The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

30 Lieut. F. T. Evans, United States navy: As it will be impossible 'for me to be present at the meeting when the paper by Naval Constructor L. S. Adams, United States navy, 'Motor Boats for Naval Service" is: read, I write to say that I heartily endorse Mr. Adams' paper. The 'subject of explosive engines for our small boats has interested me for several years, and it was at my request that the Dart was built and equipped. Dut- ing the year or mofe that «1° had charge of her, the engine did not once, per se, refuse to start, nor did it ever give any trouble while running. Once, the presence of water in the cylin- ders, due to.a cracked cylinder, made starting difficult, and once, a~- flap valve in the carbureter delayed the starting. The boat ran at high main- tained speeds in all sorts of weather. The 40-ft. barge referred to by. Mr. Adams was built at my suggestion, but her installation of a jump 'spark engine has never given complete sat- isfaction: . This boat is . peculiar. in that at slow speed she will ship quan- tities of water while at full speed in- similar weather she takes none. This was fully demonstrated in New York harbor where she drowned her engine while slowed down, but after being dried out, ran from Twenty-third street, East river, to Tompkinsville, in less than half an hour. a The gasoline installation in whale- ' boats I consider very good in the- ony, but as yet I think the right engine has not been used. These boats are such good sea boats that" their design should not be changed, except after most mature delibéra- tidn. o I have seen something of gasoline dories on board ships, having been part owner of two on _ board the Louisiana. The first was bought sec- ond-hand in Provincetown, Mass., was about 26 ft. over all, built by the E. Gerry Emmons Corporation, Swamp- scott, Mass., and equipped with a 6%2-H. P. Lathrop engine. She was an excellent boat. The second was built by the same company for the officers, and similarly equipped. Mr. Adams seems to think that these boats cannot be driven to windward, 'but in this he is mistaken, for the Cape Cod fishermen drive them any- where. The boats, however, are fit- ted with a tent canopy, which keeps the water out, and the Lathrop "engine being a strong make and break can stand the racket. If the officers of the navy would be satisfied with moderate speed in motor boats, I feel confident that it would hasten the installation of in- *isfactory THe Marine REVIEW terior combustion engines whose ul- timate acceptance I feel is assured. I regret that time fails me for a longer discussion. Lieut. Com'dr C. Theo. Vogelsung, United States navy: Replying to the invitation of the Society of Naval Ar- chitects and Marine Engineers to dis- cuss the paper on "Motor Boats for Naval Service' to be read at the forthcoming meéting of that society, I beg to submit the following re- marks: With regard to the storage of gaso- line, it would seem that all things considered it would be better to have it .stored in suitable tanks on the weather deck. While this would un- doubted'y be a menace to a ship in time of action, it does not seem to be unreasonable to provide that when an engagement is probable and the ship is. finally and completely cleared for. action, the tank be emptied and the contents delivered overboard. If your vessel survives the conflict, it would not be difficult to obtain more gasoline, and if you did not survive the loss would not be felt. On the general subject of the ad- visability of the adoption of the gaso- line or other explosive engine for the service in place of the steam engines now in use in.small boats, | am in hearty accord with the writer. I do not believe that sufficiently sat- results would be obtained by the substitution of gasoline en- gines for steam engines in the launch- es, as at present constructed, to war- rant such change. It would be better to begin at once upon a new design of boat constructed especially for ser- vice with gasoline engines, and let them be introduced on board ship gradually for a time, when they would be brought into competition with the present standard navy steam cutters and the advantages: or disadvantages of the new design become evident. What is needed in boats in service nowadays is speed, seaworthiness and catrying capacity, and it is my opinion that these requisites can be obtained in greater measure by using gasoline or other explosive engines than with steam power in boats of equal size, and at the same time save in weight, which is -an important collateral fac- tor. : In the matter of what might be termed the freight and liberty boats; such as sailing launches and large cut- ters, it would be a positive advantage to have them equipped with a small power gasoline engine, say 6 H. Ps that would 'be ready for use at a mo- ment's notice and be capab'e of being handled by three men, with all the other space available for passengers or freight, a condition not obtained as at present equipped, except when be- ing towed. © ' - Power boats are now being used at life saving stations, replacing the man- power life boats. This is a distinct indication of their trustworthiness and seaworthiness, and it suggests the em- ployment of such boats in the naval service for a like purpose. Capt. A. C. Dillingham, United States navy: >I have read with much interest the paper, "Motor Bots. fon the Naval Sérvice," by Naval Constructor Adams, U. S. N., and respectfully submit to your soci- ety a few ideas that have occurred to me in going over Mr. Adams' paper. I do not believe that there is any prejudice in the navy on the part of naval officers against carrying gaso- line, or anything else that will add to the efficiency of a fighting ship, but the trouble is more on account of the organization. It is very difficult to make an innovation, and in this particular case, motor boats, though I think naval officers are familiar with their possibilities, naval constructors have not yet presented a design suit- able from a sailorman's view point, to meet the conditions in the navy. One of the questions under dis- cussion is, if it 'is desirable to use gasoline engines for boats in the navy instead of steam, is it advisable to carry: gasoline aboard a man-o'-war? The fact that the commander-in-chief of the Atlantic fleet would not ob- ject to carrying one more explosive aboard his ships, is not a great argu- ment as to the safety in carrying the liquid, but the experience with gaso- line aboard our submarines, as cited by the author, is a strong argument for carrying the liquid, and it would seem if the same attention to precautions against accident is paid to gasoline that is given to other explosives aboard ship, the risk would, at least, be reduced to a minimum. It becomes a question in consider- ing the adoption of gasoline engines for boats in the service, whether or not the advantages to be gained by their use is worth the risk in carry- ing the liquid. The radius of cruising with a gasoline boat is confined to the limit of the supply, so if motor boats are adopted, it would be necessary to carry a large amount of gasoline, and this suggests the advantage of a steamer, which is not mentioned by the author; that the steamer is not confined to coal, but may use any- thing that will burn or generate steam, and we frequently have had