NavList:

   

Reply

Thanks, Trevor.

Apparently they were plying more to windward than I'd thought. That they gave
the course as "Full and by," without saying which tack, must have meant they
were in a zigzag search pattern, looking for whales rather than trying to get
to a particular place.

Bruce

Trevor wrote:

"Full and by" is indeed a matter of sailing by the wind, though it
refers to something more than a close reach. It is generally taken to
mean sailing with all sails full and thus a little more free than a
close-hauled course. "Eagle Seamanship", the textbook for cadets on the
USCG's "Eagle", defines it as: "Sailing as close to the wind as possible
with all sails drawing full and course changes being made to adjust for
wind shifts. Sailing full and by allows the vessel to make as much
ground to weather as possible without pinching." In contrast,
"close-hauled" is defined as: "Point of sail where a vessel is sailing
as near to the wind as possible". Smyth ("Sailor's Word Book", 1867)
agrees with this, though in different words.

Experience with modern yachts might suggest that there is no distinction
between those terms. However, a square rigger can make ground to
windward, when necessary to avoid a short tack, with the weather leeches
of her topgallants lifting. That would be close-hauled but not full and
by. Given sea room, she will make good more distance to windward by
easing off the wind a little but in narrow waters that would require
more tacking -- a major operation in a large vessel. Many a gaffer or
even a lug-rigged dinghy will teach the same sort of distinction between
as close as you can sail while still progressing to windward versus the
most efficient course.

   

Reply