On Mar 12, 3:45 pm,
"Jewel" wrote:
Anyone tell me how a vessel equipped with lanteen sails goes about
without dropping its sail and resetting it on the other side.

"Frogwatch" wrote:
You tack just as you would in any other sailboat. Both spars
of the sail (boom and gaff) are one side of the mast on either tack.

If you 're thinking Sunfish, yes. This is a modern rig for recreation,
and very different from the old-timey working vessels lateen rigs.


Phantman wrote:
I can only add, there can be a slight difference in the way the boat
sails (starboard vs port tack) due to the lump (or lack thereof)
caused by the mast against (or not) the sail. The difference on a
Sunfish, for example, is hardly noticable and of no concern unless
you're seriously into racing.

Even then, it's of no consequence because you're going to be racing
other Sunfish, or lese under a handicap that takes the rig into
account.

A long time ago I raced Sunfish pretty seriously, and tried the gaff
on one side and then the other. So did a LOT of other people. None
noticed any difference... a far greater difference is in where the
halyard & gooseneck are secured, and in how flat you hold the boat..


Phantman wrote:
The original Lateen rigs, of a couple thousand years ago, DID drop
their sails to tack. Thence came the origination of the term "Chinese
firedrill" ;-)

(except I think it was Arab pirates that invented it)


Why pirates & not honest traders?

Anyway, the lateen was devloped along the Med coast, possibly by the
Phoenicians. It is notably closer-winded than the square sail,
especially with ancient technology & materials. It is a sail for heavy
cargo ships which do not want to carry a lot of oarsmen to get to
windward... rowing galleys always carried square sails becuase they
would only sail downwind & in fair weather. In ancient/classic times,
the lateen was always boomless. A few classic lateens were rigged to
dip the gaff, ie swing it vertical and then around to set on the new
leeward side. Most of the ones that did this were obligated to gybe
instead of tack when doing so.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Scotty wrote:
tack or gybe, depending on the wind direction.

SV


"Jewel" wrote in message
...
Anyone tell me how a vessel equipped with lanteen sails goes about
without dropping its sail and resetting it on the other side.
Many thanks

Having had the honour and delight of sailing a felucca on the Nile, I can
say that it is self tacking and sooo simple:-)


--
Sincerely,
Quilljar

On the sails I have made, I have considered cutting off the portion of
the sail that overlaps the mast but have not done so yet.

"broadssailor" wrote:
Then it would become a lugsail, surely?

I dunno about surely, but the Sunfish type lateen does resemble a
balance lug more than a classic lateen rig.

DSK

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:

Actually, I was more concerned with correcting a common mistake. We
sailors need to take pride in the proper use of sailing related
terminology.


Wilbur,

If that is what you intended it didn't come across like that. I knew
immediately what the OP meant, even though I have never heard that
mistake before; if you did too, there are gentler ways of letting down
someone new to the sport.

Regards
Andy

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Jewel wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Jewel" wrote in message
...

Anyone tell me how a vessel equipped with lanteen sails goes about
without dropping its sail and resetting it on the other side.
Many thanks


They don't go at all. There is no such thing as a lanteen sail or a
lanteen rig.

Wilbur Hubbard

Sorry - of course I meant Lateen
Everyone else here knew what you meant...as did that poster but he chose
to be a butthead instead of being decent and replying with a suitable
answer.


Actually, I was more concerned with correcting a common mistake. We
sailors need to take pride in the proper use of sailing related
terminology.

Wilbur Hubbard
Absolutely right of course. What he meant to say was...


"he chose to be an arsehole instead of being decent and replying with a
suitable answer."

Honestly, some people just don't know the correct terminology. Now we have
the pedantry over, can we get back to sailing?

Floatything

On Mar 12, 5:18 pm, "Floatything" dont wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message

...



"katy" wrote in message
...
Jewel wrote:
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Jewel" wrote in message
...

Anyone tell me how a vessel equipped with lanteen sails goes about
without dropping its sail and resetting it on the other side.
Many thanks

They don't go at all. There is no such thing as a lanteen sail or a
lanteen rig.

Wilbur Hubbard

Sorry - of course I meant Lateen
Everyone else here knew what you meant...as did that poster but he chose
to be a butthead instead of being decent and replying with a suitable
answer.

Actually, I was more concerned with correcting a common mistake. We
sailors need to take pride in the proper use of sailing related
terminology.

Wilbur Hubbard

Absolutely right of course. What he meant to say was...

"he chose to be an arsehole instead of being decent and replying with a
suitable answer."

Honestly, some people just don't know the correct terminology. Now we have
the pedantry over, can we get back to sailing?

Floatything


I initially wanted to rig my MiniCups with a conventional Laser style
sail and jib but then calculated how high it would have to be. Now I
love my Lateen sails and rig. I experimented with shaping a lateen
sail, doesnt work meaning an easy to make flat cut sail works best. I
have figured out a way to make it reefable but havent done it yet.

"Floatything" dont wrote in message
...

Honestly, some people just don't know the correct terminology. Now we
have the pedantry over, can we get back to sailing?

If some people don't know the correct terminology then they should be
taught the correct terminology immediately, if not before and sooner
than that if possible. Because of one person who spelled a word
incorrectly in the subject line we have hundreds of subscribers seeing
that incorrect spelling over and over and thinking that's the way it
should be. Shame on anybody who allows something like that to slide.
What's more important, sparing the feelings of a numbskull or
demonstrating correct terminology to the maundering masses?

Wilbur Hubbard

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote...

If some people don't know the correct terminology then they should be
taught the correct terminology immediately, if not before and sooner than
that if possible. Because of one person who spelled a word incorrectly in
the subject line we have hundreds of subscribers seeing that incorrect
spelling over and over and thinking that's the way it should be. Shame on
anybody who allows something like that to slide. What's more important,
sparing the feelings of a numbskull or demonstrating correct terminology
to the maundering masses?

Why is it, then, that you failed to follow your own stated philosophy? You
offered NO correction, but only propagated the error.

BTW, why do you choose to propagate a misspelling of "invalid"?

"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in
message . ..
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote...

If some people don't know the correct terminology then they should be
taught the correct terminology immediately, if not before and sooner
than that if possible. Because of one person who spelled a word
incorrectly in the subject line we have hundreds of subscribers
seeing that incorrect spelling over and over and thinking that's the
way it should be. Shame on anybody who allows something like that to
slide. What's more important, sparing the feelings of a numbskull or
demonstrating correct terminology to the maundering masses?

Why is it, then, that you failed to follow your own stated philosophy?
You offered NO correction, but only propagated the error.

I am capable of following my own stated philosophy via any means I
choose. I offered no immediate correction because it is ofttimes more
effective to allow somebody who makes a mistake to figure it out for
himself. It's like the old saying, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him
for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." My
method was to correct his spelling for a lifetime by letting him figure
out his error. Am I not entitled to teach in the manner of my own
choosing? Am I to be second-guessed by those too tardy or too slothful
to catch the error themselves?

BTW, why do you choose to propagate a misspelling of "invalid"?

I choose to do so in order to make the word invalid even more invalid
and to disassociate myself as much as possible from the copy cat crowd.
Monkey see - monkey do is not for me.

Wilbur Hubbard

Since we're being pedantic...
The question was about tacking not spelling



"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"John Weiss" jrweiss98155nospamatnospamcomcastdotnospamnet wrote in
message . ..
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote...

If some people don't know the correct terminology then they should be
taught the correct terminology immediately, if not before and sooner
than that if possible. Because of one person who spelled a word
incorrectly in the subject line we have hundreds of subscribers seeing
that incorrect spelling over and over and thinking that's the way it
should be. Shame on anybody who allows something like that to slide.
What's more important, sparing the feelings of a numbskull or
demonstrating correct terminology to the maundering masses?

Why is it, then, that you failed to follow your own stated philosophy?
You offered NO correction, but only propagated the error.

I am capable of following my own stated philosophy via any means I choose.
I offered no immediate correction because it is ofttimes more effective to
allow somebody who makes a mistake to figure it out for himself. It's like
the old saying, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a
man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime." My method was to
correct his spelling for a lifetime by letting him figure out his error.
Am I not entitled to teach in the manner of my own choosing? Am I to be
second-guessed by those too tardy or too slothful to catch the error
themselves?

BTW, why do you choose to propagate a misspelling of "invalid"?

I choose to do so in order to make the word invalid even more invalid and
to disassociate myself as much as possible from the copy cat crowd. Monkey
see - monkey do is not for me.

Wilbur Hubbard