HMB Endeavour tiller and steering question

[druxey]

Yes, Dashicat: the colors are bluish for iron and yellow for bronze or 'mixt metal'.

 

Jud: glad you are here to tell the tale. A sad event.

[dashi]

Ships pivot around the head from rudder movement, it is the stern that swings, that trait saved my ship 'the Ammen' from being cut in two during a collision, just enough time to start the swing, so the other ship slid down our Port side.  19 July 1960, USS Ammen DD 527, killed 11 injured 25.

jud

This has been crossing my mind so I looked it up. Thanks Jud for sharing this and emphasising the importance of reliable steering geer, as this tragic accident could have been much worse like you say. An importance that would have been quickly learned and well understood throughout the ages I imagine.

 

With this in mind it would seem even more likely that the Admiralty would have put every effort into making HM Bark Endeavour the most technologically reliable vessel in their fleet so she could perform her important mission which involved a 3 year voyage into uncharted waters that would take her and her crew weeks or months away from any known safe port.

 

So I'd imagine they would not have skimped when it came to the Bark's helm and therefore another reason that makes me think (unless information to the contrary comes to light) that the tiller sweep support is not part of the 1771 refit but an existing intregal part of the helm gear since atleast the Admiralty refit of 1768 if not from her date of build.

 

Something I will try and keep in mind while building my interpretation of the HMB Endeavour from 1768 whilst in the relative safety of my studio.

 

Thanks again for everyones input into this discussion which I'm learning a lot from.

[dashi]

From the entry for Saturday 27th January from the book, 'First Voyage Around the World: Captain Cook's Journal During his First Voyage, Page 272, Cook writes:

 

"Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor'd at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom,* for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply'd the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair'd."

 

*The reference at the bottom of page 272 is indicating in this context Cook is saying: * A transom is a curved piece of wood which supports the end of the tiller.

 

Note: As has been pointed out later in this discussion this is not the generally accepted use of the word 'transom', which leaves this entry open to interpretation. It is my understanding that in earlier vessels such as carracks where the tiller passed out a hole in the stern, that the transom which passed under the tiller was reffered to as a tiller transom.https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=QU40AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq=tiller+transom+definition&source=bl&ots=qs6UGheA-I&sig=u-x5Oq0-HxISibbwwICUKXlkS18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirnaKZz6DNAhWHspQKHTNTAZUQ6AEIJzAG#v=onepage&q=tiller%20transom%20definition&f=false

My opinion based on the evidence to hand is that in this context the anotation is using the term 'transom' to mean a transverse timber support which passes under the tiller to support it's weight along it's sweep to replace the job of the iron tiller braces that kept breaking. But not having the carpenters log then this is just my best guess and we may never know for sure. I hope we can agree that Cook wouldn't have sailed with out ensuring the 'fix' to the tiller support 'defect' that took place over 12 days in Queen Charlotte's Sound New Zealand among other running maintenance repairs and de-fouling was up to the job and going to last the long voyage through uncharted waters that was still ahead.

 

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=WT4zDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA272&dq=endeavour%20tiller%20transom&pg=PA272#v=onepage&q=endeavour%20tiller%20transom&f=false

 

Cheers

Edited June 11, 2016 by Dashi

[jud]

Glad you found some documentation for tiller support. In spite of the physic of an unsupported tiller being subject to failure, the supporting arc was a hard sell to most.

good job! :)

jud

[BANYAN]

Hi Dashi. Another interpretation of that wording "for the want of which the Tiller..." could also imply that a transom had not been formally fitted to Endeavour in the 1768 refit and that he was now fitting one (running improvement so to speak) as a result of the constant tiller issues; and this improvement was then formally amended into the plans of 1771?

 

cheers

 

Pat

[dashi]

Hi Dashi. Another interpretation of that wording "for the want of which the Tiller..." could also imply that a transom had not been formally fitted to Endeavour in the 1768 refit and that he was now fitting one (running improvement so to speak) as a result of the constant tiller issues; and this improvement was then formally amended into the plans of 1771?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Thanks Jud, and Pat. I re read it and Pat your interpretation is a possibility I need to consider and how it might change the construction of the tiller transom and how those iron tiller braces fit into the picture. If I've understood you, then this interpretation suggests the job of those iron tiller braces was to take the weight of the tiller and that Cook was not happy with them for possibly the same reasons Jud and I have worked out here. So if this is the case then Im not sure if he is referring to repairing the iron gudgeon braces as has been previously suggested?

 

Cheers

Edited June 6, 2016 by dashicat

[JerseyCity Frankie]

The definition of a Transom is unambiguous, it is the surface that makes up the stern of the vessel. I know of no other use of the word and have never understood a "transom" to be anything other than an element of the construction of the stern of a vessel. The Oxford Companion to the Sea lists a transom as "The athwartship timbers bolted to the sternpost of a ship....they were usually rather heavier than other timbers in order to support the overhang of the stern and quarter..." which overhand is what the rudder head is coming up through. THIS is what Cook is most likely discussing in the quote above. The "reference note" that you quote above was written by  whoever was annotating the book you are quoting from, not Cook, and in fact is not necessarily describing anything other than a conventional transom- which is to be found at the AFTER end of the tiller. I'm going to have to remain highly skeptical of any arc shaped equipment fixed to the poopdeck that the the tiller rides in until I see clear unambiguous reference to something like it. No tiller I have ever seen on any wooden sailing vessel has anything like this object. This is my personal view, there is certainly a chance I could be proven wrong, it would not be the first time! But I still think this arc shaped object is in the realm of the highly conjectural. Yes there is an arc drawn on that plan of the deck, but I do not think this is proof of the object you imagine is supporting the tiller.

[dashi]

The defininition of transom dosn't just refer to the aft timbers of a ship or boat, but any transverse supporting timber http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transom .

 

I have only referenced one source which agrees with all other sources I have cross referenced for this log entry. So here is another source http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00043.html#ch6

 

In this context I think Cook is refering to the tiller and not the stern or stern post as opposed to the transoms you are referring. But I need more evidence.

 

A broken stern transom would be a major structural failure resulting in extensive repair work. Granted they were anchored a while with their forge set up on shore for repairs.

 

The note which appears in other sources of the log entry is refering to the end of the tiller.

 

What about the physics?

 

 

 

Thanks Frankie for sharing your point of view.

Edited June 6, 2016 by dashicat

[dashi]

Hi Dashi. Another interpretation of that wording "for the want of which the Tiller..." could also imply that a transom had not been formally fitted to Endeavour in the 1768 refit and that he was now fitting one (running improvement so to speak) as a result of the constant tiller issues; and this improvement was then formally amended into the plans of 1771?

 

cheers

 

Pat

Pat the more thought I give your interpretation, the more sense it makes. It does seem to hold up quite well with the evidence we have on hand including my very unqualified attempt at figuring the physics.

 

I am still requesting if an engineer, fitter or at least a qualified person from the building trade could check and complete my math in an earlier post to help approximate the size and position of those iron Tiller braces that kept breaking? I have asked fitters about the physics and they all agreed that the physics of that tiller required it to be supported by some means and the best method is that tiller sweep or Transom I think Cook is referring too. I'd imagine those braces would have been working at the limit of their strength with too little tolerance which would explain Cooks apparent frustration with them as being supplied to do a job they weren't up to.

Edited June 6, 2016 by dashicat

[dashi]

Fascinating discussion. I find myself (unusually ) with absolutely no firm opinion.

 

I would say that to me the tiller seems inordinately long for a vessel which was working with a wheel attached - rather messy !

I find myself wondering about the weight attached to the word transom as any bit of traverse timber- if the point where the rudder came "into " the vessel was damaged it would cause the grief described and would fit with a more usual use of the word transom.

There is a description of Bounty which refers to Cook having a platform built OVER the tiller in Endeavour because it was such a nuisance.

 

Can anybody point to a reference of any other vessel with what I would call a supporting quadrant.

Any use of such a shaped object to guide lines seems daft because the leads would be from aft of the object leading to the wheel forarrd.

Welcome aboard. Cook is talking about the Tiller being in danger of breaking, so it is in this context that I think his use of the word 'Transom' is taken to mean a 'Transverse Supporting Timber'. I don't think he is talking about the rudder or rudder head. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tiller

 

looking at the tiller length and weight, and to compare apples with apples so to speak, then I think there are examples of tiller supporting quadrants where the length and weight of the tiller require support. The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery, Chapter 2 Tiller and Whipstaff and Chapter 3 The Steering Wheel.

 

Looking at the Bounty it's tiller appears considerably shorter compared to Endeavour which does highlight that Endeavour appears to have an exceptionally long tiller for the size of vessel and therefore as the physics suggest would have required support possibly by use of a sweep, which have been in use for supporting larger tillers since at least the use of the wipstaff in the 17th century. Where the tiller is below deck then the sweep is fixed to the overhead beams and the tiller hangs from it via what some call a gooseneck. However the term gooseneck is also used for the iron fitting attached to the end of tillers that fitted into the whipstaff. Lavery gives a description and drawing of the use of a sweep above decks in smaller vessels, ( 1771 draught of Endeavour), where the tiller requires supporting. (page 23) The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War 1600-1815 by Brian Lavery, Chapter 2 Tiller and Whipstaff and Chapter 3 The Steering Wheel.

 

Hope this helps answer some of your questions.

 

Cheers Dashi

Edited June 6, 2016 by dashicat

[mtaylor]

I find it interesting that this ship has (comparatively speaking) such a long tiller.   Was there a reason for this like maybe the rudder was larger than "normal" for a ship of it's size?

[trippwj]

For what it's worth, here are a few contemporary definitions of transom:

 

Smith, Captain John. 1691. The Seamans Grammar and Dictionary, Explaining All the difficult  Terms Navigation: And the Practical Navigator and Gunner: In Two Parts. http://www.shipbrook.net/jeff/seamansgrammar/.

 

 

Falconer, William. 1769. An Universal Dictionary of the Marine: Or, A Copious Explanation of the Technical Terms and Phrases Employed in the Construction, Equipment, Furniture, Machinery, Movements, and Military Operations of a Ship, Illustrated with Variety of Original Designs of Shipping, in Different Situations; Together with Separate Views of Their Masts, Sails, Yards, and Rigging. To Which Is Annexed, a Translation of the French Sea-Terms and Phrases, Collected from the Works of Mess. Du Hamel, Aubin, Saverien, &c. London, Printed for T. Cadell (successor to Mr. Millar) in the Strand. http://archive.org/details/universaldiction00will.

 

 

Steel, David. 1805. The Shipwright’s Vade-Mecum. http://archive.org/details/shipwrightsvade00steegoog

 

[dashi]

As indicated in those definitions it is important to include an adjective to describe which transom is being referred to otherwise the context is lost. In this context I think Cook is referring to a Transom associated with the support of the Tiller. Not a deck or Stern Transom etc.

 

Thanks

Edited June 6, 2016 by dashicat

[trippwj]

Each definition is for the noun transom - as used during the 17th and 18th centuries, no further description was needed, other than perhaps which of the transoms at the stern post (upper, middle etc),  There were no other definitions for transom in these reference works.

[trippwj]

Here are some expanded definitions from the 1815 (Burney) edition.  ALL identified transoms are the transverse timbers across the sternpost.

 

Falconer, William. 1815. Falconer’s New Universal Dictionary of the Marine: 1815 Edition. Naval Institute Press. http://www.ageofnelson.org/Document11.html.

 

[jud]

Pinched from dashicat post # 97;

From the entry for Saturday 27th January from the book, 'First Voyage Around the World: Captain Cook's Journal During his First Voyage, Page 272, Cook writes:

 "Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor'd at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom,* for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply'd the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair'd."

 

*The reference at the bottom of page 272 states: * A transom is a curved piece of wood which supports the end of the tiller.

 

https://books.google...transom&f=false

 

I would expect that all who have read Cooks words would agree that he is speaking about the tiller, that term defined today is as it was in Cooks day. Transoms as the term is commonly used today, have nothing to do with steering except in a few cases, nor is it common for ships to have their steering gear attached to a transom. Transoms are used today as attachment points for outboard motors, sometimes a steering oar can be used with the transom. Rudders also get attached to small boats by anchoring them to the transom, if there is no stern post.

 

Why is there so much resistance to the tiller supporting arc being added by Cook to prevent future problems with his steering gear? Since that is not logical, it makes me wonder.

 

We know he was having problems with his tiller, it was breaking reinforcing bands, the only place where there was iron reinforcing was at the rudder post head,  the attaching point between the tiller and the rudder post, serious stuff when you are traveling around the world looking into inlets, negotiating island and reef clusters not to mention heavy seas. The Endeaver used the stern post as the attachment point for her rudder, not a transom, the rudder post did pass through the transom area but just as in other ships, it passed through, not attached. Cook did need to do some structural repairs to his hull, he beached his ship to do it, no mention of structural repairs was made to the hull in the stern area. The most logical solution of a design flaw  would be to put in place something that would relieve the destructive forces that were causing the problem. When faced with a problem, you repair it and do what you can to prevent it from happening again. Cook did that by putting in place, an arc shaped support for his tiller, it worked. The best proof of that, would be that Cooks fix showing up on drawings for her refit after the voyage.  I'm sticking with the arc and also the voyage was mostly in tropical waters, the chimney was probably removed and Cook kept his chickens in the stove so the eggs weren't stolen.

jud 

Edited June 5, 2016 by jud

[trippwj]

Actually, i think there is some logic to the addition of a support given the odd geometry and the length of the tiller.  I was just supporting an earlier post concerning the use of the word transom.  None of the period treatisers on shipbuilding chose to use that word to describe anything other than the stern timbers.

[JerseyCity Frankie]

I think its fascinating that this discussion has been prompted by the mysterious arc shown on one of the drawings of the ship. As I have said in a couple of different ways in my above statements, I do not think there is enough evidence in this arc drawn on the plan to be interpolated into a plausible structure an historian could make a claim for, it is only a simple line on a drawing, a line not found on other drawings. You would need more evidence to make a strong case that this line represents the structure you are proposing.  I don't think you can infer the existence of this object on the outside of the ship based on the tiller arcs found on the inside of other ships. The rest of the factors offered as indicators of the existence of the arc shaped support are only guesswork.  For instance I don't think you can make a case that when Cook uses the word "transom", that he is indicating anything other than the after timbers of the ship. I will grant you that in the quoted text from his log, the language is ambiguous about WHAT EXACTLY is the nature of the iron work and transom work being described. Clearly there was recurring trouble with the steering gear, but you should resist the urge to exploit the ambiguity of the log and change the definition of the word "transom"  into evidence of your theory. In other words, don't put words in Cooks mouth. I firmly believe that if he and his crew had invented and installed a large new tiller support structure, one never seen or used before, he would have clearly described its design construction and installation in the log entry. Moving on, I don't think you can infer the need for a supporting apparatus simply  by saying "I think the tiller is too long so they must have done ______" -or- "I think the tiller is too heavy so they must have done _____". Simply saying that you THINK a thing should be so is not solid evidence that a thing is so. Maybe its an indicator that there needs to be further investigation, but it is NOT the end of the process of understanding. You have to accept the drawings of the tiller that do exist, which do indeed show a long tiller but do NOT show a supporting structure. Lest I come off sounding too negative I will say you do have an interesting mystery that is worth pursuing. That arc shaped mark on the drawing likely IS something having to do with the tiller. But we do not know what it is. I think it would be valuable to compare tiller lengths on as many ships as you can find records for, while at the same time searching ship drawings for any other appearance of the curious arc shaped notation found on the drawing that got this discussion going. Lastly lets all agree that we all make our models any way we please. I'm free to put whatever I want on a model and be happy with it. But lets keep an eye on the historical research aspect of the hobby and respect that too. If you insist a thing is so, you will have to be able to show a clear logical path that took you to that conclusion if you want other people to sign off on it too.

[dashi]

Actually, i think there is some logic to the addition of a support given the odd geometry and the length of the tiller. I was just supporting an earlier post concerning the use of the word transom. None of the period treatisers on shipbuilding chose to use that word to describe anything other than the stern timbers.

Thanks Jud. I was starting to wonder what was going on also?

 

The Encyclopaedia Britannica page does mention such a thing as a Tiller Transom in reference to shipbuilding when the tiller exited the stern in earlier ships which I think Jud is pointing out also.

 

I wonder if it is possible that it is this earlier terminology Cook was drawing on to describe this transverse support timber that he got the carpenters to fix as a tiller support in place of those iron braces? I see the annotation as an attempt to clear up possible misconceptions that may have arisen here because of Cooks use of this term. Therefore I don't think we should dismiss this annotation which indicates that Cook is referring to the carpenters as fixing a transverse timber under the end of the tiller as a support.

 

 

Pat's answer seems to stack up the to the evidence and as I've already stated my representation could be wrong in light of this.

Edited June 6, 2016 by dashicat

[dashi]

I find it interesting that this ship has (comparatively speaking) such a long tiller.   Was there a reason for this like maybe the rudder was larger than "normal" for a ship of it's size?

 

 

Has anybody had a word with a curator at the  - NMM they are often very helpful ?

 

I had a quick reread of my copy of Cooks Journals to see what reference there were to problems with the tiller. 

There is a reference  Aug 17th 1768 - first voyage to a platform being built over the tiller as the vessel is made ready for sea.

 Oct 25th

I dont have the full Journal but there was clearly a problem with tiller metalwork  -  Oct 25th 69  -armourers Forge set up to repair Tiller Braces , they being broke - 

 

18th Jan 70 Forge to repair the braces of the Tiller and again   there was "extensive work on the tiller" 26th  - 29th Jan   70

 

Razn out of Reading time - but clearly there were metal tiller braces which broke A LOT !

Thought I'd repost these so they don't get lost under the recent posts.

[trippwj]

Now as I'm trying to indicate here there are other people involved in this discussion who also have a right for their points to be heard and discussed so I'd like to move on with those if we may?

Jersey City Frankie has made a couple of good points, Dashi, which you seem to dismiss out of hand. Reliance on a marking that appears on but a single plan over others is not the historians route. By any chance does this same plan show the mizzen step? Accuracy assumed for one aspect should agree with the others.

 

One must recall that Cook was extremely familiar with colliers. As a general vessel type, were the tillers longer than expected?

 

While modified by a Naval yard, the ship was originally and would remain fundamentally a collier.

Edited June 6, 2016 by trippwj

[trippwj]

Two additional notes - going back to the original transcriptions of the hournal, the asterisk comment is NOT original to the entry, but rather a latter addition by one of the editors of a published (printed) edition.  From the transcription without editorial comments:

 

Saturday, 27th. Fresh gales, Westerly. This day we got the Tiller properly secured, which hath been the Employment of the Armourers and part of the Carpenters since we Anchor’d at this place; the former in repairing and making new Iron work, and the Latter in fixing a Transom, for the want of which the Tiller has often been in danger of being broke; the Iron braces that supply’d the want of a Transom have broke every time they have been repair’d. Coopers still employ’d repairing the Casks; some hands with the Long boat getting on board Stones to put into the bottom of the bread room to bring the Ship more by the Stern; while others were employ’d cutting wood, repairing the rigging, and fishing.

 

While of minor significance in this instance, in interpreting historical content for meaning, it is always important to separate editorial comment from original content.  The reference cited for the quote with explanatory asterisk is from 1893 - quite a bit after the fact, and not contemporary in the least.

 

Second - there was a log entry above which may be of some note. 

 

17 August 1768.  Little wind ^Easterly and hazey weather. Sent some Cordage to the Yard in order to be exchanged for smaller. Several Ship wrights and Joiners from the Yard Employ'd on board refiting the gentlemens Cabbins, and making a Platform over the Tiller, &c

 

Any idea the nature of this platform? 

Edited June 6, 2016 by trippwj

[trippwj]

Dashi -

 

Your analysis is understood, just offering alternative interpretations. 

 

Do you happen to know if the tiller arrangement on the upper deck was one of the modifications made to the collier for the expedition?  There would be some change to the mechanical advantage of a ships wheel when the tiller is nearly level with it rather than in a below deck position.  If they moved it up to make space in the great cabin for the "distinguished gentlemen), then it may have been a best guess at how it may work using braces, which ultimately were not successful, hence constructing a rider (for lack of a better term) for it to sit upon.  If you look at the profile plan below, you can just make out the red lines which generally indicate the changes made bringing the rudder post and tiller to the upper deck.  Would certainly support the theory that this arc (shown on the 1671 deck plan, which includes the masts and spar dimensions and is signed by Wm. Gray.

 

circa 1768 (ZAZ 6588)

 

 

 

16 October 1771 (ZAZ 6594)

 

 

 

[druxey]

I think what Jersey City Frank is trying to say is that statements like "I think that..." or "It is probable..." don't count as hard facts. Until there is solid, unambiguous evidence, all we have is a theory.  There is nothing wrong with having a theory, but nothing is fact until it's proven.

 

I've also come across items that have been repeated for generations until assumed as fact, when they never were!

 

There is an amusing play, Ten Times Table, by Alan Ayckbourn. It's about a town that decides to honour a long-ago local uprising by mounting a re-enactment. The committee go though all sorts of grief and strife to make this happen. On the day of the event, it turns into a riot. Finally one of the committee members admits that the uprising never happened and the two 'martyrs' ever even existed  - he just wanted to put the town on the map!

[dafi]

... just like the left- and right hand layed shrouds Mondfeld published in his (in)famous book. That was THE TRUTH for many-many modelers for decades, until proven wrong (and later admitted by M.).

 

On the other hand there are sometimes multiple truths. Not just only one version - so a proven fact is only one possibility. See the section in Steel about the made masts and see the so believed original artefact of Victorys fore mast with a much simplified assembly.

 

Cheers, DAniel

[BANYAN]

Hi folks, to get back the the key discussion here, I think it prudent (for the time being) to ignore the technical definition of what exactly is a "transom" and concentrate on whether a tiller support was fitted (and when).  Once this has been determined, its naming convention can be sorted later?  Only a suggestion!

 

Druxey, I agree WRT hard fact, but I think this discussion was not trying to establish hard fact for the existence of the Tiller Support but whether such a device was a possible fit (at some stage) as implied by "interpretation of several cited log/ entries, and the curved device shown on one of the draughts - that latter part is fact as it is drawn there - but what is it?  That part can only remain conjecture unless hard evidence is found.  I think (correct me if I am wrong) that Dashi is trying to establish what this was, but we may never be able to truly determine that, but could arrive at some very real possibilities?  Similar to the yet to be fully resolved issue of whether Endeavour was fitted with bumpkins/boomkins?  I don't think there is any harm in postulating as long it is recognised that is simply a postulation?

 

The log text cited by Dashi, indicates that Cook had been experiencing troubles with the tiller for some time and that he set his armourers and carpenters to work to try and resolve the issue; and with some success in NZ.  This included fixing the iron work, including the 'braces' (still to be defined).  From my naval experience, fitting a 'jury' rig to overcome a design deficiency, or temporarily fix damaged equipment, is not unheard of (and probably acceptable back in those days also), and if the fix proved satisfactory to the task, could be formally submitted as a design change and eventually included in the ship's official drawings and if necessary, also updated in the related technical documentation.  This  approach forms the basis of my interpretation of the cited text. 

 

What I am suggesting, and is only one possible interpretation of the cited text, is that Cook may very well have contrived a jury rigged support for the tiller (in addition to fixing transom timbers, metal work etc) to overcome the issues he was experiencing, and that on his return to England, submitted the results of this "fix' in his reports to the Admiralty.  This may then have been formally included in the 1771 refit (and may therefore be the basis of the drawn curved shape in the draught - it may also have been a steering compensation device, or even a combo of both - we will probably never really know?).  Cook was the type to try new or different things, and such a support would certainly have assisted in bearing the load of the tiller arm.  As an example of Cook's willingness to try different solutions, there is a Parkinson drawing (I think it is Parkinson) which suggests that at some stage he also rigged a spare spar across the transom to provide additional flexibility to the working of the mizzen/driver (let's not deviate on that discussion here though ).

 

In summary, I am suggesting that Cook must have tried several options to resolve the many tiller issues he cites in his log/journal.  From what I have been able to determine, I do not think a tiller support was fitted in the 1768 refit, but it is possible that some form of tiller support may very well have been contrived as a jury rigged fitting during the voyage, and later formally accepted and fitted during the 1771 refit. One interpretation of the cited text infers a 'fix', but at best, the statement is a little ambiguous in that it does not directly state it was a tiller support, but it also does not eliminate it.  Therefore I submit that we should not ignore it?

 

Ranging shots complete; fire for effect

 

cheers

 

Pat

Edited June 7, 2016 by BANYAN

[archnav]

Hi Gentleman,

 

have you seen this little video here ?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWYWphMtZZg

 

Tom

[BANYAN]

Thanks for the link Tom, I hadn't seen that before - quite interesting.  

 

cheers

 

Pat

[jud]

Like your post # 122, shows some objective and respectful opinions about this subject.

jud

[dashi]

I just want to say thank you Pat in post #122 for accurately understanding and explaining my position better than I am capable of, and for your well thought answer to my initial question. Also I'd like to thank everyone who contributed their time and input or who has taken an interest in my question. This topic has raised some good points and other questions, such as why the tiller was so long. Unfortunately I don't have the energy or the health to pursue these questions any further in this discussion.

 

My presence is now required in the shipyard and else where so thanks again everyone.

 

Cheers Dashi

Edited June 11, 2016 by Dashi