Chapter I: Principles of Model Yacht Building

In order to ascertain the best lines, _i.e._ shape, for progression through the water, Nature herself may, without hesitation, be taken as the best teacher, and amongst fast-moving fishes a mackerel is one of the fastest and most graceful.

I procured a mackerel, carefully measured and drew it to scale (see p. 17, diagrams 1 and 2), first taking the shape back upwards, and next sideways, and in harmony with these lines all the vessels mentioned in this work are constructed.

On looking at the diagram of the mackerel it is at once apparent that a clean run is more important than a sharp entrance, for the drawing shows the fish to be much fuller in the fore than in the after part; bearing this in mind, and having drawn the mackerel in divisions of inches, I took the forward eleven divisions as a model for the deck and general lines of my vessels--first, so far as regards “_going through the water_;” secondly, because I should thus get “_the widest part or beam amidships_,” and as near the centre of motion and gravity as possible.

With these ideas in my mind I constructed “Seashell” (see diagram 3, p. 17), with the actual measurements there stated (as is the case on all the drawings). I rigged her as a schooner; thus--

She sailed well and steadily, and could be made to go in any direction in a light breeze, but her _narrow beam and lightness_, with only 3 lbs. keel, rendered her useless in a stiff breeze, except when she was running away from it.

I next built “Mermaid” (see diagram 4), with nearly 2 in. more beam, and exactly to the measurement of the mackerel sideways, simply increasing each line in proportion as the ship was larger than the fish; all the lines of the hull being of course in harmony with the increased beam, she had 5 lbs. lead keel, and was rigged as a cutter (see “Diana” for cutter rig, frontispiece), schooner, or lugger at pleasure. I found she beat “Seashell” considerably in any wind, but especially in strong winds, sailing under any of the above-mentioned sails.

Learning by this that increased beam and weight meant more power, more sail, and greater speed, I then made “Silver Spray” (see diagram 5), with 8 lbs. keel, and nearly 2 in. more beam than “Mermaid,” and in this vessel I reached about the proportional beam that most model yacht builders have adopted, viz. 3½ beams to the length. I rigged her as a cutter only, and she easily beat “Mermaid” every way. I also discovered that cutter rig was best, the boats under this rig sailing faster and truer, and are more quickly and expeditiously managed; at the same time I discarded fixed rudders for reasons stated before.

With this model, “Silver Spray,” I had reached a point at which I stuck for some time; I could hardly think still increased beam or depth would be an advantage, yet I wished to progress, and try something I would.

I thought the matter over carefully, and at last arrived at the following conclusions: A fish goes _through the water only, but a ship goes through and over_. Now a duck goes over the water; how would a vessel built upon a combination of fish and duck succeed?

I got a duck, took a plaster cast of his under side, noticed the way ducks got over the water, the resistance of the water and the ripples and wake caused by the duck’s motion over the water, and I decided to make a ship to go _over the water rather than through it_; the top of the _water is alive_, and easily displaced in any direction save downwards, the deeper one goes the stiller it is, and the more difficult to displace. I considered, therefore, if I built a vessel of greater beam, very light draught of water, with a lead keel well below the bottom, I should get greatly increased power and speed, for I felt satisfied that the light draught and larger sails more than compensated for a wider beam.

It stands also to reason that a vessel of a wide beam does _not heel over to leeward_ so much as one of a narrower beam, and it results from that--1st, the sails being more perpendicular to the wind, have more power to propel; and 2nd, the keel being also more “up and down,” prevents her making so much leeway.

No doubt there is a limit to breadth of beam, and although I have not yet fully experimented, I am inclined to think that the limit is reached in “Diana,” of three beams to the length.

On this I built “Golden Crest” (see diagram 6, p. 19), with these qualities, beam 10⅓ in., or ⅓ her length exactly, and only a bare 4 in. depth, and 10 lbs. lead keel; I fitted her with sails as a cutter, making them larger than those of “Silver Spray,” in proportion to her increased beam and ballast (in lead keel), and she more than fulfilled my utmost expectations, for she beat all the three former models out and out, both in speed and steadiness.

Still, however, I had not quite finished my experiments, for I remarked that in strong winds “Golden Crest,” on account of her low freeboard (_i.e._ little height out of the water), was sometimes overpowered sooner than I thought she ought to be, and I determined to build another vessel on the same lines and of the same size exactly, but with 1 in. deeper hold; this I did in “Storm Along” (see diagram 7, p. 19), the only difference between this and “Golden Crest” being the 1 in. extra depth of hold; lead keel, sails, masts, &c., &c., all were exactly the same.

Now, when Greek meets Greek, then comes the tug of war. So it was here, and it was only after numberless trials in all winds, and finally by actually interchanging their sails, that “Storm Along” proved the winner; the reason this was difficult to establish was that at first I only sailed _each with its own sails_; when the wind was moderate and sea smooth, “Golden Crest” won a little; on the other hand, with strong breezes and sea on, “Storm Along” won. I interchanged their sails, and “Storm Along” won considerably always. I then found out that I had happened to lace the feet of the sails of “Storm Along” to their booms, but it never struck me such a trifle would interfere much with the sailing of a model: I was mistaken, however, for I found whichever had the laced sails was sure to lose, and “Golden Crest” lost most; mind, all these experiments were conducted on the open sea for hours, with true winds and true sea (the most perfect test). I cut the sails loose, and at once and ever after, “Storm Along” proved invariably the victor; in light winds by very, very little, but in strong winds the greater buoyancy, and therefore lateral power, of “Storm Along” always carried the day.

With all these ships there are _no bulwarks_, no ornaments, or projections of any kind, nothing but the gear, &c., necessary to set the sails and work them; everything else is not only useless, but mischievous lumber.

It may be remarked that the whole of those boats when running before the wind, with self-acting lead rudders, run at very nearly the _same speed_, length to a great extent governing speed; but on turning to windward, each falls into its place, as assigned to it in the foregoing pages.

I have not yet tried whether greater beam still than ⅓ the length is an improvement; I am resting on my oars awhile, and perhaps some one else may undertake the experiment.

Particulars of the races between “Golden Crest” and “Storm Along” are noted on p. 102.