Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Turn rates and speeds (frigates vs line ships)


Recommended Posts

i think that the SOL's  in the game at the moment have way to strong acceleration and turning speed. especially taking in consideration that a lot of those ships is under water, they take up speed way to fast. water displacement on big ships is basically the same as on medium ships. but i think, that if they are making enough knots, they should have somewhat good turning, but not as good as it is now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think that the SOL's  in the game at the moment have way to strong acceleration and turning speed. especially taking in consideration that a lot of those ships is under water, they take up speed way to fast. water displacement on big ships is basically the same as on medium ships. but i think, that if they are making enough knots, they should have somewhat good turning, but not as good as it is now.

 

I am only up to the trincomalee but i agree if this is not the case it should be changed.

 

The heavier ships should lose more speed during maneuvers (which should also take longer then the equivalent short ships/lighter). With acceleration being notable between the different weights of ships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Surcouf provided some historical data about a 74 and a super frigate.

 

  • Téméraire-class 74 (1780)

Length: 55.9m
Beam: 14.9m
Draught: 7.2m
Displacement: 2950t

This data is taken from Jean Boudriot, Le vaisseau de 74 canons
   Speed   - backed fore yards - full tack - wear
    7kn       -           2'30"           -    10'      -   13'
    9kn       -           1'50"           -      9'20" -   12'
   10.5kn   -           1'35"           -      8'05" -   11'

 

  • Melpomène (1887)

This ship served as a topman instruction frigate.
Length: 53.3m
Beam: 13.8m
Draught: 6m
Displacement: 2000t

This data is taken from sea trials reports, for a tack in a light breeze, very smooth sea, mainsail+topsail+topgallant
  Speed   - head to wind - un-backed fore yards - full tack

   5kn       -           ?         -              3'15''              -   6'
   5.8kn    -           2'05"   -              3'30"              -   5'50''
   7kn       -           2'         -             3'45"               -   5'
   7.8kn    -           1'05"    -             3'13"              -   4'30''

 

 

If we consider that the data is comparable, a full tack at 7kn takes almost 2 times the duration for a ship 1.5 times heavier. Getting head to weather (or close) takes almost 1.5 times the duration.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It's very interesting to see how the proportions of those numbers change. Temeraire spends 7.5 of its 10 minutes falling off from the tack, but the modern frigate splits the time equally.

 

Probably because the 74 was a much more ardent ship than the frigate, luffing up readily but reluctant to fall off.

 

For the records, S. Trinidad tacks in a little over a minute at max speed. Same goes for Bellona at 6 knots.

 

Tacking and wearing take about the same amount of time at that speed for Bellona. At max, I imagine she would tack quite a but faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the data does not exist doesn't mean its not true. 

 

The heavier a ship is the more force is has to overcome to turn. Take this as the neutral force, the force that resists movement. If the ship is going 10 knots it will have a forward speed and pseudo force which is basically inertia. To turn the ship a force must be applied that overcomes this inertia as well as any and all friction. Not to mention more of a SOL will be underwater than a frigate increasing drag and the amount of water needing to be displaced to move said boat forward.

 

Basically the bigger it is the slower it will turn or accelerate given the same propulsion method and propulsion force ratio, if the 74 had a modern day side turbine stuck on the side or 10x the amount of sails and a rudder 10x as big  i'm sure it would out turn the constitution. Take a destroyer vs a cruiser vs a battleship, you can tell which is the most agile just by looking at their size and knowing their force to mass ratios are roughly the same.

 

The 74 was mass produced as it was a compromise, a good amount of firepower, a good amount of speed, a balanced cost, less crew than a 1st rate etc etc etc. Why did Germany and Britain build pocket battlecruisers in WW1? To compromise and put big firepower into a more maneuverable and smaller package. Losing a 74 isn't as devastating as losing a 112 but that 74 can sink said 112. You can't look at something and say since they were mass produced they had to be the best at everything, maybe they were good at everything. Take the Russian T-34, was it the best tank in WW2? Did it turn the fastest? Did it hit the hardest? Was it the most armoured? No. Was it the best bang for the buck for the russians? Yes. Hence it was mass produced while Germany pumped out fewer, better tanks, and we know how that went. 

 

TLDR they have the same propulsion ratios and so the forces being scaled up will result in the smaller ships out-turning the large ship. The only argument would be if the small ship was sailed by cats and the large ship by master seamen than maybe it would turn faster ;P

 

A 74 can turn better then some heavy frigates there are 3 main reasons for that.

1. a 74 has much more experience crew then the frig witch  result in better sailing turning maneuvering .

2. Rigging on boats .example > Connie is rigged for speed 74 is rigged for turning = Connie will turn wider then the 74 + Connie is build for the speed at the start so shes not very good at turning in the first place.

3. Hull design is also a very important fact in this matter ( again it depends what is build for turning ,speeding or something in the middle .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just make all of that up...?

 

Do you know anything about sailing ?

How you rig you boat its very important it will sail how you rig it. also the hull design is very important also.

So for example you and me are in a Bellona  you rigged you Bellona for downwind and i did my for upwind.

Conclusion > i will never catch you downwind  coy you will be faster then me on the other hand i will sail much better upwind at better angle and faster then you can.

 

i m not sure in 18st but nowdays you can rig your boat even on the sea while you are on the way not just in port but im not sure if that is the case in 18st ships i think they did changes on sea but im not sure.

Edited by Axralis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know anything about sailing ?

How you rig you boat its very important it will sail how you rig it. also the hull design is very important also.

So for example you and me are in a Bellona  you rigged you Bellona for downwind and i did my for upwind.

Conclusion > i will never catch you downwind  coy you will be faster then me on the other hand i will sail much better upwind at better angle and faster then you can.

 

Sir Axralis, @maturin is one of the people on these forums with a lot of knowledge about sailing square rigged vessels. True, he is not the Bosun on the brigantine Fair Jeanne, such as @Ryan21 is, but he sure knows a lot about ship and their sailing capabilities.

 

Your 'conclusion' seems to draw from a somewhat shallow argumentation, if I may so say so myself.

 

~Brigand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know anything about sailing ?

How you rig you boat its very important it will sail how you rig it. also the hull design is very important also.

So for example you and me are in a Bellona you rigged you Bellona for downwind and i did my for upwind.

Conclusion > i will never catch you downwind coy you will be faster then me on the other hand i will sail much better upwind at better angle and faster then you can.

i m not sure in 18st but nowdays you can rig your boat even on the sea while you are on the way not just in port but im not sure if that is the case in 18st ships i think they did changes on sea but im not sure.

I think you admit that Point 1 is just wrong, so let's move on to the other two.

Unless you provide some specifics, I can't see what you are referring to.

You trim a full-rigged ship for upwind or downwind sailing by setting or dousing the right sails. The most important factor here is hull shape. The masts and spars of 18th Century warships are arranged based on standardized formulas, without any clear tradeoffs between maneuverability and speed that I know of. The most you can do historically is shift a mast slightly, or re-size a yard.

And I have never heard of ships being built specifically for fast turning, which appears to be a modern videogame and aviation concept. Speed was prized in both frigates and and 74s. Feel free to post any examples to the contrary thst you have. But unless you come back with some actual technical explanations or statements by good sources, I can't regard your claims very highly.

Edit: Brigand, your link there was very unexpected. :P

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you admit that Point 1 is just wrong, so let's move on to the other two.

Unless you provide some specifics, I can't see what you are referring to.

You trim a full-rigged ship for upwind or downwind sailing by setting or dousing the right sails. The most important factor here is hull shape. The masts and spars of 18th Century warships are arranged based on standardized formulas, without any clear tradeoffs between maneuverability and speed that I know of. The most you can do historically is shift a mast slightly, or re-size a yard.

And I have never heard of ships being built specifically for fast turning, which appears to be a modern videogame and aviation concept. Speed was prized in both frigates and and 74s. Feel free to post any examples to the contrary thst you have. But unless you come back with some actual technical explanations or statements by good sources, I can't regard your claims very highly.

Edit: Brigand, your link there was very unexpected. :P

Cheers

 

Well you are right in general regarding SoL s and 3 masts ships but even they could be trimmed to go better upwind by a small amount by adding for example a little bigger jibs at front and flat them us much is possible that would help a little in going upwind and at little more better angle.

 

Now for light ships with one mast its a different thing entirely they can drasticly improve their downwind and upwind performance not by adding new sails or stuff like that only by mast (bending) to the rear or to the front. If you bend the mast a little backwards the boat will goes  better upwind if you lose a bit and lean a bit forward it will go better downwind.

 

And yes i did not elaborate like this at the start so i may couse some confusion and you are totaly right about 3 masts ships so its my mistake sry about that Maturin .

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                         Capt. Axis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Axralis, @maturin is one of the people on these forums with a lot of knowledge about sailing square rigged vessels. True, he is not the Bosun on the brigantine Fair Jeanne, such as @Ryan21 is, but he sure knows a lot about ship and their sailing capabilities.

 

Your 'conclusion' seems to draw from a somewhat shallow argumentation, if I may so say so myself.

 

~Brigand

 

Helloo sir Brigand,

 

yes i made a mistake in my post i did not make it very good and i did not divide 3 masts ships and 1 mast ships to compare so im sorry for that.

Well i draw my conclusion from real life sailing the most and that beeing said im not an expert on 3 masts ships like sir Maturin so i hear to learn also from the people that has knowledge of the era much better then me.

But as you asked im a sailor i started sailing when i was 7 yrs old and been in most of the today classes (optimist,laser,470) also im a windsurfer and know how to drive a kite (wich i dont like much).

 

So no hard feelings we are just having a discussion here :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...