Talk:HMS Ark Royal (1587)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |  |
| Start | rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| High | rated as High-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, an attempt to improve coverage of shipwreck-related topics. See also the parent WikiProject, WikiProject Disaster Management. If you plan to work on this article for an extended period of time, please indicate what you are doing on the Project's talk page. |
| NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:
|
|
 |
A fact from HMS Ark Royal (1587) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 5 September 2007. |
 |
[edit] Stated length of the first Ark Royal
I just thought that 290ft seems rather long for a ship of this period, displacement and beam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised. She was the largest ship in the navy at the time. The Great Michael, built some 80 years before was supposedly 240 feet (73.2 m) long. The figures are from Steve Crawford (1999), Battleships and Carriers. Grange Books by the way. Benea 11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Me Again: I have found several reports that state she was '100ft on the keel'. I can't think there was an extra 190 ft of 'overhang' or whatever it's called - sorry but I'm not in with the proper nautical terminology. 290 ft puts her 70ft or so longer than even HMS Victory which was much larger in displacement and beam. I can't think that proportions would be so different for the First Ark Royal than for contemporary ships (not that Victory is contemporary of course! I just used that as a length comparison). 7 to 1 beam to length ratio seems rather 'thin' for the period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.170.240.10 (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm it does seem suspicious. A lot of the sources you're talking about are in fact mirror sites of each other, but Lavery's Ship of the line lists her as 103ft long, and I'd be inclined to trust him over Crawford. I'll alter this in the text. Benea 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The official Table of General Details of 1602 (State Paper Dom. CCLXXXVI) as reproduced in Nelson's The Tudor Navy lists Ark Royal as 100' x 37' x 15'. Given the idiosyncrasies in measurement methods, the difference between those dimensions and those currently listed is trivial. A more significant issue is tonnage. Tonnages in most official lists - which are widely reproduced in modern sources - are approximations (effectively closer to the later rating system than to an accurate gauge of the ship's size,) usually taken by rounding up the ship's calculated Tons Burthen to the nearest hundred (ie, Dreadnought of 360t is listed at 400, Vanguard of 449t at 500). For some ships, however, the increase is much greater; AR is perhaps the worst case of this, going from a calculated 555t (610t using the dimensions in this article) to a ridiculous 800. It should also be noted that tons displacement is a modern metric that is generally not applied to sailing ships built prior to the 19th century. 68.22.204.37 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
