Sea Trial Shenanigans

Once launched, the H.M.S. Eurydice took part in a sea-trial to compare her perfrmance against that of other ships, specifically the Warspite and the Grecian in September 1843 and the Inconstant and Spartan in Spring, 1844.

Fig. 3 HMS Warspite

From the reports of the trials, it seems that sea trials resembled a cavalier “motor sport” ethic, with every opportunity taken to cheat and malign the competition!

Fig. 4 H.M.S. Eurydice, in The Last Four Days of the “Eurydice”, by Captain E. H. Verney, R.N.

Sea Trials, Autumn, 1843

Only brief mention of the progress of the trials appears to have been mentioned in the press, and the outcome described by them was unclear.

PORTSMOUTH— (Continued)— - Saturday, September 16th, 1843

Hampshire Advertiser, 1843-09-16, p. 3

The result of the comparative rates of sailing of the Warspite and Eurydice, as far as is yet known is, that the former beat the Eurydice running free and sparing studding-sails, while the latter bad the advantage in light winds on a wind.

Portsmouth, Friday September 15 - Saturday, September 16th, 1843

Salisbury and Winchester Journal, 1843-09-16, p. 3

On Saturday afternoon, the Warspite, Eurydice, and Grecian put sea for another sailing trial, and afterwards attend her Majesty to Ostend. Letters have been received from the Eurydice, stating that she is now quite equal the Warspite in sailing and working: with the Grecian she is about equal.

Portsmouth, Portsea and Gosport Herald, Saturday, September 30th, 1843 - Saturday, September 30th, 1843

Hampshire Advertiser, 1843-09-30, p. 3

PORTSMOUTH, SEPT. 30.

Opinions and accounts are very uncertain relative to the trials between the Warspite and Eurydice. Of late, things seem to have been reversed, and the Eurydice to have had the advantage. There seems to be no doubt that she once “outcarried” the Warspite, having carried topgallantsails when the latter could not. We subjoin a commumcation on the subject, premising that there certainly is an alteration in the trim of the Warspite since she was last na Spithead:-” I am surprised to see in a late ‘ Advertiser,’ report that H.M.S. Eurydice was beat on all points by the Warspite, during their late trials. I have heard from the officers of the different ships present, that, so far from such being the case, the Eurydice had the advantage in every day’s sailing; and two successive days, in a fresh breeze on a wind, she beat the Warspite four miles dead to windward in four hours. Now, as to the Warspite being out of trim, she was trimming the whole time, and even struck her forecastle bow guns below— but to no effect.”

THE ROYAL NAVY. Portsmouth, SEPT. 27. - Sunday, October 1st, 1843

Lloyd’s Weekly Newspaper, 1843-10-01, p. 12

…

The Eurydice, 26, Captain Elliot, having been found to be out of trim during her recent trial cruise with the Warspite and Grecian, is landing some of her water-tanks and 15 tons of water, as it is intended that she shall not carry so much water as was originally intended by 15 tons. She is intended to leave in a day or two for China and the East Indies.

As previously mentioned, the Eurydice’s firstvoyage was actually to the West Indies.

Weatherliness in Ships

Following the trials, the “weatherliness” of the Eurydice became a matter for correspondence.

WEATHERLINESS OF THE EURYDICE. - Monday, October 16th, 1843

Hampshire Telegraph, 1843-10-16, p. 4

To the Editor of the Hampshire Telegraph.

Sir, -I learn that the Eurydice draws two feet less water than is usual with ships of war of her size and tonnage. Now this fact, connected as it is with her superior capabilities on a winid, appears to me, to be as a relation of things that deserves no slight consideration-one indeed that ought to be scrutinizingly looked into ; because the quiality of ships’ weatherliness is taught by some ship designers to depend on the amount of their respective lateral resistance, or the quantity of immersed area of the greatest longitudinal sectton a vessel when on the wind offers to the floating medium. That this is a very prevalent opinion need not be urged on those who attend to changes made in order to improve leewardly vessels and those carrying slack helms; for the alterations then effected in them are invariably in accordance with it, and found to consist either in bringing them down in the water by means of more ballast, giving them additionial false keel, or gripe, or increaise of forefront. All these are, however, futile contrivances, and from general failure whenever put into practice, have proved themselves to be but valueless substitutions to counteract the ill consequences atteniding bad constructions. The case of the Eurydice, as a contradiction to the entire truth of this taught principle, in my opinion, forms an instance of a very striking kind, since we find in her the possession of the quality of great weatheiliness, conjoined with diminution of lateral resistance. The fact, as relates to her, being established to this extent, I think then there arises a right to regard the possession of that desirable quality by her as a result of something additional and distinct from a requisite portion of lateral resistance, which, of course, is always indispensable, though, perhaps, even that of the Eurydice is far too great; and a possibility may therefore exist that the quality in question and so conspicuous in her, might be as fully possessed by vessels considerably flatter-floored than herself. That this development might occur in forms constructed as described it is thought will appear evident, should what is about to be stated be conceived to explain the true cause of that ship’s weatherly capacity. This true cause is, by me, considered to depend on a mechanical action of her immersed body on the floating medium, ensured and takinig place in consequence of her greatest breadth being placed well forward, and her mastng strictly conforming to this peculiarity of build. By this disposition of the greatest vertical cross-section, it neceessarily follows that she has greater superficial displacement abaft that section than before it, and that therefore when sailing on a wind, which is productive of a diagonal movement of her hull in the direction of the weather bow and lee quarter, and to which the axis of this said section forms a pivot-the always greater resistance her lee quarter, when dipping, maintains over that then acting against the advance of her weather bow, serves most effectually, and by a mechanical process, to continually throw that bow up to windward, and also to lift the entire ship in that direction, realizing what sailors term ” fetching to windward of the point she looked up to.” To those who, like myself, may be induced to assign a ship’s going to windward to a mechanical operation of her hull on the water as just detailed, two important particulars relative to ship-designing must appear indispensable, namely, that of accurately determining the precise situation of the greatest cross-vertical section, and to what extent draft of water might serviceably be abridged: the latter a not unesential consideration, since a ship when drawing less water is rendered more effective when employed cruising off a coast. Now then, Sir, taking the foregoimg statement for a guide to the ensuing opinion, I will conclude my letter by venturing to say, that owing to neglect of the first particular perhaps may truly be ascribed the cause of so many bad sailing ships apparently having, when seen in dock, forms well calculated to ensure weatherliness and swiftness in sailing; but which, solely from having their greatest breadth placed too far aft, have disappointed the aims of their constructors, and the expectations of all those who, when inspecting them, have not given the circumstance under review due and fitting reflection. It is quite possible too, that great but unnecessary rise of floors in ships, and great draft of water, have been the consequence of not fully detecting this imnperfection in their designs-two things which of late years have gone on increasing, probably with the hope that the greater amount of lateral resistance so obtained would be the means of making them tend well to windward; which quality, I trust, I have in this letter advantageously pointed out to you to be the result of a very different, indeed, opposite arrangement of the elements of their form, and I remain,

Sir, your obedient Servant

JAMES SABBEN, Lieut. R.N.
October 13th, 1843.

[Re: Weatherliness in Ships] - Saturday, November 4th, 1843

Hampshire Advertiser, 1843-11-04, p. 3

A letter from Lieut. Sabben, R.N. on a subject of considerable interest to naval men — namely, the cause of ” weatherliness” in ships, as illustrated by that apparent in H.M.S. Eurydice, was published by our local contemporary some little time since. It may not be irregular, if we say a few words on the subject, without going into Lieut. Sabben’s theory, which would be “dry” — and therefore unpardonable.

We doubt whether ” giving additional false keel, or gripe, or increase of forefoot,” be ” futile contrivances,” by way of making a ship more weatherly when deficient in that important quality ; — they will not turn a bad ship into a good one, any more than a pair of spectacles will do the same for defective sight ; but that such things have something to do with ” weatherliness,” universal experience seems to attest. We also doubt extremely the fact alluded to concerning vessels which have the faculty of being lifted bodily to windward, and making ” weather ” way, instead of ” leeway”; and, consequently, having to reckon the former instead of the latter in their calculations on a voyage. That some sailors ” say ” that some ships do this, proves little : we have heard it said that musket balls rise on leaving the barrel. The question of how accurately ships do “fetch the point they look up to,” is very interesting in each individual case, and should be carefully tried, when, and where, no weather or lee, tide or current, lurks as a disturbing cause.

But our concern is with Lieut. Sabben’s data, the chief of which is the weatherliness of the Eurydice. She has ” little ” (comparative) “lateral resistance” ;— is that quite certain ? Does not length, and great length of keel, give this ? and is not the Eurydice longer, considerably, ” than ships of war of her size and tonnage” : ex. gr. Sir W. Symonds’s 26s ? We do not presume to speak positively ; and are quite sure that Lieut. S. is well able to set us right, if we are not so ; but we should have guessed that the ” lateral resistance ” of Eurydice, was at least equal to that of Vestal, for instance : a ship of the class with which alone Eurydice is to be compared, with any fairness.

Our own very clumsy notion is, that ” very different, indeed opposite arrangements of the elements of a ship’s form,” may produce almost equal excellence, in our present state of knowledge of the subject be it remembered, and without saying tbat there is not one leading principle of form which may be perfect, supposing we could get at it. Now, observe these trials of Eurydice and Warspite ; the formerly certainly had the advantage ; we never for a moment doubted that she would — at least, we always expected it. But there was a third vessel in company, during (we think) most of those trials— H.M. brig Grecian, built on a plan much more unlike both Warspite and Eurydice, than either of these was unlike the other, with the very form which Lieut. S. thinks a mistaken one— namely, with ” great rise of floor” — in fact, a complete wedge ; and yet she went to windward of both ships.

So that the facts are these— here were three ships, differing in model many ways, and especially as to their midship sections — one having a flat floor, that of an old two-decked ship ; the other having a sharper form, with a very deep ” hollow,” but still with considerable fulness ; the third with what Captain Rous called a “peg-top midship section” ; and the result of the trials places the flattest-floored ship most to leeward ; the mezzo-termine next ; and little peg-top spinning away to windward of all ! Now we do not infer that therefore the flatter-floored a ship is the less weatherly she is, and the sharper the more so— there a hundred other things to be thought of, and other trials might give other result ; but there are the facts.

We are to remember that, as yet, Eurydice has had no trial with any ship of her own class, and with which she was built expressly to compete — namely, Sir W. Symonds’s beautiful 26s ; but we may give it as an opinion — perhaps a worthless one — that her model is superior to theirs.

Again, we are all to recollect that there is another ship on the same plan as Eurydice, now of some standing and known character in the service — the corvette Modeste. This ship was for some time in company with the Rover, a corvette of precisely similar class, but on the almost opposite plan of Sir W. Symonds. We never saw any official account of their trials, but we had our’s from the officer then commanding H.M.S. Vestal, and under whose orders Rover and Modeste then were; he had frequent opportunities of judging of these two representations of opposite systems, under a variety of circumstances. The result was that, taking one thing with another, they were very equal in excellence ; the superiority of Modeste, as to speed, was off the wind, or in smooth water ; tbat of Rover, invariably, was close-hauled, and especially when blowing fresh. That is, be it observed, just at the time when the ” mechanical action ” of the ” body ” on the ” floating medium,” spoken of by Lieutenant Sabben, would come into operation. We only throw out these facts for his consideration, or that of any one whom they may interest, without in any way meaning to dogmatise on them. All will agree with Lieut. S. that the closest attention should be paid to the position of the ” greatest breadth ;” for, as yet, opinions differ about it considerably.

All will agree, likewise, that whatever tends to ” throw ” the weather bow ” up to windward,” has the same tendency as regards “the entire ship ;” it being proverbial tbat, ” where the head is, the body will not be far behind,” unless the ship should have the mishap to come in two, and its dissevered portions should start, each on its own account! Lieut. S. is of course aware that in the case of the ” Symondian ” ships (the sharpest, and we really think, taken as a whole, the most weatherly class of ships in existence) being ” brought down ” generally ruins them ; and the lighter they are the better. The reasons are obvious, on an examination of their form. All will concur in what he says as to the importance of light draught : but on this we cannot now enter.

With very much that Lieut. S. doubtlessly has to say, we suspect that we should agree ; and his letter was an interesting one. What we protest against is, not his theory, but the assumption that it is proved or supported, by the recent trials of the Eurydice. Whether his theory be correct is quite a separate question.

Sea-Trial One-Upmanship

A report in January, 1844, regarding the performance of another ship, the Sealark, which mentions the Eurydice in passing, suggests that the “team bosses” were accustomed to talking down the performance of their rivals!

THE SEALARK, 10 GUNS, AND THE NEW 13-GUN BRIGS, &c. - Saturday, January 13th, 1844

Naval & Military Gazette and Weekly Chronicle of the United Service, 1844-01-13, p. 6-7

To the Editor of the Naval and Military Gazette.

Sir, My attention has been drawn to a statement which has lately appeared in the Hampshire Telegraph, to the effect “that the Editor had ascertained that the armament of the Sealark, new 10-gun brig, lately commissioned and about to sail for Africa, was composed of 10 miserable 9-pounders”, subsequently asserted be “8 miserable 18-pounders.” Now, Sir, these are both startling assertions, and such as, for the honour of the country and the gallant constructor of the Sealark, require to be fully proved and sifted. My own belief is, that the Editor of the Hampshire Telegraph has given a most unfair and false account —but we shall see.

…

… and here I must say how exceedingly unfair the Hampshire Telegraph Editor is. When the last-named brig [Helena?] (projected bv one of his friends) was commissioned, we were told what a fine powerful vessel she was, and how very superior she would be found to Sir W. Symonds vessels of same class; but when put to the test she failed miserably in all respects, and could neither carry her original masts nor armament, and was beaten greatly every point by the Nautilus, old 10-gun brig; and even after her armament and masts had been greatly reduced, her performances were little better. Nevertheless, she was constructed under the very eye of her projector; and he told me personally, in answer to a question, “that he was perfectly satisfied with all arrangements, and that he had had everything as he desired.” I observed that her masts appeared to me too much for her. He replied, “She is a very powerful vessel, and requires heavy masts, having large body under water, and I feel sure will carry them easily.”

Now, Sir, had one of Sir W. Symonds’ vessels of the same class failed so sadly, wo should never have heard the last of it from the Hampshire Telegraph Editor. There would have been outcries and lamentations without end— “ignorance, intuitive folly, want of all proper professional knowledge, ridiculous experiments, shameful waste of public money, &c. &c. But the Frolic was looked at frolic ; not a word did hear; all was as silent as night.” Too bad this. Again, when Eurydice was built and commissioned, she was by same oracle boasted to be most superior to Sir W. Symonds’ 26s ; she took cruise with Warspite and Grecian, 16—the latter a Symondian, just returned from a four years cruise. Well, first we heard that Eurydice was beaten by Warspite, a run from Brighton to Portsmouth ; then we heard that on wind, in after trials, the Eurydice beat the Warspite considerably in all weather; but were not told how much the Grecian, 16, beat Eurydice, Oh, ; that was not dreamed of: she, the brig, was too insignificant. But be that as it may, I do happen to know from those on board Warspite (whose rank and opinion are of no small value) that the Warspite did beat Eurydice very much off the wind, and that the Eurydice had no advantage over her on a wind during the trials, and that the sailing qualities of the Grecian were very great. On wind particularly, Eurydice could not do anything with her. I had hoped to have seen a full account of these trials in your Paper, but was much disappointed to see nothing of the kind. Again, in a trial which took place between Eurydice and Pilot, 16, I know from a Naval Officer on board the brig, that the trials the frigate Eurydice had no possible chance with her; —indeed, the superiority of Pilot in speed and to windward was most extraordinary. Of all these things the Editor of the Hampshire Telegraph never deigned to inform us —no, all was secret; but had the matter only have gone the other way, what roars of exultation and triumph we should have heard even to this hour ! Let every constructor stand upon the real merits of his vessel; give all fair play; but do not ever let us hear one raised (unfairly) at the expense of another.

…

And lastly, Sir, in conclusion, I hope that in future you will take care that neither the Hampshire Telegraph, nor any other paper, shall put forth false and malicious reports relative to Sir William Symonds, or his noble vessels, without exposure and refutation. I remember when you were the foremost in the good cause to prevent and expose such acts. And now, notwithstanding Sir W Symonds’ fame is far too firmly established to fear aught from falsehood, yet it is neither right nor safe to suffer such to pass uncontradicted.

It would be interesting to your Naval readers at all times to know the results and particulars of interestin trials between ships.

C.

“Unsportsmanlike behaviour” also appears to have been par for the course, as these reports involving a trial for the Eurydice in Spring 1844 suggest:

Portsmouth, Saturday, April 6, 1844 - Saturday, April 6th, 1844

Hampshire Advertiser, 1844-04-06, p. 5

It is stated that in a late trial, which lasted several days, between Inconstant, 36, Spartan, 26, and Eurydice, 26, — Spartan, one of the Surveyor’s ships, proved the best ship on all points, beating even the famed Inconstant in a decided manner. This is certainly another ” feather” in the Surveyor’s ” cap,” which is stuck pretty full of such fea- thers already. We have seen no particulars, — nor what kind of weather there was. Eurydice is said to have come in hindmost throughout the trials.

PORTSMOUTH, SATURDAY, APRIL 13, 1844 - Saturday, April 13th, 1844

Hampshire Advertiser, 1844-04-13, p. 4

It has reached us, on good authority, that in the recent trial of sailing between Inconstant, 36, Spartan, 26, and Eurydice, 26, in which Spartan is said to have had the advantage, — that advantage was purchased at the cost of her efficiency as a man-of-war, —” namely, by starting a considerable quantity of water, and by shifting the guns, — the other ships remaining in their usual trim. Now, this at once destroys the whole value of the trial, as a real test of the qualities of the respective ships ;—” and we wonder that any commanding officer does not perceive that a victory so obtained is no credit, and proves nothing. The necessity for trimming by shifting guns in ships with decks so little burdened as the 26’s, seems absurd. With 10 broadside ports, they carry 18 guns on the main deck,— the foremost port being vacant ;— pierced for 6 forecastle guns, they carry only 2, a solitary gun on either side ; and 6 quarter-deck guns only, though they are pierced for 10. They need carry no gun on either deck so far forward as the foremast, —”nor so far aft as the mizen ; assuredly, therefore, they have not much to complain of.