Double banked versus single banked ships' boats

[dafi]

As my quest started with the design of the oars, I was coming from the other direction, but leading my straight to the heart of this topic.

 

Having created oars and sweeps respecting Steel´s data, I was putting them to the test on some of my boats.

 

This lead first to the confimation of the knowledge, that my kit´s versions of boats are not really suitible for the job. Apart from missing all structure and details they also had the thwarts far too high. After reworking the 32 ft pinnace by using only the shell and reconstructing a more true interior it was getting nearer to the real thing.

Now I was able to put some crewmen and oars. As a good landlubber I placed immediately two of each on each thwart as suggested by the tholes.

But here began my surprise. As Steel indicated: "A leather button is nailed on the foreside, about two inches from the loom, and that edge rounded, to work easily in the rowlock: ..." This lead to the fact, that the oars were far too much in for a double banked use. Basically a crewman should be sitting on the opposite side to be able to grab the handle of his oar, thus crossing the other one.

 

The other fact that can be seen is that in this configuration the crewmen sit far too much on the outside of the boat, resulting in a ridiculus lever for rowing, as already mentioned by Roger in #2. So even if the leather buttom was ignored and the oar taken more out, it would have been a problematic setup.

 

This resulted in the only realistic setup with single banked use and everything looked much more logical.

The lengths of the oars fit, the leather button on the right place and a realistic lever for rowing.

On the other side I also tried a more broad launch.

For these Steel indicated straight sweeps without leather buttom.

[note: This is still the original kit´s version, but I think it will do the job this time.]

Here we have the space for double banked use. The sweeps do not collide in the middle and the crewmen have enough distance to the rowlock to get a workable lever. This confirmes Allans original quote of Lavery's The Arming and Fitting of English Ships of War where he writes that "in 1783 it was ordered that all launches should be equipped to row double banked."

And so I am thankful for the topic here, as it was filling the gaps of my puzzle and giving the right contemporary sources to finish it off. This means with my single banked 32ft pinnace from the first pictures I will fill every second thole, alternating on each side. Also the originally intended number supplied of oars (as for double banked and seen in the first pict) for this boat can be halved.

 

Another question concernes the uneven number of oars on each side, in my 32ft pinnace 4 versus 3. Was this in use as for the uneven propulsion or was the bow place then left free? On the other side in the models of RMG there are many boats with a uneven number of tholes regarding the boat´s sides.

 

As someone once called it "experimental archeology in miniature" 😉

I hope it supports or even confirms all the informations to be found in the previous posts.

 

XXXDAn

 

 

PS: Had a fast Photoshop and eliminated the supernumerary tholes.

This gives a nice detail in between single and double banked boats even in stowed position. 🙂

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:36 PM by dafi

[iMustBeCrazy]

Steels tables break down in to SWEEPS, OARS and SCULLS:

 

As you can see from the inboard length compared to the breadth he hasn't included oars for double banked boats. The sculls would fit but they are for one rower with two oars.

Double banked oars should (I think) have 10" handles, a total inboard length of under half the breadth and be shorter than single banked oars.

 

 

NOTE: The button is 2" down the body so has been added to inboard and subtracted from outboard. The rows in red don't add up to the sweep.