Talk:Beacon-class gunvessel

"Hopelessly obsolete by the mid-1880s"?
I've removed the phrase "Regarded as hopelessly obsolete by the mid-1880s". Firstly, it's in the lede, but not in the body (which states their engines wore out); secondly, it's just not true - the Royal Navy was building the similar composite Mariner-class gunvessels in the mid-1880s just as the Beacon-class vessels were being retired. I suspect the real reason is that their mixed armament, worn out engines and poor sailing qualities were easier to replace than to fix. Bear in mind also that their engines were also hopelessly outdated - single compression, coal hungry and low in power. 79.75.84.15 (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a paraphrase from Ballard, probably carried over from an earlier article. He says that they were out of date in design and with worn-out engines, although their hulls were still sound, but that shouldn't have applied to the Frolics with their new engines. They were all disposed of at approximately the same time, as were the Arabs and two of the Condors. I suspect that the duties/role/conception of a gunvessel changed in the mid to late 1880s. Note, however, that the Mariners were over 50% larger than the Beacons and I have to wonder why they were initially rated as gunvessels rather than sloops as they ultimately became.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion of obsolescence for these vessels, and the sloops, corvettes and gunboats that they resembled in shape, if not size, is as old as Fisher's "sheep, goats and lamas". The fact is that the Royal Navy continued to build ships of this type into the 20th century, and they were actively employed until the 1920s. It would be a shame to widely cast the aspersion that they were "obsolete" when the evidence shows the issue to be far more nuanced. Chapter 14 of Preston's Send a Gunboat is a good read on the subject, by the way. 79.75.84.15 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've ordered Preston from ILL and should get it soon. I suspect that one major issue influencing the decision to retire them was their twin-prop configuration as all succeeding vessels were single-prop designs. Another interesting fact is that even some of the composite successor classes had ships retired after only 10-12 years (like some of the Algerines) and that is usually caused by problems with green timber or obsolescence issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to note that Royal Navy officers of the late 19th century preferred single screw over twin screw (I can probably find a reference for this if necessary) - which at first seems counter-intuitive. These days single screw ships are terribly un-naval, but the benefits of single screw in a sailing ship are manifold; the flow is less interrupted, particularly if the prop can be feathered (or indeed raised), and the rudder (of which there must be only one, given the hull form) lies in the flow of the prop, making the ship manoeuvrable under steam as well as sail. The twin screw configuration in the Beacons was driven by the need for shallow draught (this was true of some other similar vessels of the period), but it was never popular with those who had to actually sail them. As for the Algerines, they were unfortunate enough to be built immediately before the Naval Defence Act 1889 and advent of the modern cruiser. Enjoy Preston. 79.75.84.15 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ballard covers the prejudice against twin-screw ships quite well and it is reasonable if your primary mode is sailing and you lack hoisting or even feathering screws as you say, but I don't know how much that was a reason to retire the Frolics, etc. early. All that can be said is that the mid to late 1880s saw a wholesale purge of small ships by the RN, not all of which can be explained by "not worth replacing the engines, hull rotted, etc."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)