The Development and Design of Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels: Encyclopedia Arctica 9: Transportation and Communications

Vessels designed and built for work in the arctic ice were first de– veloped from the Greenland, Spitsbergen, and Novaya Zemlya whale and seal fisheries some time before 1700. The lack of early shipbuilding records makes it impossible to set an exact date, however. Old pictures, showing vessels in the ice, survive from the sixteenth century and indicate that the dangers of the ice pack were well known to seamen. Undoubtedly the pioneer– ing vessels in these fisheries were converted merchantmen, but the seamen who survived entering the ice in these vessels would soon desire better craft. The best mode of tracing the early development of the ships is by referring to the numerous drawings and paintings of whaling scenes before 1800.

On the evidence of the ships shown in the early whaling pictures it is apparent that the converted merchantman was replaced very slowly, between 1650 and 1725, by vessels designed and built for arctic work. The indication that ships were being built and fitted out particularly for use in the Arctic is evident in these pictures by the gradual suppression of decoration and beakheads; the addition of numerous wales or guards and of sheathing; and finally, the appearance of many ships with round sterns, no projecting cut– waters, and without the high quarterdecks so popular with early shipbuilders. However, the square-stern vessel was never wholly replaced, for it was found that a strong hull could be built with this form and the greater room that it provided, compared with the sharp or round-stern hull, had great attraction.

The types of ships most used in the early arctic fisheries, as identi– fied from the early pictures, were "pinks" and "flyboats." These were really sharp-stern vessels, very full and round in the quarters, that were developed by the Dutch and Scandinavians and adopted by the English, French, and other Europeans. A few pictures indicate a type known as the "bark," which had a counter stern instead of the lower square transom stern found in the majority of ships of the period. The popularity of the round stern ships was undoubt– edly based upon their strength, for the stern was the weakest part of the structure of wooden ships of the then common types. The "pinks" and "fly– boats" had been developed for use in the Baltic and North seas, where they had met some ice as well as severe weather, and so the types had some inher– ent advantages that made them the natural choice of European whalers and sealers.

The "Greenland" fisheries, centered on Spitsbergen which was then sup– posed to be a part of Greenland, were very popular and profitable; the hunt spread into Davis Strait and Hudson Strait late in the seventeenth century. American whaling in these waters began as early as 1732. Most of the American arctic vessels were large sloops, probably about 60 feet on deck. Gradually schooners, brigs, and ships from the colonies entered the arctic fisheries.

Except for a few European vessels, the arctic whaling and sealing craft were small for their time; 60 feet to nearly 100 feet length. It was found that the small vessels were handy and readily worked in the ice floes, and their light draft was useful in a poorly charted sea. Their cargoes were very valuable and even the smallest vessel could carry enough to make the arctic venture profitable. Most of the cargoes were capable of being closely and compactly stowed, whether oil or furs, and this added to the advantage of the small vessel. Of course, the risks to the shipowner were great and the smaller

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

investment necessary in a small ship, and in maintaining the small crew re– quired by such a vessel, was another factor in the arctic fisheries.

Bering Strait was first passed by a whaler in 1844, after which the western arctic whale fishery became the most important. The arctic whaling and sealing fleet of the United States, in 1846, consisted of 678 ships and bark-rigged vessels, 35 brigs and 44 schooners, all valued above $21,000,000 at the time. By 1850 there were 736 vessels of all rigs in the arctic fish– eries. A decline then set in, and the number of arctic whalers and sealers gradually diminished; the final blow came in the early years of the present century when the commercial demand for whalebone ended. Arctic whaling has not been practised commercially since. Sealing, however, has continued until the present time; the Pacific grounds having been first nearly exhausted and then finally closed to seal hunters, the last sealing activity has been on the east coast of Greenland. The American sealing industry, which had been center– ed at New London, Conn., had not only exploited the eastern arctic waters but also the Antarctic; but when these areas were exhausted the rise of the Bering Strait sealing grounds caused San Francisco to become the center of the in– dustry. New Bedford, Mass., had been the center of the whale fishery in the east; now the rise of the wes tern arctic whale fishery made San Francisco the headquarters of the whaling fleet.

The whaling and sealing vessels engaged in some arctic trading as well, and until comparatively recent times it was impossible to distinguish trader and fisherman by either their vessels or their intent. Some of the vessels were ordinary seagoing craft, even built for South Sea mission work or as yachts, and adapted to northern waters merely through the addition of sheathing; others were specially built to withstand the ice pack as well as possible. They

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

carried sufficient food, fuel, and gear to permit wintering, yet had capacity enough for their cargoes in addition. Each ship had to be independent of all support for two or even three years in extreme cases; only the Greenland fish– eries were worked on a one-year boyage, as a general rule. In the long season when whaling and sealing were impossible, the vessels could often trade very profitably with the Eskimos.

The ice-working ability of a sailing vessel was necessarily limited and any real ice-breaking characteristic was unobtainable. Therefore the aim in the design of the arctic whaler and sealer, as long as sail alone was the motive power, was to produce a very strong ship capable of withstanding ice conditions, yet one of relatively large capacity in proportion to her size. She also had to be as good a sailer and sea boat as these requirements would permit, to enable the ship to make reasonably quick and safe passages to and from the arctic grounds. Unfortunately these requirements did not allow a hull-form that was suitable for withstanding the extreme ice pressure. The whalers and sealers, therefore, tried to do their work so that they would not be caught by floe ice and "squeezed." When they were caught, they often suffered losses; sometimes large fleets of American whalers were lost in the Arctic, particularly in the western Arctic. In 1871, 32 ships were lost and, in 1876, 20 were crushed in two memorable disasters. Hardly a season passed in which one or more vessels were not destroyed by the ice or by grounding.

The inherent difficulty of building an ice-working ship having seaworthiness, capacity, and sailing qualities was fully recognized by both arctic whaler and sealers. They planned their vessels, therefore, to be strong enough to stand the shock of ramming ice floes and fitted them so, particularly through hard– wood sheathing, that ice would not cut through the sides. To avoid being crushed

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

they had their sides strengthened, but their hulls being of unsuitable form to withstand extreme pressure, they invariably attempted to utilize some safe harbor in the Arctic in which to spend the winter. If caught at sea in the ice they usually left their ships and lived ashore, carrying supplies with them. This was done before the movement of the ice floes in the spring made passage over the ice hazardous and before the ships were liable to damage. If the ship was not crushed they usually succeeded in returning to her but some– times they vessel became derelict. When ships were destroyed their crews usually escaped to other vessels, sometimes only after laborious and perilous boat voyages alongshore through floating ice to open water, or to some winter harbor.

Unlike the whaling vessel, the sealer often roamed far from the known fishing grounds, as he was part fisherman and part trader to a far greater degree than the whaleman. The sealing vessel was therefore a small vessel, usually, light in draft and strongly built. The sealer tried to find a safe winter harbor well in advance of the closing of navigation and, if possible, where there were Eskimos with whom trade could be carried on during the closed season. Only in the eastern Arctic were large vessels employed in sealing; these were European vessels whose size was determined by their trans-Atlantic passages and long vouages. The Labrador sealing still practiced has been car– ried on with such vessels, though now they are operated out of Canadian ports. Only the East Greenland sealing has remained in European hands.

The American sealing vessels were sloops in colonial times but the schooner soon became popular. Certain characteristics were soon developed in the designs of schooners for the sealing trade brought about not only by geo– graphical elements in their employment but also by economic factors. When a sealing schooner was built, particularly during the early nineteenth century,

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

she was designed and built not only to work in ice if necessary but also to make long voyages to the sealing ground. When built she might first go to the grounds off Cape Horn or on the southwest coast of South America one voy– age, and the next she might try Hudson Bay, Davis Strait, or Baffin Bay. Long voyages in the small vessels suitable for some of the sealing grounds made it desirable that the vessel sail very well; the stormy seas she had to meet made seaworthiness most important. Since the sealer would enter unexplored or un– charted waters, light draft was also very important.

New London having the ownership of most of the sealing fleet in this period, the sealing schooner models developed here to the highest degree as early as 1790. Figure I shows the lines of a typical sealing schooner of the New London type, of the early nineteenth century. She is what was termed a "pilot-boat" model, since she resembled the pilot-boat schooners that then Characterized American ports — she differed from them sharply in proportions, however. The sealing schooner was marked by great beam and small depth in proportion to her length; she had, as a result, less rise in her bottom than would be found in pilot-boat schooners of her time. The sealer carried a very large rig, consisting of the usual fore-and-aft sails of the pilot-boat schoon– er (main, fore, jib, fore staysail, jib topsail, main gaff topsail, and main– topmast staysail) and a square course and topsail on her foremast. She also had some light sails when sent to the Cape Horn sealing grounds, to make her passage through the Doldrums and Trades as rapid as possible. On her voyage out she earned nothing and represented outlay only, so the shorter the passage the sooner she began to make a return on the owner's investment. The plan shown was redrawn from a French drawing made in 1828 from measurements taken off one of these schooners. Builder's models of similar schooners are now in the Mystic Marine Museum, Mystic, Connecticut, and show the drawing to represent what might

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

be termed a "standard" vessel in both model and size. Few of the sealers of this period exceeded 70 feet in length.

Relatively little consideration was given in these sealers to producing a vessel particularly suited to resisting ice pressure, for reasons that have been noted, but the model came nearest to producing a hull to resist crushing of any commercial type of craft used in arctic waters. The requirements for speed, power, and seaworthiness in this case produced a vessel that might "squeeze out" under ice pressure because of the dead rise in the very shallow hull used. The construction of the New London sealers was very strong; nearly all the timber employed in their construction was white oak and they had, in addition to the hull planking of oak, a strong sheathing or oak, maple, or beech. The sealing schooner usually carried four "skiffs" or "canoes;" these were light square-stern round-bottom dinghies, 15 to 17 feet long, clench plank– ed, and fitted to row and sail.

This class of schooner may be considered the only distinctive model of sailing sealer the fishery produced; the Pacific sealers of late date were either converted yachts or fishing schooners, until the western arctic sealing degenerated into a trading venture. Then the sealing vessels became trading craft in fact and should be so classed.

As long as sail power was all that was available for use in arctic work, a great deal of attention was given to sparring and rigging the vessels proper– ly. Generally speaking, the sloop and schooner rig, without any square sails, was considered wholly unsuitable for work in the ice. The reason was a simple one; the difficulty or rather, the almost impossibility, of stopping and back– ing a fore-and-aft-rigged vessel made working in heavy ice with such rigs im– practical. Therefore all arctic vessels were rigged with square sails; schooners

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

and sloops with square topsails and a large course. Brigs, ships, and barks were common among larger craft; the bark seems to have been the predominate rig, among whalers at least, after about 1800. With vessels fitted with square sails, it was usually possible to stop the ship when underway, or to back her under full control, by backing part or whole of the square sails. The vessel fitted with square sails, even though sloop or schooner rigged, was also well suited for long ocean passages where she might run long distances with fair winds, without the need of tacking.

The fierce gales met with in certain arctic waters made it necessary to design the rigs so that sail could be reduced quickly, and spars and rigging had to be very strong. It was general, therefore, to find the arctic vessel fitted with a rather small spread of sail in proportion to her size, and re– straint was exercised in the fitting of light sails. Only in a few types, such as the New London sealing schooners, were large rigs employed; in these the hulls were made wide and very powerful so that the sails would not over– power them in strong winds. In most types the relatively snug rig led to sharp, narrow hulls that could be easily driven by their small sail areas. Such vessels usually were good sea boats, rolling deep but easily, and so were comfortable vessels for their crews. The good features of the narrow, snugly rigged vessels were finally brought to a high level in the steam power– ed auxiliaries built for whaling and sealing in the '70's.

With the introduction of steamers into the sealing fishery in the East, the European sealers built a distinctive class of ship — low-powered auxil– iary barks that were on the same model as contemporary steam whalers. These steam sealers usually had their boilers and engines amidships, with the stack between fore and main masts, whereas the whalers had their engine rooms farther

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

aft and their stacks were between main and mizzen masts, leaving a large cargo hold amidships required by their cargo. The European sealers were about the same size as the American steam whalers, 150 to 180 feet long; most of the sealers were built in Scotland. The majority were wooden vessels but a few were built of wrought iron. The European sealer was employed for much arctic exploration work, in the '70's and '80's, and is represented by such craft as the Alert and the Bear , employed in American expeditions in the '70' and '80's, This class of ship may therefore be discussed in detail as exploration vessels.

The Greenland sealing employed not only these auxiliary barks, but also a number of smaller craft, many owned by Scandinavians, Dutch, and Germans. By 1900, sealing vessels employed in East Greenland waters had developed into a recognizable type, much like the North Sea and Baltic steam trawlers in model, very strongly built. The ice conditions in this area were unusually severe; broken floe ice of great area often covered the sealing grounds and very severe storms were met along the coast. As a result, the sealers made no attempt to produce a stram ice-breaker and instead developed an ice-work– ing ship capable of nosing her way through the leads in the floes. To do this the ships were built with deep, almost straight stems, heavily armored, which could be used to pry open a narrow lead through which the vessel could pass. Special consideration was given to fitting the stern so that the ship could back in the ice without damage to either rudder or propeller.

Low-powered steam plants were commonly installed, giving rather low speed to the ship, but sails were used in making long passages, in addition to using power. The boilers were designed to burn coal, or blubber when necessary. Most of these small sealing vessels were between 70 and 100 feet in length,

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

ketch-rigged with small sail area. Under power few could make over 8 knots in smooth water. Men who have used these vessels consider them most suitable for East Greenland waters; they admit, however, that the ships cannot break even light fjord ice with their low power. The low power used in these craft permits low fuel consumption; a very important factor in small vessels work– ing in arctic waters far from a supply base. Low-powered diesel engines came into use in these sealers about 1908; many sealers prefer steam since the latter permits greater flexibility in the fuel employed and also gives steam economic– ally for heating, working powerful windlasses and winches, and for de-icing the ship. In the small sealers wood construction is generally preferred to steel; the wooden hull is supposed to be less liable to damage in the ice; probably the relative low cost of the small wooden hull is the real factor.

Figure 2 shows the characteristics of the East Greenland sealers, though the vessel is somewhat larger than usual in this class. The design was in– tended for a combination sealer and supply ship, to work with two smaller vessels, and in model and arrangement incorporated the features considered both desirable and necessary in these sealers. The deep and angular forefoot, heavily sheathed, armored, and internally dtrengthened, was desired in lieu of an ice-breaking bow which would allow the ship to ride out onto the ice. The owners believed that the ice-breaker bow would be wholly undesirable be– cause the ship was relatively small and so had not enough weight to break the hard, thick floe ice, and such a bow would not serve to nose through floating ice with the low-power, low-fuel consumption objective. An 850 h.p. European reversing diesel was to be used. The vessel is suitable for a uniflo-type steam plant which would probably be more economical since it would reduce the number of heating and power units required in the ship. Much attention was

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

given to the stern in this ship, a profile being adopted that would give the best backing effect in the ice without damage to the rudder, wheel, or stern structure. This was accomplished by constructing the sharp stern very strong– ly and armoring in the same manner as the bow, building the rudder extremely strong, and setting both rudder and propeller well under the hull. The head of the rudder was recessed into the stern deadwood, when the rudder was center– ed, as a further precaution in the protection of this member. Propeller was made of cast nickel steel and the tail shaft was high tensile cold-rolled steel. The shafting was supported at each end of the propeller aperture by heavy bearings. The construction is indicated in a section in the figure, which shows the very heavy framing and planking. At all bulkheads cross-brac– ing was employed to support the bilges and sides, in addition to heavy hanging and lodging knees. The frames were closely spaced and the spaces between them, in the bottom, was chocked solid and caulked to give a solid timber bottom out to the turn of the bilges. Forward deckhouse had steel sides; an "ice bridge" was placed on its roof for conning the ship in the ice. All winches and wind– lasses were enclosed in either deck houses or trunks, with steam lines to pre– vent freezing. Water tanks were fitted with steam coils for the same purpose.

An attempt was made to form the ship so that she could "squeeze out" when caught in a pressure area in the ice. Whether or not this design has suffic– ient flare to the topside to permit this cannot be determined, the amount of flare being limited by the need of having a seaworthy ship in open water. By employing a slack bilge the owners hoped that the easy heeling of the ship would add to the effectiveness of the flaring topsides in a "squeeze." In order to save fuel and to help steady the ship, she was rigged as a three– masted schooner with leg-of-mutton sails and a large jib, giving sufficient

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

area to permit sailing in strong winds, at least. There was no requirement for shallow draft and, with the sharp model, the hull had to be deep to obtain the required capacity.

The construction of this vessel was extremely heavy; frames and plank were of oak and sheathing, outer keel, rudder blade, outer stem and post, and shoe were of greenheart. The interior longitudinals were pine. All bulkheads were double-diagonal planked with convas between the skins. Steel diagonal strapping was used on the outside of the frames, 5 to 81. Steel border-angles were fitted to secure the bulkheads to the ceiling tightly. Four bulkheads were employed. The engines and tanks were hea ily shored to prevent movement when the vessel hit ice. In general, the ship was very plainly fitted, but all quarters and working spaces were well insulated. Cargo winches were of ten tons capacity. Much attention was given to pumping systems; in addition to the usual hand pumps placed inside the deckhouse over the engine room, two independently driven power pumps were required, as well as one driven by the main engine. The power pumps could also be used as fire pumps. The use of the diesel necessitated installation of a cooling system that would permit accurate temperature control. A small water condenser was also required. On the whole, the design seems to represent a more complete vessel than was usual in these sealers; however, the ship was supposed, to incorporate the elements of design, fitting, and construction that experience had shown to be most de– sirable in the work, with due regard to cost. A vessel of similar model could be built of steel, with some modification, at less cost today but, in spite of this, the sealers appear to prefer wooden hulls.

The first sailing whalers designed for arctic work were characterized by strength, retaining seaworthiness and reasonable sailing qualities. On the

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

eastern whaling grounds the area had been known long enough to be reasonably well charted by the time shipbuilding records permit examination of the de– sign of such craft. Hence, perhaps, the vessels built for the eastern arctic whaling were little different in model from the whalers used on the open sea. But, with the opening of the Bering Strait whaling grounds, uncharted waters became a consideration and so a modified model of whaleship came into existence. Figure 3 is the lines of two whaling barks built in the United States in 1854– 58 for the new fishery. One of the vessels built from this model was the Gay Head , a successful arctic whaler that was lost in the great arctic disaster off Point Belcher, Alaska, in 1871, when 31 other vessels were crushed.

The model differs from the older whaling ships in being relatively wider and shallower. The reduction in draft gave greater margin of safety in the unknown Arctic Sea, of course. Otherwise the design showed no important changes in hull-form. The very raking bow may have given some slight ice-breaking power; however, this appears to have been accidental rather than intentional in the design. Obviously, sail gave insufficient power to allow ice-breaking in any but thin ice; for this the rather upright stem, well armored, served well enough. The plan will serve to indicate the general design of many arctic whalers, however; the sailing vessels were commonly between 100 and 140 feet in length, usually bark rigged, and built with a good deal of consideration to handiness and sailing qualities. Though heavily constructed, they depended upon ice sheathing to a great extent for protection, and so their safety was more a matter of management than of structure and model when on the arctic whal– ing grounds.

The sailing vessel was found to be seriously handicapped in arctic work, as her movement, and therefore her safety, depended upon favorable winds. As

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

more experience was gained in the western Arctic, the advantages of steam whalers became apparent. Some of the European steam whalers and sealers employed in the eastern Arctic were purchased by American owners for the western arctic fishery, but legal and economic factors made this unsatisfac– tory. Beginning in the 1870's, American steam whalers were built both in Maine and California for the Bering Sea and arctic fisheries. These were wooden vessels, 140 to 180 feet long, with small steam power and full sail rig. The vessels were on a rather standardized model, sharp-ended and with much rise to the bottom, raking flaring bows, and light round sten; a good example is shown in Figure 4. This was a design prepared at Bath, Maine, in 1880, supposedly for the ship Belvidere built that year, the Mary and Helen launched in 1882, and the Navarch built in 1892, but the customhouse records show these vessels differed in dimensions from those of the plan. It is pos– sible that the ships were lengthened in building; the other dimensions given by the customhouse are insufficiently reliable to be of much value as a guide in checking the identification. The sharp, deep model of these whaling steam– ers is well shown in the plan; they were designed to sail fast and steam well with small power. It was learned by the time these vessels were built that a sharp-lined hull could steam in heavy weather with relatively small engine power; here again fuel consumption governed the amount of power placed in these ships. The whaling steamer Orca , built at Sen Francisco in 1882, on a model very much like that shown in Figure 4, had a nominal horsepower of 280, though she measured 177 feet in length, 32 feet 6 inches beam outside of sheathing, 18 feet-11 inches depth in hold, and 462.39 tons, net.

These steamers usually had two-bladed propellers which could be brought in line with the sternpost in sailing; some had propellers that could be lifted

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

up into a well in the stern for sailing. Many of the ships had telescoping smokestacks as well, that could be lowered out of the way of sails and rigging. The arctic steam whalers usually carried from five to seven whaleboats, each 28 feet long. The use of iron knees, diagonal iron strapping in the sides, and extensive armoring of stem, sides along the waterline, and around the stern made these vessels very strong and well protected from the ice, though their form made them vulnerable to great ice pressure. Some of the vessels had pilothouses, others did not. The crews were usually housed in deckhouses, as in most arctic ships.

The construction is shown in a typical cross-section in the drawing and requires no explanation. By the time these whaling steamers were being built experience with both commercial and exploration vessels in the Arctic had taught good methods of structural design for ice-working ships built of wood. The use of iron knees in place of the earlier wooden members had given more cargo space but had created a new problem; the iron knees were affected by frost. This was solved by sheathing the iron knees with an insulation of tarred felt and wood sheathing.

The type of vessel shown in Figure 4 not only represented the final de– velopment of the arctic steam whaling ship but also fairly represents the model used in the large eastern sealing steamers of the same period. The variations in hull-form in these ships were minor; most did not have the hollow garboards at the keel, shown in Figure 4, which was a source of weakness in grounding or working in heavy floating ice; instead they had a rather flat bottom. There were some differences in rake of bows, profile, and form of sterns and degree of fullness in the entrance and run, as might be expected among ships built by different builders. A good deal of ingenuity was expended in producing these

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

ships, so that they might be cheap and efficient; some had feathering pro– pellers (apparently intended in the design shown in Figure 4) and many arrange– ments were made to allow easy removal and replacement of the rudder. Cargo was made as compact as was possible, many ships having a steam "digester" to dry out oil, and bailers for packaging whalebone. Stoves and other heating systems received much attention; some of the whalers were better fitted out than contemporary government-fitted exploration vessels.

In considering the designs used in these commercial vessels built for arctic use, the fundamental limitations placed on their design should not be overlooked. The first of these was the need of the ships being self-contained for long periods of time; hence the small power given their engines so that the relatively small quantity of fuel they could carry would suffice. Another limitation was the need for cargo capacity above and beyond the coal and sup– plies for crew they had to carry. Still another factor was the requirement that they be good sea boats, with a fair turn of speed, so that their voyages to and from the whaling grounds would be both safe and short; the trips out and back produced no profit. The necessity of great strength led to heavy weight-displacement, with a decrease in dead-weight capacity in given dimen– sions. With respect to this, there were practical limits, learned by long ex– perience, on the size of ship intended for arctic whaling and sealing. Too big a ship was unhandy in the ice, required too many in the crew — too many mouths to feed — and was too expensive to build and fit out for the fisheries.

It can be seen that the purpose in the design of these vessels was not to produce the ideal ice-working ship, or a ship for but a single purpose, (as in the modern icebreakers for example); rather the objective was to turn out a vessel that would meet many conflicting requirements to the best advantage

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

commercially. While the steam whalers were able to penetrate the Arctic farther than the old sailing vessels (the steamers often wintering as far east as the Mackenzie), they still were subject to loss in the ice as had been the earlier craft. By the end of the whaling in the Arctic, the design of ships to "squeeze out" under ice pressure was understood and it was also well known that such vessels were not suitable as carriers for commercial work, not only because of their form but also because so much of their displacement was required to carry their massive construction.

The long survival of sail in arctic commercial ships requires acknowledg– ment; sail was not retained because there were doubts as to the reliability of the steamers' engines but rather because the use of sails permitted fuel saving and allowed the employment of small engines and boilers. The little space that thus must be given up to motive power allowed more of the hull to be utilized in cargo holds and for supplies. While there appear to have been no doubts about the reliability of engines and boilers, many arctic navigators looked upon the propeller as a source of weakness. It might readily be so damaged in heavy ice as to be put out of commission, circumstances might be such that repairs could not be effected. The use of sails might then save the ship. In the years when the arctic settlements were no more than trading posts, the need of a ship being self-sufficient brought about the practice of sailing the vessels as far into the Arctic as possible and only then employing the en– gines. Even then the small power of the engines could be increased by using the sails when occasion demanded. The rig need not be large and could be made strong and so as to be easily repaired. The disadvantages of the use of sail, in possible loss of men or in injury to crew members, and in the need of train– ing in handling sails, were fully appreciated but were outweighed by the prac-

EA-Trans. Chapelle: Arctic Whaling and Sealing Vessels

tical advantages of this very old mode of ship propulsion. It is because of these matters that, even today, there are many experienced arctic naviga– tors who require some sail in their vessels, particularly in small vessels that must work without support from supply ships or bases.

In the examination of all vessels used in commercial work in arctic waters it must be remembered that the cost of the ship, and of its operation, is one of the factors in its survival. If the ship is so expensive in build – due to power, size, fitting, and specification — or is so expensive to operate — due to fuel consumption, mechanical repair and maintenance, or numerous crew — that the owners cannot show a profit, then the vessel is useless for her pur– pose, no matter how carefully designed she may be. It is this that makes com– parison between arctic commercial craft and the government-financed or pri– vately fitted exploring vessels impossible in a practical sense. The economic factor has, indeed, made the development of the arctic commercial vessels very slow and is the explanation of the supremacy of the wooden hull, sails, and stram power over the modern steel ship and diesel in this field.

The arctic sealer and whaler are now almost matters of the past – no longer is it necessary to fit out such craft for a long stay in arctic waters, far from the support of civilization. It is only when it will be necessary to fit ships to meet similar requirements of use in the Arctic that the lessons to be drawn from a study of the designs of arctic whalers and sealers will be of practical value.

H. I. Chapelle