Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > History
Home Forums Gallery YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-10-2006, 05:02 PM   #1
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default SS MT Washington II

The Mount was originally christened the MT. Washington II when she was launched on August 12, 1940 in Lakeport on Paugus Bay near where the current Corvette Store is located on Rte 3. I believe the roman numeral "II" was dropped after WW II in 1946 when the Mount was repowered with the twin diesel motors and the pilot house was moved to the the third deck. In 1940 and 1941 the Mount was powered by steam engines, and I believe the Mount had a more pronounced exhaust emitting from the smokestack. I have seen postcards in this forum, one in particular of the Mount passing Lake Shore Park where there is a large plume of smoke coming from the exhaust. Normally the Mount does not emit a very discernible exhaust plume since it was repowered with the twin diesels. I was hoping some of our resident Lake Winnipesaukee Historians might want to provide me with the correct date when the "II" was dropped. This question recently came about to me when I won in ebay a Lake Winnipesaukee sterling silver commerative spoon. Upon close examination of the spoon you will see a picture of the Mount and it looks like the wheel house might be on the second deck, and the name of the ship is titledSS MT WASHINGTON II. I might be able to answer my own questions in a few days when I receive my recently purchased copyfrom amazon.com ofThe Story of the Steamboat Era on Lake Winnipesaukee by Edward Blackstone. Attached are photos of the spoon and the launching of the MT WASHINGTON II My spoon could possibly date from sometime in the 1940's. I believe the Mount has had three different prefix designations:

SS for Steam Ship, MS for Motor Ship, and MV for Motor Vessell.

Picture of Launching Day August 12, 1940:

Attached Images
   
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360

Last edited by carguy; 09-10-2006 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Better Picture of Launching
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 05:28 PM   #2
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Can you name the person who christened her?

Hint: Her family has been "toying" with boats for a few days, even have some patents.
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 05:37 PM   #3
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

You may find this link interesting to read.

http://www.lwhs.us/steam-mtwashhistory.htm
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 06:30 PM   #4
No-Mo-Shun
Member
 
No-Mo-Shun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Anacortes, Wa
Posts: 29
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Default The Mount

CARGUY, In "The Boats and Ports of Lake Winnipesaukee" by Bruce D Heald, there is a 1942 photo of The Mount with a barge crane alongside, having her boilers and engine removed for the war effort. She was laid up for 4 years and then repowered with diesels in 1946. I couldn't find any info about when the II was dropped from her name.
__________________

There is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing, Half So Much Worth Doing as Simply Messing About in Boats
Kenneth Grahame
No-Mo-Shun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 06:58 PM   #5
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 698
Thanks: 38
Thanked 114 Times in 59 Posts
Default I believe it was changed

in 1946 to M/V Mount Washington, as SS was no longer appropriate with the installation of the diesel engines. What some people don't realize is that those same engines still power her today!
WeirsBeachBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 09-10-2006, 09:23 PM   #6
Rattlesnake Gal
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 5,228
Thanks: 1,393
Thanked 1,320 Times in 464 Posts
Smile Informative Thread

Carguy, you should find this thread of interest.
PS: You will definitely enjoy Farewell Old Mount Washington!
Sincerely,
RG
Rattlesnake Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 09:48 PM   #7
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Who Christened the Mount?

GWC:

I believe Dottie Irwin christened the MT WASHINGTON II on August 12, 1940. I wonder if anyone took a motion picture of the event. It woulld be nice to see the launching on a DVD. I was born a few years too late to witness this event. On my Lake Shore Park DVD covering the years 1947-1952 there is some nice footage of the MOUNT passing Lake Shore Park. This was taken somewhere between 1947-1949. She appears to be in her post war configuration with the lifeboats on the davits, orange colored smoke stack, and the fantail area of the stern open. When playing back the DVD, I increased the playback speed and the MOUNT looked like she was doing forty knots.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 10:26 PM   #8
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Thank You RG

RG:

Thank you for the information on the launching of the Mount. Here is another photo of her first trip to the Weirs. I have heard that they had to bring on many passengers to lower the boat enough in the water to pass under the bridge. I look forard to meeting you at the Forumfest III.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2006, 11:25 PM   #9
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 922
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default Great Picture!!

Carguy,

Great picture!!

I was wondering how they got it under the Rt. 3 bridge. Now I know.

Thanks!

R2B
Resident 2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 03:19 PM   #10
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default More on the SS MT WASHINGTON II

The Mount when originally put into service in late 1940 had some initial performance problems. The boat was steam powered and due to boiler heating problems and propeller cavitation, her cruising speed was lower than expected. She could not make her 65 mile four port run in four hours or under. She took nearly twice the normal four hours to complete the trip even with Center Harbor being omitted from the ports of call. The boiler problems were remedied by adjusting the boiler oil burners. The two propellers were not sitting deep enough in the water to get the bite they needed to drive the vessel. This problem was corrected by adding horizontal plates over each propeller to prevent the propeller cavitation that was caused by the propeller breaking the water surface.

The SS MT. WASHINGTON II had other problems mainly being financial. The boat had a very short operating season in 1940, and cost of operation increased immensely in 1941 due to shortages caused by the War in Europe. Income was inadequate to keep the boat in operation, and with the US entering WWII, the owners of the new SS MT WASHINGTON II declared bankruptcy in August of 1942. The boat sat idle during the war years at Center Harbor. Her steam engines commandeered by the Coast Guard during this lay-up period.

In 1946 the new owners of the Mount installed two new Enterprise diesel engines, 615 horsepower each to replace the steam plant that had been taken out in 1942. The pilot house was moved from the second deck to the third deck to provide for better visability and more passenger room. The official name of the vessel was changed from S.S. MT. WASHINGTON II to M.V. MOUNT WASHINGTON without the roman numeral II, and with full spelling of Mount.
Attached Images
  
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 06:09 PM   #11
Captain Bob
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 28
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Know what I don't understand? I kind of remember that the mount had "twin 650-horse-power diesels". That's only 1300 horse-power for such a large boat that can go 25 knots or so - and some small boats have like 150-200 horse!
Captain Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 06:43 PM   #12
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Mount's Speed

Captain Bob:

The Mount is only capable of a top end speed around 15 MPH. I have read conflicting reports on the horspower of the Enterprise diesels. Some sources state 615 HP, other soures 650 HP. Those engines are propelling a 230 foot 700 ton vessel.

Someone with access to the Mount should ask the Captain what speed the Mount is cruising at by GPS.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 08:44 PM   #13
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob
Know what I don't understand? I kind of remember that the mount had "twin 650-horse-power diesels". That's only 1300 horse-power for such a large boat that can go 25 knots or so - and some small boats have like 150-200 horse!
You forgot torque.

The Mounts' engines may seem small; but they really are larger than you perceive.

Notice the man in the picture of one of the Mounts' engines.

__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 08:59 PM   #14
Pepper
Senior Member
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Laconia, NH
Posts: 1,284
Thanks: 409
Thanked 155 Times in 40 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carguy
...
Someone with access to the Mount should ask the Captain what speed the Mount is cruising at by GPS.
WeirsBeachBoater could probably provide any data you'd like with regard to speed, engine size, horsepower, etc.
__________________
Never waste time lamenting what was. Simply celebrate what is!
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 09:09 PM   #15
Pepper
Senior Member
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Laconia, NH
Posts: 1,284
Thanks: 409
Thanked 155 Times in 40 Posts
Default

Here's another photo for perspective on the size of those engines ...
__________________
Never waste time lamenting what was. Simply celebrate what is!
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 09:18 PM   #16
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 922
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default Mount Washungton HP

I believe the engines are 6,500 hp each for a total of 13,000 hp. 615 hp or 650 hp each would not do much to move the Mount.

As far as top speed, remember this is a full displacement vessel so the length of the ship determines the top speed as long as the hp is adequate. I doubt it could get out of the hole and up on plane even with the 13,000 hp.

Their web site appears to be down at present, but I think my memory is somewhat accurate.

R2B
Resident 2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 09:34 PM   #17
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident 2B
I believe the engines are 6,500 hp each for a total of 13,000 hp. 615 hp or 650 hp each would not do much to move the Mount.

R2B
In a word: Torque

In two words: Big Pistons

In two more words: Big Cylinders

In three words: Lots of Torque

In the animal kingdom, engine wise, you're thinking mouse and you need to think elephant - moves slow but moves alot.
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 10:21 PM   #18
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 922
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default Torque!!!!

GWC,

Assuming the 700 ton figure for the Mount Washington's displacement is correct, and I feel it is close, 1,300 hp is not going to move a 1,400,000 pound vessel anywhere near 15 knots, let alone provide adequate reverse thrust when docking.

I am not trying to be argumentative, it is just physically impossible.

I understand torque. It is often measured with a distance and a force, such as foot-pounds. You still need the force component to develop high torque. Energy cannot be created or destroyed! I believe that is still a principle of science.

Let's wait until the web site comes back and see what they claim for hp.

Best regards,

R2B
Resident 2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 10:34 PM   #19
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident 2B
GWC,

I am not trying to be argumentative, it is just physically impossible.

Let's wait until the web site comes back and see what they claim for hp.

Best regards,

R2B
Okay, Don (Webmaster), I'm being good, even though I know the answer and do not need the data from the website and you're thinking, "GWC... you're trying, very trying."

The upside, this website is indeed informative and educational.
__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 10:47 PM   #20
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Displacement and Horsepower

Resident 2B:

The Mount displaces approximately 700 tons of water (That is how they weigh ships, the amount in tons of the water displaced by the hull in the water). The diesel engines are 615 HP each for a total of 1230 HP. There are many other factors that determine the speed beside horsepower and displacement weight.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 11:09 PM   #21
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 922
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default Weight of displaced water = weight of the vessel

Carguy,

I still think 1300 hp is not enough to do the job. I could be wrong, but to me it does not add up. From what I have read, the engines taken from the vessel in the 1940's were only 750 hp each, so you folks may be right. I am sure someone from the Mount Washington can give us the facts.

Regarding weight, the amount of water displaced is equal to the weight of the vessel. That is why it floats. If it weighted more than the water it could displace, it would sink. A vessel will displace an amount of water equal to it's weight and the waterline is established at that point.

If it displaces 700 tons of water and floats, it weighs 700 tons or 1.4 million pounds.

R2B
Resident 2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 11:27 PM   #22
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Diesel Engines

Resident 2B:

The diesel submarine that I served on in the late 1960's had three 1600 HP Faibanks Morse opposed piston diesel motors, and they looked a lot bigger than the two engines in the Mount's engine room. I stand by my 1230 or closely thereabouts horsepower figure, definately not 13,000 HP.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-2006, 11:46 PM   #23
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 922
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default GWC and Carguy, you guys are right!

I just dug out my special edition of the Weirs Times on the Mount and it states "two 615 hp Enterprise diesels".

I will always admit it when I am wrong, and I was! I am still very surprised about the low power.

R2B
Resident 2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 06:26 AM   #24
mcdude
Senior Member
 
mcdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rock Haven Lake - West Newfield, ME
Posts: 5,070
Thanks: 307
Thanked 717 Times in 345 Posts
Default 1300 Horsepower


mcdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 07:22 AM   #25
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Lightbulb Torque vs power

As was stated earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWC
In a word: Torque
I'd say torque for acceleration, power for speed.

Torque is a force and Newton wasn't kidding when he said F=MA or turning it around, acceleration = force (or torque)/ mass. I don't know the torque #'s for the Mount (and what, if any, gear ratio is used) but they must be large to move that ship. Power is the rate at which work is being done and HP = torque * RPM * conversion factor. The conversion factor is a number that scales ft-lbs & rpm into HP, or newton-meters & rad/sec into watts, or whatever, depending on the units you're using. So relatively low HP can still move big masses (high torque) but the RPMs will be low. The acceleration of the Mount is also pretty slow when compared to a typical boat. Even a low torque engine could theoretically move the Mount but you might only gain 1 mph every hour.

As for theoretical top speed, I recall the approximation that hull speed (knots) is 1.33 * square root (waterline length). I'm not sure what the LWL is for the Mount, mebbe 200 ft or so ? So that's about 19 knots. With a lot more HP you can go (slightly) faster and perhaps the Mount is more "draggy" that typical so it might top out lower than predicted. Could also be that the prop pitch and gearing is such that redline is hit before max "hull speed". I dunno. Anyone know what the redline on the Mount is ?

For more that I care to know, you can look here. Using their formulas I get a delivered power requirement of 628 HP for the Mount to do 18.8 knots. Given the losses in the prop/water coupling and then in the gearbox/transmission, the HP needed at the engine is at least 20% higher. So, contrary to expectation, the Mount's twin ~650 HP engines appear to adequate (given the ballpark nature of my calculations) to overcome the water's friction (drag). Kinda surprised me too. The residual HP (1300-[628+20%]) can then be used to fight the resistance that comes from making the wake(s). I leave it to the reader to calculate how much HP is needed to overcome wake resistance (and yes, there will be a quiz in the AM).

ps - During one of cruises I asked one the Mount's crew what her top speed was and the answer was about 14 knots or a little over 15 mph. Not sure what typical cruise speed is.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH

Last edited by Mee-n-Mac; 09-29-2006 at 08:01 AM.
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 07:32 AM   #26
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Horsepower of Mount

McDude:

Thanks for the photo and your input.

Resident 2B:

I also pulled out one of my special editions of the Weirs Times yesterday. I forgot that I had a couple of these, for they are over 10 years old. I got most of my information from Blackstone's Farewell to thee Old MT. WASHINGTON. You just had too many zeros in your horsepower rating. You would think that they would have had bigger engines, but possibly that old iron hull couldn't take the stress. Back in the 1950's I think I recall that the Mount might have been faster, let's say 20 MPH top speed. Adding a 25' extension, more equipment, and more superstructure, increased the weight of the Mount quite a bit, thus slowing it's top end speed down to around 15 MPH. Only the operators of the Mount could substantiate this theory.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 09:52 AM   #27
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 698
Thanks: 38
Thanked 114 Times in 59 Posts
Default I will not reveal my sources.......

But in a nutshell.
The engines are inline 8 cyl Enterprise Diesels 615hp each
Direct Reversing, Direct Drive, No transmissions, therefore no powerloss in transmission.
The props are 60 inch in Diameter

The top speed on the GPS is approx 14.8mph
Night cruises are typically around 9.9 mph

She slides through the water fairly well for her size.

The gentleman in that picture by the starboard engine is Doc Watson former Chief Engineer for Winni Flagship.
WeirsBeachBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 11:10 AM   #28
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Something to pass the time on a rainy day...

Mount history:
http://www.lwhs.us/steam-mtwashhistory.htm

A website about Enterprise Diesel Engines:
http://www.oldtacomamarine.com/enterprisemore.html
Notice the RPM of the listed engines, and their Bore and Stroke – big and slow, like an elephant.

Pictures of an eight cylinder from two different angle.


__________________
[Assume funny, clever sig is here. Laugh and reflect... ]
GWC... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 11:35 AM   #29
Weirs guy
Senior Member
 
Weirs guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

OK WeirsBeachBoater, the only way to settle this is we all need to take a little spin in her and see what she's got. Lets say Monday afternoon?

The old girl generates enough torque that when shes put into full reverse when pulling into the Weirs docks she'll shake the windows in my house from about 1/4 of a mile away. Thats a lot of water displacement.
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet?

Now?
Weirs guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 11:37 AM   #30
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 698
Thanks: 38
Thanked 114 Times in 59 Posts
Default Bore and Stroke

The model engines that are in the mount are 12X15 Bore-Stroke
WeirsBeachBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 11:47 AM   #31
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Wink That's an odd elephant

Anyone notice the cylinder counts on some of the other Enterprise diesel engines ? 7 and 9, how very odd. Now maybe WBB's secret source can tell us the pitch of the screws ....
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-29-2006, 05:30 PM   #32
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 698
Thanks: 38
Thanked 114 Times in 59 Posts
Default I can't tell all the secrets

The engineers will send their goons after me if i tell all the Mounts secrets.
WeirsBeachBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2006, 02:57 PM   #33
mcdude
Senior Member
 
mcdude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rock Haven Lake - West Newfield, ME
Posts: 5,070
Thanks: 307
Thanked 717 Times in 345 Posts
Default Another Shot of the Mount in 1940

Here she is seen at the Weirs shortly after her launching.
__________________

mcdude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2006, 06:55 PM   #34
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Mt Washington Ii In 1940

McDude:

Nice photo of the Mount in 1940. I have never seen this particular photo before in any of Heald's books or Blackstone's books on the Mount.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2006, 09:51 PM   #35
skprbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 19 Mile Bay
Posts: 128
Thanks: 0
Thanked 74 Times in 20 Posts
Default Mount facts

A nice thread - to confirm some of the items:

The Mount's engines are 1946 Enterprise, 615 HP each. 12 in bore, 15 in stroke. They top out at 450 rpm, but are normally run at a 400 rpm maximum. At that speed, she makes almost 15 mph with an average load. At so-called 2/3 throttle, or 300 rpm, she makes just over 10 mph.

The drive train is direct drive - no transmissions - so "neutral" is actually shut down. To reverse, the engines are restarted with the opposite rotation. Incidentally, she got new props two years ago. The old ones were originally 60 in diameter, but had actually worn down over the years to 55 in. The new ones are back to 60 in with much improved efficiency.

Also - great pictures! And yes, the man in the engine room is Darryl "Doc" Watson - now retired.
skprbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2006, 10:10 PM   #36
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Mount's Speed

SKPRBOB:

Did the Mount ever run faster than 15 MPH?

I recall that she did around 20 MPH back in the late 1950's, long before the 25 foot addition and additional superstructure pieces.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 07:33 AM   #37
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Question Mount's wake

Quote:
Originally Posted by carguy
SKPRBOB:

Did the Mount ever run faster than 15 MPH?

I recall that she did around 20 MPH back in the late 1950's, long before the 25 foot addition and additional superstructure pieces.
Here's a thought. I can't say anything about her top speed then vs now but I will say the wake size sure seems smaller now vs then. If I'm correct in this recollection then I'll further speculate that the top speed now is the same (? perhaps higher ?) as back then. Here's my thinking ... keeping all other things the same, whatever increase in drag she gained due to the added wetted area was offset by a reduction in drag due less energy lost in making a wake. Where did these competing interests balance out ? Got me, perhaps some secret sources can tell us.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 09:55 AM   #38
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
Here's a thought. I can't say anything about her top speed then vs now but I will say the wake size sure seems smaller now vs then. If I'm correct in this recollection then I'll further speculate that the top speed now is the same (? perhaps higher ?) as back then. Here's my thinking ... keeping all other things the same, whatever increase in drag she gained due to the added wetted area was offset by a reduction in drag due less energy lost in making a wake. Where did these competing interests balance out ? Got me, perhaps some secret sources can tell us.
Yes, the Mount's wake does seem lower in height than it did when I was a kid. Back in the late 1950's as a boy at Lake Shore Park, one of the highlights of the day on the waterfront was riding the wakes of both the Mount Washington and the Sophie C., in our inner tubes, as the wakes crashed against the concrete wall by the Big Pier. The Mount's wake was wider, but the Sophie C.'s wake was higher. Back in those days, prior to being the mail boat, the Sophie C. almost had the same route as the Mount. The Mount had a four hour trip that included the ports of the Weirs, Center Harbor, Wolfeboro, Alton Bay, and back to the Weirs. The Mount made this run twice a day. The Mount passed Lake Shore Park at 12:45 PM and 5:45 PM. You could set your watch by it passing the Big Pier.
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360

Last edited by carguy; 10-04-2006 at 01:43 PM.
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 03:59 PM   #39
skprbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 19 Mile Bay
Posts: 128
Thanks: 0
Thanked 74 Times in 20 Posts
Default

I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the Mount went faster than 15 mph back in the 50's since her engines were usually run up around the 450 rpm level. Nowadays, although they're still capable of 450, 405 rpm is the normal max. Plus the routes are now shorter than they were then.
Those of you who remember a larger wake back then are right. Her wake got smaller when she was lengthened. She got longer, but not wider. Also, the new section actually increased buoyancy, requiring several tons of concrete ballast to bring her back down to the proper water line.
skprbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2006, 10:14 PM   #40
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default Mount Washington Questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by skprbob
I don't know for sure, but I strongly suspect that the Mount went faster than 15 mph back in the 50's since her engines were usually run up around the 450 rpm level. Nowadays, although they're still capable of 450, 405 rpm is the normal max. Plus the routes are now shorter than they were then.
Those of you who remember a larger wake back then are right. Her wake got smaller when she was lengthened. She got longer, but not wider. Also, the new section actually increased buoyancy, requiring several tons of concrete ballast to bring her back down to the proper water line.

Skprbob:

You are very knowledgeable about the Mount. You wouldn't be a crew member would you?

I was hoping to get some scenes dated from my old video on the Lakes Region. I was thinking that you might know who the crew member is in the attached photo, and when he served on the Mount. I am guessing the early 1950's.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2006, 07:58 PM   #41
Captain Bob
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 28
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

skprbob and carguy -

So glad I tossed out my recollection of twin 650-horse diesels, and almost 25 mph! Looks like my memory wasn't THAT far off.

carguy - You have the same EXACT recollection of Lake Shore Park Mount times as I do - that's when we had to head back for lunch and supper - only we called it "quarter of 1 and quarter of 6".

skprbob - couldn't help notice the similarity in screen names - you're not a fan of the old Boston TV skipper who told stories, drew pictures, and hosted cartoons, are you?

- Captain Bob
Captain Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2006, 11:12 AM   #42
Weirs guy
Senior Member
 
Weirs guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 1,067
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skprbob
Incidentally, she got new props two years ago. The old ones were originally 60 in diameter, but had actually worn down over the years to 55 in. The new ones are back to 60 in with much improved efficiency.
Assuming her props were original to the 1940 refit (or even younger) thats around 1" off the diameter every decade?!?
__________________
Is it bikeweek yet?

Now?
Weirs guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2006, 11:17 AM   #43
skprbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 19 Mile Bay
Posts: 128
Thanks: 0
Thanked 74 Times in 20 Posts
Default

carguy - Yes, I'm a pilot and engineer, seasonal/fulltime since 1994.

Capt. Bob - The screen name comes from the years when I skippered the Sophie C as a seasonal crew member. Best summer job for a schoolteacher that I can think of!
skprbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 03:30 PM   #44
gtxrider
Senior Member
 
gtxrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Piscataway, NJ
Posts: 1,030
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 24 Posts
Default Wake Size

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac
Here's a thought. I can't say anything about her top speed then vs now but I will say the wake size sure seems smaller now vs then. If I'm correct in this recollection then I'll further speculate that the top speed now is the same (? perhaps higher ?) as back then. Here's my thinking ... keeping all other things the same, whatever increase in drag she gained due to the added wetted area was offset by a reduction in drag due less energy lost in making a wake. Where did these competing interests balance out ? Got me, perhaps some secret sources can tell us.
I remember the wake being bigger but than I was smaller. We used to try to get our skiing in before the morning run down Alton Bay. It seemed after the Mount came by the water stayed rough until much later in the day. Back in those days she made 2 trips every day. I think the morning run came by before 11:00AM

I miss the toot as she passes Sandy Point
gtxrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 06:06 PM   #45
Captain Bob
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 28
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skprbob
Capt. Bob - The screen name comes from the years when I skippered the Sophie C as a seasonal crew member. Best summer job for a schoolteacher that I can think of!
Skprbob,

I realize I should know this, but is the Sophie C still in operation? As a kid 50's/60'5, it was always the Mount, The Sophie C, and the Doris E, plus some lake speed boats like the Miss Winnepesaukee - but the only one I was ever on (5-6 times) was the Mount! I thought teachers were lucky that they got the summer "off" - seems like your summer employment was an even better deal!

Captain Bob
Captain Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 06:57 PM   #46
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 698
Thanks: 38
Thanked 114 Times in 59 Posts
Default Sophie C.

Still in operation. Celebrating over 60yrs!!! Delivers the mail June 15th thru the second Saturday in Sept. Great Fun, getting to interact with the islanders. Especially 3 mile
WeirsBeachBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 06:58 PM   #47
skprbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 19 Mile Bay
Posts: 128
Thanks: 0
Thanked 74 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Captain Bob - Sophie is very much in operation, though done for this season. Her mail delivery runs from June 15 through the Saturday after Labor Day and leaves Weirs Beach at 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM for two hour trips. That was a job I enjoyed very much and I try to get back to her a few times a season, mostly in the early and late season when her current skipper must return to his classroom! Doris is also still around, but also done for this season.

gtxrider - you can still catch the Mount in Alton Bay on Sundays and Thursdays through the end of October, around 11:15 and 2:00 (those times VERY approximate).
skprbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2006, 12:14 PM   #48
carguy
Senior Member
 
carguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 199
Thanks: 4
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carguy
The Mount when originally put into service in late 1940 had some initial performance problems. The boat was steam powered and due to boiler heating problems and propeller cavitation, her cruising speed was lower than expected. She could not make her 65 mile four port run in four hours or under. She took nearly twice the normal four hours to complete the trip even with Center Harbor being omitted from the ports of call. The boiler problems were remedied by adjusting the boiler oil burners. The two propellers were not sitting deep enough in the water to get the bite they needed to drive the vessel. This problem was corrected by adding horizontal plates over each propeller to prevent the propeller cavitation that was caused by the propeller breaking the water surface.

The SS MT. WASHINGTON II had other problems mainly being financial. The boat had a very short operating season in 1940, and cost of operation increased immensely in 1941 due to shortages caused by the War in Europe. Income was inadequate to keep the boat in operation, and with the US entering WWII, the owners of the new SS MT WASHINGTON II declared bankruptcy in August of 1942. The boat sat idle during the war years at Center Harbor. Her steam engines commandeered by the Coast Guard during this lay-up period.

In 1946 the new owners of the Mount installed two new Enterprise diesel engines, 615 horsepower each to replace the steam plant that had been taken out in 1942. The pilot house was moved from the second deck to the third deck to provide for better visability and more passenger room. The official name of the vessel was changed from S.S. MT. WASHINGTON II to M.V. MOUNT WASHINGTON without the roman numeral II, and with full spelling of Mount.
I was looking at some photos today in this forum of the Mount in drydock. There is a good picture of the horizontal aligned cavitation plates that were added to the SS MT Washington II in order to give the propellers more bite in the water, thus making them more efficient and increasing the Mount's speed. The white arrow is pointing to the plates above the port side propeller.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Best Regards,

Carguy
Norwich, CT 06360
carguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2006, 01:42 PM   #49
Boat_captain
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Meredith, NH
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Mt Washington Carnival Lights

I think the Mt. Washington Carnival lights are a little tacky.
They often look burned out in segments.
Shouldn't they be replaced with something more fitting?
Whoever replaces the light bulbs must get tired of it.

Those lights would look better multi colored for the holiday's.
Boat_captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2006, 04:46 PM   #50
WeirsBeachBoater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 698
Thanks: 38
Thanked 114 Times in 59 Posts
Default Carnival Lights

The sections you mention are probably aft of the stack where soot accumulates. I am sure the man in charge of the carnival lights would love to see a change.

I do take some point in your post, but I can't help noticing that you only have 2 posts to your credit, and both are negative. I hope you realize that the winni.com community is a nice place and we all try and play well with others.
WeirsBeachBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2006, 05:14 PM   #51
Boat_captain
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Meredith, NH
Posts: 11
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Carnival Lights on the Mount

I totaly agree with you about the exhaust causing problems on the lights.
It just seems they do get a little dull from time to time.
Maintenance must be a real pain for the guy that does the job on the lights.

Last edited by Boat_captain; 12-02-2006 at 06:19 PM.
Boat_captain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.26613 seconds