For all you old timers out theres information, I've been using news groups
since before there was an "internet".

If you want to keep this idiot thread up, carry on. I've put the whole mess
in my "Twit filter"

Carry on dumb sh__ts.

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...
"Fred Williams" wrote:

I think the title of this list is "rec.boats.building."

New to Usenet newsgroups, are you Fred? You have already posted to
this thread, so your newsreader told you that it is a cross-posted
thread. I don't know why the original poster chose to cross-post, but
he did.

I suspect you may not know were you are.

I'd hazard a guess that most of us know better than you where we are,
'cause we know how Usenet works over here in s.m.n, and most of us
take notice when a thread has been cross-posted.

If this thread has any relavance to building boats, then please carry on.

Cost has relevance to building boats, ancient or new, warship or
skiff.

OJ III

In rec.boats.building Fred Williams wrote:
: For all you old timers out theres information, I've been using news groups
: since before there was an "internet".

: If you want to keep this idiot thread up, carry on. I've put the whole mess
: in my "Twit filter"

You might have done that in the first place and spared us all the
spectacle of you making an ass of yourself.

Still waiting to hear how you determined I have no service
experience.


--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558

In article ,
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:

Here's a summary of the data about old-time ship construction I've gathered.
Much thanks to the people who helped add to this collection. Can anyone add
more?

Unless stated otherwise, all prices are without weapons. For a normal
man-o-war the weapons might be 25% of the hull price give or take alot.
Sails might be the same amount.

A Greek Trireme in the ~400BCs cost ABOUT 5,000 drachma and the equipment
for it cost about 2,200 drachma. Each drachma is about a day's salary.
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowi...me/thesis.html


A medium trader of 40 tons or more carring capacity must have cost about £100
when new
in 1580.

Prince Royal 1610, 114x43ft, 1330 tons, 55 guns:
Overall building cost was 20,000 pounds of which 441 went on carving and 868
7s on painting/guilding

Sovereign of the Seas 1637 of 169 foot on the gun deck and 1461 tons
http://www.kotiposti.net/felipe/England/england.html
Overall building cost 65,586 pounds 16s 9.5d (including guns)
of which 6,691 pounds on carving & decoration.

To build a 'bomb vessel' of about 100 feet in 1692 cost 2828 pounds which was
about 120
man-years worth of salary for a skilled laboror, or 283 man-years for a
common
sailor.

To build a "Third Rate" in 1692 would have cost about 22,000 pounds which is
about
880 man-years salary (skilled) or 2,200 (common sailor)

In 1750 the Infernal bomb ship had a crew of 80 men and was ship-rigged at 96
ft long and 385
tons and cost about 3500 pounds. http://home.wnclink.com/russell/thunder.htm
which is the equivelent of 249,000 pounds in 2002.
http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/pound_re...500&shillings=
&pence=&year2=1790&action=compare

The HMS Victory of 100 guns and 186 foot on the gun deck displacing 2126 tons
cost 63,176 pounds.

A Dainish 70 gunner in 1780 cost 187,000 reichsguilder or 3,000 man-years of
for an ordinary sailor including guns and sails.

A Danish 90-gunner in 1790 cost 212,700 reichsguilder or about 3,500
man-years
for an ordinary sailor including sails and bronze guns.

And the USS Constitution cost $302,718 in 1797 US dollars,
although the Brits could build a 74 gun ship for less.
It took something like 25,000 man-months to build a Constitution (or a
British 74).
The Constitution was way over budget, which was only $100,00.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/s...nstitution.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Al...43/supfrig.htm

While I've seen quotes from N.A.M. Rodger in this thread, I haven't seen
any mention of the Scottish ships built by James IV between 1504 and
1510. Rodger's "Safeguard of the Sea" says that the 6-700 tom Margaret
"cost a quarter of a year's revenue for James IV. That seems to work out
to about 1,250 Marks.

Note this doesn't include the 'shore establishment' that is so important
to actually sustaining naval power over significant numbers of decades.

Regards,

Tom Billings

--
Oregon L-5 Society

http://www.oregonl5.org/

"Fred Williams" wrote:

:For all you old timers out theres information, I've been using news groups
:since before there was an "internet".

Well, apparently not, or you would know it's "newsgroups", not "news
groups".

:If you want to keep this idiot thread up, carry on. I've put the whole mess
:in my "Twit filter"

FIDO was hardly "newsgroups" and it didn't predate News. And it's not
a "Twit filter", Mr Williams. It's called a "killfile".

:Carry on dumb sh__ts.

What do you think we've BEEN doing but trying to carry on the (top
posting) dumb sh_t? Or perhaps your real intent was to have a comma
in that remark?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Well we still carry one fish where 11 miles is close enough...

Enough! Back to boat building. This whole thread sucks :-(

I'm no longer going to "play".

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Fred Williams
writes
Being an ex USN Sailor, I found this discussion semi interesting about 30
messages ago, but your lack of direct service experience is beginning to
wear on the thread, IMHO.

Is anyone involved in building a CVN? Will it be a "nuke"?

Done supporting work for CVF, for which nuclear propulsion was very
briefly considered and quickly rejected.

I think I should point out the life expectancy of any CVN is
approximately
15 minutes in an encounter with any submarine, including the oldest in
commision.

Not our carriers, mate, and probably not the USN's either. There's a gap
between seeing the carrier in your periscope, and hearing it sink, which
consists of putting enough weapons into it to let all the air out: and a
lot of successful work has gone into persuading the enemy's torpedoes
not to hit their intended targets.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"vincent Brannigan" wrote in message
...


Keith Willshaw wrote:


The napoleon was a smoothbore and its production involved
much less boring and turning than a rifle

The true comparison is between an iron
smoothbore and a napoleon. The columbiads
while admittedly larger than the napoleons
were also smoothbores

I agree that rifling adds to cost, but not that much.

I rather disagree.

The cost of boring
(drill the main center tube) and turnign (trunnions) is the same.

However the machinery required to cut rifling in a cannon
bore is of an entirely different order from the simple boring
process adopted for a smoothbore. There's a good reason
why rifled cannon didnt appear on the battlefield before
the 1850's and the rise of the machine tool is a large part of it.
It wasnt until 1841 that the first standardised screw threads
were introduced by Whitworth for example.



I'll chime in here being a Gun enthuist as well as knowing a thing or two
about the rifling process.

to rifle the barrel is actually a 3 step process, Bore, Ream and rifle.
you start with a single point rifle drill to drill the basic hole this is
the most dificult part drilling a stright hole.
then you ream it easist part to the finished Lands demension.
Then you rifle. The rifling process takes about 4-5x the amount of time to
Bore or ream.
The rifle cutter will cut one grove per pass it then indexs and cuts another
and it cuts a very little bit of metal. ( in 0.00001") per pass.
so to rifle a barrel takes literally thousounds of repeated passes. Even on
a fully automated machine it takes a long time.

Jim

"Ståle Sannerud" wrote

For instance, preussian blue was 45 times more expensive than plain
old yellow ochre - they'd use the one for the French royal coat of
arms on the stern, the other for the ship's sides So while I
would not doubt that even something as large as a figurehead could
be very brilliantly painted indeed I'd tend to take exception to
brilliant colours being used on the hull itself to any degree!

Clearly. These figures go a long way towards explaining why the black and
yellow stripe scheme of Nelson's day was so commonplace: it was cheap, as
were the alternatives of red and black or red all over.

In one of the O'Brian's there is a description of the frigate Java as
sporting an extravagant colour scheme of a blue stripe along the hull
between black stripes edged with white. It does indeed sound pricey, and at
40 times the price of yellow one can see why the wealthy captains of pretty
warships were so loth to practice the messy business of gunnery.

I'd expect painting of ships to be a more or less continuous process (then
as now, I guess...), given the quality of paints available at the time.
Even
the Atlantic liners, in the early 1900s, sometimes arrived in port after
the
Atlantic crossing sans large areas of paint at the bows, it having been
stripped right off the hull during a single trip.

I believe this is also the reason why oil tankers are painted red...hides
the rust. I've also heard the other favoured scheme of black hull / white
superstructure is designed to defeat photogrpahy - if you can read the
ship's name the photo is too over- or under-exposed to publish. I think it's
an urban myth though.

A Dainish 70 gunner in 1780 cost 187,000 reichsguilder or 3,000 man-years
of
for an ordinary sailor including guns and sails.

A Danish 90-gunner in 1790 cost 212,700 reichsguilder or about 3,500
man-years
for an ordinary sailor including sails and bronze guns.


NB! The 292.700 riksdaler for the 90 is for the bronze guns _only_, hull and
rigging coming on top of that! The total cost for an eighty-gun ship on the
other hand, including hull, guns and rigging, was 390.152, bronze guns
included. For the record, the 90 would cost 410.382 riksdaler, all told.

The numbers above were drawn up in the same document, ca 1780.

Staale Sannerud

In rec.boats.building Fred Williams wrote:
: Well we still carry one fish where 11 miles is close enough...

: Enough! Back to boat building. This whole thread sucks :-(

: I'm no longer going to "play".

Yeah you've said that before. Obviously you couldn't stay away.;^)

No discipline, eh?

So it must be more interesting to you than you are willing to let on.




--- Gregg
"Improvise, adapt, overcome."

Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Phone: (617) 496-1558