NavList:

   

Reply

Bruce Stark wrote:

> I've never sailed on a square rigger, but suspected that "full and by" meant
> something like a close reach, and steering by the wind rather than the
> compass.


"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.


Trevor Kenchington

--
Trevor J. Kenchington PhD                         Gadus@iStar.ca
Gadus Associates,                                 Office(902) 889-9250
R.R.#1, Musquodoboit Harbour,                     Fax   (902) 889-9251
Nova Scotia  B0J 2L0, CANADA                      Home  (902) 889-3555

                     Science Serving the Fisheries
                      http://home.istar.ca/~gadus

   

Reply