Posted by Ed Kiser on August 01, 2003 at 00:17:31 from 152.163.252.103 user Kisered.
In Reply to: Re: another plot-defining nautical mishap posted by Prue Eckett on July 31, 2003 at 21:57:19:
Prue has a good point. Perhaps that just proved it. The SWALLOW sank in SD, and it sank in S&AATWAR. Sank both times. So there. And in S&AATWAR, it was not necessarily all that heavily loaded with cargo as it was in SD.
The makeup of the keel itself which had to replace the concept of a centreboard suggests that it was not just a slab of timber but was perhaps of heavier material, both to serve as ballast and to help hold the course going to winward. The Keel is an idea location for ballast as it is the lowest point in the boat, and thus provides the best place for a righting force when the boat is heeling over as it has the proper leverage to help right her. Such ballast would be built-in, a part of the boat's keel, and unable to be removed as John did the other removable ballast pigs of lead, and thus would keep her on the bottom.
And while we are on the topic of nautical disasters, there is the results of a lighted cigar in the area while refueling is going on. A definite NO-NO in anyone's book. CF should have known better, but then, such an explosion was necessary for the plot - so maybe CF had to do it.
Then there is the disaster that resulted in the total loss of the ship and all hands when that waterspout showed up just in the nick of time to save the day. Sounds like the kind of luck that put Commander Walker in Flushing just when needed.
Let us be thankful that by the time SWALLOW hit Pike Rock, that Roger no longer had to have one toe on the bottom in order to swim. I still cringe thinking of their original voyage to Wild Cat in SA, with all four in the boat, and it heavily laden with camping gear, and Roger still unable to really swim.
Ed Kiser, South Florida