Welcome Guest!
This is pretty cool
- Thread starter creekrunner
- Start date
Wanderlust
Senior Member
Thanks for sharing!
KyDawg
Gone But Not Forgotten
Why would they just let the ocean reclaim it.
Because it is incredibly expensive and takes special facilities to preserve a wooden hull once it is exposed to air.
Read up on what they had to do for the Hunley, and it was all iron.
Read on in the article about the ship breaking up already. Try to imagine the resources that would be require just to stabilize it where it is.
Unless the artifact is significant in it's own right, or demonstrates some previously unknown technology, letting time and nature take its toll is the only reasonable thing to do.
mguthrie
**# 1 Fan**OHIO STATE**
Wow. I used to visit and fish that stretch of beach when I lived down there. A lot of history in that area. It's a great place to find prehistoric sharks teeth
Artfuldodger
Senior Member
I was just looking at pics of Mickler's Landing and all the teeth they were finding. I'm afraid to show my wife and daughters.
Also recently read about Washington Oaks Gardens beach as well with it's sculptured coquina rocks piled along the beach.
creekrunner
Senior Member
Interesting read, but the author's speculation about the pine planks is off base. Coastal pine lumber of the time would have been old growth longleaf pine, which is comparable to oak in strength and density. It was (and is) highly desirable for planking. The fact that it could be had in long clear boards was an asset. Heart pine had a natural resistance to destructive marine organisms that were prevalent in southern waters.
Now why the builder alternated pine and oak planks? I have no idea.
If I has to speculate, I would say using pine was a cost cutting measure, just because it was so much more available, but shipbuilders being a conservative lot, enough oak was included to make it traditional.
Similar threads
