Bounty question

(Seoul, S Korea) I am NOT looking to restart the Bounty discussion, I simply have a basic question that I have not seen addressed in the little bit of material I've read on the subject. So if someone knows the answer I'd like to hear it and then this thread can be closed if deemed necessary.

And that is, what was the cause of the water ingress that the pumps were keeping up with? Did the hull have an ongoing issue with seam leaks, did the action of the waves wrack the hull and open up seams, or was it simply water that was coming aboard from the swells, waves, and spray and running down into the hull?

Have any of the survivors commented on this yet?

Thanks,

Rain?

GonzoF1 said:

Rain?

Click to expand...

That's possible, too, I suppose, if the boat was caught in a torrential downpour that lasted a long time. But I get the impression that the ingress was pretty severe since once the generator running the pumps quit the situation became serious pretty fast. Which seems to imply a bigger leak than rain on the deck.

Also, I'm curious if the boat had a manual pump system. We've all read accounts of ships in the pre-electric pump days having to man the pumps continuously to keep abreast of the water coming in. And we've seen photos and movies of the big, multi-man rocking-arm pumps that seemed to move a fair amount of water if you had the manpower to keep them going and replacement leather seals to keep them pumping effectively.

I don't recall the Lady Washington having one or more pumps like this--- they would have been accurate to the original ship I assume--- but maybe she does and I just didn't notice them. I don't recall seeing anything like this on the Bluenose II when we went out on it the other year, but again, I may not have noticed it. (The Bluenose II was just re-launched after a total rebuild, by the way, so my wife and I are hoping for another sail on her in the next couple of years.)

So I wonder if the advent of diesel auxiliary power and generators on replica ships like the Bounty has eliminated the installation of effective manual pump systems?

Marin said:

(Seoul, S Korea) I am NOT looking to restart the Bounty discussion, I simply have a basic question that I have not seen addressed in the little bit of material I've read on the subject. So if someone knows the answer I'd like to hear it and then this thread can be closed if deemed necessary.

And that is, what was the cause of the water ingress that the pumps were keeping up with? Did the hull have an ongoing issue with seam leaks, did the action of the waves wrack the hull and open up seams, or was it simply water that was coming aboard from the swells, waves, and spray and running down into the hull?

Have any of the survivors commented on this yet?

Thanks,

Click to expand...

Where as I can not say with any certainty what exactly was causing all of the ingress of water, I do know a few things about her being lost, and I think is was a combination of things, as it usually is. One, the ship had recently finished a two year trip around the globe, meaning she took bunkers from all over world. Having been in that position before, I know full well that not all the fuels we burn are the same. Also, she was a square rigged ship, which means that running into a head wind is pretty much impossible, which is why she was running her main engines with no sails up. I believe that most of the water was from the sea state and the rain. She did not have any water tight bulkheads either. From what I have heard from friends of the crew, the fuel filter on one of the generators became plugged and stopped the engine. The generators run the pumps I believe. It took about an hour to restart it which could have meant the difference between taking on water and flooding. Then the second generator went down, and before they could get it restarted, they lost one of the main engines. Then the second main, then she broached, and she sucumbed to the sea. Having sailed through Igor in 2010, and Isaac this past August, I can say with experience that a captain and crew can do it all perfectly, and still not reach safe harbor.

Thanks, Anthony, for that reply. From your description it sounds like the final nail in the coffin was the failure of both main engines and thus the ability to control the boat as opposed to it simply filling up with water as a result of the generator/pump problems.

Do you happen to know if the Bounty was equipped with any kind of effective manual pump system per my second post?

Marin said:

Thanks, Anthony, for that reply. From your description it sounds like the final nail in the coffin was the failure of both main engines and thus the ability to control the boat as opposed to it simply filling up with water as a result of the generator/pump problems.

Do you happen to know if the Bounty was equipped with any kind of effective manual pump system per my second post?

Click to expand...

I do not know if she was equipped with manual pumps. I would imagine so simply because she was a little older and I have seen many boat owners buy manual pumps "just in case." Thanks for having the grace to not speak poorly of the deceased. I have read so many negative posts bashing the captain. These people are the minority, but still, I don't like to see it happen in our community.

Marin said:

(Seoul, S Korea) I am NOT looking to restart the Bounty discussion, I simply have a basic question that I have not seen addressed in the little bit of material I've read on the subject. So if someone knows the answer I'd like to hear it and then this thread can be closed if deemed necessary.

And that is, what was the cause of the water ingress that the pumps were keeping up with? Did the hull have an ongoing issue with seam leaks, did the action of the waves wrack the hull and open up seams, or was it simply water that was coming aboard from the swells, waves, and spray and running down into the hull?

Have any of the survivors commented on this yet?

Thanks,

Click to expand...

That's a good question, Marin. All wooden vessels of that size leak simply because of the difficulty of keeping the seams caulked but in the old days you had a large crew so you had plenty of hands to man the pumps. I just finished an account of Magellan's trip, and in stormy weather the pumps were manned 24-7 just to keep them afloat because as the vessel was pounded by waves, the seams would open and ten gallons of sea water would squirt in with each wave. Given that this Bounty was a semi-replica of the original Bounty built for a movie my guess is that the boat wasn't built to the same scantlings of the original, which as noted on the previous thread, had to withstand cannon fire without breaking up like a matchstick boat. One indication that this Bounty may have been built not to be a robust vessel capable of enduring what the sea can dish up, but rather as a movie prop is its modest displacement of 400 or so tons on a 180' length. Compare that to a 200' 3 masted vessel made of steel, which should be lighter than a wooden vessel of about the same size yet the steel boat weighs over 740 tons. http://www.yachtworld.com/core/list...rency=USD&access=Public&listing_id=14984&url= Another benchmark would be the USS Constitution, which was 207' feet long but weighed 2,200 tons - 5 times what the replica Bounty weighed. One final metric that supports the point - the vessel was built in 1960 and cost about $5 million in today's money. Think about it. A 180' 3 masted wooden boat with sails, rigging, etc. for about the cost of a modern production vessel half that size. Hard to imagine they built her for anything other than staying afloat for the duration of filming, not chasing hurricanes 50 years later.

The thinner the planking, ribs and backbone, the more flexible the hull will be, which in a wooden boat of that size is not a good thing. Lacking a crew to man pumps, once the power goes out, the vessel goes down as the seams open and close, letting in water that ultimately sinks the boat. The final report on this tragedy will make for interesting, if sad reading.

As Gordon Lightfoot so aptly put...

"The captain wired in he had water comin' in
And the good ship and crew was in peril.
And later that night when his lights went outta sight
Came the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?
The searchers all say they'd have made Whitefish Bay
If they'd put fifteen more miles behind her."

When the minutes turn to hours and the water is rising no matter what the pumps are doing....the mind turns to mush in many a man/women.

I have flown out to many a boat and ready to deploy a pump at the peril of life and limb...but at the last minute realized the boat wasn't REALLY sinking...it was just taking on water due to the situation the crew had put the vessel in ...but upon arrival of the helo and the preparations to take the pump...the vessel had changed enough of the situation that the water ingress now was manageable.

Also....many a captain has though he was sinking only to find out his water tank leaked.

My point is that many a ship was lost because the captain or crew thought the boat was sinking out of control when in reality it is just a moment in time....those magic moments that seem to be lasting for hours as Gordon sang about the Edmund Fitzgerald.

psneeld said:

My point is that many a ship was lost because the captain or crew thought the boat was sinking out of control when in reality it is just a moment in time....those magic moments that seem to be lasting for hours as Gordon sang about the Edmund Fitzgerald.

Click to expand...

Fastnet Force 10 is a pretty good book on the phenomenon of sailors reaching the point where all they want is to GET OFF THE BOAT, no matter how dumb that proves to be in hindsight. Most of the vessels abandoned by their crews during the Fastnet storm survived the ordeal, while many of the crews did not. But from the pictures I have seen The Bounty was going down, so getting off was the only option. We can just be thankful that so many made it off and were rescued.

Delfin said:

... Given that this Bounty was a semi-replica of the original Bounty built for a movie my guess is that the boat wasn't built to the same scantlings of the original, which as noted on the previous thread, had to withstand cannon fire without breaking up like a matchstick boat.

Click to expand...

The Bounty wasn't built as a warship but rather as a collier with a different name. The Royal Navy purchased it three years after construction. After conversion for the breadfruit expedition, she was equipped with four 4-pounder cannons and ten swivel guns. Essentially, she was an armed merchant ship.

Delfin said:

Fastnet Force 10 is a pretty good book on the phenomenon of sailors reaching the point where all they want is to GET OFF THE BOAT, no matter how dumb that proves to be in hindsight. Most of the vessels abandoned by their crews during the Fastnet storm survived the ordeal, while many of the crews did not. But from the pictures I have seen The Bounty was going down, so getting off was the only option. We can just be thankful that so many made it off and were rescued.

Click to expand...

But the question was "when did they give up?" long before or just before the point of no return.

The pictures you saw are meaningless...what transpired for hours or minutes is the real question and having been through the training and debriefs of accidents, the truth may never be fully known.

markpierce said:

The Bounty wasn't built as a warship but rather as a collier with a different name. The Royal Navy purchased it three years after construction. After conversion for the breadfruit expedition, she was equipped with four 4-pounder cannons and ten swivel guns. Essentially, she was an armed merchant ship.

Click to expand...

Not sure you understand how these vessels were built, whether for war or plying the trade between India and Europe. This vessel is a merchant ship that is 23' shorter than the Bounty, but weighs 2 3/4 times more: East Indiaman Amsterdam . The reason why they built them so stoutly is so they wouldn't sink while carrying cargo in nasty weather. The Bounty is an ultra-light by comparison, indicating to me that she wasn't built to be treated as a real ship, but as a movie prop that had no business chasing hurricanes.

psneeld said:

But the question was "when did they give up?" long before or just before the point of no return.

The pictures you saw are meaningless...what transpired for hours or minutes is the real question and having been through the training and debriefs of accidents, the truth may never be fully known.

Click to expand...

Meaningless? Really?

At the time of the distress call ( 9 pm ), the vessel was reportedly taking on 2 feet of water an hour and lost power a few hours later. The crew took to life rafts at around 5 am, and were rescued around 6:30 am. The point of no return was when they left the harbor in a movie prop with funky bilge pumps. Incidentally, the rescue took place, according to the Coast Guard, in 40 knot winds and 18 foot seas, which presumably means the vessel started to sink in winds and wave conditions that are hardly a walk in the park, but not exactly the perfect storm either.

Again passing no judgement, just trying to learn what ship-related factors might have contributed to the sequence of events that led up to the sinking.... If the vessel was taking on two feet of water an hour, could this have contributed to the shutdown of the engines? Or do people think it was a fuel related shutdown as Anthony suggested might have been the case.

And while it may have been mentioned and I missed it, what kind of engines were they?

Also what kind of generator(s) did the Bounty II have?

I suppose a web search might turn up this information but I'm lazy.

Thanks.

Oh, one other thing for our Australian cohorts. About four or five years ago I directed a video project about RNP (a GPS-based navigation system for aircraft). One of the airlines we visited and shot with was Qantas. In Sydney we stayed at a hotel in The Rocks right under the Sydney harbor bridge. At that time there was a black-hulled square-rigger moored along the waterfront near the hotel which I believe was a replica of the Bounty. This same ship had been there a few years earlier when we were there for a project with what was then called Virgin Blue.

Is this the same vessel we're talking about here?

Marin said:

Oh, one other thing for our Australian cohorts. About four or five years ago I directed a video project about RNP (a GPS-based navigation system for aircraft). One of the airlines we visited and shot with was Qantas. In Sydney we stayed at a hotel in The Rocks right under the Sydney harbor bridge. At that time there was a black-hulled square-rigger moored along the waterfront near the hotel which I believe was a replica of the Bounty. This same ship had been there a few years earlier when we were there for a project with what was then called Virgin Blue.

Is this the same vessel we're talking about here?

Click to expand...

I think there are 2 fully rigged ships in the Sydney Heritage Fleet.
One is the timber replica of The Endeavour used by Captain Cook to "discover" Australia.I think it was built in Perth WA,for the Australian Bi Centenary in 1988, others may remember more. The hull has all the elegance of a brick with the corners ground off. We inspected it recently,it appears heavily and faithfully built, though it has an "iron topsail" (big diesel). I`m struggling here,but don`t think the hull is black. It has successfully experienced some weather and I don`t believe it has any "movie prop" provenance.
The other is the 1874 barque James Craig, its iron (except for some steel plate replacements) hull, painted black, looks like a racing greyhound of the seas, a most elegant vessel. It was found as a rusting sunken hulk in Tasmania,our most southern and island state, brought to Sydney and fully restored over many years. It was closed for inspection the day we saw Endeavour at the Wooden Boat Show.
Both vessels are in regular use. I have read reports of longer voyages of Endeavour. Photos of the James Craig in full sail are impressive.Both are usually in Darling Harbour which is a little further from the Rocks hotel area.
There is one other ship, the much smaller Sydney Swan (ex Svanen) which arrived from Scandinavia 20 plus years back, stayed and does day cruises.It is kept more in the area you identify.The Endeavour may have been there at one time too.
Marin,I think you saw the James Craig.You could try searching the vessel names.
Anyone else able to help? BruceK

Hmmm?
This is the original HM Bethia (Bounty) as she was called prior to purchase, refitting and commissioning by the Royal Navy (below).

The tonnage is listed (220) as "tons burthen" which is an archaic method of estimating cargo carrying capacity and not the weight.

Has anyone seen a reliable equivalent tonnage measurement of the replica Bounty? I know the replica was about 20' longer, but I've seen tonnage estimates in some of these posts that are almost twice that of the original Bounty? How about the plans for the replica Bounty?

(Great Britain)
Name: Bethia (1784–1787)
Bounty (1787–)
Builder: Blaydes shipyard, Kingston-upon-Hull, United Kingdom
Cost: £1950
Acquired: 26 May 1787
Commissioned: 16 August 1787
Fate: Burned, 23 January 1790
General characteristics
Class & type: Armed Vessel
Tons burthen: 220 26⁄94
Length: 90 ft 10 in (27.69 m)
Beam: 24 ft 4 in (7.42 m)
Depth of hold: 11 ft 4 in (3.45 m)
Propulsion: Sails
Sail plan: Full rigged ship
Complement: 44 officers and men
Armament: 4 × 4-pounder guns
10 × swivel guns

I'm thinking it was the Sydney Swan. The James Craig is is considerably larger than what I remember. Is Darling Harbor the inner harbor behind the bridge? We did take a ferry back there and I vaguely recall a big square rigger back in there.

Delfin said:

One indication that this Bounty may have been built not to be a robust vessel capable of enduring what the sea can dish up, but rather as a movie prop is its modest displacement of 400 or so tons on a 180' length.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between displacement and tonnage.

USCG CGMIX PSIX Vessel Details Page

Delfin said:

Meaningless? Really?

At the time of the distress call ( 9 pm ), the vessel was reportedly taking on 2 feet of water an hour and lost power a few hours later. The crew took to life rafts at around 5 am, and were rescued around 6:30 am. The point of no return was when they left the harbor in a movie prop with funky bilge pumps. Incidentally, the rescue took place, according to the Coast Guard, in 40 knot winds and 18 foot seas, which presumably means the vessel started to sink in winds and wave conditions that are hardly a walk in the park, but not exactly the perfect storm either.

Click to expand...

Yes really..unless you know what each crew member was doing for hours...and how the chain of command was handling it...you don't know when "they gave up" or became ineffective.

I have been on Coast Guard Icebreakers and Cutters where the crew was so seasick less that 40 percent could muster some days. Not sure how they may have responded in a true emergency such as fire or sinking...but it was an eye opener and most certainly things were happening that shouldn't have and the command wasn't aware of potential problems building...

So yes...a picture of a sinking boat and a few un-detailed reports hardly paints ANY picture of what was truly going on...though I will give you the truly experienced mariner can see in the mind's eye what was happening

To me the important discussion item is this happens at sea during storms (major incapacitation, fatigue, seasickness, equipment failure, etc etc and the jumbled mess accelerates deteriorating situations and certainly make small issues harder to overcome when they need to be.

So maybe like you I don't know why other than bravado made this captain sail and while I don't know why it sank in in this storm, I maybe like you have a pretty good guess.

Engines reported to be twin 375 HP John Deeres.

The latest on the BOUNTY 11/5/12

HMS Bounty sinking to be investigated; victim was 'very concerned' - latimes.com

If one is truly interested in matters nautical this site g Captain is very informative.
Staffed by professional MARINERS.
CCC

Edelweiss said:

Hmmm?
This is the original HM Bethia (Bounty) as she was called prior to purchase, refitting and commissioning by the Royal Navy (below).

The tonnage is listed (220) as "tons burthen" which is an archaic method of estimating cargo carrying capacity and not the weight.

Has anyone seen a reliable equivalent tonnage measurement of the replica Bounty? I know the replica was about 20' longer, but I've seen tonnage estimates in some of these posts that are almost twice that of the original Bounty? How about the plans for the replica Bounty?

(Great Britain)
Name: Bethia (1784–1787)
Bounty (1787–)
Builder: Blaydes shipyard, Kingston-upon-Hull, United Kingdom
Cost: £1950
Acquired: 26 May 1787
Commissioned: 16 August 1787
Fate: Burned, 23 January 1790
General characteristics
Class & type: Armed Vessel
Tons burthen: 220 26⁄94
Length: 90 ft 10 in (27.69 m)
Beam: 24 ft 4 in (7.42 m)
Depth of hold: 11 ft 4 in (3.45 m)
Propulsion: Sails
Sail plan: Full rigged ship
Complement: 44 officers and men
Armament: 4 × 4-pounder guns
10 × swivel guns

Click to expand...

TallShipBounty.org

Based on this the new Bounty displaced 500 tons. The shorter original has an unknown displacement. Again I think the comparison between the weight of the merchantship Amsterdam and the Bounty illustrates the point that the Bounty was built as a prop. Whether warships or designed to carry cargo around the Horn, the originals were stout vessels less likely to take on a lot of water in rough water.

psneeld said:

Yes really..unless you know what each crew member was doing for hours...and how the chain of command was handling it...you don't know when "they gave up" or became ineffective.

I have been on Coast Guard Icebreakers and Cutters where the crew was so seasick less that 40 percent could muster some days. Not sure how they may have responded in a true emergency such as fire or sinking...but it was an eye opener and most certainly things were happening that shouldn't have and the command wasn't aware of potential problems building...

So yes...a picture of a sinking boat and a few un-detailed reports hardly paints ANY picture of what was truly going on...though I will give you the truly experienced mariner can see in the mind's eye what was happening

To me the important discussion item is this happens at sea during storms (major incapacitation, fatigue, seasickness, equipment failure, etc etc and the jumbled mess accelerates deteriorating situations and certainly make small issues harder to overcome when they need to be.

So maybe like you I don't know why other than bravado made this captain sail and while I don't know why it sank in in this storm, I maybe like you have a pretty good guess.

Click to expand...

True enought that the investigation will be the authoritative word but most of the relevant facts have already been published or are known. At 9pm or so she reported taking on 2' of water an hour but her pumps were keeping up with some percentage of the water ingress. After that her pumps failed when she lost all power. She drew 13' and with 10' of water below her crew abandoned ship. The first rescue happened at 6:30 am or about 90 minutes after the ship was abandoned. 90 minutes is another 3' of water meaning the ship is going to look pretty much like the picture I posted.

The "Bounty" which operated for many years as a tourist cruise vessel on Sydney harbour was also a 'replica' built for a movie. It was never part of the Sydney Heritage Fleet and it is not the vessel which sank in Sandy. The ex-Sydney Harbour "Bounty" is, I believe, now in Hong Kong where it is owned by a resort company.

Last year a Canada flagged sailing school vessel (about 120' ??) sunk off the coast of Argentina. Windows and hatches were left open by the students/crew to keep cool and big seas did it in. There are many old sail boats used for fun and frolic by teachers and students ( I note many long haired middle aged men and lots of young ladies). The original crews and mates were pretty well schooled too, but in very different way. My great grandfather did Boston to San Franciso in the 1880s as a young deckhand. His written records are stunning (normal for back then) as to the discipline expected and punishment meted out. Picture 40 crew on the masts in 60 knot gales around Cape Horn

My wife and I toured several of the old sailing ships in Darling Harbour earlier this year. The crews, training and intent seemed pretty serious and ably supervised by ex Navy officers. Thanks to Bruce K for all his great hospitality as he motored us around Sidney Harbour, great wine and food were served and nary a sail hoisted.

If you review the pictures in the site Delfin posted TallShipBounty.org you will see that she was in fact stoutly built. That rebuild was done in 2006, so she should have been in relatively good condition.

koliver said:

If you review the pictures in the site Delfin posted TallShipBounty.org you will see that she was in fact stoutly built. That rebuild was done in 2006, so she should have been in relatively good condition.

Click to expand...

Unless her displacement changed after the refit, which is possible, she is a very light 180' wooden vessel, at least compared to sailing vessels of similar design, and that would normally mean a lot more flexing of the hull when worked. The use of modern techniques might have stiffened her so that the sheer weight and size of members typically seen in a vessel like that wouldn't be needed to keep her from working her seams open in rough weather. However, we have rather definitive proof that wasn't the case. She sank in 40 knot winds, 18 foot seas.

The question is begged that if you were the producer of the Mutiny on the Bounty with a budget, would you construct your movie prop to be a proper sailing ship, or a proper movie prop? I don't know, but I'd have to guess the latter. Maybe that was why this particular vessel was dependent on her bilge pumps to keep her afloat.

Marin said:

I'm thinking it was the Sydney Swan. The James Craig is is considerably larger than what I remember. Is Darling Harbor the inner harbor behind the bridge? We did take a ferry back there and I vaguely recall a big square rigger back in there.

Click to expand...

Yes, Darling Harbour is to port after passing under the Bridge, it has numerous tour ferry wharves.
I too think it was Sydney Swan you saw.Her normal wharf is near Dawes Point. I was on her on the Harbour some years back, fairly sure she is wooden. James Craig is a much larger.

sunchaser said:

My wife and I toured several of the old sailing ships in Darling Harbour earlier this year. The crews, training and intent seemed pretty serious and ably supervised by ex Navy officers. Thanks to Bruce K for all his great hospitality as he motored us around Sydney Harbour, great wine and food were served and nary a sail hoisted.

Click to expand...

Sunchaser,good hearing from you, it was a pleasure. I see winter has you back at the keyboard.
Doriana is at the shipwrights, for several weeks, to repair and renew the decks. Less repair work with foam sandwich under the teak instead of the IG usual sandwich of rotted teak blocks.

BruceK said:

Yes, Darling Harbour is to port after passing under the Bridge, it has numerous tour ferry wharves.
I too think it was Sydney Swan you saw.Her normal wharf is near Dawes Point. I was on her on the Harbour some years back, fairly sure she is wooden. James Craig is a much larger.

Click to expand...

======================================
Looks like you have another tall ship called the Southern Swan in Sydney Harbor. Quite a spectacular ship.

Southern Swan is Sydney's only authentic timber tall ship, having been designed to withstand the icy conditions of the North Atlantic before sailing from England to Australia. Now available for wedding charters in Sydney Harbour, she makes for a unique and striking venue for your wedding reception venue or ceremony.

* 130' in length (40m)
* Weighs 200 tonnes
* Sydney's only authentic timber tall ship - massively built of Danish oak
* Built in the style of the 1850s
* Beam: 8.2m
* Draught: 3.3m
* Mast height: 24m