The speed of the 1715 fleet from Havana to Sebastian Inlet---normal?

[Jolly Mon]

My understanding is that the 1715 fleet left Havana at sunrise on July 24th--lets say 6am.
The Hurricane struck it with full force at approx. 4am on July 31st.
The distance from Havana to Sebastian Inlet through the Bahama Channel is approx. 350 nautical miles.
The fleet had travelled for approx. 140 hours.
This works out to roughly 2.5 knots.

I realize the speed of a sailing vessel is highly dependent on the weather, but this seems remarkably slow to me---does anyone know if this was normal ?

I tried to compare the relative speeds of the 1715 and 1733 fleets but it is difficult since the 1733 ships seemed to have actually tried to sail back to Havana once the weather deteriorated.

Does anyone have any clues as to the average rate of speed of some other ships/ fleets making the passage from Havana to Spain during this period ?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[ScubaFinder]

There are lots of factors to take into consideration. Normally, a large tall ship loaded with cargo would make between 4 and 6 knots (from what I've read in several places). However, the old adage "the calm before the storm" applies to most caribbean hurricanes. Experienced captains could feel a storm coming by the heavy, still air. Still air means no wind in your sails. Also the survivor accounts from the 1715 fleet often mention the wind coming from the bow or the ships being blown "back" into the reefs. I believe for the last several hours they were making little headway or possibly even going backwards at times. Comparing the "average" speed of a loaded galleon to that of one experiencing a full-on hurricane is a guessing mans game in my humble opinion.

Good luck,

Jason

 

[Au_Dreamers]

Documents also mention that Ubilla was constantly reducing sail and waiting on Echeverz to catch up. This of course would have made the voyage slower than normal. There was insinuation by surviving Captains and others that they all might have missed the storm if they had not been constantly waiting on Echeverz.

 

[Jolly Mon]

Thanks for the replies.

Obviously no two voyages will be identical, but it seems to me that comparing the rate of travel for similar fleets in similar circumstances might give one a least a rough idea of how far they might have travelled before succumbing to a hurricane.
@AU...I see what you mean about Echeverz...I have little doubt the 1715 fleet proceeded more slowly than was possible...

 

[scrapdoggie]

Could a storm during that period be so horrifying that grounding her would be their safest bet for survival. The character of these men are absolutely off the charts. Brave is an extreme understatement. I'm wondering If any of the missing fleet would have considered it. Grounding a ship makes it easier to save the spoils versus loosing the hoard in deep waters forever. Probably a silly question but I am curious and not as well educated in the matter.

 

[Bum Luck]

Could a storm during that period be so horrifying that grounding her would be their safest bet for survival. The character of these men are absolutely off the charts. Brave is an extreme understatement. I'm wondering If any of the missing fleet would have considered it. Grounding a ship makes it easier to save the spoils versus loosing the hoard in deep waters forever. Probably a silly question but I am curious and not as well educated in the matter.

Much higher probability of survival; most could not swim, and in any case swimming in a hurricane is tough. Much easier to grab some wreckage and wash ashore. I'd have run it up there; like they had much of a choice anyway.

I agree about the speed - it's an average, and there was a lot of mitigating factors.

 

[FISHEYE]

Depending on which way the wind was blowing they would have had to tack back and forth in the gulf stream.A sailboat goes faster heading off the wind then it does trying to head into the wind.As the wind speed speeds up its harder to gain forward motion if heading into the wind.In hurricane force winds there will be no headway and is best to keep the bow headed into the wind providing you still have any sails left.If the wind came from the east they could have beat the storm.If the wind came from the north they could have gone to the bahamas or even the east coast of florida.I would have picked the bahamas.

 

[Jolly Mon]

The captain of a ship of the era would have done ANYTHING to avoid going aground during a storm. He would jettison his cargo, his artillery, his ballast---even cut his masts---to avoid it. It is grounding that is responsible for 95% of all shipwrecks during the age of sail. A seaworthy vessel, (and galleons were very seaworthy), can survive almost anything at sea during a storm---providing it does not go aground.

This is not to say that deep water wrecks never happen. Surely they do---but comparatively infrequently.

The decision to purposely run aground would have been madness for the 1715 fleet---they would have been ripped apart by the fossilized reefs of east Florida---just like they were historically. But a ship of that era would be pounded to bits in heavy weather even if they grounded on a sandy bottom.

There is no way a Spanish Galleon of that era could make progress to windward in anything approaching hurricane force winds. She would, in fact, make tremendous leeway---whether her skipper wanted her to or not. He would only have two choices: run under bare poles or "lie to", as close to the wind as possible, and hope the storm blew out before his vessel grounded...the last resort of the latter strategy is to drop all his anchors and lay out as much rode as possible in a desperate attempt to keep offshore.

The inability of the galleons to maneuver during a storm is precisely what made the Bahama Channel so treacherous. The were, quite literally, caught between a rock (the Bahama reefs) and a hard place (the Florida reefs).

 

[Peyton Manning]

personally, I never sailed on any galleon that would do better than 21 knots

 

[cornelis 816]

Speed had nothing to do with the wrecking of the galleons. The wind and the direction of the wind was more important . Quite a while back we had a nice discussion aboutm this subject . Most of the documents written on this subject were lost when I got kicked off this forum . Too bad if you ask me because I spent a lot of time on the subject . If some of you remember the outcome of my investgation was as follows . The fleet travelling in the straits of Florida was overtaken by a storm comming from the East , over the Bahama's , toward the West . When the storm hit the fleet the ships were pushed to the West eventually stranding on the coast of Florida . Some of the ships were caught in the North -West winds and ended up on the coast of Northern Florida or as far as the Carolinas . Cornelius

 

[hobbit]

Survivors accounts of the 1715 fleet state that the ships were in 50 fathoms of water when signs of the storm first appeared. This would put them less than 20 miles offshore. These same accounts say the winds were from the E and E.N.E---the ships were simply driven ashore because they could not "scud" or "run" with the wind and because they could make no progress to windward against it and could not tack---they were slowly pushed to shore by the unavoidable leeway of the vessels against the powerful winds and swells. I agree with Cornelius. The 1715 fleet was very close to shore when the storm hit and so they succumbed relatively quickly---and it also appears the hurricane changed course at the last minute and hit them head on---but a fleet located further offshore might be able to survive much longer---much, much longer indeed: "An example is provided in AGI Contratación, 730. Juan Ferrer, a ship’s
master, begged the Casa de Contratación to be exonerated from any possible responsibility
for the damage incurred by the
Santa Inés sailing in the Nueva España Fleet in 1689:
‘being dismasted in the Bahamas channel between Cape Cañaveral and Saint
Helena we survived a violent sea hurricane
[sic] with north-east and east-northeast
winds of such ferocity that they lasted six days during which time we thought
ourselves lost together with the naos
2 of the fleet"

and:

AGI Contratación 5108 provides yet another description of hurricanes. In this case it
occurred on 1589 close to the Florida coast and the account is contained in a letter from
General Martín Pérez de Olázabal, issued at Sanlúcar de Barrameda. It informs His Majesty
of the strong hurricane which affected the Nueva España and Tierra Firme fleets on their
way to Spain:
‘sailing out of the channel with the wind large on our quarter we

encountered a great storm of wind from the east-north-east that, finding us in the narrows


between Florida and the Bahamas, we were battered for five days during which we lost
contact with the large naos’

 

[Jolly Mon]

I am not suggesting the speed of the ships had anything to do with their sinking---I was simply trying to compare the relative speeds of the 1715 fleet---destroyed 6 days after leaving Havana---and the 1641 fleet---destroyed/dispersed 9 days after leaving Havana---and extrapolate where the 1641 fleet might have been.

 

[scrapdoggie]

I hope most of what isn't discovered yet lies close to Daytona beach, Just give us one more good ship full of goodies to discover washed up on the beach.

 

[Bum Luck]

The captain of a ship of the era would have done ANYTHING to avoid going aground during a storm. He would jettison his cargo, his artillery, his ballast---even cut his masts---to avoid it. It is grounding that is responsible for 95% of all shipwrecks during the age of sail. A seaworthy vessel, (and galleons were very seaworthy), can survive almost anything at sea during a storm---providing it does not go aground.

This is not to say that deep water wrecks never happen. Surely they do---but comparatively infrequently.

The decision to purposely run aground would have been madness for the 1715 fleet---they would have been ripped apart by the fossilized reefs of east Florida---just like they were historically. But a ship of that era would be pounded to bits in heavy weather even if they grounded on a sandy bottom.

from: http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/s...-romans-when-you-have-boston-news-letter.html 1733 fleet, just 18 years later.........

"..... and being overtaken there by a dreadful hurricane from the northeast, they found it impossible to get to sea or carry their sails, and having cut down all their masts, they were at last obliged, the 31st, to run ashore, whereby all of them were staved to pieces."