Talk:HMS Fame (1759)

Draught

Greetings. As a reader I feel more details about her draught are needed if this sentence is to be considered worthy of inclusion. What was her draught, was it larger or smaller than all previous sizes, what problems (if any) did it cause. There appears to be a contradiction with HMS Suffolk (1765) also built to the same unique draught. Regards JRPG (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@JRPG: Agree. It's an error in the article text - what is meant is that it's the only vessel built to this specific architectural draft - Bately's design wasn't an improvement on Slade's Dublin-class, and the Navy went back to Slade for subsequent 74-gun ships. Bately got one more go in 1760 with designs for HMS Canada, but he was never that successful in this space and Fame's design wasn't replicated in later ships.

I've expanded the section with some details of construction - nothing very interesting, just some detail on costs and crew. Along the way I've removed the "explain" tag along with the sentence it was part of - let me know if this is ok, and/or if the additions also fall short. A fair bit more to do on this article - will get back to the rest sometime before New Year. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hope your family something of you over Christmas! No problems with removing tag but what you appear to be saying was that the changes were made for no known good reason.

This sounds strange to me from an engineering viewpoint & I suppose using natural materials may impose unwanted limits on design. If you know what the change intention was that would be useful, if not no problem. Regards JRPG (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)