use of sailing ships for oceanography

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

453
iN272

/ 2 ir 0),

Property of CSC Library

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

The Use of Sailing Ships

for Oceanography

Ad Hoc Panel on
the Use of Sailing Ships for Oceanography

Ocean Sciences Board
Assembly of Mathematical and Physical Sciences

National Research Council

tom

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1981

CD,

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report
was approved by the Goverring Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
Councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the Committee responsible for
the report were chosen for their special competences and
with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than
the authors according to procedures approved by a Report
Review Committee consisting of members of the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
and the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was established by the
National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technolog9y with the
Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of ad-
vising the federal government. The Council operates in
accordance with general policies determined by the
Academy under the authority of its congressional charter
of 1863, which establishes the Academy as a private,
nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The
Council has become the principal operating agency of both
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy
of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineer-
ing communities. It is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National
Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were
established in 1964 and 1970, respectively, under the
charter of the National Academy of Sciences.

Available from
Ocean Sciences Board
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418

Ocean

Sciences

Board

WARREN S. WOOSTER, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, Chairman
D. JAMES BAKER, University of Washinaton, Seattle,
Washington
WILLARD BASCOM, Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, Long Beach, California
JOHN EDMOND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts
ROBERT M. GARRELS, University of South Florida, St.
Petersburg, Florida
DENNIS HAYES, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory,
Palisades, New York
JOHN IMBRIE, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
KENNETH MACDONALD, University of California, Santa
Barbara, California
JAMES McCARTHY, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
MICHAEL M. MULLIN, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
La Jolla, California
WORTH D. NOWLIN, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas
CHARLES OFFICER, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New
Hampshire
JOHN H. STEELE, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
KARL K. TUREKIAN, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
PETER R. VAIL, Exxon Production Research Company,
Houston, Texas
RICHARD C. VETTER, National Pesearch Council, Executive
Secretary

Ad Hoc Panel

on the Use of
Sailing Ships

for Oceanography

Willard Bascom, Chairman
Coastal Water Research Project
Lloyd Bergeson
Wind Ships Development Corporation
Corey Cramer
Sea Education Association
R. T. Dinsmore
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Gustaf Arrhenius
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Frank MacLear
MacLear and Harris, Inc.
James Mays (alternate)
Wind Ships Development Corporation

vii

P reface

During its meeting of October 22-23, 1979, Ocean Sciences
Board member Willard Bascom suggested that rising fuel
costs, modern technology, and new design concepts might
have combined to make the idea of a sailing research ship
more attractive. Later, his preliminary investigation
persuaded him that a more detailed examination would be
worthwhile, and, at its February 20-21, 1980, meeting,
the Board authorized him to form a small ad hoc group of
experts to examine this question. They set out to deter-
mine whether it is feasible and sensible to build an
oceanographic research sailing ship that will:

1. Perform all the needed scientific functions of a
standard research ship.
2. Save at least three quarters of the fuel that
would be used by an entirely engine-powered ship.
3.Perform essentially the same tasks as present
ship witoutgreatly extending the time at sea of the
scieniss andou crew.

In addition, the group was asked to make a first
estimate of the advantages and disadvantages (including
comparable cost) and report back to the Board.
The group, consisting of naval architects and scien-

tists with experience with sailing ships, met once in
be uefu tothose considering the various alternatives
forfutreoceanographic research ships.

Warren S. Wooster, Chairman
Ocean Sciences Board

Contents

Wind Power for Oceanographic Ships I

Panel Origin and Discussions a

Summary of Conclusions and Recommendation 9

Advantages of a Modern Motor-Sailing Ship over
Sailing Ships of the Past 10

Advantages and Disadvantages of a modern Motor-
Sailing Ship over a Modern Engine-Powered Ship 13

Designing a New Class of Ship 17

The Strategy of Motor-Sailing 20

Why Not Start with a Smaller Ship? 23

Capital Costs 25

Recommendation 27

APPENDIX A Background of Panelists 28

APPENDIX B Principles of Sailing 29

Bibliography 32

Wind Power

for

Oceanographic Ships

The age of large sailing ships effectively came to a
close in about 1910. Few have been built since then, and
the few that are still being sailed are mostly square-
rigged training ships. Until the last few decades a
dozen or so oceanographic sailing ships were in service
for some of the major institutions; these included
Atlantis, Vema, Albatross, and E. W. Scripps. These have
passed from the scene for the good reason that they were
inefficient. No one wants to retrace those steps.
Now, circumstances have changed in a number of ways
that make it worthwhile to reconsider whether a newly
designed oceanographic ship that obtains much of its
propulsion from the wind would he more efficient and
satisfactory than other available choices.
The first factor to be considered is the recent great
rise (and probable continuing rise) in the price of
marine diesel fuel (Figure 1). Its per barrel cost rose
from $3 in 1972 to $14 in 1978 to $34 in early 1980 to
about $38 in late 1980. As of January 1981, spot prices
for OPEC crude oil were at $43 per barrel and contract
prices of $40 per barrel by spring were forecast. It has
been estimated (by various oceanographic ship operators)
that between 1978 and 1982 fuel costs of ships (in the
156-ft to 245-ft range) will increase by a factor of
about 2.6 and that the percentage of operating cost in

40 -

30:

/
/1

20- Marine Diesel
EC~~~~I

Arabian Crude
10- - '---

///,t! Bunker C

Consumer Price Index

o I l I I I I I I
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980
YEAR

FIGURE 1 Oil prices in dollars per barrel (after Lloyd
Bergeson). During the period when the consumer price
index doubled, the price of marine diesel increased by a
factor of 12.

fuel will rise from 135 to 264 percent. If the above
estimates turn out to be correct, the average annual fuel
cost per ship will be $424,000 (Table 1).
Fuel costs are rising faster than available operating
funds, and a consequence already observed is a steady de-
crease in operating days as major vessels are laid up.
It is quite clear that any measure taken to decrease
these large fuel costs would be most welcome if the
savings are not made at the expense of other costs, which
may be in the form of additional crew, longer transit
times, or less-efficient scientific operations.
Thus, the purpose of this discussion is to set forth
the arguments for and against considering a new type of
ship whose principal objective is to save 50 to 80 per-
cent of the fuel costs without making corresponding
sacrifices.
Readers who are not well informed about how sailing
ships make use of the wind might first read Appendix B,
Principles of Sailing.
The reason for believing that it is now possible to
build a more efficient sailing ship than has been possi-
ble before is that substantial technological advances
have been made in the last few decades that have not been
utilized in large sailing ships. For example: (1) new
materials are now available such as aluminum for cabins
and masts, polyester fabrics for sails, Kelvar polyaramid
fiber for lines, and improved paints to reduce fouling;
(2) new sailing technology has been developed such as
boomless and sparless fore-and-aft rig, combined engine
and wind propulsion, powered furling, and tension-limited
sheets; and (3) new kinds of electronic aids are avail-
able for navigation, positioning, weather routing, and
steering. Finally, new standards have been adopted for
safety and habitability that will make it easier to find
crew members.
A new deep-sea research ship, designed from the keel
up to save fuel by utilizing all those features will be
able to do science efficiently at sea. Such a ship will
be able to do all the kinds of work that large existing
multipurpose research ships do on long cruises. It can
be expected to be a better scientific platform for some
kinds of investigation in some parts of the world than
some of the present ships. It will be relatively quiet,
and, therefore, the scientists aboard will have better
"feel" for the winds and sea around them. Vibration will
be minimal.

TABLE 1 Fuel Costs, U.S. Oceanographic Shipsa

Length
Research Actual 1978 Est. 1980 Est. 1982 Average $
Vessel $ % $ % $ % 1982 1978

156 80.8 11.0 259 27.8 360 30.7 48.5
170 22.4 9.5 257 22.7 335 24.9 335
174 42.4 6.3 324 31.8 310 29.5

177 81.4 13.4 498 36.7 475 33.9 121
177 167. 16.6 284 22.1 358 23.1 432
177 116. 14.4 405 33.7 463 33.4

208 180. 11.8 322 18.7

210 122. 9.0 367 18.1 360 16.7 126
210 267. 19.2 684 31.6 508 25.1 434

245 440. 23.3 446 23.8 485 22.5 228
245 245. 14.0 443 24.2 508 24.2 496

Averages: 160.3 13.5 390b 26.4 416c 26.4 424

a Estimates by the present institutional ship operators. All figures
in thousands of dollars. Some of these data reconfirmed in July 1980
by George Shor of Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Percentages are
the fuel part of the total operating cost.
b 2.43 x 1978 costs.
c 2.59 x 1978 costs.

Roll will he reduced by the steadying effect of the
sails. Speed under power will be about the same as
present oceanographic ships; that is, it will be able to
move at 10 to 12 knots on the propeller alone. In winds
of 20 knots, this ship will make 12-14 knots on some wind
slants; in stronger winds on favorable points of sailing,
it will drive at 16-18 knots.
One of the largest problems with sailing ships in the
past has been the uncertainty of arrival time at the next
port or station. However, the combined use of sail and
engines, the knowledge of the winds and seas ahead based
on satellite data and modern forecasts, and the help of
computers to lay a course and steer it, will greatly
reduce the uncertainties. It will be possible to
automate many of the operations.
The first step in designing a new ship is to state
exactly what it will be required to do (see Performance
Specifications, page 19). The primary job of a research
ship is to be a working platform at sea for trawling,
coring, sampling, and measuring; it should also be a
comfortable home for the scientists aboard. It must have
long range, that is, be able to operate in remote oceans
at reasonable speeds for extended periods. The sole
purpose of the kind of ship discussed here is oceano-
graphic research. These techniques probably are not
suitable for commercial purposes.
There are many possible variations of hull shape,
sail plans, auxilliary power plants, and sizes. It was
not practical for our panel to do more than consider
briefly the most likely combinations of these.
Our choice of the ship most likely to meet the
performance specifications and become a practical addi-
tion to the U.S. oceanographic fleet is given in the
accompanying design sketches (Figure 2). These show a
single relatively broad hull, possibly with retractable
centerboards. This gives spaciousness, stability, and
the capability of entering shallow channels. Fore and
aft roller-reefed sails have been selected for conven-
ience and minimal manpower; a power plant of variable
output makes electricity as required for propulsion,
winches, electronics, and housekeeping. The proposed
length is about 250 ft and the beam about 50 ft. This is
partly so that its volume will be sufficient to carry all
the people, supplies, and equipment that are necessary,
partly so that its performance can be directly compared
with the larger ships of the present fleet, and partly

FIGURE 2 Design sketch of oceanographic motor-sailer.

because longer ships are faster. There will be three
masts rising about 160 ft above the water (clearance under
the Golden Gate and Verrazano-Narrows Bridges is 232 ft)
and minimal standing rigging.
Of course, all the dimensions given undoubtedly will
change as design work progresses, but these sketches and
this outline of the characteristics give something tan-
gible to discuss until our ideas are more explicit. It
gives form to an otherwise amorphous idea.
We do not visualize that motor sailers like this
would replace all engine-driven ships in the scientific
fleet. We do expect that this ship will be more effi-
cient for scientific operations in some waters than the
ship it will replace. After the first oceanographic

motor sailer is thoroughly tested, others would be built,
* ~each with improvements. The constraints of the more
* ~distant future cannot be foreseen.
We will be greatly surprised if oceanographers do not
eagerly seek the opportunity to sail on this ship, and we
foresee that there will be an increased willingness to
undertake long voyages in more remote seas.

Panel Origin

and

Discussions

At an Ocean Science Board (OSB) meeting in 1979, Willard
Bascom suggested that in view of the $6 million overrun
in fuel costs for the U.S. oceanographic fleet in 1979,
it might be wise to reconsider using wind-powered ships
for oceanographic work. OSB Chairman Warren Wooster then
requested that Bascom convene a small group to study the
question of whether it is feasible and sensible to build
a sailing ship for ocean research that would (1) be able
to perform the usual kinds of ocean research while (2)
saving about three quarters of the fuel that would be
used by an engine-powered ship making the same stations
(3) without greatly extending the time at sea of the
scientists and crew.
Accordingly, an ad hoc panel was formed that met on
March 27, 1980, at th~e Explorers Club in New York to dis-
cuss the matter. The panelists all agreed that there is
sufficient merit in the concept of a "large motor-assis-
ted sailing ship" that it should be pursued further and a
design developed.
Since that time we have exchanged letters and report
drafts and talked by telephone on various occasions. We
have reached substantial agreement on the points ex-
pressed here.

3
Summary of

Conclusions

and

Recommendation

We believe that it is feasible to build a motor-assisted
sailing ship for ocean research that will perform as well
or better than many of the present ships while cutting
fuel consumption by 50 to 80 percent, depending on the
task, the part of the ocean traveled, and the operating
strategy.
We believe that a modern sailing ship with amrple
auxilliary power will be quiet, have reduced vibration,
and roll less than a motor ship of the same size and that
it will find favor with the scientists who use it.
We believe that enough information has been assembled
to justify the cost of a study of the characteristics
that such a ship might have. This study would develop a
preliminary hull design and plans for sail and engine
arrangements, provide polar sailing diagrams, and make an
economic comparison of fuel saving on typical scientific
expeditions.
Therefore, we recommend that the Ocean Science Board
take the lead in this matter by urging appropriate gov-
ermient agencies to sponsor a more detailed design.

Advantages of a
Modern Motor-Sailing

Ship over

Sailing Ships

of the Past

1. Triangular sails can be luff-roller furled around
a head stay--and be remotely controlled. No pivoting
spars and no men aloft are required. See Figure 3 for a
description of roller furling.
2. Sails can be made of polyester fabric that will
last longer and hold their shape better.
3. Sheets can also be remotely controlled. They
will be steel and have tension-limiting releases (so ship
cannot be blown over by a sudden strong gust).
4. Ship can sail much closer to the wind (perhaps as
close as 250) while motor-sailing.
5. Ship can have generous electric power supply with
silicon-controlled rectifier (SCR) speed control (for
motors) for all functions including auxilliary propulsion
(which will drive the ship at 10 knots in windless condi-
tions), bow thrusters (for stationkeeping), electronics,
and housekeeping.
6. Modern hydrodynamic/aerodynamic knowledge can
develop better hull lines and sail forms.
7. Hull can be made of mild steel, welded, protected
from fouling (a big problem with early steel ships).
8. Weather can be forecast and/or obtained directly
from satellites and the sailing route selected accord-
ingly.

SEA FUR L's high torque strength
aluminum luff extrusions come in
lengths which can easily be shipped
anywhere in the world. These sec-
tions are assembled over the headstay
i-H and do not replace it. Consequently,
the integrity of the headstay is ' The sagging luff and sail storage
retained and if a luff section is dam- 4 problems of simple furlers stimulated
aged, it can easily be replaced. Fur- / development of grooved, one piece
thermore, the headstay can be set up solid rod headstays. Hood Yacht Sys-
tight to minimize luff sag but the bear- * tems "Sea Stay" was a forerunner of
ings are not subjected to the resultant / / ' these systems. Actually taking the
and constant headstay tension. This place of the headstay, such systems
means fewer maintenance problems, ! �X can be set up as tight as desired to
easier reefing and furling of the jib in 1 A minimize sag. Grooves in the luff
all wind conditions, plus peak per- , extrusions accept a special small
formance when sailing to windward. diameter bolt rope so the sails can be
raised or lowered quite easily for
changing and bagging. Swivels and a
furling drum permit the entire extru-
sion to rotate so the sail may be par-
FIGURE 3 Luff-roller furling. tially reefed or furled completely.

9. Ship can have all the comforts of other modern
ships and meet modern safety standards.
10. Instrumentation is now available for knowing
position precisely, obtaining wind direction, watching
for ice and land, and measuring water depth, stress on
lines, and other factors.
11. Controllable pitch propellers or free-wheeling
propellers are now available.
12. An oceanographic ship would be lightly loaded
relative to cargo-carrying ships of the past.
13. Autopilot can be used to steer the ship, based
on wind direction sensed at the top of the masts.
14. Computers can be used to lay an optimum course
to reach a destination.

5 -=
Advantages and
Disadvantages of a Modern
Motor-Sailing Ship
over a Modern
Engine-Powered Ship

ADVANTAGES

1. Vibrations and noise caused by propulsion units
will be greatly reduced, making it easier to use micro-
scopes, to think, and to rest.
2. Sails will reduce the roll of the ship, making
life more comfortable, especially when hove-to on sta-
tion.
3. Propulsion power can be readily adjusted with a
diesel-electric-SCR control system to maintain the in-
tended speed so that schedules can be kept.
4. Sails will save fuel while under way, permit ship
to stay at sea longer, and reduce the change in stability
caused by the changing load of fuel.

DISADVANTAGES

1. The largest problem to be overcome may be the
state of mind of some scientists or administrators who
know little about large sailing ships and may react nega-
tively before investigating the possibilities. (There is
a widespread image of square riggers rounding Cape Horn
in a gale with men hanging on the yards that does not fit
the ship we have in mind. See Figures 4 and 5.)

FIGURE 4 These days are gone. On a modern sailing ship
there will be no spars, little rigging, no men aloft, and
powered sail furling.

FIGURE 5 The square rigged ships of 80 years ago were
handsome but demanding.

2. There may he some uncertainty about whether a
complex scientific program can be carried out on sched-
ule, or that a sailing ship can hold station, or steer a
proper course, or that it will suddenly heel in beam
winds, or that its rigging will be in the way of deck
operations. Mast height may prevent using some harbors
where bridge clearances are low. Masts and rigging give
additional unwanted windage when the ship is moving into
the wind under'power. Those are reasonable problems to
raise, and the prospective operator must be assured that
they can be overcome or minimized.
3. We believe that most problems can be resolved in
the proposed design/study and that those remaining can be
resolved during actual operations at sea.

Designing a

New Class of

Ship

It is difficult to discuss the virtues and problems of a
ship that does not exist. Although it may not be diffi-
cult to get agreement on design principles, it often
turns out that when a generalized plan becomes specific
there are many objections. Therefore, it is useful to
have a specific ship design to consider so those involved
can visualize how it would be used in various circum-
stances. Each scientist or sailor can then think about
what his own cabin or laboratory or actions will be like
during a voyage.
Our panel began by listing what should be expected of
a general-purpose long-range oceanographic ship, regard-
less of its method of propulsion. We believe that the
sailing ship should meet all those requirements and
otherwise perform comparably with the best of the exist-
ing ships whose fuel costs are cited in Table 1.

TABLE 2 Design Characteristics of an Oceanographic
Sailing Ship (Bascom Sketch Plan)

Length 250 ft
Beam 50 ft
Mast Height 160 ft
Tonnage (est. for steel hull) 1400 ft
Crew 16
Cadets 3
Scientists 18
Wet laboratory 800 ft2
Dry laboratory 2800 ft2
Instrument laboratory 2500 ft2
Afterdeck working space 900 ft2
Side deck working space 1500 ft2
Electric plant 3 - 400-HP diesel (all purposes)
Main prop 400-HP
Bow thruster 200-HP
Sail area to wetted surface: about 1.3:1

Crane, after deck
Crane, side deck
Main winch
Hydro winch

Sail plan: 3 masts, fore and aft luff-roller furled sails. Furling
and sheets controlled from the bridge. Probable speed on favorable
point of sailing--14 knots. Navigation by satellite, Omega, Loran C,
radar.

TABLE 3 Roster

Scientists' berths 24
Captain 1
Mates 3
Bosun 1
Able seamen 3
Cadetsa 3
Chief engineer 1
Engineer officers 2
Mechanic 1
Winch engineer 1
Cook 1
Mess cook 1
42

aA cadet is a volunteer apprentice seaman who
works without pay while learning how to sail and
navigate a ship. We think there would be many
volunteers.

Performance specifications (apply to most deep-sea
research ships):

1. Must be able to operate safely in any part of the
ocean for at least 2 months. It must be able to survive
all weather and be able to do useful work in a State 5
sea.
2. Must carry 12-24 scientists in comfort with at
least 150 ft2 of laboratory space for each scientist in
the following forms:
Wet laboratory (on deck for overside gear);
Dry laboratory (paperwork, microscopes, etc.);
Instrument/computer laboratory (both of the
latter should be air conditioned)
3. Must have adequate electrical power for house-
keeping, instrumentation, winches, and additional neces-
sary uses.
4. Must have an average under-way speed of about 12
knots.
5. Must carry coring winch (40,000 ft of 9/16-in.
wire), hydrographic winch (30,000 ft of 1/4-in. wire),
proper A frames, and cranes for handling heavy gear over-
side.
6. Should be quiet both accoustically and electri-
cally.

To which we have added for a sailing ship:

1. Should save 50 to 80 percent of fuel of a compar-
able-size motor ship.
2. Should not require much more crew than a compar-
able-size motor ship.
3. Heel of ship should not exceed 100 in normal
conditions.
4. Sails and working decks should be in convenient
view of the bridge.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize some tentative design char-
acteristics and outline a possible roster of the crew.

The Strategy of

Motor-Sailing

The relative efficiency of sailing improves with the
amount of wind available. The wind usually is better in
the winter and at higher latitudes; it /decreases in the
equatorial doldrums. Only enough auxilliary power was
installed in early ships to give maneuvering capability
in harbors and channels or to traverse calms. Ships de-
signed to move along routes with strong winds had small
engines; those meant to sail in variable winds carried
more installed power. The reason why large square-rigged
ships never tried to use much auxilliary power was that
the huge aerodynamic drag of the masts, spars, and rig-
ging made such propulsion inefficient., A fore-and-aft
sail plan with relatively little rigging greatly de-
creases that drag, but the fact that the drag (of both
air and water) increases as the square of the velocity is
always on the mind of the designer. Most large sailing
ships were built to carry cargo; for that purpose their
principal advantage (in addition to saving fuel) over
ships with engines, was that cargo could be carried in
the engine room space.

A sailing ship for worldwide oceanographic research
(perhaps with an increased likelihood of assignments in
higher latitude) must be expected to encounter the maxi-
mum variation in winds. Therefore, it is necessary to
design a ship that will optimize the use of wind power
while maintaining overall voyage speed at that of an
equivalent motor ship. As long as there is ample room
for scientific work, the space used for the engine room
is of no concern, especially since increased length gives
more speed. (Hull speed, the upper practical limit of
speed for a displacement hull in ideal winds, is approxi-
mately 1.0 to 1.3 times the square root of the waterline
length--in the case of a 250-ft overall ship, this is
about 15 to IS knots.)
The strategy for optimizing speed and minimizing fuel
costs by using the best combination of sail and engine
power needs to he carefully thought out after a final
design is agreed on and more data are available. How-
ever, it may be something like this:

1. All sails spread (up to safe limits) on all
courses except those within 250 of the wind direction.
2. Propeller to free-wheel or be feathered until
forward speed drops below 10 knots. At that time, the
propeller is engaged and motor is run to bring ship up to
10 knots or desired speed.
3. On certain wind slants the "course made good" can
be substantially improved by running the motor-propulsion
enough so that the sails "see" the wind differently and
the ship can sail closer to the wind.
4. On courses directly downwind, the ship may have
to tack to develop enough wind slant to make the sails

efet5. With electric propulsion and SCR control of

motors, electric (or hydraulic) control of sail furling
and sheets, routing data from satellites and elsewhere,
wind vanes aloft, and autopilot steering, it will he pos-
sible to use a computer to optimize course and minimize
fuel expenditure.
6. Once under way at sea the watch officers will be
largely concerned with watching for obstacles and seeing
that the electronics functions properly.

Why Not Start

with a
Smaller Ship?

Several reviewers who favor the principle of using sail
to save fuel have suggested that it might be better to
begin with a ship smaller than the one described. Pre-
sumably their thought is that the idea of doing oceano-
graphic research from a sailing ship should be tested
with a vessel that is less expensive to build. Then, if
it worked out well, one could step up to a larger ship.
There are several kinds of answers to that. One i s
that a similar but smaller ship (Audela) 125 ft long
(Figure 6) already exists; it served as a partial model
for the one proposed. it sails well with a small crew,
but it is not designed for oceanographic work. Such a
ship could make long voyages, but it could not carry the
people, equipment, or supplies needed for useful scien-
tific work in distant seas. it is possible that in some
specific part of the world a small sailing ship would be
useful in coastal work. Windward and Young America (each
about 100 ft on deck) are examples of small oceanography
training ships now in use. However, they do not meet the
requirement of a deep-sea research ship. It would be a
mistake to build a sailing ship either to Prove the ob-
vious (that sails will move a ship) or for a demonstra-
tion in a size or for a use that puts the technology at a
disadvantage. In restricted waters, or if many stops and
starts are needed, a motor ship is probably best.

A better answer to the comment about size is that all
ships (and all engineering projects) are designed to meet
a set of performance specifications that are established
before design begins. These specifications are usually
aimed at maximizing the most promising features of the
technique to be exploited--in this case the use of sails
to save fuel. So we set up performance specifications
for a ship that would compete exactly with the ships in
the present oceanographic fleet that are used for deep-
sea research on long voyages. In addition to making sail
and motor ships directly comparable, this tends to maxi-
mize the value of wind power without giving up other val-

FIGURE 6 Audela, a 125-ft English yacht sailing into
the wind.
23

ues; that is, both kinds of ships will perform any ocean-I
science function. Moreover, since good speed through the
water is a valuable asset and this is related to length,
it is sensible to have a hull at least as long as the
competition. Furthermore, since the volume (displace-
ment) of a ship varies as the cube of the length, a small
change in length makes a great difference in its carrying
capacity. For example, a 250-ft-long ship is twice as
large as a 200-ft-long ship and four times as large as a
160-ft-long ship. So, if we were to go to the latter
size there would be about one quarter the space and the
hull speed would drop by about 25 percent.
The following comments from Woodward et al., in a
University of Michigan study for the MariTtimeAdminis-
tration in 1975, may be helpful in the consideration of
the question of size.

"As a sailing ship's size is increased certain gains
in stability are realized. This effect is largely due to
the fact that with geometrically similar designs, heeling
moment increases as the third power of the scale ratio
while the righting moment increases as the fourth power
of the scale ratio. In addition, the larger ship actual-
ly carries a proportionately lower rig than a geometri-
cally similar one and can, in general, use a proportion-
ately smaller sail area without sacrifice of speed, ex-
cept in very light wind."

We believe reducing the size (length) substantially
below what we have recommended will make a sailing ship
noncompetitive for the present specifications.

9
Capital

Costs

The plan layout (Figure- 7) by Willard Bascom given here
approximates the hull shape and sail plan that would be
used. The final design may he shallower or deeper, the
masts may be shorter, the sails and cabins will undoubt-
edly be arranged differently. The intention was to stim-
ulate a discussion of ship characteristics not to get a
basis for cost estimates. We do not know what it would
cost to build such a ship, and no large motor-sailer ex-
ists today that we know of. We warn against anyone try-
ing to make a usable cost estimate until the size, cha-
racteristics, and arrangements of such a ship are better
defined.
This presentation puts forth a series of ideas that
should minimize fuel costs and maximize range, working
facilities, and efficiency. It is directed toward opti-
mal operations.

tSCIENTISTS Lr tCREW
LAB ENGI STORES

' -- + rCHART
BRIDGE I -CAPT.
, 7/o/C H I _ �CHIEF
SCIEN.
RADIO
!1 2
PASSAGE 11 SCIENTISTS
WET o WARDROOMLHEAD 2 2
< LABO FNGALLEY OFFICERS:

2 2HEAD |--
SCIENTISTS O -
2 3 LABORATORY ENGINE CREW

FIGURE 7 Plan layout of oceanographic motor-sailer.

Recommendation

We have considered the possibilities of using motor-
sailer ships for oceanographic research and believe that
the possibilities are Promising relative to other kinds
of ships, considering the needs and the probability of
increasing cost of fuel.
We recommend that the Ocean Science Board take the
lead in proposing further investigation of the possibili-
ties for using sailing ships for oceanographic research,
by urging the appropriate government agencies to sponsor
a more detailed preliminary design study.
This study would better define requirements, relation
to the rest of the oceanographic fleet, size, hull form,
sail plan, automation possibilities, and fuel savings on
various voyages and make preliminary capital and operat-
ing-cost estimates.

APPENDIX A

Background of

Pane lists

Willard Bascom, chairman Sometime sailor on trading
schooners and yachts, some experience in designing
and operating motor ships, student of ancient sailing
ships.
Lloyd Bergeson, naval architect. Involved in the devel-
opment of ships, including nuclear submarines and LNG
carriers; one-time general manager of two large ship-
yards. Trans-Atlantic crossing single handed. Now
president of Wind Ships Development Corporation,
which is actively planning modern sail-cargo ships.
Corey Cramer, Executive Director of Sea Education ASSo-
ciation. Operator of the auxilliary staysail schoon-
er Westward, used for oceanographic training. Long-
distance sailor, ex-Coast Guard skipper. Sailed
on the WHOI ship Atlantis.
R. T. Dinsmore, Ex-Coast Guard. Licensed for 700-ton
sailing ships. Instructor in oceanography and sail-
ing on U.S. Coast Guard sailing ship Eagle. At pres-
ent, ship superintendent at Woods Hole oceanographic
Institution.
Gustaf Arrhenius. Sailed around the world on the Swedish
Albatross deep-sea scientific expedition in 1947-
1948. Professor of Oceanography at Scripps Institu-
tion of oceanography.
Frank MacLear, of MacLear & Harris, Inc., New York City.
Naval architect; designer of short-handed sailing
yachts and motor-sailing commercial vessels; long-
distance sailor; specialist in automated sail han-
dling.
James Mays, naval architect. Expert on ship motions;
makes computer models of sailing ship forms and
responses for Wind Ships Development Corporation.

APPENDIX B

Principles of

Sailing

This elementary discussion of the principles of sailing
was added after the rest of this report was completed for
the benefit of those who do not understand how a sailing
ship can sail in any direction it wishes as long as there
is wind. As one astute reviewer put it: "But the wind
blows every which way." So it does, and for about 5000
years men have known how to use it to go where they
wished.
Some very early ships with flat bottoms and square
cross-ways sails could only sail in the same direction in
which the wind was blowing. But thousands of years ago
the lateen rig, the keel, and the rudder were invented so
that ships could sail toward the wind. Not directly into
it, but perhaps as "close to the wind" direction as
600. Very much later, the schooner fore-and-aft sail
plan improved on that somewhat.
The reason they could do that, although no sailor
would have put it into these words, was that a cloth
sail, secured at the leading edge to a straight spar
forms an airfoil section and "lifts" the ship horizon-
tally. In other words, a ship moves into the wind for
the same reason that a glider flies. Both get "lift"
from the air flowing over these airfoils. Even square-
rigged ships could set their spars so that the sails were
nearly parallel to the keel and sail into the wind.
The keel, which extends downward below the hull, is
essential because it prevents the ship from slipping
sideways excessively. Without it, the ship would drift
with the wind; with it to take up the reaction, the lift
of the sail can be applied usefully. Once the ship is
under way, the rudder is used to move the stern from side
to side and change the direction of the keel (the ship).

Airflow around sail

Wind...-
Direction of ship motion

450
Drction of flatcar motion

Lift

Breeze from electric fan

Toy flatcar on a toy track

FIGURE B.1 Sailing upwind with airfoil lift from a sail.

Figure B.1 is a sketch of a toy train-track, an elec-
tric fan, and a sail mounted on a toy flat car. then the
fan is turned on, the flat car will "sail" up the track.
If the anqle of the track relative to the breeze from the
fan is changed until it becomes too small, eventually the
car will be driven backwards. Modern sailing yachts act
as shown in the uppnner drawing to sail up to about 450
off the wind.
Sailing in any downwind direction is easier to under-
stand but likely to he slower; yachts often raise large
additional sails called parachutes or spinnakers to im-
prove their speed when they run "before the wind."
Sailing cross wind ("on the reach") is most convenient;
the sheets (lines that control the angle of the sail to
the keel) are adjusted so that there is the best possible
angle between wind and sail and the best airfoil devel-
ops. A yacht's best "point of sailing" (angle with the
wind where it qoes fastest) is somewhere between the
reach and the closest it can sail into the wind, because
it gets the most lift when sailing partly into the wind.
Now we have covered all wind directions except the
45� on each side of the direction from which the wind
is blowing. In order to sail into that Quadrant it is
necessary to tack, that is, to sail into the wind as
closely as possible, alternating sides at regular inter-
vals. The distance sailed is greater, but the ship
reaches its destination.
In sailing upwind, motor sailers have the same advan-
tage over an unpowered sailing ship that a powered air-
craft has over a glider. The apparent wind is stronger,
and there is more lift from the sails. Thus, the ship
proposed here is expected to sail up to about 25O off
the wind with motor assistance, reducing the zone that
requires tacking to 50� (about 14 percent of the com-
pass).

Bibliography

Bergeson, L. Sail power for the world's cargo ships,
Tech. Rev. 81(5):22-36, March/April 1979.
Woodward, J. B., et al. Feasibility of sailing ships for
the American Merchant Marine, NTIS COM-75-10519,
February 1975.