In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
Built in 1971. Rust in the bottom plates, been repaired by welding new
plate over the old rather than trashing the interior and cutting out
the old plate. This isn't a good technique IMO as it doesn't address
*why* the plate rusted in the first place, which was probably from
trapped water inside the hull.


And it gives more space to trap water in.

Agreed. And if rust starts between plates, it's going to force the
plates further apart. That's why I really don't think much of doing it.
It's fast & cheap compared with the alternatives but....

But it does add weight down
low, and it's relatively cheap... if it gives the boat enough life span
to last out your likely tenure of ownership, why not?

Yeah, if you want to look at it like that, fair enough. It makes me
uncomfortable tho.


Doug, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig on that hull and I don't
understand why you think there is. It was designed for the rig.


I just don't like junks. They have a lot of windage,

True.

proportionately
more weight aloft,

But why is this bad? Taken to a logical conclusion, you're saying the
less weight aloft the better. In practice this has been shown to be a
bad assumption. Weight aloft damps out roll, extends roll period and
provides more inertia to resist rolling over. I agree that too much
weight aloft isn't going to be good either, but the implication that
more is bad doesn't hold up.

they're usually underpowered (this one less so than
others), they don't point very well. As a matter of personal taste, I
don't like the way they look.

But other than that, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig

I don't really have any feelings pro/con about the looks. They're
different is all. As to pointing, true but so what? It's not designed
as any sort of racing vessel. That hull form won't point as high as a
fin keeled sloop no matter what rig it has. It's not designed for it.

In fact, I think it'd make a great rig for low-budget passagemaking.
Effective & easy to control, easily reefable (a big big plus).

Which is what it was designed for.

But it's
dependent on the cutting edge of 17th century technology. With just a
teensy bit more budget,

Like somewhere in the vicinity of 10X, I'd venture to say......

you could have a full batten Marconi rig with
lazyjacks & a solid vang... easier to control

Pardon? I think your experience with junk rigs is about the same as
mine ie zero. So where do you get this from? Everything I've read
indicates that there is no rig easier to control than the junk rig, on
a vessel of this size. I remember reading Annie Hill's account of
sailing around the Falklands in a junk rig schooner, in pretty dirty
conditions, on a 34' Benford dory. She also said that they used to own
a 6 metre sloop that went to windward like a witch, and hated it for
passagemaking. It either sailed at 2 knots to windward sans jib, or 6+
with even a small jib, with spray and a nasty motion making life
unpleasant. That's fine if you're racing I suppose but not cruising.
Their dory apparently jogs along to windward at 4 knots with a
comfortable ride and not much spray flying.

& would sail rings around
any junk.

On what point(s) of sailing? Upwind, maybe - if you care. IIRC Colvin
said the rig points as high as a Marconi rig but made more leeway. OTOH
it tended to run away downwind as the sails could be set wing & wing
easily, without the main blanketing the fore. You could also sail by
the lee without any dramas and a gybe was also pretty drama free as the
balanced lug damped out the motion when the sails swung across. Short
tacking up a channel was effortless.

This type equipment has been off-the-shelf for twenty years
now and is quite scroungable.

I simply do not believe that you can build a fully battened Marconi rig
for anything like the price of a junk rig. Nothing I've ever read
indicates that you can even get close. Are you going to have the same
height mast(s)? If so, where's the gain in sail area? If not, how much
higher are you going to go and how do you propose to brace the mast(s)?
Adding spreaders and more rigging wire costs money, increases the rig
loadings and requires either higher tensile strength materials or
thicker materials to gain the needed strength. The batten cars cost a
hell of a lot more than the junk sail lacing. The sailcloth for a
battened Marconi sail needs to be of a lot higher standard than for a
junk sail. Etc. I point out that if you increase the rig height then
you're most likely going to have to start reefing in lighter air due to
the extra leverage aloft, unless you also increase ballast/draft as
well. There goes the shoal draft gunkholing ability.....

The funny thing is, a fully battened Marconi rig starts resembling a
junk rig sans the bit in front of the mast......


One of Colvin's junk-rigged schooners entered the Chesapeake Bay Great
Schooner Race some years ago, and dropped out because she fell far far
behind the fleet.

Shrug. Bob in his dream Bendy would trail any field, too. Does it say
something about the vessel, the sailor, or maybe both?

This particular vessel (Migrant) has been recorded as doing consistent
140+ mile days cruising over many passages & many years. IIRC Thom said
Dick Johnson used to just sail her off pretty much regardless of the
weather, short handed.

The junk rig doesn't do much for me, personally, and I wouldn't put one
on a boat myself, but they do work very well for short handed cruising
boats. There's been some 700+ Gazelle design boats built so far (not
all junk rigged). How many production boats have got to that number of
hulls in the water?

PDW