|
Ping Thom.
|
Ping Thom.
Peter Wiley wrote:
http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC. That's a cool boat, except for the junk rig. DSK |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
Thom Stewart wrote:
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 than what? ... and with a Schooner Rig Junk set-up, you do have so much more choices to balance out for conditions. True of the schooner rig in general IMHO. ... By the way, "Migrant" isn't what you would call slow for a Blue Water Yacht. Well, I guess that would be like me saying that as a sprinter, I'm among the fastest 45 year old guys with bad knees ;) I would like to sail properly rigged junk schooner. I suspect that most of the ones I've seen were being handled by people who both cut some corners, and who usually motored anyway. And all the variations of sailboat rigs that I have tried handle differently, and respond best to different techniques. 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. heh heh that's why there's bow thrusters. BTW the tugboat simply does not steer in reverse. If you have a wide open river and can let her back up for 200 yards or so, and get up to 3+ knots in reverse, then she starts to answer her rudder. When backing in confined quarters, you have to aim her first with a burst of forward against the rudder, set hard over to whichever way you want to swing the stern. It takes a bit of practice, and a lot of faith in your transmission. 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 Sounds like a great idea. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
Pete;
She looks a lot different!! She was all Gray and had wooden mast, with the for mast cantered slightly foreward. She looks nice!! I know her when---- ah but that was a different time. She was a Sailor. A Real Sailor she was. Owned by a College Prof who had time off to make long Voyages and he did. Dick is gone and the Vessel we knew is no longer! Time leave only memories to Old Sailors. Good Ones if you lived them right. "Migrant" and Dick really lived them RIGHT. He talked of the So Pacific and Asia like it was the next Harbor over. They "rounded the world and the Pacific at Will. They went where ever they wanted, at their will. |
Ping Thom.
Nicely Stated Ole Thom.... very nicely stated.
"...and I'll Drink to That!" CM "Thom Stewart" wrote in message She looks nice!! I know her when---- ah but that was a different time. She was a Sailor. A Real Sailor she was. Owned by a College Prof who had time off to make long Voyages and he did. Dick is gone and the Vessel we knew is no longer! Time leave only memories to Old Sailors. Good Ones if you lived them right. "Migrant" and Dick really lived them RIGHT. He talked of the So Pacific and Asia like it was the next Harbor over. They "rounded the world and the Pacific at Will. They went where ever they wanted, at their will. |
Ping Thom.
I like it. Either Junk or Marconi. The only
problem is the aft cabin is a crawl space with the steering gear in the way. I considered buying one years ago. They are slow, but steel is real and certainly a comfort when sailing in exotic places. The shoal draft is nice. Having a prop next to the rudder is nice also. The engine seems a bit on the small side for the weight of the boat. 50 HP seems like a more logical size. I wonder what it motors at? I think you could have a lot of fun with the boat. I would have cut out the bad plate and replated it properly. "DSK" wrote in message ... Peter Wiley wrote: http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC. That's a cool boat, except for the junk rig. DSK |
Ping Thom.
Thank you CM,
Easy when you have Sailors with great boats, who use them the way we would all like to Ole Thom |
Ping Thom.
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 |
Ping Thom.
Very interesting Thom. Thanks for the information.
The boat had no cockpit, windvane self steering. Everything could be done from two small hatches. I suppose it had a comfortable seat below the hatch. Michael Richie has been sailing the Atlantic solo in Jester so long he has earned his place in history too. http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Fo...ist/fhist.html Some better pictures http://www.valentinehowells.co.uk/page2.htm More on Blondie Hasler http://home.online.no/~tjohnson/hasler.htm More on Jester http://old.cruisingworld.com/herbrich.htm "Thom Stewart" wrote 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. |
Ping Thom.
In article , Thom
Stewart wrote: 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. I think it was probably water inside the hull rather than electrolysis. That's the cause of most boats rusting out. There may well be another 10 years or more life in that hull depending, but the inner hull really would need to be inspected and if it's been insulated with spray foam, it's going to be messy. The actual plate is pretty cheap but the labor costs can just make the whole thing impossible to justify unless you're doing it yourself. I know of a vessel here in Australia that dropped in price by $30,000 when the hull plate was found to be unacceptably thin in places. 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 The information I have is the dentist sold it to the current owner but I don't know who that is. Must be an Aussie tho as the vessel is now Australian registered. It's been sitting on the hard in Malaysia for 5 years because the current owner did himself an injury, according to the broker. Only recently been replated and painted up for sale. At the asking price it wouldn't be a bad buy, if you wanted that sort of boat. Anyone looking at it would want to do a real good hull inspection, though. If it was in Australia I'd go look out of curiosity but right now Malaysia is too far away for a holiday and I'm too busy. PDW |
Ping 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 |
Ping Thom.
What is he doing now? Why did he sell the boat?
Scotty "Thom Stewart" wrote in message ... Pete; She looks a lot different!! She was all Gray and had wooden mast, with the for mast cantered slightly foreward. She looks nice!! I know her when---- ah but that was a different time. She was a Sailor. A Real Sailor she was. Owned by a College Prof who had time off to make long Voyages and he did. Dick is gone and the Vessel we knew is no longer! Time leave only memories to Old Sailors. Good Ones if you lived them right. "Migrant" and Dick really lived them RIGHT. He talked of the So Pacific and Asia like it was the next Harbor over. They "rounded the world and the Pacific at Will. They went where ever they wanted, at their will. |
Ping Thom.
Scot,
Dick is dead. He made his last trip a circumnavigation of the Northern Pacific and sold the boat after it. About 8 or 9 years ago. He passed away a few years after. OT |
Ping Thom.
Thom Stewart wrote:
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. Actually Thom, Jester never won the race. And while the owner after Hassler sailed that boat a heck of a lot, a dozen or more Trans-Atlantics IIRC, he also gave up a number of voyages because they turned into protracted sessions trying to beat to weather. 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. I think you should take a closer look at your own evidence, there Thom. Is a Folkboat an especially efficient upwind hull? Was Jester reckoned a fast boat or weatherly by any objective standard? DSK |
Ping Thom.
Jester would take about 50 days to cross this Atlantic.
Hardly fast. "DSK" wrote Thom Stewart wrote: 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. Actually Thom, Jester never won the race. And while the owner after Hassler sailed that boat a heck of a lot, a dozen or more Trans-Atlantics IIRC, he also gave up a number of voyages because they turned into protracted sessions trying to beat to weather. 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. I think you should take a closer look at your own evidence, there Thom. Is a Folkboat an especially efficient upwind hull? Was Jester reckoned a fast boat or weatherly by any objective standard? DSK |
Ping 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 |
Ping Thom.
Pete,
Not only a good downwind rig but of all rigs there is none that's reefs easier. Just release halyard tension and the sail reduces to a new sheet batten and your sailing with less sail. I like my rig, with full batten main in Lazy jack & self furling 150 but I do envy the Junks reefing ability. I also like the junks, and Colvin hulls for their ability to dry out on the beach for easy repairs. Pete; A side bar on D. Johnson. I invited him aboard my Pilothouse 29 footer for coffee and a chance to look her over (Like a proud father) After looking her over Dick asked who designed her. When I had no answer, he looked at me in discuss. Finished his coffee and left. If you are in contact with Tom Colvin you can confirm D. Johnson admiration for his designing ability. |
Ping Thom.
Thom, according to Tom Colvin, Dick put over 200K miles on Migrant during his ownership including a hell of a lot of singlehanded sailing. Not too shabby for a rig that according to Doug, can't go well to windward and is an example of 17C technology. Information I got is the owner after Dick had the interior foamed and that's when the rust problems started. The survey when Dick sold her was fine. The hull is Corten steel spray metallised with aluminium when built, doubt the new plate is treated so tho apparently the welding was well done. I think the only cure now would be to remove the interior and the foam then find the bad plate, cut it out and go from there. No economic point, so her life is now limited IMO. PDW In article , Thom Stewart wrote: Pete; She looks a lot different!! She was all Gray and had wooden mast, with the for mast cantered slightly foreward. She looks nice!! I know her when---- ah but that was a different time. She was a Sailor. A Real Sailor she was. Owned by a College Prof who had time off to make long Voyages and he did. Dick is gone and the Vessel we knew is no longer! Time leave only memories to Old Sailors. Good Ones if you lived them right. "Migrant" and Dick really lived them RIGHT. He talked of the So Pacific and Asia like it was the next Harbor over. They "rounded the world and the Pacific at Will. They went where ever they wanted, at their will. |
Ping Thom.
In article , DSK
wrote: Thom Stewart wrote: 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. Actually Thom, Jester never won the race. Yeah, that's my memory too. And while the owner after Hassler sailed that boat a heck of a lot, a dozen or more Trans-Atlantics IIRC, he also gave up a number of voyages because they turned into protracted sessions trying to beat to weather. Right. I don't think anyone has tried a junk rig in a race with any real expectation of winning. PDW |
Ping Thom.
I'm really pushed now, planning for sea trials in 4 weeks so... In article , DSK wrote: OTOH, with no expenditure of money or maintenance time on sails & rigging, the engine can get more attention and thus be prefectly reliable. No such animal as a perfectly reliable mechanical device. Not even Mooron's waffle faced hammer. 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. Hmmm. Seems the Hill's Badger can do this, and Colvin Gazelles. Dunno any others but I don't really pay attention..... 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? Lessee..... I've got some data on a Colvin Witch floating around here. 34' LOD, 27' LWL, 14400 lbs displacement. Junk rig: 613 sq ft or 719 with fisherman. Gaff schooner: 603 sq or 791 Gaff ketch: 553 sq ft Only one datum point but either the ketch is *grossly* undercanvassed or the junk rig isn't too shabby at all. SARA GAMP is a Colvin Witch with a gaff ketch rig. Why do we not see large, easily handled junk rigs on racing boats? Because they'll always lose out going to windwards and racing boats are specialised animals. Why don't you see a lot of 8' plus draft boats cruising shoal waters? Because they become reef ornaments..... 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 ;) Shrug. If the rigs didn't work, or worked as poorly as you seem to think, do you really think the owners would stick with them? Dick Johnson did 200K miles in his Colvin Gazelle. The Hills have over 100K miles up on their dory. 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. Yeah, and worse at off-wind sailing. We agree on that. 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 ;) Oh sure. I think it's a good cruising rig, on a hull designed for it. It's not the perfect rig for all conditions. In fact when I was talking this over with Tom, he advised me not to build one for sailing in high latitudes & strong winds due to the rig's weight. His opinion was that a schooner rig would be a lot better for the places I was thinking of going, and I probably won't build one of them either so there you go... 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. You mean, like Mooron's boat?????? 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. ....... but we agree that there are no specialised parts needed in a junk rig, so the comparison is nonsensical. 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? What would be interesting would be to: 1. limit draft to say 4' max. 2. limit number of sails aboard. 3. limit the number of crew to 2 or 3. 4. eliminate moveable ballast. 5. boats must recover from a 125deg knockdown 6. boats must be more stable right side up than upside down. 7. boats must sail with varying ballast up to 2000lbs for stores. These are basic characteristics of cruising boats not racing boats. How many racing boats could meet them? This is just as defensible a set of criteria as who goes fastest around the cans....... 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. Which might have some validity except that we know from Donal that most people (he knows) motor-sail 80% of the time, and *he* has a marconi rig! 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. Personally I think a good slow revving diesel using 2 liters/hr and giving you 5 knots makes more sense..... 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? Probably. Or possibly Sunbrella canvas :-) 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. Yeah but there's always a tradeoff point with materials. You go from excellent to outrageously great with a price differential of maybe an order of magnitude or more. The differential from crap to excellent might only be a factor of 2 or 3. If you're racing and can pay the freight, you pay whatever it costs. Otherwise, there might not be a lot of point. ... 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. Nope, but you'd need to think carefully about how & when you were going to get it crack tested and the consequences of any part of it failing if you were cruising Outer Slobbovia or equiv. I don't know much about rod rigging, but I assume it's used on hi-end racers because it's stronger. Stiffer for the weight. Think of it as 1x1 wire..... 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. Yeah. Might. But to my mind there's more than one consideration. Likelihood of failure over pick a timespan Cost of regular preventative maint. Difficulty of regular preventative maint. Consequences of catastrophic failure. Pick where your comfort zone is. Racers don't care as long as it doesn't break before finishing. Cruisers 10 days out of Galapagos heading for Tahiti might have a different POV. You've got to replace s/steel rigging wire every 10 years because the risk of failure increases over time but there's no real good way of telling visually. People still use it tho and morons like Bob even think it's because it's structurally better than alternatives like galv wire. S/steel is slightly stiffer which is an advantage for a highly tuned racing rig, is all. 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? Yep, that was one of yours except you used Dacron vs burlap. Heh. 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! OK they're production boats with volume sales. But most of them are water toys not cruisers due to size. The Catalina 27 & Hunter 34 are big enough tho. 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. Dumb too. Too easy to shoot them down. Like Bob in fact. 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. I'm probably going to spend 24/7 listening to diesels running for 6 weeks straight RSN. Something nice & quiet like a sailboat would be much appreciated when I get back....... PDW |
Ping Thom.
In article , Thom
Stewart wrote: Pete, Not only a good downwind rig but of all rigs there is none that's reefs easier. Just release halyard tension and the sail reduces to a new sheet batten and your sailing with less sail. I like my rig, with full batten main in Lazy jack & self furling 150 but I do envy the Junks reefing ability. I also like the junks, and Colvin hulls for their ability to dry out on the beach for easy repairs. Pete; A side bar on D. Johnson. I invited him aboard my Pilothouse 29 footer for coffee and a chance to look her over (Like a proud father) After looking her over Dick asked who designed her. When I had no answer, he looked at me in discuss. Finished his coffee and left. If you are in contact with Tom Colvin you can confirm D. Johnson admiration for his designing ability. Yeah. Tom was the one who told me that Dick had done over 200K miles on MIGRANT including a singlehanded trip around Tasmania when he was in his 70's. Tom has pretty fixed opinions but has the sea miles and designs to make them worth listening to even if you don't agree. He's never, AFAIK, designed racing boats so Doug's ideas of what a boat needs don't seem to feature too highly. Not so long ago a guy named Bernie Harberts did a s/h circumnav in a Colvin Witch named SEABIRD. He passed thru Torres Strait so I didn't get a chance to look over his boat. It was a ketch rig that he converted to cutter in NZ. Had nothing but good things to say about it including the ability to dry out & antifoul when he wanted to. There are a lot of Gazelle hulls out there. Not so many Witches, about 120 built and if SARA GAMP isn't recovered, that'll be one less afloat unfortunately. I had an opportunity to buy a Gazelle a couple years back but decided it was too much money and boat for my needs at the time. That one had a marconi ketch rig. If MIGRANT hasn't sold by the time I get back from my next trip I might go take a look, maybe make a real lowball offer. Malaysia is a nice place for a holiday and only 8 hours or so flying time away. PDW |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com