Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

Log Entry:

1854 March 1
On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship.

March 1. —
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Log Entry:

1854 March 1
On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship.

March 1. ---
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots
per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote:

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots
per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.

Oddly enough, knots per hour _would_ describe skill in hand tied rug
making. I have one with 400 knots per sq inch. Child labor I am sure.
Came from India although they make them in other places, Iran...
I think of those little kids with the fast fingers every time I hear a
talking head refer to' knots per hour.'

Casady

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

"BrianH" wrote in message
...
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Log Entry:

1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the
longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. ---
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour",
calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.

Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how
come there is a lee rail underwater? Sounds like fanciful thinking to me.
Another armchair sailor? It's the type of tall tale wannabes like Bruce
seem to find believable.

Wilbur Hubbard

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

On 2007-12-05 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how
come there is a lee rail underwater?

You can bear away from a reach, too..... Even square riggers could reach.

--
Jere Lull
Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:


"BrianH" wrote in message
h...
Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Log Entry:

1854 March 1 On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the
longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship. March 1. ---
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots per hour",
calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.

Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how
come there is a lee rail underwater? Sounds like fanciful thinking to me.
Another armchair sailor? It's the type of tall tale wannabes like Bruce
seem to find believable.

Wilbur Hubbard

Given that this is an extract from the log of the clipper ship
"Lightning" it is difficult to understand why you state "Sounds like
fanciful thinking to me."

A square rigged ship, to be making 18 knots, would have been sailing
with the wind so obviously the wind was coming from the back of the
boat (I'm using simple terms so you will understand) and if the lee
(that is the side of the ship the wind is not coming from) rail was
under, from the rear quarter. He "bore away for", he turned toward,
the N. Channel.

Your knowledge of sailing is sadly lacking. In fact Will-boy, your
ignorance is awesome!

Since the "Lightning" was one of, if not the, fastest of the clipper
ships her voyages are documented very well. Why, even someone totally
innocent of sailing knowledge could probably discover her history by
typing "ship" and "lightning" into google.

As for "wannabes like Bruce", I keep telling you, I got here. Tell us
where have you been?

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:
Log Entry:

1854 March 1
On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship.

March 1. ---
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots
per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.


I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been
in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been
"X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been
common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain
knew what it meant though.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote:


Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Log Entry:

1854 March 1
On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship.

March 1. ---
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots
per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.



I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been
in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been
"X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been
common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain
knew what it meant though.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)


Bruce?

I usually enjoy reading your stuff.
I often learn something as well as being entertained.

But...

Making fun of retarded kids isn't interesting, entertaining, or nice.

Just ignore him?

Please?

Respectfully,

Richard

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 01:57:26 GMT, Jere Lull wrote:

On 2007-12-05 15:21:11 -0500, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

Not to mention the fact he "bore away" which indicates he was running so how
come there is a lee rail underwater?

You can bear away from a reach, too..... Even square riggers could reach.


From what I've read they *might* get 45 degrees off the wind but even
then it was slow going.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Even Wilbur wouldn't bad mouth this one
 

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 23:05:05 -0600, cavelamb himself
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2007 08:29:55 +0100, BrianH wrote:


Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Log Entry:

1854 March 1
On the this day the Lightning sailed 436 miles, which is the longest
day's run recorded by a sailing ship.

March 1. ---
Wind S., strong gales; bore away for the
North Channel, carried away the foretopsail and lost jib;
hove the log several times, and found the ship going through
the water at the rate of 18 to 18½ knots per hour; lee rail
under water, and the rigging slack; saw the Irish land at 9:30
p.m. Distance run in the twenty-four hours, 436 miles.

Oh yes he would - he would pedantically correct the "knots
per hour", calling it ''lubberly' and the author a 'girly-man'.



I'm not sure what the common shipboard use of "knots" would have been
in 1854. I know that the log was cast the report made would have been
"X" knots and "Y" feet, or fathoms, so possibly it would have been
common to talk of knots per hour. I'm fairly sure that the Captain
knew what it meant though.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)


Bruce?

I usually enjoy reading your stuff.
I often learn something as well as being entertained.

But...

Making fun of retarded kids isn't interesting, entertaining, or nice.

Just ignore him?

Please?

Respectfully,

Richard


I really do try and about the time I think I've overcome my addiction
to shooting him down here he comes again with another blooper and my
good resolve flies out the window.

But he did post a very rational message about bottom paint that I
answered in kind so maybe I'll cold turkey it this time.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)