Actually, the Titanic was a schooner.



Nav wrote:
If you are thinking about her masts then you are mistaken.

A schooner is a fore and aft rigged ship carrying a smaller _sail_ on
the foremast and the main mast stepped nearly amidships or a vessel with
3 or more sail carrying masts.

OK, then why don't you tell us all about the Titanic's sailing rig?

DSK

DSK wrote:

Actually, the Titanic was a schooner.



Nav wrote:

If you are thinking about her masts then you are mistaken.

A schooner is a fore and aft rigged ship carrying a smaller _sail_ on
the foremast and the main mast stepped nearly amidships or a vessel
with 3 or more sail carrying masts.


OK, then why don't you tell us all about the Titanic's sailing rig?

Sheesh. She didn't have a mast stepped near amidships Doug -that is
where the funnels were. Did you think she ever carried sail on those masts?

Cheers

Actually, the Titanic was a schooner.

Nav wrote:
Sheesh. She didn't have a mast stepped near amidships Doug -that is
where the funnels were.

Where in the definition of a schooner does it say that a mast has to be
stepped amidships? AFAIK a schooner has two (or more) masts, with the
foreward mast being shorter and/or having less sail area.



... Did you think she ever carried sail on those masts?

From what I've read, no. However she was rigged for sail, carried sails
on board, and was described on her registry as "schooner rigged."

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

OED:

The rig characteristic of a schooner has been defined as consisting
essentially of two gaff sails, the after sail not being smaller than the
fore, and a head sail set on a bowsprit.

Webster:

Fore and aft rigged vessel with a smaller sail on the foremast and the
main mast stepped _nearly_ amidships.


The size of the mast doesn't really matter, it's the sail distribution..
That also dictates mast placement -hence the Webster observation on this
point. Do you think the masts were gaff rigged as well?

Cheers



DSK wrote:

Actually, the Titanic was a schooner.


Nav wrote:

Sheesh. She didn't have a mast stepped near amidships Doug -that is
where the funnels were.


Where in the definition of a schooner does it say that a mast has to be
stepped amidships? AFAIK a schooner has two (or more) masts, with the
foreward mast being shorter and/or having less sail area.



... Did you think she ever carried sail on those masts?


From what I've read, no. However she was rigged for sail, carried sails
on board, and was described on her registry as "schooner rigged."

OED:

The rig characteristic of a schooner has been defined as consisting
essentially of two gaff sails, the after sail not being smaller than the
fore, and a head sail set on a bowsprit.

Webster:

Fore and aft rigged vessel with a smaller sail on the foremast and the
main mast stepped _nearly_ amidships.


The size of the mast doesn't really matter, it's the sail distribution..
That also dictates mast placement -hence the Webster observation on this
point. Do you think the masts were gaff rigged as well?

Cheers

Nav wrote:
OED:

The rig characteristic of a schooner has been defined as consisting
essentially of two gaff sails, the after sail not being smaller than the
fore, and a head sail set on a bowsprit.

Webster:

Fore and aft rigged vessel with a smaller sail on the foremast and the
main mast stepped _nearly_ amidships.

Ah, yes, well... going to the definitive maritime reference, eh? How
come neither mentions such a possibility as a 3 masted schooner? ANd
yet, in the annals of sea lore there very definitely are such things...
and more!

http://www.schoonerman.com/tw_lawsn.shtml

Oddly enough, it happens to be a coincidence that many schooners do have
*a* mast stepped "nearly amidships," 1- it's not necessarily the main
mast and 2- it's really not a definitive requirement for the vessel to
be a schooner.

Finally, if the Titanic's registry documentation lists her as a
schooner, why do you think it's worth arguing about?



The size of the mast doesn't really matter, it's the sail distribution..
That also dictates mast placement -hence the Webster observation on this
point. Do you think the masts were gaff rigged as well?

Does a schooner have to be gaf rigged? Do you think you could be
bothered to look for yourself? I'm not here to do your homework for you.
Is this how you got through school?

DSK

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

OED:

The rig characteristic of a schooner has been defined as consisting
essentially of two gaff sails, the after sail not being smaller than
the fore, and a head sail set on a bowsprit.

Webster:

Fore and aft rigged vessel with a smaller sail on the foremast and the
main mast stepped _nearly_ amidships.


Ah, yes, well... going to the definitive maritime reference, eh? How
come neither mentions such a possibility as a 3 masted schooner? ANd
yet, in the annals of sea lore there very definitely are such things...
and more!


Doug, you really start to look incredibly foolish when you don't even
bother to look at what reference books say and then criticise them as
knowing less than you.


The size of the mast doesn't really matter, it's the sail
distribution.. That also dictates mast placement -hence the Webster
observation on this point. Do you think the masts were gaff rigged as
well?


Does a schooner have to be gaf rigged? Do you think you could be
bothered to look for yourself? I'm not here to do your homework for you.
Is this how you got through school?



OK, so, you don't know. Since you have shown no ability at maths
(especially calculus) I don't think you could have done any of my
homework. But that's OK because the world need wipers and I'm sure you
were (are still) a very good wiper.

Cheers

Nav wrote:
Doug, you really start to look incredibly foolish when you don't even
bother to look at what reference books say and then criticise them as
knowing less than you.

According to your references, the Thomas W. Lawson could not have been
termed a schooner. But that's exactly what her builder, her owners, her
captain, called her. I guess you'd say they were all wrong, too.


Does a schooner have to be gaf rigged? Do you think you could be
bothered to look for yourself? I'm not here to do your homework for
you. Is this how you got through school?



OK, so, you don't know.

Actually, I do.

... Since you have shown no ability at maths
(especially calculus)

I have enough ability to not call it "maths."

... I don't think you could have done any of my
homework.

Considering that you haven't a clue how to resolve forces on a free-body
diagram (merely the latest of a long string of your revealed
inabilities) there is no way you could have even started mine.


... But that's OK because the world need wipers and I'm sure you
were (are still) a very good wiper.

Yep, can still do the basics. Although after qualifying for all watch
stations up through GQ-EEOW and R-5 Leader, "wiper" hasn't really been
part of my job description for a long time.

I guess you can't cope with any machinery more complex than a fork, is
that why you're so resentful?

DSK

DSK wrote:



... Since you have shown no ability at maths (especially calculus)


I have enough ability to not call it "maths."


Bwhahhahahahhaha. My case rests.

Cheers

DSK wrote:

Nav wrote:

Doug, you really start to look incredibly foolish when you don't even
bother to look at what reference books say and then criticise them as
knowing less than you.


According to your references, the Thomas W. Lawson could not have been
termed a schooner. But that's exactly what her builder, her owners, her
captain, called her. I guess you'd say they were all wrong, too.


Hey, why not look up the references. I'm quite sure the OED and Websters
don't talk about the "Thomas W. Lawson". Then you decide if they or you
are wrong. If these reference works are wrong you can tell them -I'm
sure they would like to be accurate.

Does a schooner have to be gaf rigged? Do you think you could be
bothered to look for yourself? I'm not here to do your homework for
you. Is this how you got through school?


OK, so, you don't know.

Actually, I do.

Sure. Now you've had a chance to look it up. Now why not tell us the
answer?


... Since you have shown no ability at maths (especially calculus)


I have enough ability to not call it "maths."

... I don't think you could have done any of my homework.


Considering that you haven't a clue how to resolve forces on a free-body
diagram (merely the latest of a long string of your revealed
inabilities) there is no way you could have even started mine.



Isn't it strange that I resolved the forces in the free body diagram in
the topping lift case and peroduced an answer but you refused to show
you could do the same for the vang. You didn't even draw the rotational
moment in the right place for the problem. I'd say it's quite clear from
this who can do the required analysis -its all the the public record and
your trying to change history here won't change that.


... But that's OK because the world need wipers and I'm sure you were
(are still) a very good wiper.


Yep, can still do the basics. Although after qualifying for all watch
stations up through GQ-EEOW and R-5 Leader, "wiper" hasn't really been
part of my job description for a long time.


I'm sure you were the best wiper there ever was! One might even call it
your defining moment! As I said, the world needs really good wipers.

Cheers

Nav wrote:
Hey, why not look up the references.

Hey, why not look in ones that are just a tad more specialized & accurate?



Sure. Now you've had a chance to look it up. Now why not tell us the
answer?

We can take this as an admission that you don't know.


Considering that you haven't a clue how to resolve forces on a
free-body diagram (merely the latest of a long string of your revealed
inabilities) there is no way you could have even started mine.



Isn't it strange that I resolved the forces in the free body diagram in
the topping lift case

Isn't it strange that you now claim you did, but at the time you
stumbled out a partial answer that was not even in the right ball park.
The Google archive is only about 20 seconds away, shall I quote you
*again* so soon, Navsprit?


... you refused to show
you could do the same for the vang.

???

...its all the the public record and
your trying to change history here won't change that.

Now that is rather funny.


... As I said, the world needs really good wipers.

Is this an admission that you're a poor wiper? Maybe this explains yous
have minimal social skills?

DSK