Re: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting??
Steve- I guess I'll get the latest design updates from Bolger, and study
some more.
How does the boom gallows help you to reef? Do you lower all the sail,
and reef with the sail lowered on to the gallows?
I'm not surprised about one tack being better than the other. On our
Dovekie, the tack that has the sail pressed against the sprit boom seem
favored, too.
My "collection" has3 pictures of Landroval: one at the launch, and one
dried out. I think the third is of a blue-shirted sailor in the cockpit
showing the wild tiller arrangement. Are any other photos on the web?
I can see the sponsons, the twin rudders, the gallows (looks a lot like
the one on my Dovekie), and a bimini. What about added ballast or any
other modifications? I'm surprised that parrall lines are not on the
plans.
And about that (those?) capsize(s): Do you happen to know if the
hatches were closed and the slides all in? Leo
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
some more.
How does the boom gallows help you to reef? Do you lower all the sail,
and reef with the sail lowered on to the gallows?
I'm not surprised about one tack being better than the other. On our
Dovekie, the tack that has the sail pressed against the sprit boom seem
favored, too.
My "collection" has3 pictures of Landroval: one at the launch, and one
dried out. I think the third is of a blue-shirted sailor in the cockpit
showing the wild tiller arrangement. Are any other photos on the web?
I can see the sponsons, the twin rudders, the gallows (looks a lot like
the one on my Dovekie), and a bimini. What about added ballast or any
other modifications? I'm surprised that parrall lines are not on the
plans.
And about that (those?) capsize(s): Do you happen to know if the
hatches were closed and the slides all in? Leo
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Leo - I suppose you have gathered that the original mj didn't recover
from the knockdown - but I noticed that I didn't answer your question
about reefing. Reefing is pretty simple on Landroval because I have
two jiffy reefing lines. I have to go back and tie in the center
reefing points - but one pull of the line and the reefing point on
the leech comes down to the boom and it's simple to tie off the tack.
Reefed at tack and clew is sufficient - but I usually go back and tie
in the rest as well. Having a boom gallows helps some too. Of course
the yard needs to be lowered accordingly - which necessitates a
parrell line of some kind to keep the yard close to the mast when
lowered into the reefing position.
The only "problem" for me is that windward performance on one tack
isn't really very good. Windward performance on the opposite tack
however is excellent. It will surprise you that when sailing to the
wind - this big lug sail performs the best when the yard and boom are
on the windward side of the mast - NOT on the leeward side of the
mast. I expected just the opposite. I'm not sure why this is - (It is
an excellently sewn sail - from Hunter and Gamble in Maine). I think
the boom and the yard fall off some from the mast on the leeward
side - and I think the mast interfers with the airflow more when
it's "upwind" from the sail. There is a marked difference in the two
tacks. Of course - off the wind few boats keep up with us. Steve
Anderson (MJ Landroval)
from the knockdown - but I noticed that I didn't answer your question
about reefing. Reefing is pretty simple on Landroval because I have
two jiffy reefing lines. I have to go back and tie in the center
reefing points - but one pull of the line and the reefing point on
the leech comes down to the boom and it's simple to tie off the tack.
Reefed at tack and clew is sufficient - but I usually go back and tie
in the rest as well. Having a boom gallows helps some too. Of course
the yard needs to be lowered accordingly - which necessitates a
parrell line of some kind to keep the yard close to the mast when
lowered into the reefing position.
The only "problem" for me is that windward performance on one tack
isn't really very good. Windward performance on the opposite tack
however is excellent. It will surprise you that when sailing to the
wind - this big lug sail performs the best when the yard and boom are
on the windward side of the mast - NOT on the leeward side of the
mast. I expected just the opposite. I'm not sure why this is - (It is
an excellently sewn sail - from Hunter and Gamble in Maine). I think
the boom and the yard fall off some from the mast on the leeward
side - and I think the mast interfers with the airflow more when
it's "upwind" from the sail. There is a marked difference in the two
tacks. Of course - off the wind few boats keep up with us. Steve
Anderson (MJ Landroval)
--- In bolger@y..., Leoandsandy@J... wrote:
> Steve- thanks for the comments.
> "But my
> martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
> righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take nothing
> for granted."
> Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones
I've
> found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
> experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a problem
with
> the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in
rough
> weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is
reefing?
> Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the problem
that
> a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
> Leo
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Let me respond to a couple of things here - including, first, a
question not copied below - 500 lbs of ballast is not adequate for
the martha jane. Mr. Bolger is now calling for 1000 lbs - but even
that is not adequate without at least the addition of the sponsons.
I/m sorry to say that I think the response from Ireland was poorly
considered. Even the best of sailors get knocked down. A good number
of martha janes have been knocked down. Plain and simple - the boat
with 500 lbs is underballasted. It's also not reasonable for a design
to go belly up when pushed slightly beyond 90 degees. There are
plywood sharpies ( the redesigned mj is now one of them ) which are
self-righting. This is a pretty important feature in a large boat and
since designers now understand what's required to make sharpies self
righting ... what reason is there not to do so. Bruce kirby has
written extensively about this - heavy ballast - crowned decks - high
sides. It's not rocket science any more. Yes, any boat can get
knocked down - a good boat has a reasonable self-rescuing
capablities. The redesigned mj is a good boat. The original version
had problems. Steve Anderson (martha jane landroval)
question not copied below - 500 lbs of ballast is not adequate for
the martha jane. Mr. Bolger is now calling for 1000 lbs - but even
that is not adequate without at least the addition of the sponsons.
I/m sorry to say that I think the response from Ireland was poorly
considered. Even the best of sailors get knocked down. A good number
of martha janes have been knocked down. Plain and simple - the boat
with 500 lbs is underballasted. It's also not reasonable for a design
to go belly up when pushed slightly beyond 90 degees. There are
plywood sharpies ( the redesigned mj is now one of them ) which are
self-righting. This is a pretty important feature in a large boat and
since designers now understand what's required to make sharpies self
righting ... what reason is there not to do so. Bruce kirby has
written extensively about this - heavy ballast - crowned decks - high
sides. It's not rocket science any more. Yes, any boat can get
knocked down - a good boat has a reasonable self-rescuing
capablities. The redesigned mj is a good boat. The original version
had problems. Steve Anderson (martha jane landroval)
--- In bolger@y..., "daithiw2002" <dhw@g...> wrote:
> Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
>
> As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a
very
> early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P.
Bolger's
> designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me to
> have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into
the
> sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of
the "Instant
> Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from the
> assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.
>
> I am nearing completion of an MJ (original hull shape but with some
> more ballast.) It has always been my opinion that this boat could
> capsize, lie hull awash and not self right. So what?
>
> If all the anti-this and anti-that pundits would learn how to sail
> first, then understand the limitations of the craft that they are
> sailing and then accept their own responsibilty for their safety in
> the conditions in which they are sailing, then perhaps we could
have
> a more objective analysis of the indidual designs under
> consideration, whether it is an MJ or a 140' Ron Holland!!!
>
> David on the South Coast of Ireland
>
> --- In bolger@y..., Leoandsandy@J... wrote:
> > Steve- thanks for the comments.
> > "But my
> > martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
> > righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take
nothing
> > for granted."
> > Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones
> I've
> > found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
> > experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a
problem
> with
> > the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in
> rough
> > weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is
> reefing?
> > Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the
problem
> that
> > a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
> > Leo
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for this important info. Leo
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Is the problem that
weight location, and found that her point of no return was about 60
degrees, with a substantial negative range until the sealed and
bouyant masts and yards immersed. Their volume stabilizes her and
she should float on her side with masts under water. But if some
force rolled her down to 138 degrees she would go on to bottom up."
MAIB 6/15/2000
In Bolger's view 60 degrees is pushing pretty hard, and probably
accounts for the few reported capsises. But self-righting she isn't.
> a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?"We ran calculations for Martha Jane, on pesimistic assumptions of
> Leo
>
weight location, and found that her point of no return was about 60
degrees, with a substantial negative range until the sealed and
bouyant masts and yards immersed. Their volume stabilizes her and
she should float on her side with masts under water. But if some
force rolled her down to 138 degrees she would go on to bottom up."
MAIB 6/15/2000
In Bolger's view 60 degrees is pushing pretty hard, and probably
accounts for the few reported capsises. But self-righting she isn't.
--- In bolger@y..., "jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
But is it not a fact that this boat did not meet the claims made for
her (Some of the claims appeared second hand in WB, so it gets
cloudy). Don't we know this because there are amendments to the
design. The designer did not run stability calculations by his own
admission, which is a little embarassing given the prominense of
advocacy regarding the certification issue. What is also now clear
is that we have to do some pretty weird things to get where we
thought we were going. Things that lead down the
Birdwatcher,Jochems, or Thomas the Tugboat redraw of MJ path.
>very
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "daithiw2002" <dhw@g...>
> To: <bolger@y...>
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:04 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting??
>
>
> > Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
> >
> > As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a
> > early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P.Bolger's
> > designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to meto
> > have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed intothe
> > sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer ofthe "Instant
> > Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety fromthe
> > assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.build, are
>
> I have to agree here. Self righting, self bailing, and easy to
> not usually used to describe a plywood boat designed for thebackyard
> builder.As may or may not be.
>
But is it not a fact that this boat did not meet the claims made for
her (Some of the claims appeared second hand in WB, so it gets
cloudy). Don't we know this because there are amendments to the
design. The designer did not run stability calculations by his own
admission, which is a little embarassing given the prominense of
advocacy regarding the certification issue. What is also now clear
is that we have to do some pretty weird things to get where we
thought we were going. Things that lead down the
Birdwatcher,Jochems, or Thomas the Tugboat redraw of MJ path.
----- Original Message -----
From: "daithiw2002" <dhw@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:04 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting??
> Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
>
> As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a very
> early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P. Bolger's
> designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me to
> have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into the
> sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of the "Instant
> Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from the
> assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.
I have to agree here. Self righting, self bailing, and easy to build, are
not usually used to describe a plywood boat designed for the backyard
builder.
Yes, some like the Micro are, but most ply boats are safe but that doesn't
mean you won't have to bail. I just assumed on my Frolic2 that someday I'd
swamp it and bail. Life jackets where the normal dress code especially when
the wind kicked up.
I've been in sailboat that almost rolled and then sank in 12 feet of water.
We where racing when a micro burst hit with an open main hatch while putting
away the spinaker, no one was seriously hurt. Yes it was self righting and
self bailing, but it wasn't as safe as my Frolic2 in the long run. It was a
extremely violent lesson in the forces involved in laying a self righting
boat over.
For inland waters, I rather float around in a swamped boat than go through
that again. They refloated the "bleach bottle" with air bags but it's
sailing days where over for the summer. A MJ for example would be going the
same day.
Jeff
Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a very
early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P. Bolger's
designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me to
have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into the
sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of the "Instant
Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from the
assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.
I am nearing completion of an MJ (original hull shape but with some
more ballast.) It has always been my opinion that this boat could
capsize, lie hull awash and not self right. So what?
If all the anti-this and anti-that pundits would learn how to sail
first, then understand the limitations of the craft that they are
sailing and then accept their own responsibilty for their safety in
the conditions in which they are sailing, then perhaps we could have
a more objective analysis of the indidual designs under
consideration, whether it is an MJ or a 140' Ron Holland!!!
David on the South Coast of Ireland
As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a very
early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P. Bolger's
designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me to
have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into the
sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of the "Instant
Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from the
assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.
I am nearing completion of an MJ (original hull shape but with some
more ballast.) It has always been my opinion that this boat could
capsize, lie hull awash and not self right. So what?
If all the anti-this and anti-that pundits would learn how to sail
first, then understand the limitations of the craft that they are
sailing and then accept their own responsibilty for their safety in
the conditions in which they are sailing, then perhaps we could have
a more objective analysis of the indidual designs under
consideration, whether it is an MJ or a 140' Ron Holland!!!
David on the South Coast of Ireland
--- In bolger@y..., Leoandsandy@J... wrote:
> Steve- thanks for the comments.
> "But my
> martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
> righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take nothing
> for granted."
> Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones
I've
> found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
> experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a problem
with
> the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in
rough
> weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is
reefing?
> Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the problem
that
> a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
> Leo
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Steve- thanks for the comments.
"But my
martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take nothing
for granted."
Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones I've
found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a problem with
the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in rough
weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is reefing?
Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the problem that
a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
Leo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"But my
martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take nothing
for granted."
Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones I've
found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a problem with
the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in rough
weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is reefing?
Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the problem that
a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
Leo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]