View Full Version : original Endeavour questions
05-20-2005, 10:35 PM
Iím interested in researching the original HM Bark Endeavour. All goggle has to offer is about the replica. It seems to me that the original was only 98 feet long, but I might be wrong. I suspect its gross Tonnage was less than the replica and what about itís breath? Why were other ships of its time that Cook sailed with called His Majestyís Service Pembroke or Antelope or Eagle, while the Endeavour was His Majestyís Bark Endeavour? Perhaps the other ships werenít Barks, but then why was the word Service omitted? Has anyone ever found anything in cyberspace on Captain Cookís adventures on the HM Bark Endeavour?
05-20-2005, 11:07 PM
I don't recall whether it was the NZ National Library, or the Aussie version of the same, but Cook's logs are in their e-collections. Some entries -(all?) are there as both transcriptions and photocopies of the hand written pages.
I haven't looked for electronic info on the original ship, but David MacGregor in his book
"MERCHANT SAILING SHIPS - Sovereignty of Sail 1775-1815" gives the following data from the Admiralty survey of the "EARL OF PEMBROKE" when purchased into the RN:
Length on lower deck 97ft 7in
Length on keel for tonnage 81ft 0 3/8in
Breadth extreme 29ft 3in
Depth in hold 11ft 4in
Burthen in tons 368 71/94(ths)
E of P was renamed Endeavour in navy service.
05-21-2005, 12:02 AM
[ 05-21-2005, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]
When I visit the replica Endeavour in Boston a few years ago one of the docents told me that the original was rigged with pole masts, when she was a collier. When she was bought into the British Navy the original rig was sold for 50 pounds, and she was rerigged navy fashion, with masts, topmasts, and top gallant masts. Does anyone have any other information on this rerigging?
When I was volunteering at the Museum of Yachting in Newport RI one of the locals told me that the original Endeavour, or what is left of her, is under a landfill in Newport. During the War of 1812 she was a French cargo vessel, and was chased into Newport by a British warship.
When the warship left the old Endeavour in leaving Newport Harbor stuck a reef at the entrance. All her crew were rescued and her cargo salvaged. By this time she was so old and rotted that she was stipped of everything of value. The hulk was towed up into an estuary and left. Sometime later the estuary was filled in.
I believe there are other versions of her final resting place.
05-21-2005, 11:42 AM
Thanks guys, great stuff, I really appreciate your contributions to my research.
05-21-2005, 11:49 AM
say boatlover, do you know the interpretation of "Burthen in tons 36871/94(ths). Burthen in tons I understand but those numbers and (ths) are gobley-geek to me??
Originally posted by wharfrat:
say boatlover, do you know the interpretation of "Burthen in tons 36871/94(ths). Burthen in tons I understand but those numbers and (ths) are gobley-geek to me??Warfrat, if you check out this link your education will be enhanced:http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Tonnage/Steel(1805)_p249.html
05-21-2005, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by wharfrat:
say boatlover, do you know the interpretation of "Burthen in tons 36871/94(ths). Burthen in tons I understand but those numbers and (ths) are gobley-geek to me??Yo, Wharfrat !
Oops ! There was supposed to be a space/& between the "8" and the "7"; thusly:
368 [&] 71/94ths
A "burthen ton" was measured in cubic feet. Over time, various numbers of cubic feet were used as the equivalent of one burthen ton. In 177x, when the Earl of Pembroke was purchased into the RN, 94 cubic feet was a burthen ton. 40 years or so later, and on this side of the Atlantic, a Custom House ton was 95 cubic feet.
Also over time, various formulas were used to calculate the tonnage for port duties, based on the length of the keel for tonnage, the beam, and the depth in hold. There were several versions of the formula, that lead to various dodges to lower the tonnage. One of the rules used the beam at weather deck in the formula, so ships were built with lots of tumblehome !
I'll try to get the URL in the post above to work - later.
BTW: I downloaded the e-logs of Cooks first voyage some time back. Good reading.
05-21-2005, 05:36 PM
Wow!! I am impressed you guys, I am impressed.
05-22-2005, 06:51 AM
The pictures of the Endeavour replica make me wonder about spritsails. How did they get them to set when close-hauled? I can see how you would brace them up, but what about the tacks? How would they lead? And I assume you need them to draw when beating, to balance the rest of the rig.
What sprit sail? I have a painting of the "Endeavour" behind me as I write. I assume the original was rigged the same as the reproduction. There is one sprit sail. There are square sails, gaff spanker, many staysails, and one sprit sail hanging under the bowsprit. That is old meaning of spritsail.
05-23-2005, 10:13 AM
That is the spritsail I mean. Hanging under the bowsprit, it would seem to have nowhere to lead the tacks to.
I think I have seen a picture of Endeavour with two spritsail under the bowsprit, BTW.
could be. I doubt the these spritsails were used except when the wind ws well aft the beam.
I have seen drawings of ships rigging from earlier centuries that showed a little mast out at the end of the bowsprit with one or two square sails on it, above the bowsprit. How they kept everything from going all-ahoo I don't know.
05-24-2005, 07:36 AM
Yes, spritsail topsails. Those didn't last long - naus and early galleons didn't have them, and 18th century ships didn't have them. Must have been a bitch to reef... :D
But the early ships didn't have jibs or staysails either, so they must have needed the spritsail to balance the helm - especially on the wind.
John E Hardiman
05-24-2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by George.:
But the early ships didn't have jibs or staysails either, so they must have needed the spritsail to balance the helm - especially on the wind.On the wind is relative. For an early square rigged vessel (nao, hulc, cog, etc.) try 70+ degrees apparent and 85-90 true. A lateen rig was much more weatherly but provided less driving power. Seasonal and trades sailing was the rule then so it was just a matter of how much rag you could hang up. Balance was provided by placing the formast in the bow. It was only later (circa 1650-1660 at the beginning of the age of sea empires) that square rigged vessels began to worry about going to weather well. At that time the spritsail begins to disappear but hung on only as a sail for running.
[ 05-24-2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]
05-24-2005, 02:03 PM
I think Mathew Flinders was more interesting. HMAS Investigator in southern Australian waters 1793 to 1803 and his later imprisonment by the French. Hard-working bloke who was never really rewarded for what he did. Everyone talks about Cook..
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.