I Love Money season 1

Template:WikiProject Maritime Trades

sail storage?

I'm going to remove the suggestion that sailing ships were less economical than steam ships because they "used up space to store sails". I doubt that any significant amount of space was lost to sail storage - the sails in use stay on the yards even when not set, so the only sails stored would be spares (and they don't require replacing all that often). Compared to the bunkerage space needed for coal on a steamship (not to mention the furnaces, boilers and engines themselves) I would expect sailing ships to come out substantially ahead in the "usable space" stakes. PeteVerdon 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Be bold! ClarkBHM 23:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but it sounds like you don't either and are just speculating? seems like there should be a definitive answer. perhaps it's in one of the references.

Windjammers didn't consume too much space for sail storage. They usually hade just one set of spare sails, and the operational sails were attached to yards and stays, furled, when they were not in use. Likewise, the spare sails could be spread on bulkheads, hull or deck ceilings flat to minimize space consumption or to let them dry. The museum ship Pommern in Mariehamn, Finland, had a set of spare sails on display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.124.218 (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

article is not very good

Windjammers are most famous for being very fast. Time is money, especially on the scale of Australia to Europe, and a fast ship would make more roundtrips a year, and more profit.

And all that stuff about modern reasons to return to sailing ships: this has nothing to do with windjammers in particular (other than that the windjammer was the most advanced form of a sailing ship prior to their demise as commercial vessels). I mean "kites"? what windjammers flew kites?

You’re confusing windjammers with clippers. Seano1 21:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Windjammers are like the opposite to the clippers - the clippers carried small ammounts of high value/perishable cargo at high speeds; windjammers carried large ammounts of lower-value cargoes at lower speeds. Fionnlaoch (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

removed the reference to internal combustion engines

I removed the reference to internal combustion engines killing windjammers, since internal combustion engines did not become popular in ships entail well after windjammer stopped being used. Seano1 05:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Expensive?

The article currently says: "Sailing ships in general were expensive to operate, as they required a large crew". While that is not wrong absolutely, it seems to be misleading in the context. Preussen (ship) had a crew of 45. Compared to a modern container ship, that is large. But compared to a 10000 ton 1900 coal-fired steamer with stokers and mechanics, it is not. --Stephan Schulz 08:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, what I've read suggests that crews in sail were paid less than those in steam, sometimes considerably so. Not to mention the saving in coal (and water in some places). I don't know which would cost more to maintain; a sailing ship has a lot of gear in constant use in a harsh environment, but none of it's particularly complicated to maintain or repair, compared to a steam engine.

The difficulty is, if we say that sailing ships were cheaper than steam, we also need to say why they died out (for non-time-sensitive cargo). I don't have an answer to that. 80.41.90.80 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a number of answers. For one, there is not that much cargo without any sensitivity to time of delivery. For another, the world wars were dire for sailing ships, as they could not be put into convoys with steamers. But all that misses the point a bit. If we have no WP:V-verifiable reason, we should offer none at all, not one that is possibly (even likely) wrong...--Stephan Schulz 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The clipper page talks about the opening of the Suez canal being a factor in that using the canal was more difficult for a sailing ship. --Dan 18:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for the demise of the windjammers was the diesel engine. It proved more economical on ultra-long voyages, and it eventually eclipsed steam engine as well - nowadays the only steamships in existence are warships. Diesel engine is stoked automatically and is more reliable and needs less maintenance than steam engine. They need less bunkerage and are more fuel-efficient than steamers. Besides that, windjammers were dependent on weather. True, on good winds they could easily log 15 kn average speeds - Herzogin Cecilie logged 21 and Parma 22 kn - but while on still wind, such as doldrums, they would have gone faster by rowing. Steamers and motorships can maintain constant speed at any weather, and henceforth are more predictable than windjammers - they keep easier in schedule. Likewise, a diesel ship can be built far wider and draftier by hull than a windjammer of same length; what is lost in hydrodynamics is gained on cargo capacity.

I don't know the answares to that, but when it comes to the replacement of square rigs with for and aft rigs in the norwegian fishing fleet I think the reason where that square sails required a larger crew to handle then a for and aft sail of the same size, maybe that is relevant here too?

Yes, and fore-and-aft rig is superior to square rig on coastal waters - it is far easier to handle and to control, and provides better maneuvreability. Small coasters were built as schooners and barquentines in the end of 19th century. Another reason is that a gaff rig can be handled completely on the deck - no need for going aloft to yards or tops. But on ocean-going vessels, the square rig is better; it provides far better running capabilities, the individual sails can be adjusted exactly by the wind, and large fore-and-aft sails are VERY difficult to handle; seven mast schooner Thomas W. Lawson was known by the fact that its sails were excreemely difficult to handle. That is the reasons why most windjammers were barques: they combined the good properties of both square and fore-and-aft rig.

Then again, these ships had a large number of relativly small sails instead of one "large" one like the fishing ships had, I guess that would mean that a smaller crew could handle one sail at the time and that way reduce the amount of crew needed.

I donno, this ain't exactly something I know allot about..

And I can't exactly be called a WP:V-verifiable reason to change anything ^^

Anyways, good luck with finding the answare :)

Luredreier 16:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Eric Newby's detailed account of his round the world trip on Moshulu in 1938-1939 has much relevant information. For one thing, the spare sails were carried on the (mostly empty) first deck, just below the weather deck, and above the cargo hold. It seems there was no space conflict. The crew was small, 28; he describes it as 4 officers, cook, steward, sailmaker, carprenter, two men to run the donkey engine, and 18 sailors (9 of those apprentices). That is probably within a factor of two of what a steam ship would need for such a voyage. They handled the heavy work with the help of "patent" (differential) winches. They spent a lot of time chipping rust.

He interviewed the sailmaker, who described the sail material as the best available linen canvas, certainly not cheap, but likely the most durable material available at the time.

I think one big problem was that the square rig is a special-purpose, not a general-purpose, rig; it goes very well downwind and poorly upwind. For example, at the start of the voyage, Moshulu struggled for about a week in the Irish Sea trying to go against the wind, after coming out of Belfast, before the Captain relented and went the other way. (Probably after he was satisfied that the apprentices had had enough practice tacking.) (By the way, if you doubt tacking a square rig is tricky and dangerous, read "The Secret Sharer" by Conrad.) The Moshulu went round the world from Ireland to Australia and back to take advantage of prevailing winds. Not all trade routes have such convenient wind patterns. Many ships are chartered for individual voyages and benefit by being able to sail in any direction. Hybrid engine and square rigs suffer from huge wind resistance losses when motoring into the wind. Even fore-and-aft rigs have a quadrant they can not sail in. Most importantly though, fuel used to be cheap.

AJim (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I wand to clear up several points here: windjammers were very cheap to run. They required minimal numbers of crew, because they were fitted with steam winches. Compared to the earlier steamers, they were also quite fast. A major problem for steamers is that they reuiquired coaling stations to refuel, as on longer journeys, they couldn't carry anywhere near enough fuel for a passage. This cost the owners a lot of money. The coal also cost money, as did the enormous manpower required to operate them. Steam suddenly became more useful and economically viable with the opening of the Suez Canal which was a vital world trade route. Sailing ships could not pass through it, and therefore had to continue old routes around Africa, while the steamers cut two thirds off travel distances. As more canals opened, and steam technology became more efficient and reliable, saining vessels were gradually phased out. Fionnlaoch (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Modern use of the term "windjammer"

Some contemporary buisnesses use the term windjammer in their names and to describe their sailing vessles, which are most often actually schooners, and never square rigged sailing ships of the type described in this article. I submit that it is enough to link to windjammer cruises at the top of the page and that we ought to refrain from any other such links, as they are essentially promotion of commercial ventures. --John.james (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

List of windjammers under sail today

I see there is a list of some windjammers in this article but I think I know of one not mentioned, the Christian Radich althou I might be wrong about it being a windjammer... Anyways it would be nice if anyone could verify that it is a windjammer and add it to the list (or prove it ain't one/give a other reason for not adding it)

Luredreier 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Christian Radich was built for sail training, not cargo carrying. She is also much smaller than the last commercial sailing windjammers. Her loaded displacement of 1050 tons is one fith of the deadweight tonnage (cargo carrying capacity) of Moshulu. --John.james (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)