Re: [bolger] long micro
Hi Pat,
I am currently building a Micro and I have the mast to set in the bough like your long Micro. You can see photos of my boat at "Rods Micro" in the discussion group photos. I have yet to decide exactly how I am going to mount the mast fitting. Could you please send me some closer, more detailed photos of the SS fitting plus details on the fitting you pull up to keep the foot of the mast in place.
Thanks,
Rod Cahill
Bowning
Australia
From:Pat <patjah@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Fri, 31 December, 2010 2:29:24 PM
Subject:[bolger] long micro
I build a Long Micro last year. It took 6months full time (taking our time to do it right) 2 people. I think the cost was approx 9000us including sails ect. I don’t think boat building on this scale is a good idea for someone who has not worked for sometime with epoxies. Epoxies sound simple to use but they are not and if you make a mistake in say the sheathing of hull or laminating the keel it can be a very expensive mistake. If you start with a smaller boat and make a mistake (which may take a few years to become apparent) it is not a big deal. I guess it depends on ones motivation for building if it is worth the risk. But many things can go wrong and many, many amateur boats are never completed.
I have some pics of the boat herehttp://picasaweb.google.com/patjah/MyBolgerLongMicro02#
Cheers
Happy boat building
I build a Long Micro last year. It took 6months full time (taking our time to do it right) 2 people. I think the cost was approx 9000us including sails ect. I don’t think boat building on this scale is a good idea for someone who has not worked for sometime with epoxies. Epoxies sound simple to use but they are not and if you make a mistake in say the sheathing of hull or laminating the keel it can be a very expensive mistake.If you start with a smaller boat and make a mistake (which may take a few years to become apparent) it is not a big deal. I guess it depends on ones motivation for building if it is worth the risk. But many things can go wrong and many, many amateur boats are never completed.
I have some pics of the boat herehttp://picasaweb.google.com/patjah/MyBolgerLongMicro02#
Cheers
Happy boat building
New pics of long micro construction in gallery.
cheers
PAT
cheers
PAT
I believe it has internal chines like my Oldshoe, so it is good practice to tape the outside to thoroughly seal the end grain of the ply. This should be done on all outside edges of the hull. Most builders I know would also glass the whole bottom.
Joe T
PCB-RIP Let's keep the boat talk going as a tribute to Phil.
Joe T
PCB-RIP Let's keep the boat talk going as a tribute to Phil.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Pat <patjah@...> wrote:
>
> I am Installing epoxy glass chines in my long micro i was wondering if one
> needs to install a glass chine along to wooden chine which runs the length
> of the whole boat. would this be overkill?
>
> Cheers PAT
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Did you find any information regarding the sailing capabilities of the long micro ( ie ofshore capabilities)
cheers
PAt
cheers
PAt
On the Dioblo it gives more lift less spray up the side and better handeling. Don't know on the micro. On this day I would say if Phill put it there then you should too.
Jon
Jon
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Pat <patjah@...> wrote:
>
> I am Installing epoxy glass chines in my long micro i was wondering if one
> needs to install a glass chine along to wooden chine which runs the length
> of the whole boat. would this be overkill?
>
> Cheers PAT
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I am Installing epoxy glass chines in my long micro i was wondering if one
needs to install a glass chine along to wooden chine which runs the length
of the whole boat. would this be overkill?
Cheers PAT
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
needs to install a glass chine along to wooden chine which runs the length
of the whole boat. would this be overkill?
Cheers PAT
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> You practically have to re-rig the boat each time you tack.I think you are overstating the problem.
Summarizing and quoting PCB regarding the 'Dipping Lug'
_Dipping Lug Rig_
Negative:
1) Windward progress is still positive, but less, on the 'bad' tack
(with the yard ahead of the mast). The bag in the sail can be
mitigated by moving the tack out to the windward rail.
2) The boat usually cannot go through stays from this 'bad' tack, and
instead must be jibed to change course.
3) If you choose to shift the yard between sides of the mast, it must
be lowered first.
Positive attributes:
1) The most powerful windward sail possible with primitive technology.
2) Has only two yards.
3) Has a low aspect ratio.
4) The tack of the sail is adjustable, allowing improved sheeting
angle to windward, and improved sail draw before the wind.
5) Has the virtue that the sail always comes down when called, with
nothing to bind or jamb enough to hold the weight of the yard.
6) Has a lack of clutter on deck when furled.
7) Reefs easily and efficiently with very small change in helm balance.
8) Docile before the wind and harmless in a jibe.
PCB:"[A dipping lug rig as an] auxiliary sail on a motorboat, a
purpose for which it is so much better than any other rig ever devised
that it's a monument to the rarity of common sense that it's so little
used."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...>
>
> I am just sooo curious, and I wish I had a chance
> to 'first hand' try out a dipping lug rig.
Me too. I've never tried one but am planning on trying it on the boat I am
building now, a 19' rowing/sailing cruiser similar to Dovekie.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/Bufflehead/
In Chapt. 61 of BWAOM the "Fast Motorsailer", he shows the spare halyard
going to the yard so that when dipping the sail the yard doesn't have to be
lowered to the deck but hangs along the mast while the tack is switched to
the new leeward side. My sail will be only 120 sf with a 12' yard, so
manhandling it shouldn't be too bad and can be done from the cockpit. It
seems like with practice it could be about as easy as getting a large
headsail around an inner forestay. I will try it with a tarp sail first
before investing $$ in a dacron sail. It also seems that the sail could be
used with a boom as a balance lug when short tacking or in crowded waters.
Gary
Port Angeles, WA
There is no bad tack on a dipping lug, as long as you 'dip' the yard and
shift the tack when you come about. That's the problem, though. You
practically have to re-rig the boat each time you tack.
shift the tack when you come about. That's the problem, though. You
practically have to re-rig the boat each time you tack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: long micro/Chebaccos
>
> > So,I say that the dipping lug is "over-rated" and not best suited
> > for this relatively recent pursuit called pleasure boating. That's
> > my defense and I'ma stickin, to it :-D
> > Peter Lenihan
>
> I am just sooo curious, and I wish I had a chance
> to 'first hand' try out a dipping lug rig.
>
> Of course, the entire problem with the dipping lug
> is only on *one* tack. Running, reaching, one side
> of the tacking is good. And even on the bad tack,
> Bolger writes that windward progress is possible.
> [Not to mention that you can always use the motor.]
>
> Heck, even the beloved sprit sail has one bad side
> of the tack.
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
(978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So,I say that the dipping lug is "over-rated" and not best suitedI am just sooo curious, and I wish I had a chance
> for this relatively recent pursuit called pleasure boating. That's
> my defense and I'ma stickin, to it :-D
> Peter Lenihan
to 'first hand' try out a dipping lug rig.
Of course, the entire problem with the dipping lug
is only on *one* tack. Running, reaching, one side
of the tacking is good. And even on the bad tack,
Bolger writes that windward progress is possible.
[Not to mention that you can always use the motor.]
Heck, even the beloved sprit sail has one bad side
of the tack.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@h...>
wrote:
stepped down into the hold, making it possible to escape quickly
below if the necessity arose. Sort of like a fireman's pole:-)
"Ketch rigged" as in "they won't ketch me that way."
Cheers,
Nels (Imagining many other uses for one including the deployment of
invisible rope:-)
wrote:
> It is just a little stick plunked in the middle of the cockpitOf course Lestat doesn't have "the cockpit sole" so it would be
> sole.
stepped down into the hold, making it possible to escape quickly
below if the necessity arose. Sort of like a fireman's pole:-)
"Ketch rigged" as in "they won't ketch me that way."
Cheers,
Nels (Imagining many other uses for one including the deployment of
invisible rope:-)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
Interesting to see where the mizzen mast
> ended up in the ketch rig. Pretty much takes up the entire cockpit!
Quit exageratin'Capt'n Nels :-)
It is just a little stick plunked in the middle of the cockpit
sole.People rarely sit there although I know some who like to lay
there....Beyond that,the mizzen mast is just perfect for hangin' a
lovely table on from which food and drink can be readily at hand
while at anchor and the boom makes a natural ridge pole for hangin'
a tarp on to protect the helmsman from rain,sun etc... and being
centrally located,it is the natural first choice for a hand grab
when the boats a rockin' and a rollin' from either waves/wakes or
simply when one stumbles back on board after too many rounds of
shooters at the local club house...
> If one adds a self-steering system for off-shore sailing, then the
> original dipping lug begins to make more sense. Especially if one
is
> on the same tack for many hours at a time.
I fear we have become spoiled by rigs that can be set and require
only simple adjustments to the sheets under most conditions.The
dipping lug is,in the purest sense,a powerful efficient sail but
that does not also mean it is easy to deal with when manouvering.
To find oneself on the "same tack for many hours at a time" suggests
to me that we are not sailing on a small lake or river but rather
out on the sea or ocean.That being the case,the boat is most likely
beyond trailer-sailer size and thus big enough to warrent a
crew,which will surely be required,since the size of the sail and
its attendant flappin'-all-over-the-place behavior when comin' about
is too much for one person glued to the helm.
Bolger and others have often cited historical anecdotes of some
rather large working vessels(read,many tons displacement) being
handled by no more then"a man,a boy and a dog". All facts for sure
but the context must not be forgotten.To wit,these men and boys
virtually lived onboard and made their living from working the
boat.They were tough and very experienced.Thanks to the great
size,or because of it,these boats could/did/had to use stout and
strong devices to keep the whole shootin, matchin' going.For
example,chain for snotters,chain for anchors(plural),chain for
steering cables.....in other words,heavy stuff not likely to
rot/shred/chafe or stretch and heavy enough to stay put.Things that
had to move often,like rudders and leeboards,were not feather
weights requiring no more then a finger to handle but big honking
things pivoting around heavy(crude) but solid iron pins, gougons and
pintles.The helmsman could literally lay the tiller down or walk
away from the wheel without all hell breakin' loose.Thus two pair of
hands could be brought to bear on some task.Also,thanks in part to
the boats heavy displacement,these boats possessed great potential
for momentum and working crew knew how to use this to advantage in
tight quarters.Finally,being working boats and dating from pre-
engine times,their hailing ports were not often found up some
winding creak where the prevailing winds run downstream with the
current nor did they have to contend with hordes of un-experienced
pleasure boaters darting all over the place like flies on
dung.Indeed,their ports were often situated to take best advantage
of prevailing winds/tides/currents and to provide the shortest or at
least most direct access to the fishing grounds etc...
I would further suppose and suggest that their "time" was measured
in increments of days,weeks,months and seasons unlike our"time"
which is measured in hours,minutes,seconds and less :-)
So,I say that the dipping lug is "over-rated" and not best suited
for this relatively recent pursuit called pleasure boating. That's
my defense and I'ma stickin, to it :-D
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,who obviously has way too much time on his hands but
likes to tease Nels just the same,from along the shores of the
mighty-still-frozen St.Lawrence.........
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
Thanks for sharing that. Interesting to see where the mizzen mast
ended up in the ketch rig. Pretty much takes up the entire cockpit!
If one adds a self-steering system for off-shore sailing, then the
original dipping lug begins to make more sense. Especially if one is
on the same tack for many hours at a time.
"However that may be, the dipping lug remains ideal for the use for
which it was always ideal: to produce maximum power in a straight
line with a minumum of clutter one deck and wind resistance
aloft. .."from 100 small boat rigs: page45.
Cheers, Nels
> > I find it curious that Bolger designed it inspired by the originalHi Bruce,
> > Seabird yawl and yet it is not offered with a yawl rig!
> > Cheers, Nels
>
> Bolger did address this question in SBJ #57, basically
> saying that he would favor a Cat Yawl rig similar to a
> Chebacco20.
>
>http://hallman.org/bolger/Seabird86CatKetch.jpg
Thanks for sharing that. Interesting to see where the mizzen mast
ended up in the ketch rig. Pretty much takes up the entire cockpit!
If one adds a self-steering system for off-shore sailing, then the
original dipping lug begins to make more sense. Especially if one is
on the same tack for many hours at a time.
"However that may be, the dipping lug remains ideal for the use for
which it was always ideal: to produce maximum power in a straight
line with a minumum of clutter one deck and wind resistance
aloft. .."from 100 small boat rigs: page45.
Cheers, Nels
> I find it curious that Bolger designed it inspired by the originalBolger did address this question in SBJ #57, basically
> Seabird yawl and yet it is not offered with a yawl rig!
> Cheers, Nels
saying that he would favor a Cat Yawl rig similar to a
Chebacco20.
http://hallman.org/bolger/Seabird86CatKetch.jpg
I took those photos at the Charleston (Oregon) shipyard. An old-timer who
lives a few steps from the shipyard has been chipping away, very slowly, at
restoring her.
lives a few steps from the shipyard has been chipping away, very slowly, at
restoring her.
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:23:08 -0800, Bruce wrote:
> ...
> Here are three photos of an original Seabird [the keel variety]
> that I grabbed off the net, sorry I forget where.
>
>http://hallman.org/seabird/
--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
It s a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!
<Attributed to Andrew Jackson>
> I find it curious that Bolger designed it inspired by the originalYes, the sliding galley is very clever! The pipe berths are 'borrowed'
> Seabird yawl and yet it is not offered with a yawl rig! I sort of
> like the galley design that slides away under where quater berths
> might normally be located. Yet it has no permanent berths at all!
> Cheers, Nels
I think from L.F. Herreshoff. All in all, Seabird86 is a underappreciated
Bolger design, being so no-nonsense and so capable.
Here are three photos of an original Seabird [the keel variety]
that I grabbed off the net, sorry I forget where.
http://hallman.org/seabird/
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
the file of that name at Bolger2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Seabird%2086/
I was also looking for Stefan's website showing the construction of a
Seabird 86 with junk rig I believe, but can't find it now.
I find it curious that Bolger designed it inspired by the original
Seabird yawl and yet it is not offered with a yawl rig! I sort of
like the galley design that slides away under where quater berths
might normally be located. Yet it has no permanent berths at all!
Cheers, Nels
> Sorry Nels - but I can't get your link to work. Which version areyou thinking of?
>It was a link to the pilothouse version of Seabird 86 and is also in
> Bill
the file of that name at Bolger2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Seabird%2086/
I was also looking for Stefan's website showing the construction of a
Seabird 86 with junk rig I believe, but can't find it now.
I find it curious that Bolger designed it inspired by the original
Seabird yawl and yet it is not offered with a yawl rig! I sort of
like the galley design that slides away under where quater berths
might normally be located. Yet it has no permanent berths at all!
Cheers, Nels
Sorry Nels - but I can't get your link to work. Which version are you thinking of?
Bill
Then there is always this option with fully ballested keel:
http://tinyurl.com/4r5ts
Cheers, Nels (So many boats - so little money:-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill
Then there is always this option with fully ballested keel:
http://tinyurl.com/4r5ts
Cheers, Nels (So many boats - so little money:-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
appropriately. If she's hit under full sail by an unexpected squall,
she might be knocked down and perhaps a following wave might just
kick her right over. Of course you'd need to be very unlucky,
but . . . (sounds of anxious nail chewing)
Then there is always this option with fully ballested keel:
http://tinyurl.com/4r5ts
Cheers, Nels (So many boats - so little money:-)
> So - although the Chebacco is probably pretty safe snugged downunder mizzen alone, you need the prudence to keep her reefed
appropriately. If she's hit under full sail by an unexpected squall,
she might be knocked down and perhaps a following wave might just
kick her right over. Of course you'd need to be very unlucky,
but . . . (sounds of anxious nail chewing)
Then there is always this option with fully ballested keel:
http://tinyurl.com/4r5ts
Cheers, Nels (So many boats - so little money:-)
>> But Bill, if this is a Bolger site, then the Bolger thesis might aswell be stated: shoal draft is best. The boat that's like a
basketball, getting tossed this way and that by wind and waves, but
not going under, is to be preferred to those deep draft heavy boats.
So goes Bolger's theory as was espoused in a WB mag maybe a year
ago.>>
That's right Dick. Hence the number of 'barge-yacht' types he has drawn, like Romp, Manatee and so on. Some of these rely on 'reserve buoyancy' (High, leakproof topsides to resist going right over, if I understand rightly) for safety. These are pretty much flat-bottomed amidships, too, giving them huge initial stability, like the old seagoing Thames barges. It's also worth noticing that they all tend to be well ballasted, so the shallow draft is due mainly to hull form rather than lightness. Jessie Cooper is a good example of a heavyish shallow draft plywood boat.
Chebacco, on the other hand, is quite a tippy boat, and the standard version hasn't much reserve buoyancy either. The result is that if she gets knocked down beyond 90 degrees, she capsizes into a stable inverted position (which I verified with a 1/8 scale model).
So - although the Chebacco is probably pretty safe snugged down under mizzen alone, you need the prudence to keep her reefed appropriately. If she's hit under full sail by an unexpected squall, she might be knocked down and perhaps a following wave might just kick her right over. Of course you'd need to be very unlucky, but . . . (sounds of anxious nail chewing)
>>One cannot always pick the weather one sails in, but to bea "fairweather sailor" is a sensible Chebacco sailor's objective. --
Dick >>
Agreed 100%.
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "seagulloutb" <dickburnham1@a...>
wrote:
One might also consider that some shorelines are more dangerous in a
blow than being snuggled down like a duck, well off-shore.
Note that when the tsunamis hit, the boats that were off-shore all
survived. while only a few boats survived when they hit shore. Even
wiping out entire marinas. Anyway I love this excerpt from the
article about the design Modifications:-)
"When the Cruising Chebacco issue came up again a few weeks ago, the
corporation's board met officially, including the seven cats, and
decided to assign the job to Susanne; she had been mouthing off about
how to do it 'right' for some time now. Phil ended up having to
do 'draftsman-duty', as a matter of skill and graphic
continuity, 'once the scheme was hatched'. The second such meeting
concluded, that in the light of respective commentaries in your chat
group, we should not give cause for speculation about her genesis,
but rather state publicly, that Susanne is solely to blame or praise
for both the conversion and the commentary on it. She has been
increasingly 'intrusive' in her 'messing' with the design work
anyway, over the last three years and might as well 'face the music
herself'; no more hiding behind Phil! "
Cheers, Nels
wrote:
>boats.
> But Bill, if this is a Bolger site, then the Bolger thesis might as
> well be stated: shoal draft is best. The boat that's like a
> basketball, getting tossed this way and that by wind and waves, but
> not going under, is to be preferred to those deep draft heavy
> So goes Bolger's theory as was espoused in a WB mag maybe a year-
> ago. Personally, though, I agree with your sentiments that the
> Chebacco is a protected water vessel. Let those refute who
> will/can. Yet (again going to WB mag) some have said the design is
> to be admired in that in a blow it can, with the mizzen only, point
> to wind and snuggle down like a duck.
>
> One cannot always pick the weather one sails in, but to be
> a "fairweather sailor" is a sensible Chebacco sailor's objective. -
> DickHi Guys,
>
One might also consider that some shorelines are more dangerous in a
blow than being snuggled down like a duck, well off-shore.
Note that when the tsunamis hit, the boats that were off-shore all
survived. while only a few boats survived when they hit shore. Even
wiping out entire marinas. Anyway I love this excerpt from the
article about the design Modifications:-)
"When the Cruising Chebacco issue came up again a few weeks ago, the
corporation's board met officially, including the seven cats, and
decided to assign the job to Susanne; she had been mouthing off about
how to do it 'right' for some time now. Phil ended up having to
do 'draftsman-duty', as a matter of skill and graphic
continuity, 'once the scheme was hatched'. The second such meeting
concluded, that in the light of respective commentaries in your chat
group, we should not give cause for speculation about her genesis,
but rather state publicly, that Susanne is solely to blame or praise
for both the conversion and the commentary on it. She has been
increasingly 'intrusive' in her 'messing' with the design work
anyway, over the last three years and might as well 'face the music
herself'; no more hiding behind Phil! "
Cheers, Nels
But Bill, if this is a Bolger site, then the Bolger thesis might as
well be stated: shoal draft is best. The boat that's like a
basketball, getting tossed this way and that by wind and waves, but
not going under, is to be preferred to those deep draft heavy boats.
So goes Bolger's theory as was espoused in a WB mag maybe a year
ago. Personally, though, I agree with your sentiments that the
Chebacco is a protected water vessel. Let those refute who
will/can. Yet (again going to WB mag) some have said the design is
to be admired in that in a blow it can, with the mizzen only, point
to wind and snuggle down like a duck.
One cannot always pick the weather one sails in, but to be
a "fairweather sailor" is a sensible Chebacco sailor's objective. --
Dick
well be stated: shoal draft is best. The boat that's like a
basketball, getting tossed this way and that by wind and waves, but
not going under, is to be preferred to those deep draft heavy boats.
So goes Bolger's theory as was espoused in a WB mag maybe a year
ago. Personally, though, I agree with your sentiments that the
Chebacco is a protected water vessel. Let those refute who
will/can. Yet (again going to WB mag) some have said the design is
to be admired in that in a blow it can, with the mizzen only, point
to wind and snuggle down like a duck.
One cannot always pick the weather one sails in, but to be
a "fairweather sailor" is a sensible Chebacco sailor's objective. --
Dick
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "epoxy15" <cmccabe@d...> wrote:
> >
> > I read with interest Nel's mention of a Chebacco pilot house
> version
> > and an offshore version. Are sketches of these readily available
> > anywhere on the Net?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Charles
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> I think you're maybe talking about the 'Glasshouse' version with
ballasted salient keel described in Boats with an Open Mind.
>
> I'd never describe it (or any other Chebacco) as an 'offshore'
boat. The sail-area/displacement ratio is all wrong as are various
other design parameters. Essentially the boat is very light for its
size - regardless of the tiny bit of ballast allowed for in the
Glasshouse version - and could easily come a cropper in a storm.
Just compare the displacement with that of 20 footers that have been
designed for open ocean work and you'll get my drift.
>
> That's not to say she wouldn't be fine in an open crossing in
favourable conditions - but you'd need to be very sure of your
conditions before venturing offshore.
>
> Bill
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "epoxy15" <cmccabe@d...> wrote:
I think you're maybe talking about the 'Glasshouse' version with ballasted salient keel described in Boats with an Open Mind.
I'd never describe it (or any other Chebacco) as an 'offshore' boat. The sail-area/displacement ratio is all wrong as are various other design parameters. Essentially the boat is very light for its size - regardless of the tiny bit of ballast allowed for in the Glasshouse version - and could easily come a cropper in a storm. Just compare the displacement with that of 20 footers that have been designed for open ocean work and you'll get my drift.
That's not to say she wouldn't be fine in an open crossing in favourable conditions - but you'd need to be very sure of your conditions before venturing offshore.
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>version
> I read with interest Nel's mention of a Chebacco pilot house
> and an offshore version. Are sketches of these readily availableHi Charles,
> anywhere on the Net?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles
I think you're maybe talking about the 'Glasshouse' version with ballasted salient keel described in Boats with an Open Mind.
I'd never describe it (or any other Chebacco) as an 'offshore' boat. The sail-area/displacement ratio is all wrong as are various other design parameters. Essentially the boat is very light for its size - regardless of the tiny bit of ballast allowed for in the Glasshouse version - and could easily come a cropper in a storm. Just compare the displacement with that of 20 footers that have been designed for open ocean work and you'll get my drift.
That's not to say she wouldn't be fine in an open crossing in favourable conditions - but you'd need to be very sure of your conditions before venturing offshore.
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://www.chebacco.com/chebacco_news/chebac18.htm
And I wrote up the complete building sequence here:
http://www.chebacco.com/articles/newarticles.htm
And I wrote up the complete building sequence here:
http://www.chebacco.com/articles/newarticles.htm
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "epoxy15" <cmccabe@d...> wrote:
> >
> > I read with interest Nel's mention of a Chebacco pilot house
> version
> > and an offshore version. Are sketches of these readily available
> > anywhere on the Net?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Charles
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> I have not been able to locate any on the net. There was an
article
> in MAIB several years ago about the offshore conversion with
> pilothouse.
>
> Richard Spelling has the only one that I am aware of and he was
> posting earlier this morning. You might e-mail him directly or
even
> send a fax to Bolger. Would be nice to get a set of sketches in
our
> files.
>
> There is an owner's group here that has some photos of Richard's
boat
> in the archives I believe.
>
>http://www.chebacco.com/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "epoxy15" <cmccabe@d...> wrote:
I have not been able to locate any on the net. There was an article
in MAIB several years ago about the offshore conversion with
pilothouse.
Richard Spelling has the only one that I am aware of and he was
posting earlier this morning. You might e-mail him directly or even
send a fax to Bolger. Would be nice to get a set of sketches in our
files.
There is an owner's group here that has some photos of Richard's boat
in the archives I believe.
http://www.chebacco.com/
Cheers,
Nels
>version
> I read with interest Nel's mention of a Chebacco pilot house
> and an offshore version. Are sketches of these readily availableHi Charles,
> anywhere on the Net?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charles
I have not been able to locate any on the net. There was an article
in MAIB several years ago about the offshore conversion with
pilothouse.
Richard Spelling has the only one that I am aware of and he was
posting earlier this morning. You might e-mail him directly or even
send a fax to Bolger. Would be nice to get a set of sketches in our
files.
There is an owner's group here that has some photos of Richard's boat
in the archives I believe.
http://www.chebacco.com/
Cheers,
Nels
I read with interest Nel's mention of a Chebacco pilot house version
and an offshore version. Are sketches of these readily available
anywhere on the Net?
Thanks,
Charles
and an offshore version. Are sketches of these readily available
anywhere on the Net?
Thanks,
Charles
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, juan negron <juan.negron@g...> wrote:
different CHEBACCO designs, including the off-shore version which I
am told has a lot of interior space. I think the square boats gain by
about 25% in the interiors.
The regular plywood CHEBACCO has a displacement of 1740 pounds and
the regular MICRO is 1650 pounds. Yet the CHEBACCO is 3 1/2 feet
longer and 1 1/2 feet wider. The CHEBACCO 25 and LONG MICRO compare
about the same with at 2350 for the CHEBACCO and 2450 for LM. Yet the
25 footer is almost 6 feet longer and 2 feet wider.
Then you also have the intrusion of the C/B case with some of the
CHEBACCO'S and they are not quite as stable at anchor. You are losing
mostly the volume and stability of the square cross-section compared
to the multi-chine which is more "tiddly at anchor" according Bolger.
Despite the beam increase, the CHEBACCOS may be easier to launch and
retrieve as the topsides clear the fenders of the trailer.
The CHEBACCO MOTORSAILER version has no centerboard case but a keel,
much like the MICROS - giving a nice open cabin with bench high
bunks. The lines of the 25 footer are to die for, with a well that
mostly hides the outboard, an aluminum plate centerboard and a
shallow keel with what appears to be a "bulb" fairing on each side
and the ability to "plane cleanly with a 15-h.p. motor at low
cruising rpm". This would be a beautiful river/tidal estuary boat and
with the addition of a "Roger Derby" hard dodger, would be a neat
long distance cruiser. But the lack of interior cabin space, does not
make it feasible to live aboard for long I would guess. It could
easily be built strip fashion as well, although the lapstrake version
would be beautiful.
When I was in Scandinavia in June/July I saw many small lapstrake
cruisers with sturdy wooden pilothouses all finished bright. Watching
these gems slipping past, under sail or with a small diesel running,
(Or both!) are images difficult to erase. A Chebacco 25 would fit
right in, although the chopped off stern would not - the Scandy boats
are almost all double-enders with great huge, compound bends in the
aft strakes!
Cheers, Nels
>>the
> I would too. To me the chebaccos ( and the schooners) are some of
> most enchanting boats from PB. That said, Chebaccos seems to have aanybody
> lot less interior volume per foot length than the Micros. Does
> have numbers?It gets a little difficult to compare because of the several
>
> Juan.
different CHEBACCO designs, including the off-shore version which I
am told has a lot of interior space. I think the square boats gain by
about 25% in the interiors.
The regular plywood CHEBACCO has a displacement of 1740 pounds and
the regular MICRO is 1650 pounds. Yet the CHEBACCO is 3 1/2 feet
longer and 1 1/2 feet wider. The CHEBACCO 25 and LONG MICRO compare
about the same with at 2350 for the CHEBACCO and 2450 for LM. Yet the
25 footer is almost 6 feet longer and 2 feet wider.
Then you also have the intrusion of the C/B case with some of the
CHEBACCO'S and they are not quite as stable at anchor. You are losing
mostly the volume and stability of the square cross-section compared
to the multi-chine which is more "tiddly at anchor" according Bolger.
Despite the beam increase, the CHEBACCOS may be easier to launch and
retrieve as the topsides clear the fenders of the trailer.
The CHEBACCO MOTORSAILER version has no centerboard case but a keel,
much like the MICROS - giving a nice open cabin with bench high
bunks. The lines of the 25 footer are to die for, with a well that
mostly hides the outboard, an aluminum plate centerboard and a
shallow keel with what appears to be a "bulb" fairing on each side
and the ability to "plane cleanly with a 15-h.p. motor at low
cruising rpm". This would be a beautiful river/tidal estuary boat and
with the addition of a "Roger Derby" hard dodger, would be a neat
long distance cruiser. But the lack of interior cabin space, does not
make it feasible to live aboard for long I would guess. It could
easily be built strip fashion as well, although the lapstrake version
would be beautiful.
When I was in Scandinavia in June/July I saw many small lapstrake
cruisers with sturdy wooden pilothouses all finished bright. Watching
these gems slipping past, under sail or with a small diesel running,
(Or both!) are images difficult to erase. A Chebacco 25 would fit
right in, although the chopped off stern would not - the Scandy boats
are almost all double-enders with great huge, compound bends in the
aft strakes!
Cheers, Nels
.............
Also ask about the
Motorsailer version of CHEBACCO since they are about the same size.
Bolger claims it to have "almost" offshore capability. I think this
is an awfully overlooked design - as is the 25 foot lapstrake that I
would love to have!
...............
I would too. To me the chebaccos ( and the schooners) are some of the
most enchanting boats from PB. That said, Chebaccos seems to have a
lot less interior volume per foot length than the Micros. Does anybody
have numbers?
Juan.
Also ask about the
Motorsailer version of CHEBACCO since they are about the same size.
Bolger claims it to have "almost" offshore capability. I think this
is an awfully overlooked design - as is the 25 foot lapstrake that I
would love to have!
...............
I would too. To me the chebaccos ( and the schooners) are some of the
most enchanting boats from PB. That said, Chebaccos seems to have a
lot less interior volume per foot length than the Micros. Does anybody
have numbers?
Juan.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "James" <jcbanik@y...> wrote:
conversion.
Or was that for the offshore CHEBACCO?
I suggest you send a fax and get a quote. Also ask about the
Motorsailer version of CHEBACCO since they are about the same size.
Bolger claims it to have "almost" offshore capability. I think this
is an awfully overlooked design - as is the 25 foot lapstrake that I
would love to have!
Cheers, Nels - Who is probably going to stay with a MICRO of one or
more lengths. (Would be great to have an OLdSHOE AND AN MT as well.)
> Does anybody know the cost of the long micro plans from PB&F?I think the last quote I got was $300 plus $50 for a Navigator
>
> Thanks,
> James
conversion.
Or was that for the offshore CHEBACCO?
I suggest you send a fax and get a quote. Also ask about the
Motorsailer version of CHEBACCO since they are about the same size.
Bolger claims it to have "almost" offshore capability. I think this
is an awfully overlooked design - as is the 25 foot lapstrake that I
would love to have!
Cheers, Nels - Who is probably going to stay with a MICRO of one or
more lengths. (Would be great to have an OLdSHOE AND AN MT as well.)
Does anybody know the cost of the long micro plans from PB&F?
Thanks,
James
Thanks,
James
any info on long micro as an open ocean boat.