The Much-Maligned TAS Bonaventure

[B.J.]

Since you've looked into this, how do the Endeavour and the Bounty compare to other contemporary vessels? For example, how many guns do they have compared to a Man O' War or a Sloop, or whatever? (Don't use those examples if they don't apply - I have no idea what ship types were around then.)

 

[Shaw]

Well, that is where it starts to get subjective... I mean look at the TOS Enterprise, it only had a pair of phasers and a single torpedo launcher. Now compare that to the TMP Enterprise (which, as I recall, had 18 phasers and two torpedo launchers).

And while we knew about the TOS armaments, they were inconspicuous in their placement. But in TMP they were rather in your face. And while the torpedo launcher placement was first put forward by Jefferies for Phase II, the 800% increase in the number of phaser banks was something that popped up after Star Wars (and weren't even needed in the TMP story line).

I'm not saying that ships should be without armaments, but if we were to compare the Endeavour with the Enterprise from TOS, then I would consider the Enterprise from TMP to be similar to a vessel with a dedicated gun deck (if not two full gun decks).

And of course one should ask if the original Enterprise actually needed 18 phaser banks. It seems that targeting was tied into the helm of the ship and the ships warp maneuverability, which let it track objects quite easily. Sure, only having the single set proved dramatic when the ships warp ability was down or the fire control circuits shorted out, but the TMP Enterprise wasn't much better in a pinch.

Basically what I'm saying is that if we were going to have a show today based on Cook's first voyage of discovery in the Pacific, odds are the Endeavour would look more like the Victory (at least based on the arguments for why the XI's Enterprise needed to be different than the original).

I basically like Cary's design as it stands right now. The only thing it needs is the ability to see some texture when up close, but it should be pretty much invisible in frame when you can see the whole ship. I may be getting old, but I like clean designs.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Since you've looked into this, how do the Endeavour and the Bounty compare to other contemporary vessels? For example, how many guns do they have compared to a Man O' War or a Sloop, or whatever? (Don't use those examples if they don't apply - I have no idea what ship types were around then.)

Sloops ans smaller types of ships varied very much according to their intended purpose. Real "rated" warships had more than 20 guns (this means cannons, swivel guns an carronades on the deck were not counted), with the smaller frigates (from 20 to up to 50 guns in the main battery, with the bulk being in the size of 30 to 40 guns; US frigates were slightly larger with many being of the 44 gun type, which caused many heafaces with the british during the war of 1812) were used in many capacities (patroling, policing) in the time of peace and the ships of the line (from 60 guns upwards, the mostly used in the revolutionary wars was the 74 gun two-decker) were usually kept in the harbour and only outfitted and used in times of war.

 

[Shaw]

Sean is correct... I was thinking that we were back to the topic of applying this stuff to starships.

But I would like to make one note on what was said...

US frigates were slightly larger with many being of the 44 gun type, which caused many heafaces with the british during the war of 1812

When talking about larger, that can be a deceptive term. The US frigates displaced about the same amount as British and French vessels of the same rate, but the Humphrey's design made them longer (and subsequently faster) than vessels of other navies.

This provided a tremendous tactical advantage as the Americans had the option to either engage an enemy or avoid them. If they didn't feel that they had the advantage of position or wouldn't prevail in a toe to toe battle, they could leave.

Speed wasn't the only advantage, but it was one of the results of them being larger (longer) than their peers.



And I'm sure someone will ask for an example of this size difference, so here is such an example:

U.S.S. Constellation (38 guns).......164 ft, 1,265 tons
H.M.S. Macedonian (38 guns)..........156 ft, 1,325 tons​

 

[aridas sofia]

^Two quick exceptions to your otherwise accurate account -- It's likely that Constellation's narrow beam and her hull configuration were more responsible for her famous speed than her length. Second, that interesting hull configuration was the work of David Stodder, who modified the Humphreys design.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

^Two quick exceptions to your otherwise accurate account -- It's likely that Constellation's narrow beam and her hull configuration were more responsible for her famous speed than her length. Second, that interesting hull configuration was the work of David Stodder, who modified the Humphreys design.

Hi guys... just got back from my trip... New Orleans was actually pretty fun. But damn... I like oysters but they put oysters in EVERYTHING down there!

Anyway... I've been following the conversation re: real ship design. And I've been getting a kick out of it.

Regarding the above... I'd say it's a bit of both, really. First off, the "projected area" (ie, the amount of the hull under the water when viewed from in front) is going to be lower for a narrower hull design, so this will decrease drag a lot. You INCREASE drag by flowing it over more of the length of the vessel as well, but that's a lot less of a problem than having to displace the water laterally... the net is a BIG improvement in performance. So... Aridas is right.

On the other hand, though, you're talking about a wind-driven vessel... and with more masts or with more spacing between the masts (giving each sail more exposure to the wind), you're going to be more effective at capturing the wind. So that's right, too...

The big problem with this ship design would be that it would be less space-efficient, and most likely a bit more fragile. Which is a trade-off you could normally live with if you can sail a lot faster (ie, less need for provisions and a lot easier time escaping from battles you don't want to engage in, as well as an easier time outmaneuvering your enemy and getting the best shots in, when you DO choose to fight).

You wouldn't use this sort of ship to defend a city or to provide security for trade convoys, but as a patrol combatant, the improved speed per gun would be a significant advantage.

 

[Shaw]

Second, that interesting hull configuration was the work of David Stodder, who modified the Humphreys design.

I wasn't aware of that.

Was David Stodder's work a modification of the 44-gun design to the 38-gun configuration, or was his design effective on all six frigates?

I lost most of my books on this subject back in 1996, but I don't recall his name... why is Humphreys given so much more credit (and sole credit normally) for the design innovation?

 

[Shaw]

The big problem with this ship design would be that it would be less space-efficient, and most likely a bit more fragile. Which is a trade-off you could normally live with if you can sail a lot faster (ie, less need for provisions and a lot easier time escaping from battles you don't want to engage in, as well as an easier time outmaneuvering your enemy and getting the best shots in, when you DO choose to fight).

Well, the fragility of the ships could be illustrated in the launching of one of them (one of the 44 gun versions as I recall, but I don't remember which one), which was delayed due in part to a bowing of the hull. But I was also under the impression that the use of live oak made a difference in their general resistance to damage.

 

[aridas sofia]

Second, that interesting hull configuration was the work of David Stodder, who modified the Humphreys design.

I wasn't aware of that.

Was David Stodder's work a modification of the 44-gun design to the 38-gun configuration, or was his design effective on all six frigates?

I lost most of my books on this subject back in 1996, but I don't recall his name... why is Humphreys given so much more credit (and sole credit normally) for the design innovation?

There were two basic designs: a 44 gun design and a 36/38 gun design.

The 44s included United States, built in Philadelphia by Humphreys. Constitution was built in Boston by George Cleghorn, and President, built in New York by Christian Bergh.

Of the 38s, Chesapeake was built in Norfolk (Gosport) by Josiah Fox. Congress was built in Portsmouth NH by James Hackett. Constellation was built in Baltimore by David Stodder.

All these ships were long on keel, and narrow of beam, but they dealt with the problems of inclination to hogging by employing a diagonal bracing structure that also permitted heavy planking in the hulls that, along with being built of Low Country live oak, gave them their famous strength.

The big difference in Constellation was the bow, which according to observations made in 1812 was very sharp. While such observations are not without question as to their factual reliability, there is some evidence that Stodder altered Constellation's plan to better reflect innovations being employed on smaller Baltimore Clippers of the time. Chappelle discredits this notion, and while I ordinarily bow to his expertise, I have come to see this entire question as neither one thing (Chappelle's assertions and those of the current ship's stewarts and restorers) or the other (those that maintain the current ship is reflective of the original frigate.) The current ship is not reflective of the original frigate, but contains material from the original frigate that was used in its rebuilding, and much of the evidence used by earlier generations to prove it is the earlier frigate -- including the 1812 accounts of the ship's bow -- cannot be wholly discounted on other questions (like the original frigate's design). The shape of the bow was likely modified, and along with extensive skysails added by the first commander (Truxton) they contributed mightily to the frigate's storied speed. That probably helps explain why Constellation -- and not Congress or Chesapeake -- was called the "Yankee Racehorse".

 

[Warped9]

When I'm looking for inspiration and references for this type of stuff I often find looking at the Royal Navy in the 18th century as a good measure. By this point vessels had reach quite a state of advancement in technology (primarily navigational) to both chart new places and return to them with relative ease (mainly due to the advent of accurate clocks).

With much of the world still a mystery waiting to be discovered, what types of vessels were sent out on those missions? Were they lined with rows upon rows of guns, or were heavy armaments kept rather minimal?

For me, I look at the vessels of James Cook (mainly the Endeavour) as a good measure of exploratory craft. Even William Bligh's Bounty is a good example. It was considered highly unlikely to run afoul of a vessel from a competing world power in the Pacific, and more heavily armed vessels weren't put into service in those waters until after other nations (and pirates) started taking an interest in the Pacific as well.

Frankly the idea that starships should be lined with weapons and that space battles are a daily occurrence is an unfortunate turn for Star Trek that was further advanced by the popularity of Star Wars. And while I'm sure that it wouldn't appeal to the short attention spans of todays audiences, I have hoped that the voyages of starships in future Trek would gain inspiration from historical references like Cook or Lewis & Clark.

Discovery and exploration shouldn't be a shoot first and ask questions later type of venture.

I agree with this line of thinking. Mind you the militaristic viewpoint of some fans does go all the way back to the '70s around when FJ showed "destroyer" and "dreadnought" class starships. Fans have long been militarizing Starfleet even while it's somewhat inconsistent with what TOS and later TNG was trying to portray.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Well, to be fair, the 'dreadnought Entente' was mentioned in dialogue in ST:TMP.

 

[Relayer]

I had read that GR's "problem" with Starfleet Battles (the game by ADB) was that it exploited the war side of Trek rather than the philosophical, peaceful future earth with no greed or hunger, etc... which is the real message of Star Trek.

Of course, whenever Trek's in trouble on the screen they break out a war which boosts ratings. Albeit often with some subsentient life form like the Borg or J'em Hadar.

 

[Icy_Penguigo]

Peaceful ideals are great and all...but they don't make for a fun board game.

 

[TheLoneRedshirt]

I've gotta say, I enjoyed the segue into sailing ship design. I'm no engineer, but as a fan of the Horatio Hornblower and Captain Aubrey books, I appreciated the insights.

And yeah, a game based on diplomatic overtures and shared prosperity would be pretty dull!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

FYI, I think I'm going to start working on this again, so I thought I'd bring this thread back-from-the-dead before it decomposes entirely. New work will be forthcoming shortly.

On that note... anyone have access to a particularly decent-quality model of the series 1701 (lightwave, 3DSMax, Maya, OBJ, whatever)? I'd like to do a few comparison shots of the two side-by-side, but I don't have my own Enterprise model to work with yet.

 

[ST-One]

FYI, I think I'm going to start working on this again, so I thought I'd bring this thread back-from-the-dead before it decomposes entirely. New work will be forthcoming shortly.

On that note... anyone have access to a particularly decent-quality model of the series 1701 (lightwave, 3DSMax, Maya, OBJ, whatever)? I'd like to do a few comparison shots of the two side-by-side, but I don't have my own Enterprise model to work with yet.

Foundation3D.com has a few very good (LW-) models of the old Connie.

 

[Tallguy]

There's a decent 1701 here: http://stblender.iindigo3d.com/meshes_startrek.html

 

[MadMan1701A]

By Decent, he means very good. He's just being humble.

-=MadMan1701A=-

 

[Cary L. Brown]

There's a decent 1701 here: http://stblender.iindigo3d.com/meshes_startrek.html

Thanks, Bill... I never realized you'd put yours out there. It's definitely "not bad at all."