Question of the day - ship rig vs brig rig

[admin]

Hello Captains

 

Can someone with deep sailing experience and maybe historical background help us to understand the difference in sailing performance between

 

Ship rig - 3 masts (Rattlesnake or other light frigates)

Brig rig - 2 masts (Brig, Mercury etc)

[Tenakha Kan]

While not a direct answer to your question I have found an interesting article on wikipedia about the difference between a Snow (derived from Three masted ships) and a Brig.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_%28ship%29#Difference_with_brig

Difference with brig

While in the 21st century, the snow and the brig look closely related, this is in fact not the case. The two rigs evolved from two opposite ends, with the brig evolving from the generally smaller brigantine and the much older snow evolving from the larger three masted ship.^[6]

The most visible difference between the brig and the snow is in the snow-mast stepped directly behind the main mast.^[7] On a snow, in contrast to the brig where the gaff and boom are attached directly to the main mast, the gaff and, in later times, the boom were attached to the snow-mast. The use of this characteristic snow mast offered several advantages over attaching the gaff directly to the main mast.^[8]

The yoke (or jaw) of the gaff and the lacing of the gaff sail on a snow could move freely on the snow mast, not hindered by the iron bands that held together the (main) mast, nor limited by the main yard. As a result of the latter, the gaff could be raised higher than the main yard and independently of it. The resulting freedom allowed a snow, in contrast to the brigs, to fly a main course without complications, as they typically did.^[9]

However, in the late 18th century, brigs started to set main courses as well, which gave rise to the term snow-brig. The difference was lessened even further when the snow-mast was replaced by a steel cable, at which point the term snow-brig gradually became interchangeable with the term brig and the term snow fell in disuse.

 

[OTMatt]

Back then I spoke to Alex Connor about the usefulness of the Rattlesnake ingame.

 

 

Hey,

 

All we've really got to go off for Rattlesnake's speed are the accounts describing her as being very fast. That said, can make a few guesses looking at her size and hullform.

 

Very nice length to beam ratio, about 4.1:1 (compared to 3.7:1 for a typical frigate), slim hull with clean lines and shallow draft. Overall a very light ship, going to glide along in even the whisper of a breeze, and with a 3 masted ship rig will be more agile than the 2 masted brigs. As for outright speed, I think the 92ft length will be limiting in strong winds where much bigger frigates and Ships of the Line excel, but being so light won't lose as much speed when the wind drops, in moderate winds would probably be a match for even fast frigates, and in light winds could be faster than anything we have ingame.

 

Since we don't have different wind speeds I'd split the difference and make Rattlesnake about as fast as the Trincomalee, or maybe just slightly slower.

 

The guns are a bit of a guess too, but hull width is the main limiting factor deciding which ships can carry which guns, and Rattlesnake is 22ft 6in wide, similar to cutters and other small ships that carried 4 pdrs. If she did carry 6 pdrs they would have been difficult to reload in the space available, but perhaps she did carry them. At any rate, the Cutter, Yacht and Lynx/Privateer are all carrying 6 pdrs ingame, unless devs are going to restrict those ships to 4 pdrs I see no reason why Rattlesnake can't have 6 pdrs to match.

 

 

This was in Feb 2015 which I'm pretty sure the Trincomalee was going up to 15kts at the time.

 

I hope your data is favorable to three masted baby frigates.

[maturin]

I've been meaning to ask this question for a while now, and I'm not sure there's a satisfactory answer to be had.

 

Certainly the greatest advantage of a brig rig is in the number of men you need. A 90-foot brig is easier to handle than a 90-foot ship.

 

 

 

and with a 3 masted ship rig will be more agile than the 2 masted brigs.

This is the opposite of what I thought to be the case. I am under the impression that brigs are very handy and maneuverable. In most cases the gaff mainsail will proportionately larger than a ship's spanker, although the mainmast's center of effort is much farther forward.

[LeBoiteux]

(deleted)

[admin]

 

While not a direct answer to your question I have found an interesting article on wikipedia about the difference between a Snow (derived from Three masted ships) and a Brig.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_%28ship%29#Difference_with_brig

Difference with brig

While in the 21st century, the snow and the brig look closely related, this is in fact not the case. The two rigs evolved from two opposite ends, with the brig evolving from the generally smaller brigantine and the much older snow evolving from the larger three masted ship.^[6]

The most visible difference between the brig and the snow is in the snow-mast stepped directly behind the main mast.^[7] On a snow, in contrast to the brig where the gaff and boom are attached directly to the main mast, the gaff and, in later times, the boom were attached to the snow-mast. The use of this characteristic snow mast offered several advantages over attaching the gaff directly to the main mast.^[8]

The yoke (or jaw) of the gaff and the lacing of the gaff sail on a snow could move freely on the snow mast, not hindered by the iron bands that held together the (main) mast, nor limited by the main yard. As a result of the latter, the gaff could be raised higher than the main yard and independently of it. The resulting freedom allowed a snow, in contrast to the brigs, to fly a main course without complications, as they typically did.^[9]

However, in the late 18th century, brigs started to set main courses as well, which gave rise to the term snow-brig. The difference was lessened even further when the snow-mast was replaced by a steel cable, at which point the term snow-brig gradually became interchangeable with the term brig and the term snow fell in disuse.

 

 

 

so the difference is in the ease of handling 

 

we are more interested in the sailing performance (and maybe crew requirement differences)

how a 3 masted small ship sails differently (or turns differently) compared to a 2 masted or a snow rigged ship

[Surcouf]

# thank you LeBoiteux for your translation#

The fundamental principle is that of the subdivision of the sails. The more a sail is subdivided, the more power is lost (because the sail area is smaller) but also the more this power is manageable.

However, there are no big differences of average speeds between a corvette and a brig in the 1780-1810’s :

Brig :

close/near/windward = 7.5 to 9 kn

slack / flying / large / quater wind = 7 à 10.7 kn

stern / running = 6 à 10.5 kn

Corvette :

close/near/windward = 7 to 9 kn

slack / flying / large / quater wind = 10 to 12 kn

stern / running = 6 à 8 kn

Where did these (small) differences come from ?

- close/near/windward : about the same speed.

- slack / flying / large / quater wind : the Corvette is faster, because :

1) this is the point of sail where her 3 masts least perturb air flows

2) a Corvette has a larger sail area (more square meters) than a Brig,

3) her hull length is a bit longer.

- stern / running, conversely, the Brig is faster because :

1) fewer masts (2 vs 3) make less air perturbation between the masts.

2) A brig is lighter.

3) Her immersed part of the hull is smaller and thus causes less water resistance.

[DeRuyter]

Here are some quick points without turning to reference material:

 

1. Easier to sail and more maneuverable. Less crew required to sail than ship rig.

 

2. Brig rig disadvantaged in combat because it is easier to damage and thus reduce the maneuvering capability. For example the gaff on the main mast gets taken out and ship loses a lot of driving force This happened I battle of Wasp v Frolic I believe (US ship-sloop vs. GB brig).

 

3. Size limited by rig. Smaller sail area overall.

 

Several of the small US cruisers were converted from brigs to ship rigs (Wasp). Need to research why this was done or which rig the crews/captains preferred.

[Ned Loe]

Currently, (cargo)weight doesn't effect ships default weight in Naval Action, but it should. So, we can't do much calculations here and only use what we have. I can go in deep research on this and provide you some interesting sailing performance effects on 2 same size ships, but one of them will be loaded with provisions cargo. Once you get the data from these 2 you can, move it to 3 rigged (more heavier ships). More sails = more acceleration, more weight = wider turn arc.

 

Also, wind angle effects turn and in some cases will make it longer and wider. Ex. if ship is turning and wind blowing from the side, it will push you towards opposite side of turn arc and make your turn time x2 or more longer. I can draw some pictures to show what I am talking about. This is just how I see weight, more sails, wind effects on ship performance. You don't have to be Einstein to figure this out, but you need lots of data/testing to provide clear feedback on performance differences.

 

Make 4 small ship models same weight that can remotely turn or just buy some cheap ones. Load extra weight on the top when testing weight and place camera for top view. Transfer all this to pc and draw arcs and record time. 

[Cragger]

A brig (two masted square sail) could turn around 180 with proper sail handling without moving relative position. This was due to the fore and main masts being usually equal distance from the the rotation point of the ship's keel.  A ship rig couldn't really manage this due to interference from the main mast onto the mizzen or foremast leading to unavoidable leeway. Brigs (Not brigantine, there is a difference in the two) where very easy and quick to handle a jibe. This trait eventually led to the three masted barquentine which combined the handling efficiency of a brig with the against the wind capability of the schooner while needing far less crew then a ship rig. 

 

Compared to a ship rig (3 masted square sail) there was some negatives. First off being that a Brig carried far less sail area and could not take as heavy a press of sail in heavy winds. Additionally if a mast toppled due to being over pressed, damage to stays or hoops, or etc. Either all the bowsprit jibs would be lost with it or the spanker, and all the stay sails whichever fell.  Additionally the other mast if it was not taken by the one that toppled would be significantly weakened due to the loss of the standard rigging between the two. This would make a brig very difficult to manage in any capacity. 

[LeBoiteux]

Note that for the circumnavigation and research mission where she was expected to venture into unknown waters, the Cherokee class Beagle was converted from a brig-sloop into a ship-rigged-sloop.

Here are extracts of an Article about the conversion of Brig-sloop HMS Beagle into a ship-rigged-sloop by Keith Stewart Thomson. 

 

The author writes about the advantages of ship-rigged-sloops :

« The main disadvantage of the 10-gun brigs was (…) the handling characteristics; they were fundamentally dangerous in stormy weather. It was not long after the first ships of the class were in service that they acquired the sobriquet “coffin brigs.” (and) “half-tide rocks.” Admiral Sir B. J. Sulivan, who served on the Beagle (…) described them (…) as “very deep-waisted, that is, had high bulwarks for their size, so that a heavy sea breaking over them was the more dangerous.” 

 

Because the 10-gun brig had no fo’c’sle [forecastle], it had a tendency to ship any really big sea taken over the bow. A great weight of water could become trapped in the very high bulwarks on the main deck, and the brig would wallow and lose steerage way, with the resulting danger that it would turn broadside to the weather. With the bulwarks only 6 feet from the water line, a second wave shipped before the first had cleared the deck could bring it to a standstill; a third would have it completely at its mercy, and it would probably founder. Therefore, very careful sailing was necessary in bad weather. 

(…)

[The conversion of Brigs to bark rig] was common at the time. The naval explorer Sir Edward Belcher, referring to the 18-gun brigs, which, like the 10s, had the mainmast rigged aft of the center, reports that these brigs sailed much better with a mizzenmast: “It then became the fashion to rig our ships as barques ... the government thought it was better for surveying purposes.” Also, it was found that the bark rig could be managed by a smaller crew. 

(…)

The addition of the fo’c’sle made the ship safer to handle and the main deck much drier, because it tended to deflect large seas shipped over the bow. »

 

Source :

http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/201441714271510360-2014-05ClassicThomson.pdf

 

PS : Several nations used indeed ship-rigged-sloops for exploration purposes, e. g. the Corvettes Descubierta and Atrevida (Spain) ; La Favorite (France) ; the Mirny and Vostok (Russia).

- 

[Tenakha Kan]

A passage from a book I found about the convertion to ship rig

[OTMatt]

So I guess maybe there would need to be strong winds and storms ingame for a three mast corvette to outdo brigs.

[LeBoiteux]

While comparisons of speed are easy(er), thanks to period reports and measuring tools (see above Surcouf’s post), doubts still seem to remain about actual maneuverability / turn rate of light Frigates / Corvettes (20-gun 3-masted warships).

 

Has somebody got some information about that (especially in the case of such a small and slender ship as the Rattlesnake) ?

[Surcouf]

The turn rate is a more complicated matter.

 

There is much information on vessel speed through reports by navigations. The speeds that I give are obviously not invented, I've searched and found French Navy archives.

 

On the turn rate, I associate the radius of gyration of a vessel and the time of a veering about, the informations are almost nonexistent.

 

In fact, there is information that the ship veers well luff to luff or front wind. Or poorly or just ordinary. Maybe, but as then you do not have GPS, it is impossible to control the radius of gyration of a ship. We do not give no more comparisons between several ships of the same squadron during this type of maneuver.

 

Speeds only comparing.

 

So from the point of view historical data, it has nothing. (In France)

 

I would say that over the ship is small it has less water resistance and thus a turn rate of better quality. A schooner will be more interesting than brig bigger, but if you compare to the same shell a cutter and lugger, the radius gyration will be very different, because of the type of rigging. So the ship's center of gravity is differant. This is a difficult subject.

[maturin]

so the difference is in the ease of handling 

 

we are more interested in the sailing performance (and maybe crew requirement differences)

how a 3 masted small ship sails differently (or turns differently) compared to a 2 masted or a snow rigged ship

I ran some questions by my in-house naval architect (read: nuclear family member). Hopefully this information is still useful.

 

 

#1: Brigs have a maneuverability advantage when using manual sails:

Brigs are so maneuverable because the whole sail plan is divided into two roughly equal sections that can be backed and filled with the large spanker providing additional control.  This lets them change their heading when moving very slowly and thus with very little water flow over the rudder.  There is the famous story of a US training brig for naval cadets that was built towards the end of naval sail.  Complaints were made about her handling by a captain who had spent most of his career in the steam navy so a retired sail master was brought in to diagnose her problems.  He sailed her backwards around Goat Island in Newport Harbor, pronounced her just fine, and took the train home.

 

Ships can do much the same thing with their fore and mizzen but this first requires furling the main sails.  There will also be a much smaller proportion of the sail plan exerting steering force.

 

#2: All things being equally, a brig's sailplan is more efficient when sailing close-hauled (for the same reason the single-masted cutter does better than schooners like Lynx on this point of sail).

It is a basic principle of sail that, all else being equal, the fewer sails that make up a sail plan, the more weatherly a vessel will be, catboats being the ultimate example.  Thus, brigs will generally be better to windward than ships.  Off the wind, the differences would not be very significant.

 

 

 

The primary reason for giving up the maneuvering advantages of brigs is primarily size.  The sails on brigs simply got too big to manage, and spars too hard to obtain, as ships increased in size.  Maneuverability was not that important in most non-military trades so brigs were rare.

 

So although Rattlesnake the ship-rig may require more men than Rattlesnake the brig-rig, brigs as large as Niagara probably have no labor cost savings anymore.

 

Also, if windforce gets implemented, the more numerous, smaller sails of a ship rig will be superior in heavy weather. The larger sails of a brig might be better in light winds.

 

Of course, all of this applies only when all other things are equal. For instance, a brig that is converted to a ship or vice versa, with the same hull.

[Cragger]

I don't think the Rattlesnake is a good comparison for brigs. Yes she is very small for a three masted ship but she's built like a frigate. Quarter deck, gangways over the gun deck, forecastle. Her beam to length ratio is high to improve speed as she was designed as a privateer to hunt down trade ships. While brigs in naval service or more general purpose ships and generally had fairly wide beams. They excelled at coming to and from smaller ports with tricky winds due to being able to handle a jibe to turn around in a cove far more able then a schooner.

 

If you tried to brig rig the Rattlesnake the sail handling would become quite cumbersome due to the spanker interfering with the quarter deck which would likely need to be cut down, setting the main back would require extensive modifications.  Snow rig would be more efficient in putting the gaff on the snow mast behind the main but then she'd have been slower with the wind since the spanker would be shadowing the mainsail. Sometimes sail plan is simply determined by other features of the ship themselves.

 

Ironically Rattlesnake was captured by the two decker HMS Leander 50 because her heavier rigging and spars could press more sail in the weather then Rattlesnake could. Changing to a brig rig would have made her even slower in such conditions due to larger sails and spars being required.