcrum that is leading sail.
Wasting less energy yet using alot more. At cost of preparation of sail. Increasing, reducing and such.

[TrentePieds]

Don sez: "I thought I was a native speaker of English, now I am not so sure."

Ah, no. American - not English :-)! American is a language all unto itself, but, though we may not speak it, many of us understand it because there are so many English loan words in it ;-0)!

TP