Re: [bolger] Martha Jane - A dog?
Clyde:
You are exactly right. At the risk of oversimplifying, the rocker,
especially aft, makes it more difficult for a boat to plane. Anyway, a
thousand pound boat with a 5 hp motor isn't going to do it no matter what
the shape.
Chuck
You are exactly right. At the risk of oversimplifying, the rocker,
especially aft, makes it more difficult for a boat to plane. Anyway, a
thousand pound boat with a 5 hp motor isn't going to do it no matter what
the shape.
Chuck
> Chuck, the latest pictures aren't the interior but they are great. Lookingat jim's drawings, one
> looks like it has a fair amount of rocker and the other below dosen't. Ithink rocker is what would
> limit you to hull speed. It does in my Lily and my Brick. Clyde
Chuck, the latest pictures aren't the interior but they are great. Looking at jim's drawings, one
looks like it has a fair amount of rocker and the other below dosen't. I think rocker is what would
limit you to hull speed. It does in my Lily and my Brick. Clyde
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
looks like it has a fair amount of rocker and the other below dosen't. I think rocker is what would
limit you to hull speed. It does in my Lily and my Brick. Clyde
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
> Clyde wrote:
>
> > Caprice appears to have multichines of a Diablo type hull and PCB's first
> Fast Motor Sailor was an
> > elongated Diablo type of about 25ft. He wrote that the only complaint was
> the small cabin and single
> > handing the dipping lug. He also wrote that the hull type is good in rough
> water. I was thinking
> > about this when John Bell was writing about an elongated AF4 as one could
> have a pretty good power
> > boat and sail too. Caprice looks like it ought to do well with power also.
> Clyde
> >
> Clyde:
>
> Interestingly, Jim Michalak gave me the following advice about Caprice, when
> I was half done:
>
> "just use the boat as a motor boat, which you might do after you
> finish the hull but before the rig is done. A really practical man
> wouldn't even build the rig."
>
> I think that she would only ever make hull speed with a motor, but she seems
> to like this means of propulsion. I need to clock her with the OB. She
> made 6.2 mph under sail.
>
> As far as the interior is concerned, here are some pictures (warning: the
> interior is not finished, and looks like hell):
>
>http://www.shortypen.com/boats/maib2001/4capric/index.htm
>
> Chuck
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Tom - your story about your nis 23 is fascinating. I'd love to see a picture
sometime - ( you can send me one direct if you have one on-line). I have a
lot of respect for mr. kirby. In fact he was very helpful to me when I was
building my mj ( isn't that a surprise?). He told someone else on this list
that if he built the nis23 and put leeboards on it he wanted to try sailing
it. I would guess there is too much flair to be able to but leeboard guards
and leeboards on your boat (?). I decided against the nis 23 and in favor of
the MJ because I figured it would cost me twice as much and take twice as
long to build - and still end up being a flat bottomed sharpie. Steve
sometime - ( you can send me one direct if you have one on-line). I have a
lot of respect for mr. kirby. In fact he was very helpful to me when I was
building my mj ( isn't that a surprise?). He told someone else on this list
that if he built the nis23 and put leeboards on it he wanted to try sailing
it. I would guess there is too much flair to be able to but leeboard guards
and leeboards on your boat (?). I decided against the nis 23 and in favor of
the MJ because I figured it would cost me twice as much and take twice as
long to build - and still end up being a flat bottomed sharpie. Steve
> No Stan,it is just the"fever"Clipped
> But then again,I could be wrong.........call me crazy!Hi Captain Peter,
It is good to hear from you again, My one point of sanity in this
maze of Martha Jane's, Caprice's and the like. It is so reassuring to
know there is someone out there who knows a perfect boat (read Micro)
when they see one. One who is unencumbered with emotion, but goes right
to the analytical subjectivity of the situation.
Well spoken, my friend, Stan, Micro/Navigator/Birdwatcher/motor launch,
Snow Goose.
PS; Does having a M/N/B/motor launch make me indecisive?
--- In bolger@y..., Stan Muller <smuller@i...> wrote:
Stan
> has no opinions of his own, other than a maniacal affection (or is
it
> affliction) for the Bolger Micros.
No Stan,it is just the"fever".Nothing to worry about however,it
either
strikes early(if you're lucky!) or else you go through a whole pile
of
wood,glue and cash building something else.Then you wring your
hands and gnash your teeth telling yourself you've finally got
the"perfect"boat.You think you are in heaven until one day your eye
catches hold of a MICRO.No big deal,you say to
yourself.Afterall,you have the"perfect"boat already. Then after a
week
or two or perhaps even a season or two,you awake with a start,heart
trembling,drenched in sweat and out of breath.Fortunately,it ain't a
heart attack,just the most deliciously sensuous dream of you sailing
over sun dappled waters with a warm breeze to tease your hair.Ahead
you can just make out the dark green tree lined shore of a secluded
little cove which you just"know"is filled with the promise of a quite
night at anchor.Stretching out your legs a bit,you nudge the tiller
enough to point her a wee bit closer to the wind.Without thinking too
hard about it,you casually reach into the cooler located just inside
the companionway,pull out a nice frosty beverage,and lean back to
take
a nice long swallow.Out of the corner of your eye,the shoreline is
gracefully slipping by.As you let yourself be caressed by the gentle
winds and the boat gamboles along by herself,it occurs to you that
you
really haven't done much since leaving the dock.So little,in fact,a
person could actually get fat doing this type of thing for long
periods of time.Happily,you are not alone and all this wonderfully
lazy sailing is being shared with your loved one who will also assist
in some rather racey maneuvers,later on,after the sun has gone
down.Good-bye calories!
And so your day goes until finally you arrive safely in your
secluded little cove.Going forward to drop the anchor,you feel her
move softly under your weight.Once secured to the bottom,you turn
around to return to the cockpit,but wait!Somethings wrong!This is not
your "perfect" boat!It is a MICRO!
Without giving a hoot to what the neighbours will say,you run
out
into the yard to check the trailer.Panting like a hound,waves of
relief pour over your trembling body as you see that
your"perfect"boat
is still there and it isn't a MICRO.It also isn't the last of your
troubled nights.It will get worse,much worse, until only two options
appear to offer salvation.Therapy or the MICRO.Being essentially an
astute individual,you quickly do the sums in your head and decide on
the least expensive of the two.Plans are ordered,wood is bought and
happiness begins,secure in the knowledge that you are finally on the
road to healthly living and nights unfettered by lascivious thoughts.
But then again,I could be wrong.........call me crazy!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,mesmerized and just about to go blind from watching the
snow covered ice melt under a gloriously bright Easter sun,here on
the
almost ice-free shores of the St.Lawrence........
Steve writes:
and went with a sprit boom on the mizzen (ha, guess where the
inspiration for that came from???) ... partly so I could reduce mast
height and add a tabernacle up front and partly to avoid spending big $$
on the recommended carbon fiber spars and full batten sails. I just
couldn't see spending many thousands of dollars on a high tech rig for
an inexpensive hull.
For trailerability I added water ballast and reduced the amount of lead
carried. The Norwalk 23 has good secondary stability with the highly
flared sides but is VERY narrow at the waterline so initial stability is
nonexistent anyhow, it heels at least 20% in *any* amount of wind.
Also the centerboard trunk is something I could live without... I have
considered adding a Micro type keel to get rid of it. Performance would
suffer but at least I'd have somewhere to put my legs.
As far as self righting it won't, I think, come back past 90%. On the
other hand it is absolutely unsinkable with multiple watertight storage
compartments (Beckson screw hatches) and even the fresh water ballast
turns into buoyancy if the boat is flooded. I consider that it needs to
be sailed like an open boat.
The Norwalk Island Sharpies are too expensive and difficult to build for
what you end up with, they are fast and nice looking but at the end of
the day it is still a flat-bottomed sharpie. If I had it to do over
again I would build one of the Bolger designs, Martha Jane, Long Micro
or one of the Advanced Sharpies.
Tom K
> I loveWhen I built my Norwalk Island 23 I made the forward sail a balanced lug
> Bruce Kirby's Norwalk Island Sharpies - but I would not want to deal with >>the masts of those boats at the ramp.
and went with a sprit boom on the mizzen (ha, guess where the
inspiration for that came from???) ... partly so I could reduce mast
height and add a tabernacle up front and partly to avoid spending big $$
on the recommended carbon fiber spars and full batten sails. I just
couldn't see spending many thousands of dollars on a high tech rig for
an inexpensive hull.
For trailerability I added water ballast and reduced the amount of lead
carried. The Norwalk 23 has good secondary stability with the highly
flared sides but is VERY narrow at the waterline so initial stability is
nonexistent anyhow, it heels at least 20% in *any* amount of wind.
Also the centerboard trunk is something I could live without... I have
considered adding a Micro type keel to get rid of it. Performance would
suffer but at least I'd have somewhere to put my legs.
As far as self righting it won't, I think, come back past 90%. On the
other hand it is absolutely unsinkable with multiple watertight storage
compartments (Beckson screw hatches) and even the fresh water ballast
turns into buoyancy if the boat is flooded. I consider that it needs to
be sailed like an open boat.
The Norwalk Island Sharpies are too expensive and difficult to build for
what you end up with, they are fast and nice looking but at the end of
the day it is still a flat-bottomed sharpie. If I had it to do over
again I would build one of the Bolger designs, Martha Jane, Long Micro
or one of the Advanced Sharpies.
Tom K
Chuck said,
Well, I'm convinced! Anybody want to buy a Micro? ;-)
that being so would not give us sufficient tunnel vision to prevent any
of us from seeing the validity of other designs. I, for one, Say rant
away! This should be one of the major reasons for any forum of this
type. We learn by listening to the differing opinions of others, and the
day we stop doing that, we are loosing the benefit of being able to
hookup together on the web.
The preceding are the opinions of the Snow Goose, as told to Stan. Stan
has no opinions of his own, other than a maniacal affection (or is it
affliction) for the Bolger Micros.
> I can further say, with no pangs of conscience whatsoever, that theCaprice is the > best damn boat ever designed, or that ever will be.
Well, I'm convinced! Anybody want to buy a Micro? ;-)
> Since this IS a Bolger group, after all, I hated to rant about a Bolger design thenAll kidding aside, Yes, this is the Bolger group, BUT, I certainly hope
> recommend someone else's.
that being so would not give us sufficient tunnel vision to prevent any
of us from seeing the validity of other designs. I, for one, Say rant
away! This should be one of the major reasons for any forum of this
type. We learn by listening to the differing opinions of others, and the
day we stop doing that, we are loosing the benefit of being able to
hookup together on the web.
The preceding are the opinions of the Snow Goose, as told to Stan. Stan
has no opinions of his own, other than a maniacal affection (or is it
affliction) for the Bolger Micros.
Here is a case where I got in trouble by biting my tongue. Since this IS a
Bolger group, after all, I hated to rant about a Bolger design then
recommend someone else's. I meant to say I would rather have a Caprice,
which I do. That is not to say that I dislike Bolger or his designs. I did
build a Tennessee, and I cruised in it for five or six years.
There is a tendency for most people to be prejudiced in favor of the
particular boat that they happened to build. Stan and Peter L and others
exemplify the type. I can say with all honesty, however, that such a lack
of equanimity is not a problem of mine. I can further say, with no pangs of
conscience whatsoever, that the Caprice is the best damn boat ever designed,
or that ever will be. There it is - no tongue biting; no beating around the
bush; but maybe having a little bit too much fun on a lazy Spring morning.
Chuck
Bolger group, after all, I hated to rant about a Bolger design then
recommend someone else's. I meant to say I would rather have a Caprice,
which I do. That is not to say that I dislike Bolger or his designs. I did
build a Tennessee, and I cruised in it for five or six years.
There is a tendency for most people to be prejudiced in favor of the
particular boat that they happened to build. Stan and Peter L and others
exemplify the type. I can say with all honesty, however, that such a lack
of equanimity is not a problem of mine. I can further say, with no pangs of
conscience whatsoever, that the Caprice is the best damn boat ever designed,
or that ever will be. There it is - no tongue biting; no beating around the
bush; but maybe having a little bit too much fun on a lazy Spring morning.
Chuck
> >>powerful
> Some Flack: But ..... the new mj is still lighter than the schooner is,
> easier to build - and one does not have to add the high house to get
> self-righting ability. And it has shallower draft than the Long Micro.But
> - not a lightweight by any means. The key is whether extreme shallow draftis
> what you're looking for. I used to think 2' was shallow draft until Imoved
> to Florida. Now 8" seems about right. Steve
>
In a message dated 4/14/2001 9:36:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
chuck@...writes:
<< WDJ does a much better job of filling
this bill. If I wanted a boat as heavy as the new MJ, I would consider the
Long Micro, or some other deep water boat.
easier to build - and one does not have to add the high house to get powerful
self-righting ability. And it has shallower draft than the Long Micro. But
- not a lightweight by any means. The key is whether extreme shallow draft is
what you're looking for. I used to think 2' was shallow draft until I moved
to Florida. Now 8" seems about right. Steve
chuck@...writes:
<< WDJ does a much better job of filling
this bill. If I wanted a boat as heavy as the new MJ, I would consider the
Long Micro, or some other deep water boat.
>>Some Flack: But ..... the new mj is still lighter than the schooner is,
easier to build - and one does not have to add the high house to get powerful
self-righting ability. And it has shallower draft than the Long Micro. But
- not a lightweight by any means. The key is whether extreme shallow draft is
what you're looking for. I used to think 2' was shallow draft until I moved
to Florida. Now 8" seems about right. Steve
I know I am going to get some flak for this, but all the "minor and
mid-level additions" have ruined a formerly marginal boat. For my money,
the MJ no longer fills the bill as a light weight, shallow draft, spacious,
easy to build and rig camp cruiser. WDJ does a much better job of filling
this bill. If I wanted a boat as heavy as the new MJ, I would consider the
Long Micro, or some other deep water boat.
Gee, I feel a lot better. Thanks for letting me rant, guys.
Chuck
mid-level additions" have ruined a formerly marginal boat. For my money,
the MJ no longer fills the bill as a light weight, shallow draft, spacious,
easy to build and rig camp cruiser. WDJ does a much better job of filling
this bill. If I wanted a boat as heavy as the new MJ, I would consider the
Long Micro, or some other deep water boat.
Gee, I feel a lot better. Thanks for letting me rant, guys.
Chuck
> I know nothing myself about Martha Jane but this issue has come upYada, yada, yada
> before and also on the Smallboats List, where Don Elliott did a
> stability analysis. Here is what PCB (or was it Suzanne!?) wrote to
> this (Bolger) Group last April 27:
>
> Too much work. No time to chat. Yet! And not all messages read....
> As some of you who are waiting for finished work or proposals know,
> we've been swamped in currcular and extra-curricular activities.
>
I know nothing myself about Martha Jane but this issue has come up
before and also on the Smallboats List, where Don Elliott did a
stability analysis. Here is what PCB (or was it Suzanne!?) wrote to
this (Bolger) Group last April 27:
Too much work. No time to chat. Yet! And not all messages read....
As some of you who are waiting for finished work or proposals know,
we've been swamped in currcular and extra-curricular activities.
Important for some of you, the MARTHA JANE stability-reassessment and
upgrades are finished and off to publication. With this forum's
policies in mind our discussion and drawings will have to appear in
MAIB, i.e. 6-8 weeks from now.
We are offering a range of minor and mid-level additions to M.J. that
can bump her stability up into W.D.JOCHEMS territory for safety.
Several things to bear in mind:
- Until Ed Haile's dumpings and then "Landroval"'s problems, we had
not been notified of any serious stability-issues, apart from one who
was clearly 'asking for it'... We recently contacted several M.J.
owners and did not hear of such issues either. Perhaps conservative
folks?
- We don't think we ever advertised her as uncapsizable.
- It seems that most folks who flipped theirs took this for granted
and thus chose not to let us know of any such issues. On the other
hand, if there is a real problem with our designs we should be told
first, before everybody gets together swapping 'war-stories'...
- The speculations in this forum though reflected high intellectual
levels of 'ruminations' and empathy for 'dumpees'. Good to see folks
getting into gear trying to solve a problem.
- Designed well before affordable/useable computer-based calculations
were accessible, we digitized her overall configuration and ran
several scenaria of possible stability-enhancements. Some results as
the machine sees it, assuming closed hatches and sealed buoyant
spars:
- As designed she's stiffest around 20 degrees of heel and reaches
point of no-return at 60 degrees.
- A moderate upgrade will move that point to 70 degrees.
- A more serious upgrade with 500lbs steelshoe in addition to her
stock waterballast (500lbs net trailerweight gain!) results in
stiffest angle of heel bumped to 25 degrees, and positive righting
moment all the way to 140 degrees.
- As upgraded with 'all the options'including house, she'll finally
go negative for about 20 degrees after she hits 160 degrees, and any
minor water motion will get her to come back up - if you could get
her this far to begin with.
M.A.I.B. will show curves and numbers in greater detail.
Since, in favor of getting her upgrades squared away between other
work, we have not followed the M.J. discussion in this forum, some of
this might be obvious or 'old news'.
Depending on who is doing what with her, some have found her safe
enough for ICW adventures, while others might indeed benefit from the
upgrades, as local waters, execution of plans, impact of alterations
on overall design-integrity, helmsmanship and luck can produce
'butterflies' too early for comfort and joy sailing her.
Depending on what upgrade and relative improvement to her stability
appeals to you, you can give yourself a lot more peace of mind, than
many might have in their M.J. after this thread. By no means should
the building efforts and sailing ambitions of M.J.owners be
considered as 'terminally' in doubt.
before and also on the Smallboats List, where Don Elliott did a
stability analysis. Here is what PCB (or was it Suzanne!?) wrote to
this (Bolger) Group last April 27:
Too much work. No time to chat. Yet! And not all messages read....
As some of you who are waiting for finished work or proposals know,
we've been swamped in currcular and extra-curricular activities.
Important for some of you, the MARTHA JANE stability-reassessment and
upgrades are finished and off to publication. With this forum's
policies in mind our discussion and drawings will have to appear in
MAIB, i.e. 6-8 weeks from now.
We are offering a range of minor and mid-level additions to M.J. that
can bump her stability up into W.D.JOCHEMS territory for safety.
Several things to bear in mind:
- Until Ed Haile's dumpings and then "Landroval"'s problems, we had
not been notified of any serious stability-issues, apart from one who
was clearly 'asking for it'... We recently contacted several M.J.
owners and did not hear of such issues either. Perhaps conservative
folks?
- We don't think we ever advertised her as uncapsizable.
- It seems that most folks who flipped theirs took this for granted
and thus chose not to let us know of any such issues. On the other
hand, if there is a real problem with our designs we should be told
first, before everybody gets together swapping 'war-stories'...
- The speculations in this forum though reflected high intellectual
levels of 'ruminations' and empathy for 'dumpees'. Good to see folks
getting into gear trying to solve a problem.
- Designed well before affordable/useable computer-based calculations
were accessible, we digitized her overall configuration and ran
several scenaria of possible stability-enhancements. Some results as
the machine sees it, assuming closed hatches and sealed buoyant
spars:
- As designed she's stiffest around 20 degrees of heel and reaches
point of no-return at 60 degrees.
- A moderate upgrade will move that point to 70 degrees.
- A more serious upgrade with 500lbs steelshoe in addition to her
stock waterballast (500lbs net trailerweight gain!) results in
stiffest angle of heel bumped to 25 degrees, and positive righting
moment all the way to 140 degrees.
- As upgraded with 'all the options'including house, she'll finally
go negative for about 20 degrees after she hits 160 degrees, and any
minor water motion will get her to come back up - if you could get
her this far to begin with.
M.A.I.B. will show curves and numbers in greater detail.
Since, in favor of getting her upgrades squared away between other
work, we have not followed the M.J. discussion in this forum, some of
this might be obvious or 'old news'.
Depending on who is doing what with her, some have found her safe
enough for ICW adventures, while others might indeed benefit from the
upgrades, as local waters, execution of plans, impact of alterations
on overall design-integrity, helmsmanship and luck can produce
'butterflies' too early for comfort and joy sailing her.
Depending on what upgrade and relative improvement to her stability
appeals to you, you can give yourself a lot more peace of mind, than
many might have in their M.J. after this thread. By no means should
the building efforts and sailing ambitions of M.J.owners be
considered as 'terminally' in doubt.
--- In bolger@y..., hwal@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/12/2001 3:19:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> m_doles@y... writes:
>
> << The new version
> of MJ may be more forgiving then the old,but I am reminded of the
> times I have seen the quote that any boat is only as seaworthy as
its
> captain. >>
>
> If you study the stability graphs which mr. bolger provides with
the upgrades
> - or in that old issue of MAIB ( May or June of last year) - you
will see
> that design is a factor - and in fact he discusses the design
issues very
> clearly and identifies the weakness. Anyone can be knocked down -
but it gets
> your attention immediately when your boat continues on to 180
degrees. I
> think that the new design is not only more forgiving - but is a
better
> design. Steve
> Oh - I forgot about the off center part. A very nice boat. If you start tonow
> look for a sailmaker - hunter and gamble have sewn a number of mj sails
> and do nice work - ( camben maine). SteveThanks, Steve. I am sure to need a new sail before too long.
>
Chuck
Oh - I forgot about the off center part. A very nice boat. If you start to
look for a sailmaker - hunter and gamble have sewn a number of mj sails now
and do nice work - ( camben maine). Steve
look for a sailmaker - hunter and gamble have sewn a number of mj sails now
and do nice work - ( camben maine). Steve
> Chuck -it
>
> Very impressive. Who sewed your lug sail? I don't think just anyone can do
> right. And - I noticed that big mainsail laying on the deck. Consider aboom
> gallows somewhere above the bridge deck. You will be amazed at how muchhelp
> it is. We put our over the bridge deck - so that you miss it as you sitand
> stand - and so that you have enough room to go forward without it being inWe made the sail from one of Dave Gray's polytarp kits. It was quite easy
> the way. Steve
>
to do following Jim Michalak's instructions for shaping. It does have a
good shape. At some point, we will have a "real" sail made. I am
considering a boom gallows, but you have to remember that the mast is off
center, and the boom, and yard rest pretty nicely on the cabin top:
http://www.shortypen.com/boats/maib2001/4capric/dscf0051.jpg
I am also considering a cradle on the port side cabin top.
Chuck
Chuck -
Very impressive. Who sewed your lug sail? I don't think just anyone can do it
right. And - I noticed that big mainsail laying on the deck. Consider a boom
gallows somewhere above the bridge deck. You will be amazed at how much help
it is. We put our over the bridge deck - so that you miss it as you sit and
stand - and so that you have enough room to go forward without it being in
the way. Steve
In a message dated 4/12/2001 8:51:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
chuck@...writes:
<< As far as the interior is concerned, here are some pictures (warning: the
interior is not finished, and looks like hell):
http://www.shortypen.com/boats/maib2001/4capric/index.htm>>
Very impressive. Who sewed your lug sail? I don't think just anyone can do it
right. And - I noticed that big mainsail laying on the deck. Consider a boom
gallows somewhere above the bridge deck. You will be amazed at how much help
it is. We put our over the bridge deck - so that you miss it as you sit and
stand - and so that you have enough room to go forward without it being in
the way. Steve
In a message dated 4/12/2001 8:51:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
chuck@...writes:
<< As far as the interior is concerned, here are some pictures (warning: the
interior is not finished, and looks like hell):
http://www.shortypen.com/boats/maib2001/4capric/index.htm>>
Clyde wrote:
Interestingly, Jim Michalak gave me the following advice about Caprice, when
I was half done:
"just use the boat as a motor boat, which you might do after you
finish the hull but before the rig is done. A really practical man
wouldn't even build the rig."
I think that she would only ever make hull speed with a motor, but she seems
to like this means of propulsion. I need to clock her with the OB. She
made 6.2 mph under sail.
As far as the interior is concerned, here are some pictures (warning: the
interior is not finished, and looks like hell):
http://www.shortypen.com/boats/maib2001/4capric/index.htm
Chuck
> Caprice appears to have multichines of a Diablo type hull and PCB's firstFast Motor Sailor was an
> elongated Diablo type of about 25ft. He wrote that the only complaint wasthe small cabin and single
> handing the dipping lug. He also wrote that the hull type is good in roughwater. I was thinking
> about this when John Bell was writing about an elongated AF4 as one couldhave a pretty good power
> boat and sail too. Caprice looks like it ought to do well with power also.Clyde
>Clyde:
Interestingly, Jim Michalak gave me the following advice about Caprice, when
I was half done:
"just use the boat as a motor boat, which you might do after you
finish the hull but before the rig is done. A really practical man
wouldn't even build the rig."
I think that she would only ever make hull speed with a motor, but she seems
to like this means of propulsion. I need to clock her with the OB. She
made 6.2 mph under sail.
As far as the interior is concerned, here are some pictures (warning: the
interior is not finished, and looks like hell):
http://www.shortypen.com/boats/maib2001/4capric/index.htm
Chuck
In a message dated 4/12/2001 3:19:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
m_doles@...writes:
<< The new version
of MJ may be more forgiving then the old,but I am reminded of the
times I have seen the quote that any boat is only as seaworthy as its
captain. >>
If you study the stability graphs which mr. bolger provides with the upgrades
- or in that old issue of MAIB ( May or June of last year) - you will see
that design is a factor - and in fact he discusses the design issues very
clearly and identifies the weakness. Anyone can be knocked down - but it gets
your attention immediately when your boat continues on to 180 degrees. I
think that the new design is not only more forgiving - but is a better
design. Steve
m_doles@...writes:
<< The new version
of MJ may be more forgiving then the old,but I am reminded of the
times I have seen the quote that any boat is only as seaworthy as its
captain. >>
If you study the stability graphs which mr. bolger provides with the upgrades
- or in that old issue of MAIB ( May or June of last year) - you will see
that design is a factor - and in fact he discusses the design issues very
clearly and identifies the weakness. Anyone can be knocked down - but it gets
your attention immediately when your boat continues on to 180 degrees. I
think that the new design is not only more forgiving - but is a better
design. Steve
As I haven't seen him write in in a long time, I would like to
mention Bennet Shuer,I know I mispelled his last name. I too
purchased plans for MJ and as Bennet has one of if not the oldest MJ
I asked him for advise several times. This was at the same time as
the MJ ballast controversy was at its high on this forum. Bennet had
not ever been knocked down when he was at the helm of his MJ. He had
gone over once when letting others do the thinking. The new version
of MJ may be more forgiving then the old,but I am reminded of the
times I have seen the quote that any boat is only as seaworthy as its
captain. Remember Captain Bligh sailed his crew across 3600 miles of
the south Pacific in an open boat without foam floatation. Having
said all that I too have gone over to the Caprice. Milton
mention Bennet Shuer,I know I mispelled his last name. I too
purchased plans for MJ and as Bennet has one of if not the oldest MJ
I asked him for advise several times. This was at the same time as
the MJ ballast controversy was at its high on this forum. Bennet had
not ever been knocked down when he was at the helm of his MJ. He had
gone over once when letting others do the thinking. The new version
of MJ may be more forgiving then the old,but I am reminded of the
times I have seen the quote that any boat is only as seaworthy as its
captain. Remember Captain Bligh sailed his crew across 3600 miles of
the south Pacific in an open boat without foam floatation. Having
said all that I too have gone over to the Caprice. Milton
--- In bolger@y..., thurcross@b... wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> A couple of years back I came across an article on the MJ in the
> magazine 'Australian Amatuer Boatbuilder'. The author raved on about
> the virtues of Bolgers MJ design enough to motivate me to buy a set
> of plans.
>
> I finally got my plans from Common Sense Designs, (12 months later,
> but that's another story)and after much head scratching and
confusion
> over how to interpret them, put them away in a drawer & built
myself
> a nice little Joel White 7'7" 'Nutshell Pram'.
>
> Now I have built the Nutshell & gained some limited experience I
have
> rekindled the interest in the Martha Jane.
>
> I am now somewhat confused over what seems to be fundamental flaws
in
> Bolgers design. Having read through the emails regarding ballast &
> whacking a 500lb steel plate to the bottom I am starting to think
> twice before I make the commitment to build a MJ.
>
> I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &
> sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for
me
> has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
> building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
> cater for.
>
> What do you guys think? Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mrfirkin
Caprice appears to have multichines of a Diablo type hull and PCB's first Fast Motor Sailor was an
elongated Diablo type of about 25ft. He wrote that the only complaint was the small cabin and single
handing the dipping lug. He also wrote that the hull type is good in rough water. I was thinking
about this when John Bell was writing about an elongated AF4 as one could have a pretty good power
boat and sail too. Caprice looks like it ought to do well with power also. Clyde
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
elongated Diablo type of about 25ft. He wrote that the only complaint was the small cabin and single
handing the dipping lug. He also wrote that the hull type is good in rough water. I was thinking
about this when John Bell was writing about an elongated AF4 as one could have a pretty good power
boat and sail too. Caprice looks like it ought to do well with power also. Clyde
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
> Mrfirkin
>
> I too lusted after an MJ for several years, and I too was concerned about
> her seaworthiness and modifications. I ended up building Jim Michalak's
> Caprice, and I am very happy. The Caprice has all the good points of the MJ
> (folding lug rig, water ballast, room for two, etc) and in addition, she is
> lighter, and I think her multichine hull is stronger, and more stable
> (ultimately if not initially).
>
> Chuck
>
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > A couple of years back I came across an article on the MJ in the
> > magazine 'Australian Amatuer Boatbuilder'. The author raved on about
> > the virtues of Bolgers MJ design enough to motivate me to buy a set
> > of plans.
> >
> > I finally got my plans from Common Sense Designs, (12 months later,
> > but that's another story)and after much head scratching and confusion
> > over how to interpret them, put them away in a drawer & built myself
> > a nice little Joel White 7'7" 'Nutshell Pram'.
> >
> > Now I have built the Nutshell & gained some limited experience I have
> > rekindled the interest in the Martha Jane.
> >
> > I am now somewhat confused over what seems to be fundamental flaws in
> > Bolgers design. Having read through the emails regarding ballast &
> > whacking a 500lb steel plate to the bottom I am starting to think
> > twice before I make the commitment to build a MJ.
> >
> > I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &
> > sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for me
> > has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
> > building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
> > cater for.
> >
> > What do you guys think? Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Mrfirkin
> >
> >
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> > - no flogging dead horses
> > - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> > - stay on topic and punctuate
> > - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> > - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
> 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Now this should be fun.
I'll offer some thoughts on this - but keep in mind that my endorsements are
of the "New Martha Jane" - the upgraded martha jane. I am sure that some
others will disagree with me - but I don't think the boat should be built
without at least the addition of the sponsons and additional ballast. As mr.
bolger, himself, very forthrightly demonstrated with his stability graphs -
without the upgrades the design lacks the necessary stability and
self-righting ability that should be there for boat this size. Perhaps it's a
personal quirk - but I believe that sharpies this large should be
self-rescuing. I can say from experience that it is not fun to have this boat
turned turtle in 17 feet of water. On the other hand - it's projected that
the upgraded MJ is very capable and stable. We "upgraded" our boat last
summer with sponsons, increased ballast and the new rudders.
All that being said - now the rest:
I think that if what you are wanting is a trailerable boat with exceptional
shallow water sailing ability and tons of interior room for two people - it's
hard to find a better design. At least I haven't seen one that I would
choose.instead.
My boat floats in 8" of water and I've sailed in 12-18" of water. This is a
virtue of her flat bottom. A flat bottomed boat can be punishing under some
conditions - but it sure is great for extreme shallow water sailing.
I like the sail plan and short spars. After adding my boom gallows - I find
that I can rig this boat in an honest 15 minutes - maybe less. The 20' boom
raises easily because of the tabernacle. The boom and yard are then lying
right there on the gallows and ready to raise. The mizzen mast is a snap to
put in place. I think these are real virtues in a trailered boat. I love
Bruce Kirby's Norwalk Island Sharpies - but I would not want to deal with the
masts of those boats at the ramp. Besides - I think that building a 20'
spruce mast is a much easier proposition than building a 30' mast. I found
all my 20' spruce in a lumber yard and was able to bring it home easily. I
don't know where I would have gotten longer pieces or if I would have been
comfortable scarfing them had the mast been longer.
I also love leeboards - and there are not very many sharpies out there with
leeboards. They perform wonderfully in shallow water - better than
centerboards and leave the interior of the boat unobstructed.
We also have the new dual rudders instead of the trap door rudder. I like
these rudders a lot - they too are great in shallow water. I fail to see the
sense in having a boat which floats in 8" of water but requires more depth to
accomodate the rudder.
The new rudders also allow the cockpit to stay dry. ( The rudders do end up
drawing a bit more than the hull since the boat squats some under sail - and
at rest - the two rudders weigh about 130 lbs ( total) and my honda 8 hp
outboard adds yet more weight back there - off the wind sailing accentuates
the squat.)
These are the features which I think make this boat a good choice for a
shallow water trailer sailor. If I was not trailering - or living in shallow
water I might choose differently.
Other considerations: I also chose this boat because I liked the sail plan
in that it gave me the opportunity to fit a bimini between the sails. Since
I'm in Florida a bimini is necessity.
There is plenty of room for two people to cruise in this boat - but be aware
that the water slaps against the sides and bottom at night - I am going to
use wax ear plugs next time:-)
Martha Jane is an excellent sailor - usually sloops outpoint me upwind - just
a bit. But last week the conditions must have been just right - I was sailing
with full sail in about 15 mph winds and outpointed and outsailed a mcgregor
26 - ( I was surprised and pleased - because this guy has beaten me to
windward before -when I was reefed.) After I established that we were
outpointing him and out sailing him I fell off downwind - (just in case he
got better!) Off the wind - nothing much catches us.
So - She's a strong sailor. Since we've added ballast we've felt very
comfortable even in strong winds.
As for the ballast. We currently have 825 lbs of ballast. I too could not
figure out how I would add a steel plate to the bottom of my boat. I would
have need to have a pro do it I think. I have chosen not to use water
ballast. Though the tanks are glassed and it would probably be fine - I was
hesitant to have water inside a plywood boat in the subtropics. I put 500
lbs of sand and 325 lbs of lead shot inside my ballast tanks. I have the
other 175 lbs of lead in my shop and just haven't decided yet if I want to
add it or not. The boat is extremely stiff with 835 lbs - the new design
calls for 1000 lbs of ballast. Last Saturday ( when I beat the mcgreagor)
my daughter was sleeping below - so my ballast was close to 1000 lbs. I did
like the feeling of that. It might be easier to add 500 lbs of lead ( in
smaller more manable sizes) to the bottom of the boat while it's still upside
down.
It also seemed to me that even if I had the water ballast I would still be
pulling it out of the water with the weight of the full ballast - that's when
the weight is a real trailering issue. The added weight in nothing on the
road.
So - is MJ a dog? I don't think the new MJ is a dog at all depending on the
kind of sailing one does. She is still my first choice for a strong shallow
water sailor which is being trailered. She wouldn't be my first choice for
the open ocean however!
Steve Anderson ( MJ Landroval)
I'll offer some thoughts on this - but keep in mind that my endorsements are
of the "New Martha Jane" - the upgraded martha jane. I am sure that some
others will disagree with me - but I don't think the boat should be built
without at least the addition of the sponsons and additional ballast. As mr.
bolger, himself, very forthrightly demonstrated with his stability graphs -
without the upgrades the design lacks the necessary stability and
self-righting ability that should be there for boat this size. Perhaps it's a
personal quirk - but I believe that sharpies this large should be
self-rescuing. I can say from experience that it is not fun to have this boat
turned turtle in 17 feet of water. On the other hand - it's projected that
the upgraded MJ is very capable and stable. We "upgraded" our boat last
summer with sponsons, increased ballast and the new rudders.
All that being said - now the rest:
I think that if what you are wanting is a trailerable boat with exceptional
shallow water sailing ability and tons of interior room for two people - it's
hard to find a better design. At least I haven't seen one that I would
choose.instead.
My boat floats in 8" of water and I've sailed in 12-18" of water. This is a
virtue of her flat bottom. A flat bottomed boat can be punishing under some
conditions - but it sure is great for extreme shallow water sailing.
I like the sail plan and short spars. After adding my boom gallows - I find
that I can rig this boat in an honest 15 minutes - maybe less. The 20' boom
raises easily because of the tabernacle. The boom and yard are then lying
right there on the gallows and ready to raise. The mizzen mast is a snap to
put in place. I think these are real virtues in a trailered boat. I love
Bruce Kirby's Norwalk Island Sharpies - but I would not want to deal with the
masts of those boats at the ramp. Besides - I think that building a 20'
spruce mast is a much easier proposition than building a 30' mast. I found
all my 20' spruce in a lumber yard and was able to bring it home easily. I
don't know where I would have gotten longer pieces or if I would have been
comfortable scarfing them had the mast been longer.
I also love leeboards - and there are not very many sharpies out there with
leeboards. They perform wonderfully in shallow water - better than
centerboards and leave the interior of the boat unobstructed.
We also have the new dual rudders instead of the trap door rudder. I like
these rudders a lot - they too are great in shallow water. I fail to see the
sense in having a boat which floats in 8" of water but requires more depth to
accomodate the rudder.
The new rudders also allow the cockpit to stay dry. ( The rudders do end up
drawing a bit more than the hull since the boat squats some under sail - and
at rest - the two rudders weigh about 130 lbs ( total) and my honda 8 hp
outboard adds yet more weight back there - off the wind sailing accentuates
the squat.)
These are the features which I think make this boat a good choice for a
shallow water trailer sailor. If I was not trailering - or living in shallow
water I might choose differently.
Other considerations: I also chose this boat because I liked the sail plan
in that it gave me the opportunity to fit a bimini between the sails. Since
I'm in Florida a bimini is necessity.
There is plenty of room for two people to cruise in this boat - but be aware
that the water slaps against the sides and bottom at night - I am going to
use wax ear plugs next time:-)
Martha Jane is an excellent sailor - usually sloops outpoint me upwind - just
a bit. But last week the conditions must have been just right - I was sailing
with full sail in about 15 mph winds and outpointed and outsailed a mcgregor
26 - ( I was surprised and pleased - because this guy has beaten me to
windward before -when I was reefed.) After I established that we were
outpointing him and out sailing him I fell off downwind - (just in case he
got better!) Off the wind - nothing much catches us.
So - She's a strong sailor. Since we've added ballast we've felt very
comfortable even in strong winds.
As for the ballast. We currently have 825 lbs of ballast. I too could not
figure out how I would add a steel plate to the bottom of my boat. I would
have need to have a pro do it I think. I have chosen not to use water
ballast. Though the tanks are glassed and it would probably be fine - I was
hesitant to have water inside a plywood boat in the subtropics. I put 500
lbs of sand and 325 lbs of lead shot inside my ballast tanks. I have the
other 175 lbs of lead in my shop and just haven't decided yet if I want to
add it or not. The boat is extremely stiff with 835 lbs - the new design
calls for 1000 lbs of ballast. Last Saturday ( when I beat the mcgreagor)
my daughter was sleeping below - so my ballast was close to 1000 lbs. I did
like the feeling of that. It might be easier to add 500 lbs of lead ( in
smaller more manable sizes) to the bottom of the boat while it's still upside
down.
It also seemed to me that even if I had the water ballast I would still be
pulling it out of the water with the weight of the full ballast - that's when
the weight is a real trailering issue. The added weight in nothing on the
road.
So - is MJ a dog? I don't think the new MJ is a dog at all depending on the
kind of sailing one does. She is still my first choice for a strong shallow
water sailor which is being trailered. She wouldn't be my first choice for
the open ocean however!
Steve Anderson ( MJ Landroval)
> Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.I would encourage a larger view. All sharpie-based designs, MJ
included, have serious flaws. Also serious virtues. If the flaws
worry you a lot, you should check to see if you can get the
particular set of virtues that you require in some better way. It
could require more expense, or more building time, or more trouble in
trailering, or less accomodation, or some other compromise.
In the particular matter of stability, I think that any shallow boat
requires a more alert and able crew than a boat with a deep keel. Her
seaworthyness is more dependent on the skill of her crew. This was
very true of Spray, but Slocum got all the way around the world.
Peter
Mrfirkin
I too lusted after an MJ for several years, and I too was concerned about
her seaworthiness and modifications. I ended up building Jim Michalak's
Caprice, and I am very happy. The Caprice has all the good points of the MJ
(folding lug rig, water ballast, room for two, etc) and in addition, she is
lighter, and I think her multichine hull is stronger, and more stable
(ultimately if not initially).
Chuck
I too lusted after an MJ for several years, and I too was concerned about
her seaworthiness and modifications. I ended up building Jim Michalak's
Caprice, and I am very happy. The Caprice has all the good points of the MJ
(folding lug rig, water ballast, room for two, etc) and in addition, she is
lighter, and I think her multichine hull is stronger, and more stable
(ultimately if not initially).
Chuck
>01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> Hi there,
>
> A couple of years back I came across an article on the MJ in the
> magazine 'Australian Amatuer Boatbuilder'. The author raved on about
> the virtues of Bolgers MJ design enough to motivate me to buy a set
> of plans.
>
> I finally got my plans from Common Sense Designs, (12 months later,
> but that's another story)and after much head scratching and confusion
> over how to interpret them, put them away in a drawer & built myself
> a nice little Joel White 7'7" 'Nutshell Pram'.
>
> Now I have built the Nutshell & gained some limited experience I have
> rekindled the interest in the Martha Jane.
>
> I am now somewhat confused over what seems to be fundamental flaws in
> Bolgers design. Having read through the emails regarding ballast &
> whacking a 500lb steel plate to the bottom I am starting to think
> twice before I make the commitment to build a MJ.
>
> I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &
> sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for me
> has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
> building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
> cater for.
>
> What do you guys think? Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mrfirkin
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
The original Black Skimmer design was ballasted with steel plate as I
recall. It was bent to the proper profile then bolted through the
chines. At least that is what I remember without digging up the plans.
Peter
recall. It was bent to the proper profile then bolted through the
chines. At least that is what I remember without digging up the plans.
Peter
Hi -
I complete one recently - I added the house, the sponsons and
modified leeboards, both of which I recommend. I did not use the new
rudders - I like the original one, nor did I add the steel belly.
"rAmBunCtIoUs" has been very easy to trailer, and I like that.
I also like the roominess afforded by the house.
Sailing - hard to say yet. We have not had much wind on the local
lake here in North Carolina and I have not yet had the chance to take
it down to the coast.
Here is my web site:
http://mkstocks.tripod.com/boats/martha_jane/
Be sure and include the / on the end.
Mike
mkstocks@...
I complete one recently - I added the house, the sponsons and
modified leeboards, both of which I recommend. I did not use the new
rudders - I like the original one, nor did I add the steel belly.
"rAmBunCtIoUs" has been very easy to trailer, and I like that.
I also like the roominess afforded by the house.
Sailing - hard to say yet. We have not had much wind on the local
lake here in North Carolina and I have not yet had the chance to take
it down to the coast.
Here is my web site:
http://mkstocks.tripod.com/boats/martha_jane/
Be sure and include the / on the end.
Mike
mkstocks@...
> I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &me
> sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for
> has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
> building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
> cater for.
Hi, Here is a couple of articles I wrote awhile back, when the stability
question was brought up.You might find them interesting.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/176
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/196
Don
question was brought up.You might find them interesting.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/176
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/196
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: <thurcross@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 3:45 AM
Subject: [bolger] Martha Jane - A dog?
>
> Hi there,
>
> A couple of years back I came across an article on the MJ in the
> magazine 'Australian Amatuer Boatbuilder'. The author raved on about
> the virtues of Bolgers MJ design enough to motivate me to buy a set
> of plans.
>
> I finally got my plans from Common Sense Designs, (12 months later,
> but that's another story)and after much head scratching and confusion
> over how to interpret them, put them away in a drawer & built myself
> a nice little Joel White 7'7" 'Nutshell Pram'.
>
> Now I have built the Nutshell & gained some limited experience I have
> rekindled the interest in the Martha Jane.
>
> I am now somewhat confused over what seems to be fundamental flaws in
> Bolgers design. Having read through the emails regarding ballast &
> whacking a 500lb steel plate to the bottom I am starting to think
> twice before I make the commitment to build a MJ.
>
> I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &
> sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for me
> has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
> building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
> cater for.
>
> What do you guys think? Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mrfirkin
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Hi Mrfirkin,
I for one think you would be much better off building a Micro. If
your heart is set on the MJ, I would certainly contact some of the guys
on this list that have built the newly designed one. I am sorry to say
that I don't remember the fellow that had the wonderful site where he
showed his MJ before and during and after the modification. My hat was
off to him for the amount of work he went through. I'm sure someone on
the list will have both a better memory and bookmarks than I, and will
volunteer the URL.
Good luck which ever way you go.
Stan, Snow Goose.
I for one think you would be much better off building a Micro. If
your heart is set on the MJ, I would certainly contact some of the guys
on this list that have built the newly designed one. I am sorry to say
that I don't remember the fellow that had the wonderful site where he
showed his MJ before and during and after the modification. My hat was
off to him for the amount of work he went through. I'm sure someone on
the list will have both a better memory and bookmarks than I, and will
volunteer the URL.
Good luck which ever way you go.
Stan, Snow Goose.
Hi there,
A couple of years back I came across an article on the MJ in the
magazine 'Australian Amatuer Boatbuilder'. The author raved on about
the virtues of Bolgers MJ design enough to motivate me to buy a set
of plans.
I finally got my plans from Common Sense Designs, (12 months later,
but that's another story)and after much head scratching and confusion
over how to interpret them, put them away in a drawer & built myself
a nice little Joel White 7'7" 'Nutshell Pram'.
Now I have built the Nutshell & gained some limited experience I have
rekindled the interest in the Martha Jane.
I am now somewhat confused over what seems to be fundamental flaws in
Bolgers design. Having read through the emails regarding ballast &
whacking a 500lb steel plate to the bottom I am starting to think
twice before I make the commitment to build a MJ.
I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &
sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for me
has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
cater for.
What do you guys think? Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.
Cheers,
Mrfirkin
A couple of years back I came across an article on the MJ in the
magazine 'Australian Amatuer Boatbuilder'. The author raved on about
the virtues of Bolgers MJ design enough to motivate me to buy a set
of plans.
I finally got my plans from Common Sense Designs, (12 months later,
but that's another story)and after much head scratching and confusion
over how to interpret them, put them away in a drawer & built myself
a nice little Joel White 7'7" 'Nutshell Pram'.
Now I have built the Nutshell & gained some limited experience I have
rekindled the interest in the Martha Jane.
I am now somewhat confused over what seems to be fundamental flaws in
Bolgers design. Having read through the emails regarding ballast &
whacking a 500lb steel plate to the bottom I am starting to think
twice before I make the commitment to build a MJ.
I am trying to get a better understanding of experienced builders &
sailors views of the MJ. It sure is an ugly looking design but for me
has lots of character, is the right size & also seems within my
building skills & is the largest project my yard & workshop will
cater for.
What do you guys think? Is the MJ design a DOG?? or worth building.
Cheers,
Mrfirkin