Talk:Owasco-class cutter

Welland Canal detail?
Regarding this text: Rationale Myths have long shadowed the design history of the 255 ft class. These cutters were to have been much larger ships, and two theories persist as to why they were shortened. The first is that they were built to replace the ships given to Great Britain under lend-lease, and Congress stipulated that the Coast Guard had to build these replacement cutters to the same size and character as those provided to the British. The second is that their length was determined by the maximum length that could pass through the locks of the Welland Canal from the Great Lakes to the St. Lawrence River. The Great Lakes shipbuilding industry brought pressure on Congress to ensure that it had the potential to bid on the contract. The first theory seems to be correct, but the second cannot be ruled out.

However, the Welland Canal article does not agree that 255 (78m) feet is the maximum vessel length for the Welland Canal. In fact, it says of the present fourth canal, which was completed in 1932: "The maximum permissible length of a ship in this canal is 225.5 metres (740 feet)."

I am curious about this issue because the Safeguard-class rescue salvage ships, which were also built on the Great Lakes, are also 255 feet in length. -- Pamcwill (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Machinery
Anyone able to provide more details. "It had pilothouse control, variable-rate (10 to 1) burners" - was burner controls (fuel input rate) on the boilers actually controlled from the pilothouse, no human intervention? Confusing to me. This was potentially EXTREMELY innovative for the timeframe. Wfoj3 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)