That's a lot of boat for 50K.

SBV


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail


your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC.

PDW

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.

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.

PDW

In article , Scotty
wrote:

That's a lot of boat for 50K.

SBV


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail


your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC.

PDW

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. 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?


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, proportionately
more weight aloft, 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

In fact, I think it'd make a great rig for low-budget passagemaking.
Effective & easy to control, easily reefable (a big big plus). But it's
dependent on the cutting edge of 17th century technology. With just a
teensy bit more budget, you could have a full batten Marconi rig with
lazyjacks & a solid vang... easier to control & would sail rings around
any junk. This type equipment has been off-the-shelf for twenty years
now and is quite scroungable.

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.

DSK

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

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?

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


It would me, too. But as a practical matter of boat-keeping, you cannot
make everything perfect.



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.

From a standpoint of stability & speed, that's true. But I agree with
you that there are other factors.

... 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.


Depends on what you want the boat to do. Roll damping is good, but
weight aloft also hurts LPOS.


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.


Dunno about pointing, it's true that it's not going to climb to windward
like a 12-Meter no matter what rig you put on that hull. But I'm
uncomfortable with a boat, no matter how "cruisy," that does not go to
windward pretty well, or (as many cruising boats) will only make ground
to weather at all in ideal conditions. Too easy to get trapped, and too
dependent on the engine (odd as it may sound for a tug boat owner to say
that).

What's worse, many boats that have difficulty getting to windward are
ulso unhandy on the helm & reluctant in stays. It's a vicious circle.

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......


Not at all. Part of what I'm trying to say is that all the stuff to
build a rig like that can be picked up 2nd hand or free, if you don't
mind spending the time hunting around. Around any recreational sailing
area, it's easier to find parts for than a junk rig.


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.

I have never sailed one myself, I have sailed in company with a fair
number, and in a variety of conditions.

... 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.

Well, the solid vang & lazy jack full batten marconi may not be easier
than the junk rig, but it's simpler. And it's the easiest rig I have
experience with, it's almost no work at all.

I think the people who extol the junk rig are very full of descriptives
like "no rig easier to control" when that's not really quantifiable...
and the rig they are extolling is also "easier to control" because
there's less of it. I also wonder how many of them have much experience
with modern rigs... the same crowd seems very down on roller furling &
self tailing winches.

Another point is that "easy to control" and "inexpensive" are the junk
rigs *only* two virtues.


.... 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.

Yep, 'Badger' IIRC, cool boat & a good story too.

... 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.


heh heh as a former owner of a 6-Meter, I can see where she's coming
from. OTOH I don't think they invested much time & effort in optimizing
their 6's rig, or learning how to get the most out of it. A fractional
Marconi rig is pretty easy to depower, and given a solid vang &
lazyjacks, simplicity itself to reef down.

But the 6-Meter is a wet & cramped boat, uncomfortable for any sort of
cruising. And it would be, regardless of what sort of rig one had on it.
I did some brief cruises on mine (owned in partnership, really) and just
anchoring the damn thing was a total PITA.

But it was a *gorgeous* boat, and lots of fun to sail.


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.

That may have been true, given less effective underwater foils, back in
the 1960s.


... OTOH
it tended to run away downwind as the sails could be set wing & wing
easily, without the main blanketing the fore.

Sorry, I don't think that a heavy junk-rigged schooner is going to "run
away" from any but the pokiest marconi rigged boat, and that without any
flying sails set.

... You could also sail by
the lee without any dramas

A matter of skill on the part of the helmsman

... and a gybe was also pretty drama free as the
balanced lug damped out the motion when the sails swung across.

Now that much is true. Add that to the list of virtues... "easy to
control", cheap, and easy to gybe.


... Short
tacking up a channel was effortless.


So is a gaff cat, or cat ketch, or sloop with no jib or self-tacking
jib... and a sloop with a small jib is not difficult.

I think this assumes that the only possible comparison is to one of
those 1960s masthead rigs that need a huge genoa.


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.

Why not? Go scrounge around a boat yard nowadays, you'll find lots of
2nd hand parts & components for such a rig... and darn few junk rig
parts. Of course, if you're shopping at the farm & truck supply place,
then maybe you can cobble together something, and it won't cost much...
but then neither will the boatyard cast-offs.


... 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?

In staysails & flying sails, and the Marconi sails are more efficient.
But with less weight and less windage aloft, there's no reason to not go
higher. In fact a higher rig of the same weight provides more
damping.... so there you go!



... 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.

True enough, and those materials are very common & easy to find.

As I said, if one is determined to use 17th century technology, then the
junk rig makes a great choice.



....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.

In other words, you want to stitch burlap bags together and hang it on a
rig assembled from odds & ends out of a discount plumber's supply? Be my
guest... I won't even fuss when you brag about how easy it is to control!


... 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.....


If the boat *sails* well in relatively light air, thent what's the issue
of having to reef? As long as the boat sails well when reefed, and the
reef can be taken in or shaken out without too much labor ...and with
the solid vang & lazy jacks, it's a matter of easing one line and
pulling another, while the sailing characterisitics remain pretty much
the same...

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


Yes it does.


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?


Prob'ly a little of both. I bet the skipper was not very experienced
with his boat, and uncomfortable driving hard.


This particular vessel (Migrant) has been recorded as doing consistent
140+ mile days cruising over many passages & many years.

That's pretty good. OTOH it's also a big boat. 140 mile days on a 40' +
LWL is comparable to 90 mile days with a 32' LWL.



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?


Only the ones that have been very successfully marketed... as have the
junk rigs!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Doug,

A junk sail will out last a marconi by years and years and not loss
efficiency as does a marconi. Both great for real cruising sails and a
patched junk sail will sail as well as a new sail. The material isn't
nearly as critical or expensive as a marconi. Another nice feature for a
cruiser located somewhere in the far corner of the world.

I agree with you Doug, I like the Marconi better for knocking about or
Racing. I don't, however put down the Junk Sail. It has stood up for
centuries in its present form. I also don't over look the many
modification to the Marconi that seem to be already present in the Junk.
Full battens, longer roaches, making necessary removing back stays; as
with Hunters or Lightnings, removing standing rigging and using a
balanced Sail to prevent weather helm.

I envied Dick Johnson and "Migrant" on their ability to take off and
cruise for extended times without fuss; due largely to that Junk Rig and
Colvin Hull. About that upwind ability; remember the old say;"Cruising
Gentlemen don't sail against the wind." I might even add they buy
"Trawlers" often to go to Windward.

Ole Thom

In article , DSK
wrote:

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?

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


It would me, too. But as a practical matter of boat-keeping, you cannot
make everything perfect.



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.

From a standpoint of stability & speed, that's true. But I agree with
you that there are other factors.

Yeah. Like, taken to its ultimate, you have no rig at all and end up
with..... a tug boat!

... 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.


Depends on what you want the boat to do. Roll damping is good, but
weight aloft also hurts LPOS.

Don't I recall some data from the Fastnet fiasco of some years ago WRT
lack of weight aloft as a contrib factor to rolling over?


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.


Dunno about pointing, it's true that it's not going to climb to windward
like a 12-Meter no matter what rig you put on that hull. But I'm
uncomfortable with a boat, no matter how "cruisy," that does not go to
windward pretty well,

So - what do you mean by 'pretty well'? You're an engineer - give some
figures.

or (as many cruising boats) will only make ground
to weather at all in ideal conditions. Too easy to get trapped, and too
dependent on the engine (odd as it may sound for a tug boat owner to say
that).

Yeah. But what makes you think this criticism applies ot all or even
most junk rigs? I think you've taken assumptions and treated them as
facts. There are at least 2 examples - the Colvin Gazelle design and
the Benford dory - that can & do go to windward in somewhat less than
ideal conditions. The first Gazelle was built and sailed for some years
sans engine. The Hill's dory ditto.

What's worse, many boats that have difficulty getting to windward are
ulso unhandy on the helm & reluctant in stays. It's a vicious circle.

OK, true. But do you think either of these things are peculiar to or
universal amongst junk rigs? If so, why? At least 2 people with junk
rigs disagree with you. Where is the basis for your implication that
junk rig vessels are

a) difficult or impossible to sail to windward
b) unhandy on the helm and
c) reluctant in stays.

It might be a vicious circle, but you haven't demonstrated that it is a
universal characteristic of junk rigs, and people with in excess of
100,000 miles sailing them disagree with you. I'm open to argument, but
all you're doing is making assertions, and those without reference to
any recognised authority.

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......


Not at all. Part of what I'm trying to say is that all the stuff to
build a rig like that can be picked up 2nd hand or free, if you don't
mind spending the time hunting around. Around any recreational sailing
area, it's easier to find parts for than a junk rig.

Doug, almost *any* rig can be picked up 2nd hand or free, if you don't
mind spending time hunting around. I really can't see this is relevant.

I think the people who extol the junk rig are very full of descriptives
like "no rig easier to control" when that's not really quantifiable...
and the rig they are extolling is also "easier to control" because
there's less of it.

So? Still a valid point, if you agree that the objective of a rig is to
get you from A to B in a reasonable time. 'Reasonable' is subject to
definition but I really don't think 140 mile days for a cruising boat
is bad.

I also wonder how many of them have much experience
with modern rigs... the same crowd seems very down on roller furling &
self tailing winches.

Another point is that "easy to control" and "inexpensive" are the junk
rigs *only* two virtues.

How about long lived, difficult to damage and easy to repair?

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.

That may have been true, given less effective underwater foils, back in
the 1960s.

I think we're back to the draft factor again. You're cherry picking. If
you put a highly efficient to windward rig on a shoal draft cruising
vessel, it ain't going to work too well. Keep the engineering params in
mind - it's a cruising vessel with shoal draft for gunkholing.
Demonstrate, within these constraints, your assertion that the Marconi
rig will outpoint the junk rig. I'm happy to be convinced as I don't
know from personal experience myself.

... OTOH
it tended to run away downwind as the sails could be set wing & wing
easily, without the main blanketing the fore.

Sorry, I don't think that a heavy junk-rigged schooner

What do you define as 'heavy'? What displacement?

is going to "run
away" from any but the pokiest marconi rigged boat, and that without any
flying sails set.

... You could also sail by
the lee without any dramas

A matter of skill on the part of the helmsman

... and a gybe was also pretty drama free as the
balanced lug damped out the motion when the sails swung across.

Now that much is true. Add that to the list of virtues... "easy to
control", cheap, and easy to gybe.


... Short
tacking up a channel was effortless.


So is a gaff cat, or cat ketch, or sloop with no jib or self-tacking
jib... and a sloop with a small jib is not difficult.

True. Now, how do those rigs compare to the junk rig in terms of sail
area set?

I simply do not believe that you can build a fully battened Marconi rig
for anything like the price of a junk rig.

Why not? Go scrounge around a boat yard nowadays, you'll find lots of
2nd hand parts & components for such a rig... and darn few junk rig
parts.

Ummmmm, that might be because there are damn few - I hesitate to say
none - specific junk rig parts. Feel free to correct me by listing
some. Therefore, it's a wash at best.

I just did a Google search for used sail batten cars. Guess how many
sites selling them popped up? Nice round number........

Of course, if you're shopping at the farm & truck supply place,
then maybe you can cobble together something, and it won't cost much...
but then neither will the boatyard cast-offs.


... 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?

In staysails & flying sails,

Wellllllll, the Gazelle has a jib and a fisherman as well as its 2 junk
sails. So no gain at all, then.

and the Marconi sails are more efficient.

Doug, Marconi sails are more efficient *to windward*, and only then if
in very good condition. As soon as they get saggy & baggy, the
efficiency goes to hell. On reaching & running the tall Marconi rig is
inefficient compared to almost anything else. I can't find any
authority that says different. Quote me one.

Quoting from:
http://www.kastenmarine.com/gaff_rig.htm
It is well known that higher aspect sails produce greater lift when
close hauled.* It not so widely known however that high aspect sails
stall much more readily as the angle of attack widens. As A/R gets
higher, sails get less and less efficient at pulling when anywhere but
close hauled.
For racing, where windward performance is of prime importance, it has
been shown that an aspect ratio greater than 6 is of little use on
monohull racing craft.* An appropriate range will be an A/R of from 4
to 6.
A polar diagram showing lift vs. drag plotted for sails having the same
area but differing aspect ratios very graphically shows that the
favored lift / drag position is quickly handed off to shorter and
shorter rigs as a sail is eased. If you would like see this data
graphically presented, please have a look at the Aero-hydrodynamics of
Sailing by Marchaj, p. 444, Fig. 2.138.
A study of this data shows that the most favorable aspect ratios for
ocean cruising, where all-around performance is the goal, an aspect
ratio from 2.5 to 3.5 is very appropriate, with an approximate upper
limit of around A/R 4.* Naturally, these are not "hard" boundaries,
only guidelines.* In most cases, a compromise is struck in
consideration of the times inevitably spent sailing to windward.
In the data presented by Marchaj, angle of incidence of the sail is
plotted against lift vs drag.* A sail having an A/R of 6 performs
exceedingly well at an angle of attack to the apparent wind of 10
degrees, where lift divided by drag (L/D) yields a ratio of around
8.5.* At 10 degrees, a sail with A/R 3 has an L/D ratio of 6.5.* At 15
degrees, the A/R 6 sail has an L/D ratio of 4.47, and the A/R 3 sail
has an L/D ratio of 4.5.* At 20 degrees, the A/R 6 sail has an L/D
ratio of 2.7, while the A/R 3 sail has an L/D ratio of 3.3, and so
forth.* By the time an angle of attack of 30 degrees is reached, the
favored position is handed off to a sail with an A/R of 1...!
The salient point is that extremely high aspect sails are not "bad"
sails, they are just not a requirement for general ocean cruising,
where it is rare to be sailing dead to windward.* When required to do
so, sails with an A/R of from 3 to 4 will perform quite well when just
eased off a few degrees.
======================================

Do you disagree with this?

Look, we're referring to cruising boats here, as that's what the
Gazelle is. That means few people doing boat handling for up to 30 days
at sea. Every extra sail you take means that much less space for other
gear & supplies. Seems to me that you're fixated on windward sailing
ability to the detriment of other factors.

But with less weight and less windage aloft, there's no reason to not go
higher. In fact a higher rig of the same weight provides more
damping.... so there you go!



... 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.

True enough, and those materials are very common & easy to find.

............. at a price. I'm in the marine engineering business, I know
what stuff costs.

As I said, if one is determined to use 17th century technology, then the
junk rig makes a great choice.

And if you're determined to use 21C technology, that's a great choice.
For your chandler. If you have deep pockets. For cruising vessels,
there's a point somewhere in between that's appropriate. If you're
cruising from marina to marina and have spare everything a phone call
away, one level of equipment might be appropriate. If you're operating
in distant waters, another might be better. Would you put rod rigging
on a cruising boat under all circumstances? If not, why not? It's more
efficient in terms of reduced stretch.

....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.

In other words, you want to stitch burlap bags together and hang it on a
rig assembled from odds & ends out of a discount plumber's supply? Be my
guest... I won't even fuss when you brag about how easy it is to control!

Come off it. Do you need mylar sails for cruising on a Marconi rigged
boat? They've got better material specs than Dacron. If you're not
using mylar, does that mean you're using the equiv of burlap? How about
rod rigging instead of 1x19 s/steel? Or galv wire instead of s/steel
wire?

That bit of argument is reminiscent of Bobsprit. When you can't refute
the point, go for the exaggeration and hope nobody notices.

... 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.....


If the boat *sails* well in relatively light air, thent what's the issue
of having to reef? As long as the boat sails well when reefed, and the
reef can be taken in or shaken out without too much labor ...and with
the solid vang & lazy jacks, it's a matter of easing one line and
pulling another, while the sailing characterisitics remain pretty much
the same...

Yeah, ok, point - there's no real difference.

This particular vessel (Migrant) has been recorded as doing consistent
140+ mile days cruising over many passages & many years.

That's pretty good. OTOH it's also a big boat. 140 mile days on a 40' +
LWL is comparable to 90 mile days with a 32' LWL.

Except it's 35' LWL, 42' LOD IIRC. I'd need to check the exact figures
but that's close.

How many production boats have got to that number of
hulls in the water?


Only the ones that have been very successfully marketed... as have the
junk rigs!

Ah. Damn few to none, then, that you can find.

Weekend is here and I'm going sailing as I only have 4 weeks left in
this year. This can wait till next week or forever, depending........

PDW

Pete;

There was a guy named; "Blondie Hassler" who put a Junk Sail on a deep
keel cut away hull. 26 feet long. He designed a wind powered self
steering system and sailed her around and around the world by himself.
The boat was named "Jester"

To this day, one of the toughest upwind, single handed races across the
Atlantic Ocean still carries a Class for small craft vessels named the
"JESTER CLASS" So much for Junk Sails not being able to go up wind. A
Folk Boat with a Single Junk Sail was the first winner and the class
carries the name.

Thought you might want to remind Doug that a Junk sail on a upwind
designed hull will go very well upwind and do it easily on the skipper.

Ole Thom

But why is this bad? Taken to a logical conclusion, you're saying the
less weight aloft the better.

From a standpoint of stability & speed, that's true. But I agree with
you that there are other factors.


Peter Wiley wrote:
Yeah. Like, taken to its ultimate, you have no rig at all and end up
with..... a tug boat!


Yep.

OTOH, with no expenditure of money or maintenance time on sails &
rigging, the engine can get more attention and thus be prefectly reliable.





Depends on what you want the boat to do. Roll damping is good, but
weight aloft also hurts LPOS.


Don't I recall some data from the Fastnet fiasco of some years ago WRT
lack of weight aloft as a contrib factor to rolling over?


Don't recall that issue, but a number of the boats had wooden keel shoes
& lead ballast pigs in the bilge in order to raise the CG (thus handily
reducing stability) to gain a more favorable rating.

... But I'm
uncomfortable with a boat, no matter how "cruisy," that does not go to
windward pretty well,


So - what do you mean by 'pretty well'? You're an engineer - give some
figures.


How about a requirement that the boat make a reasonable & reliable VMG,
with good steerageway & reliable in stays, in the roughest 10% of wind &
water conditions near the coasts where she is to be sailed? Assume that
anything rougher, like say a Gulf hurricane, will be avoided.



or (as many cruising boats) will only make ground
to weather at all in ideal conditions. Too easy to get trapped, and too
dependent on the engine (odd as it may sound for a tug boat owner to say
that).


Yeah. But what makes you think this criticism applies ot all or even
most junk rigs? I think you've taken assumptions and treated them as
facts.

To some extent, sure. My experience with junk rigs has been limited to
sailing in company with some & watching them closely, since I'm
interested in them. If it sounds like I'm being dismissive, I'm not...
it's just the junk rig has gotten a huge build-up from so many... often
with less experience than I have myself... and I have not seen much
justification in real-world performance.

For example, it's claimed (and to a large extent I agree) that the junk
rig is easy to handle. But most junk rigs are also small for the boats
they're on... sometimes pitifully small. Well, if it's truly easier to
handle then why don't junk rigs carry *more* sail area, rather than
less? Why do we not see large, easily handled junk rigs on racing boats?



... There are at least 2 examples - the Colvin Gazelle design and
the Benford dory - that can & do go to windward in somewhat less than
ideal conditions. The first Gazelle was built and sailed for some years
sans engine. The Hill's dory ditto.


The Hills are a better example IMHO. Both are also examples of fitting
one's sailing style to the characteristics of the boat. I've got nothing
against that!


What's worse, many boats that have difficulty getting to windward are
ulso unhandy on the helm & reluctant in stays. It's a vicious circle.


OK, true. But do you think either of these things are peculiar to or
universal amongst junk rigs?

I don't think so, but I do think that they are fairly common among junk
rigged boats... mainly because I've observed so many times in real world
performance of junk rigged boats.

... If so, why? At least 2 people with junk
rigs disagree with you.

Uh huh. And of course, those people are totally & completely unbiased,
and I'm sure they also have many years of experience (and success) with
modern high performance marconi rigs


... Where is the basis for your implication that
junk rig vessels are

a) difficult or impossible to sail to windward

Observation, both mine & what is implied by the way junk enthusiasts
describe their boats; and the way that even the best junk rig sailors
sail their boats.

b) unhandy on the helm and
c) reluctant in stays.


That's more a hull design & overall design issue. Long keels and small
unbalanced rudders don't shine in handling.

IIRC Badger had a long fin and a partially balanced rudder.




It might be a vicious circle, but you haven't demonstrated that it is a
universal characteristic of junk rigs

I haven't claimed that it is. Only saying what I think, and what I've
observed.



Doug, almost *any* rig can be picked up 2nd hand or free, if you don't
mind spending time hunting around. I really can't see this is relevant.


Well, it is *very* relevant if the greatest reason for choosing a junk
rig is that it can be put together cheaply.



I think the people who extol the junk rig are very full of descriptives
like "no rig easier to control" when that's not really quantifiable...
and the rig they are extolling is also "easier to control" because
there's less of it.


So? Still a valid point, if you agree that the objective of a rig is to
get you from A to B in a reasonable time. 'Reasonable' is subject to
definition but I really don't think 140 mile days for a cruising boat
is bad.


It's not all that great for a 40+ foot LWL boat. But I agree it's not
shabby, and it does get you there.



I also wonder how many of them have much experience
with modern rigs... the same crowd seems very down on roller furling &
self tailing winches.

Another point is that "easy to control" and "inexpensive" are the junk
rigs *only* two virtues.


How about long lived, difficult to damage and easy to repair?


I would suggest that given similar usage, the junk rig would be no more
longer lived than a full batten marconi, and probably more prone to
damage unless it were made of comparably hi-tech modern materials. "Easy
to repair" is difficult to quantify IMHO, sewing sails is a PITA and
other repairs may be more difficult on one or the other, depending on
what specific part you're talking about.

But for a point of reference, a large number of marconi rogged sloops
with solid vangs, full battens, lazy jacks, and roller furlers, have
circumnavigated with no significant rig failure.



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.

That may have been true, given less effective underwater foils, back in
the 1960s.


I think we're back to the draft factor again. You're cherry picking. If
you put a highly efficient to windward rig on a shoal draft cruising
vessel, it ain't going to work too well. Keep the engineering params in
mind - it's a cruising vessel with shoal draft for gunkholing.

Sure, but if all else is equal, the marconi is still going to be better
at windward sailing.

This one of the basic trade-offs in picking the basic characteristics of
the boat... only after you've settled what you want in the way of LOA,
draft, tonnage, etc etc, should you then consider what is an appropriate
rig.

And in a way, the fact that you don't seem to consider the junk to be an
appropriate rig for a modern light displacement fin keeled racer-cruiser
shows that we are pretty much in agreement on this rig's basic
characateristics

Demonstrate, within these constraints, your assertion that the Marconi
rig will outpoint the junk rig.

For one thing, the battens are all wrong. Have you read what Bolger says
about the difference between the classic junk rig and the full batten
standing lug? In the classic junk rig, the battens are too stiff and
tend to bend the wrong way as the sail powers up. OTOH a standing lug,
if the leach & luff cloths are constructed properly, can be given full
battens and will benefit as much as a marconi from them... provided that
it's set to the lee side of the mast. If on the windward side, the part
of the sail fwd of the mast is basically a useless air brake (this may
be where having a sail made of burlap, or woven palm fronds, gains some
efficiency, as it will bleed off this high pressure pocket into the lee
side flow).




Sorry, I don't think that a heavy junk-rigged schooner


What do you define as 'heavy'? What displacement?


Do you insist on a single cut-off point? Personally, I tend to think of
anything over a D/L of 250 as being on the heavy side, and 350 as really
heavy. A lot of junk rigged boats are pushing 400, which is a crusher of
crab crushers.


... Short
tacking up a channel was effortless.


So is a gaff cat, or cat ketch, or sloop with no jib or self-tacking
jib... and a sloop with a small jib is not difficult.


True. Now, how do those rigs compare to the junk rig in terms of sail
area set?


Depends on the individual boat. There are fractional marconi sloops with
self-tacking jibs in the SA/D range of 20 and up. When you're talking
about 40 footers, that's some big sails.


I simply do not believe that you can build a fully battened Marconi rig
for anything like the price of a junk rig.

Why not? Go scrounge around a boat yard nowadays, you'll find lots of
2nd hand parts & components for such a rig... and darn few junk rig
parts.


Ummmmm, that might be because there are damn few - I hesitate to say
none - specific junk rig parts. Feel free to correct me by listing
some. Therefore, it's a wash at best.

I just did a Google search for used sail batten cars. Guess how many
sites selling them popped up? Nice round number........


heh heh and did you do a search for junk rig parts, too? After all, it
should be a fair comparison.



and the Marconi sails are more efficient.


Doug, Marconi sails are more efficient *to windward*, and only then if
in very good condition. As soon as they get saggy & baggy, the
efficiency goes to hell. On reaching & running the tall Marconi rig is
inefficient compared to almost anything else. I can't find any
authority that says different. Quote me one.


Well, I guess the fact that no development class racing boats are using
gaffs or junks or lugs counts for much, then? Shall we assume that these
guys who judge which boat rig is more efficient by the very simple and
direct expedient of racing them against each other, know absolutely
nothing about which rig is more efficient on a race course that demands
approximately equal distance going upwind & down?

Of course, for cruising, you're not going to be spending equal amounts
of time or distance sailing upwind... but it's still a vital
characteristic IMHO for keeping off lee shores if nothing else. And the
better a boat sails to windward, the wider choices you have of
destinations & the less you need your engine.



Quoting from:
http://www.kastenmarine.com/gaff_rig.htm
It is well known that higher aspect sails produce greater lift when
close hauled. It not so widely known however that high aspect sails
stall much more readily as the angle of attack widens.

Yep. And you know how to fix that wide angle of attack? Ease the sheet a
little bit.


For racing, where windward performance is of prime importance, it has
been shown that an aspect ratio greater than 6 is of little use on
monohull racing craft.

A big part of that is limits of materials, which is changing over time.
Look at how competition glider designs have evolved over the past 30
years with the advent of carbon/epoxy/foam sandwhich structures.


forth. By the time an angle of attack of 30 degrees is reached, the
favored position is handed off to a sail with an A/R of 1...!
The salient point is that extremely high aspect sails are not "bad"
sails, they are just not a requirement for general ocean cruising,
where it is rare to be sailing dead to windward. When required to do
so, sails with an A/R of from 3 to 4 will perform quite well when just
eased off a few degrees.
======================================

Do you disagree with this?


I think it's pretty much irrelevant, as you should never sail with your
sails at an angle of attack of 30 degrees to the apparent wind, unles
you're the Boobsy kind of sailor who just puts his sails up for
appearance and never adjusts the sheets.


Look, we're referring to cruising boats here, as that's what the
Gazelle is. That means few people doing boat handling for up to 30 days
at sea. Every extra sail you take means that much less space for other
gear & supplies. Seems to me that you're fixated on windward sailing
ability to the detriment of other factors.


Possibly. OTOH bringing along an asymmetric spinnaker for trade wind
sailing or drifter to get thru the doldrums is not that big a deal IMHO,
and adds very considerably to the boat's performance.




In other words, you want to stitch burlap bags together and hang it on a
rig assembled from odds & ends out of a discount plumber's supply? Be my
guest... I won't even fuss when you brag about how easy it is to control!


Come off it. Do you need mylar sails for cruising on a Marconi rigged
boat? They've got better material specs than Dacron. If you're not
using mylar, does that mean you're using the equiv of burlap?

Nope. Would you use Dacron for junk sails?

There are guys who vehemently argue in favor of using blue polypro tarp
material, or Tyvek house insulation film, for making boat sails. It
seems to work for them.

If that's what you want, regadless of real wordl factors, then fine. All
I'm saying is that in many cases, the more expensive material is
justified in both better performance and longevity. And good sails are
expensive.


... How about
rod rigging instead of 1x19 s/steel? Or galv wire instead of s/steel
wire?


Why not? At one time I was considering buying a boat with rod rigging,
if I had gone ahead should I have IYHO replaced it all (maybe with
galvanized) so as to make it cheaper & more reliable & more cost
effective? A strange way of saving money.

I don't know much about rod rigging, but I assume it's used on hi-end
racers because it's stronger. Seems to me like if it's set up properly
then on a less stressed rig on a boat used for cruising, it might last a
really long time.


That bit of argument is reminiscent of Bobsprit. When you can't refute
the point, go for the exaggeration and hope nobody notices.


You mean like insisting on that comparison of burlap to mylar sail
performance?



This particular vessel (Migrant) has been recorded as doing consistent
140+ mile days cruising over many passages & many years.

That's pretty good. OTOH it's also a big boat. 140 mile days on a 40' +
LWL is comparable to 90 mile days with a 32' LWL.


Except it's 35' LWL, 42' LOD IIRC. I'd need to check the exact figures
but that's close.


OK, that's a little better.


How many production boats have got to that number of
hulls in the water?


Only the ones that have been very successfully marketed... as have the
junk rigs!


Ah. Damn few to none, then, that you can find.


Hardly. Check the production runs for boats like the Catalina 27 or
Hunter 34, which you'll see examples of in harbors all over the place.
Not my own pick of a cruising boat, but they are cheap & readily
available, and people *have* sailed them to all sorts of places.

Shuck, they're getting close to Lightning # 17,000 now. And probably
Laser # 1,000,000 or so!

But there is a large and very vocal group of junk rig advocates, few of
whom have sailed as far as have the Catalina 27 guys. There are a few
more who really know what they're talking about, but then in the books
cited, they're insisting on comparing the junk to boats of 30+ years ago
(and only recounting those boat's worst attributes) and pointing to
Jester as though she were a hot-shot OSTAR winner. This is dishonest IMHO.



Weekend is here and I'm going sailing as I only have 4 weeks left in
this year. This can wait till next week or forever, depending........

A well thought out replay deserves a well thought out reply. The funny
thing is, the more we hammer this out, the closer we get to actually
agreeing on most points. The junk rig is just fine if that's what you
want, it's quite appropriate on some boats, and it will certainly get
you from port to port.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Pete,

Thanks for the report on "Migrant" Nice to see an old face once more.

You're right about D. Johnson. You wouldn't even see him unless there
were Small Craft Warnings. That was if he wanted to go sailing.

Doug; Those Junk Sails on "Migrant" were What made me go to fully
battened main in Lazy Jacks. When you watched Dick sail her, you never
even thought of weight aloft. I still don't. A Junk rig has a shorter
mast, without spreaders or a lot of standing rigging. When both go "Bare
Headed the Junk rig will have less weight aloft and with a Schooner Rig
Junk set-up, you do have so much more choices to balance out for
conditions. By the way, "Migrant" isn't what you would call slow for a
Blue Water Yacht.

Pete, I guess the double hull plate does put a finish on her life span
but so be it. Maybe to much electronics? Dick didn't use a lot. I
remember him putting meat in a portable ice box strapped the the Fore
Mast.

It was just about the worst boat I've ever seen for backing under power.
That is how I met Dick. I took a line and pulled him into his slip
stern first. He thanked me and said he'd probably never made it without
me.

Pete, would you know who the present owner is. Dick sold her to a local
Dentist. He was the one who started updating her to a modern Yacht. Was
just wondering. I think he was considering cruising her and bringing
Dental Health to that part of the world

Thanks again,
Ole Thom