Thanks for the complements! I'll pull these and replace them shortly with non-PhotoBucket versions.
@ reytuerto,
I honestly don't know the real differences regarding hull shape or minor differences in rig or sail details. There would be major differences in lumber used to build the things due to available timber. Operating conditions would have been significantly different. These ships were operated on a generally rough, wild, and sparsely populated coastline. Most of the coast North of Santa Cruz (About 1/2 way up California) and up to Alaska is rough, lots of cliffs with small, exposed coves. Periodically there are long beach stretches. Storms come up quickly and ships need to be able to get away from shore quickly. If not, they die.
These lumber schooners were used to quickly get into tiny exposed coves and tie off to rocks or whatever was handy. Up on top of the bluffs or cliffs were logging operations cutting and rough sawing Redwood, Douglas Fir, and a few other mixed species. The lumber was either slid down a slide to the schooner or transferred out via a breaches buoy contrivance. It was up to the schooner to get out to sea and the lumber to market.
Rigging was simple and robust. The schooner rig was as good as you could get to combat the storms out of the Northwest. As I recall, a few hundred were built.
CraigH
|
). I made the question because I was seeking a cheap vessel for coastal navegation in the Eastern Mediterranean, the second half of XIX C. Your schooner looks very fine, much less cumbersome than the 7 masts Thomas Lawson, and I hope that with also a reduced crew (15 to 18), for my AU. May I supose wrightly that the same 3 masts schooner design but with french Lemosin oak, north italian pines, and/or lebanese cedars will work the same? Thanks and cheers.
![[ img ]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/2a26ersmtvgi98u/SY%20Zephyr%201873.png?dl=1)
![[ img ]](https://www.dropbox.com/s/9q68lo42g4vz8pl/SY%20Zephyr%202016.png?dl=1)
