Re: Martha Jane heavy mast

Not at all. Just trying to say how open and straight the guy was. Stuff happens, he didn't obfuscate or fudge. Some opinions he had... now , now, politics... here the socialists are right wing and the right wing are liberals and there's a generational gestalt thing as always... I don't know who's billygoat skull would crack first in having that out, if either, but it weren't a put on.

The Otter ll  Australian incident as described by PCB is the only account I know of. The only account! There have been numerous accounts of an Australian Matha Jane(s) capsizing, mostly on the intertube, but some in mags. This got a go on about the turn of the century. The southern hemisphere representative of Bruce Kirby NIS boats and former Mr duckflat hisself flogged the story in print for all it was worth for a while in the noughties especially after making a  well planned Corner Inlet to Hobart crossing without event in an NIS26.. I leave it to you to figure the whys and wherefores there... There was some hostility whipped up by assorted vested competing interests about Bolger box boats to which PCB&F and Roger Keyes, skipper of Micro SV the famous "Paloma Blanca", authoritatively replied in AABB with the result that not much was heard of that matter again there...

As for the OZ MJs capsizing, well in these archives you'll see Mr Cheers had some worries, and in Files you'll see that in "Common Sense News" Vol 14, Issue 2, 1998  #3, at page 5 "Marta Jane", Bernie Wolfard wrote:

"I have been selling plans for Martha Jane since 1988, and always thought it would a boat build (sic) if I lived where there are great expanses of shallow water. I have relayed stories of the mad Australian who regularly sails his MJ from South Australia to Tasmania and back, and how on his first trip related that he was knocked down six times. But until this summer I had never actually seen a MJ, much less sailed on one..."

A Bass Straight crossing is hardly ever a picnic cruise. That guy and that boat are the same I mentioned previously that cruise to this day the coast from the Bismark Sea to the Southern Ocean, albeit in modified form. He does a yogi routine every morning at sunrise on the foredeck which is an awsome sight in itself through morning mists... The Tysons, bogerado boatbuilders of note, met him (and partner M - another brilliant Hartley 21 cruising story ongoing) the first time he was overcome blown offshore from the mainland and up and down the straight for days to end washed up in north Tassie. Hugo T once said here it was down to imbibing the jujube, or noni juice, or some such, but I don't buy that... I've met them on the water, seen them and their boats dance, sorry, sail... outsail!

> ---Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <daschultz8275@> wrote:
>
> ...There was much more information than I had read previously. I was pleasantly surprised to read Bolger had the thought to go with a steel shoe on the bottom also.
>
> I bought a set of MJ plans 2nd hand, but they turned out to be the original version of the design now being hijacked by Common Sense... I would only build from newly purchased PB&F plans.
>

Happy New Year, Susanne.

Photos of a model Wandervogel -http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Bolger3/photos/albums/1748120119

Not much known of this one. Certainly looks good for the epic and scenic "Loop"..

You raise issues of integrity, transparency, honesty even, and fair dealing..

Here's something from a newsletter entry that's rather interesting about a slightly earlier design capsizing, Otter ll.  Note that the editor was already well into building a Martha Jane. It's a few lines contribution from Bolger, and from the  ===Instant Boatbuilder #7===, page 2:

"RE: George Olson's comments on models, I'm not aware I would have been warned, as he was, about Otter ll's stability problem since I expected live ballast to be effective. I began to appreciate that there was a defect in the reasoning when the first two boats to the design, one in Boston and one in Australia, were reported to have capsized in embarrassing circumstances, and had swamped, which wasn't supposed to happen. Of course such a thing could not happen now since I've given up stupid and fallacious ideas.

A model wil often reveal there's some defect in the design;; I'm always glad to see one made; but they can be treacherous, too, as

2                                                                    continued next page

                                                        Bolger - Continued from previous page

a couple of celebrated incidents with racing boats suggest.

There's been a startling amount of interest in the "quick and easy speedboat" (SBJ"s phrasing), the 26 foot slipper-stern launch, or half-scale model Wyoming. Twenty-three sets of prints sold as of this morning, in spite of having printed enough dimensions to build it with the article. Who'd have thought it?"

>
> Yes, I believe that "%" sign stands for degrees. The associated discussions circle around 15, 30, 40, 50 and a later calculated 60 degrees of no return if built as designed.... lots of angles......
>
>
> .............One owner/builder/skipper modified Martha Jane plys the coastal and reef waters of Eastern Australia from New Guinea to Tasmania - Arafura and Coral Seas to the Southern Ocean - raised deck throughout, inboard deisel, salient ballasted keel, transom hung rudder, central inside helm, a freedom-like yawl rig (sporting lovely sails)... has done for many years now, and a beauty to see pass by... I guess done somewhat on a wish two ;)
>

Yes, I believe that "%" sign stands for degrees. The associated discussions circle around 15, 30, 40, 50 and a later calculated 60 degrees of no return if built as designed.... lots of angles.

This fellow, Ed, an experienced sailor, was not too worried about capsizing. His was the first to be reported, he dealt with it. He says he undertook "studies" or "investigations" which I believe consisted largely of sailing the hell out of the boat, and maybe a bit of rolling/tipping via lots of live ballast or careening via a line to the masthead. He early on concluded that reducing the mast weight would be sufficient for him, he was not going to sea, and could cope with a wind knockdown easily if he had his (off centre) hatches closed. He seems to have loved the boat and seems to have kept her for some time. Perhaps he has his MJ still, although pics of him turn up sailing a ply catamaran on those waters. His poem speaks of his positive feelings toward the boat, and pleasure, and I believe dates from some fair while down the track after his capsize experience. He went with a hollow mast to lower the cog - enough for him he said. Without reading back through those threads again just now, my recollection is that he saved about 50lbs of weight aloft by swapping to an hollow aircraft grade fir mast from his rather heavy solid fir mast...
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/2239
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/2274
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/6159
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/3575
searched the archive by "Martha Jane capsise" (51 results), and "Martha Jane capsize" (5 results)...

Others at the time also suggested or thought about adding mast top floats... The sponsons would help prevent turtling, for sure. Light weight for trailering is a big ask to give up... It all depends on the intended use and on the intended waters, I think. Personally, I'd be for raising the decks aft. Low decks, mainly those aft, is what the PB&F analysis found to be the problem with the righting curve... The Rozinante type deep secure cockpit feeling would be lost somewhat, but after all it is only an illusory feeling if it doesn't stand up when tested even if the thought is nice and desirable. I'd accept the increased dry stowage/bouyancy space below as a trade off, and that might be more useful if intending longer cruises. Life jackets, harnesses, etc,  and a boat that pops back up would give a secure enough feeling in the deep stuff... see the PB&F MJ revised MAIB article text here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/34259

==cut and paste of text from MAIB below===

 PHIL BOLGER & FRIENDS, INC.
 BOAT DESIGNERS, P0 BOX 1209 FAX 978-282-1349
 GLOUCESTER, MA 01930, USA

 Bolger on Design Martha Jane #510 Revised

 The Martha Jane leeboard sharpie design was prepared
 in 1986 for the late Elrow LaRowe (named for Mrs.
 LaRowe). They were intended for efficient trailer
 hauling and for backwater camp-cruising. I commented
 in Boats With An Open Mind that One or two Martha
 Jane's have made offshore passages and kept the sea in
 gales. I wouldn't set off far to sea in one myself if
 I could help it. If I had to do it I would be very
 careful, but not much frightened.

 A large number of these boats have been built all over
 the world (LaRowe and others had rights to sell the
 plans at one time and another, and the numbers could
 be anywhere from several dozen to several hundred.) We
 have sailed two of them, finding them good sailers and
 exceptionally handy. All the owners that we heard from
 liked them, and several of them made notable inland
 and coastal cruises on their trailers and on their
 bottoms.

 In 1999 we heard from the second owner of one of them
 (which in previous hands had sailed for some years
 without problems), that the boat had capsized. We
 attributed the incident to flooding through an
 unsecured off-center open hatch, not on the plans,
 near the stern in the sunken afterdeck, but it
 happened again with the hatch closed. In the second
 case the boat recovered when her single-handed skipper
 got his weight out on the lowered weatherside
 leeboard.

 Early this year there was a more serious incident of a
 new boat which capsized, flooded, and turned
 bottom-up. This boat had been modified with a stern
 rudder and different ballasting, and the immediate
 cause of the accident was apparently the boat going
 out of control due to trouble with a mizzen sail, most
 of the ties of which had parted from the mast. But as
 far as we could tell her stability characteristics had
 not been significantly altered. The owner of this boat
 described the accident on the internet, and was
 contacted by several other owners whose boats had
 capsized. None of these had informed us, and still
 have not done so, but it looked as though the reserve
 stability of at least some boats of this class was
 less than we had estimated and had too little margin
 for inaccuracies in building, and for mistakes in
 handling, to be tolerated. Predictably, in boats of
 such light weight, MJs with cruising gear and supplies
 seemed to be steadier on their feet.

 Martha Jane was designed before it was customary, or
 practical with much accuracy, to calculate the
 stability of small boats. With advances in software
 and hardware capability and user-friendliness over the
 years, it has become decidedly easier to do, and we
 reassessed Martha Jane's characteristics across a
 range of structural weights, loads, and
 hull-geometries. The program has to be given a center
 of gravity, and calculating that accurately is still a
 tedious business.

 Stability Curve #1: We ran calculations for Martha
 Jane, on pessimistic assumptions of weight location,
 and found that her point of no return was about 60
 degrees, with a substantial negative range until the
 sealed and buoyant masts and yard immersed. Their
 volume stabilizes her and she should float on her side
 with masts under water. But if some force rolled her
 on down to 138 degrees she would go on to bottom-up.

 All this fits the reports: 60 degrees is an angle that
 most owners would not allow to happen; a boat might
 sail many years without being heeled that much, until
 some bad luck or bad handling showed up the danger
 point. Moreover, this characteristic is what most
 people expect of sharpies and of very shallow boats in
 general. Probably the reason we did not hear about the
 capsizes was that most people took it for granted that
 the boats were capsizable. Incidentally, we ran this
 check in both light and heavy weight estimates. The
 one shown is the heavy one, implying a weight of 2200
 lbs on the trailer with the water ballast dumped.

 The weakness of the design is in the very low actual
 freeboard forward and abaft the raised deck/cabin
 structure. It is masked by the high bulwarks, but the
 effective freeboard is to the top of the sunken deck,
 20" aft as designed and less with several people
 sitting there. If the boat is knocked down on her side
 the righting force of the watertight volume in the
 after part of the boat is only about a foot above the
 ballast center and actually below the center of
 gravity of the boat; that is, it tends to capsize her
 rather than to right her at extreme angles of heel.
 Also, in a beam-ends knockdown, the crew naturally
 brace themselves with feet on the lee gunwale, with
 their whole weight actually contributing to the
 capsizing force.

 Stability Curve #2: The low afterdeck is one of the
 pleasantest features of the design for comfort,
 shelter, security, and efficient weight placement for
 normal sailing angles of heel. Any retrofit to improve
 the reserve stability of the boats should retain this
 feature of the design. We therefore designed sponsons
 on the outside of the bulwarks at the stern. These
 sponsons add about 200 lbs of buoyancy on each side
 and make a substantial improvement in the boat's
 reserve buoyancy and reserve stability. They will have
 no noticable effect on the performance or behavior of
 the boat in normal sailing attitudes, and very little
 effect on her looks except for their shadow if the
 sides are light-colored.

 We recommend that these sponsons be fitted to all
 existing and new boats to the Martha Jane design. What
 they don't do is improve her potentiality for
 capsizing very much, since they don't take effect
 until the boat is past the capsizing angle. Boats with
 this modification will be much easier to right after a
 capsize; somebody getting out on a leeboard, or
 releasing the main halyard, should allow the boat to
 right herself, but alert sailing in puffy weather is
 still very desirable!

 Stability Curve #3: Thus we looked at the effect of
 adding some ballast. The boats can stand the weight,
 even the numerous ones that are more or less
 overweight. If the ballast is added in the form of a
 1/2" thick steel grounding shoe 4' long, amidships,
 and the full 6' width of the bottom we get about
 5OOlbs. This shoe can be faired in with shims and
 epoxy forward and aft. The added drag is negligible
 and the power to carry sail is increased; that is, she
 would be faster to windward in strong wind.

 Incidentally, none of these curves consider the effect
 of live ballast in normal sailing, although it is
 allowed for at the extreme angles when it may have a
 bad effect. Now this curve is in the "offshore" range;
 if she was rolled bottom-up by a breaking sea, the
 next wave would right her. As in all these curves, the
 sharp rise in positive stability beyond 100 degrees is
 caused by the buoyancy of the mast, yard, and boom as
 they're immersed. If she was dismasted in a violent
 rollover, she would be relieved of their weight and be
 much more stable over to 90 degrees.

 Stability Curve #4: The good effect of the ballast
 shoe depends in good part on the sponsons. Without
 them the stem would settle when the after deck
 immersed at extreme angles, and she would capsize at
 82 degrees.

 Other Upgrades, Stability Curves #5 and #6: We've
 taken the occasion to draw up some other upgrades
 suggested by fourteen years of experience with these
 and many other designs (a hundred and forty-eight
 designs since M-J). First, the windowed raised house
 amidships. This vastly improves the previously austere
 cuddy with 5'6" headroom (under the companionway
 hatch), and by creating a panoramic view out
 encourages crew to sit inside for shelter, shade, and
 improved sailing trim of the boat.

 The buoyancy of this much higher raised deck also
 produces a further large increase in the reserve
 stability and buoyancy of the boat, as shown in Curve
 #5. This one shows that the combination of added
 ballast and the high house produce a boat about as
 foolproof as they come. With the house but without the
 added ballast the effect isn't as dramatic but she's
 still entitled to be called self-righting (Curve #6).
 This option reduces the weight on the trailer by
 slightly less than 500 pounds (the higher house weighs
 a little more than thc original low raised deck by the
 amount of vertical structure in the form of framing
 and polycarbonate).

 We recommend that all Martha Jane's be retrofitted
 with the sponsons, and with either the added ballast
 or the high house, or both. house in other ways than
 stability, and it is Adding the ballast will be
 simpler on existing recommended. Since half of her now
 1,000lbs boats. New boats will benefit from the high
 ballast is water and can be left behind, adding }
 5OOlbs is too bad but should not ruin most tractor and
 trailer combinations.

 The house is shown extending over the forward end of
 the afterdeck, at the sides, to give some shelter
 there requiring a tiller extension. This overhang
 could be supplemented Bill Jochems' M-J in Colorado.
 No capsizes. 28 by a tent over the rest of the
 afterdeck to make it habitable at anchor in bad
 weather. We recommend this alteration in all new boats
 of the class, and that it be considered for existing
 boats especially if and when they are due for a major
 overhaul.

 The revised leeboard design, developed and tested in
 other designs over several years, will correct the
 tendency of the original leeboard design to kite off
 the hull. Existing leeboards will benefit by added
 ballast as close to the leading edges of the boards as
 possible. The new leeboard design allows both boards
 to be left down on all points of sailing, and precise
 adjustment of their position, independently of each
 other, for control of helm balance and steering
 steadiness. For instance, with one board down vertical
 or raked forward, and the other raked aft to the
 partly-hoisted position, the boat will tend to hold
 her course with free tiller for useful periods. With
 the pendant and downhaul arrangement of control, the
 boards need no ballast, eliminating the lead inserts
 and making them lighter to raise. This alteration is
 recommended for new boats and as a worthwhile retrofit
 to existing boats. In new construction this option
 will eliminate having to melt lead.

 Lastly, we show an optional steering arrangement with
 twin rudders on the stem, in place of the kick-up
 rudder under the hull. The original rudder design has
 been practically the only feature of the boat which
 elicited any complaints before the stability question
 came up. It gave sharp control, placed a simple tiller
 in ideal relationship with the best position for the
 helmsman, no dragging of her tail, and left the stem
 clear for a neat motor mounting position and for the
 mizzen sheet boomkin.

 The drawbacks were that it was reasonably complicated
 and costly to build and that it needed a cotter pin
 (or a bungee-cord rig) to keep it from kicking up when
 the boat reached a certain, not very fast, speed.
 Pencils made good cotter pins, being about the right
 strength to break if the exposed rudder struck or if
 the boat came down on it in a grounding.

 The twin rudders indicated are the best alternative we
 have thought of at this date. They are very simple to
 build and hang on standard heavier-duty pintles and
 gudgeon. They will give somewhat steadier, but not as
 quick, steering, will work on any draft that the boat
 can float on, and allow the cutout in the bottom panel
 to be eliminated. There might be a side effect at
 alarming angles of heel with the total effective
 rudder area in the water reduced when the windward one
 lifts clear of the water, and the leeward one being
 loaded up with additional pressure behind the pivot,
 the combined effect of which could be a degree of
 rounding up if overpressed. Until that's actually
 observed she is to be considered as having to be
 sailed by the helmsman in and out of potential
 trouble.

 Now Martha Jane is safer, a bit easier to build, with
 the savings in stainless and lead work put into
 polycarbonate transparency on the house, and while the
 original version served quite a few inland and ICW
 "roamers" well, she has become more of a cruiser yet.

 Complete plans for upgraded #510 Martha Jane on seven
 17"x 22" sheets are US $250 to build one boat. Upgrade
 on 2 sheets for #510 Martha Jane are US $50 to upgrade
 one extant boat.

One owner/builder/skipper modified Martha Jane plys the coastal and reef waters of Eastern Australia from New Guinea to Tasmania - Arafura and Coral Seas to the Southern Ocean - raised deck throughout, inboard deisel, salient ballasted keel, transom hung rudder, central inside helm, a freedom-like yawl rig (sporting lovely sails)... has done for many years now, and a beauty to see pass by... I guess done somewhat on a wish two ;)

>
> "...Downwind, no problem. Sail her flat. Upwind, this boat wants to lie right on
> 15%, max 30%. Beyond that she softens and is no good. Might capsize even.
> She talks to me and she has told me this. I can feel the surge and the power
> and the parting of the sea on that beautiful chine. I am taking some small
> steps to stiffen my Martha a little, but she is built regulation Bolger."
>

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/topics/2239

 "...I can feel the surge and the power
 and the parting of the sea on that beautiful (bolger) chine...

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/zz-152-my-yawl-boat/

zz 152 My yawl boat

Sometimes she throws a cold sea in my face,
and heels until green water scrubs my sails
in storms so tall the heart within me fails,
but how my yawl boat loves to seethe and race.

and doesn’t care about my misery.
In fact, how could she, busy having fun?
She leaps and lies and knows just how to run
from breaking tops and let them go alee.

She loves me, and she knows I love her too;
and knows my love forgives her and outlives
the maddest gale, the blackest morning if
she’ll lift her bow and holds her bearing true.

But how she makes the wind-resentful sea
part for her frolicking unsparingly.

 
Edward Wright Haile

> > >

([bolger] Re: Martha Jane heavy mast (2274), ed haile, Feb 4, 2000)

"...Downwind, no problem. Sail her flat. Upwind, this boat wants to lie right on
 15%, max 30%. Beyond that she softens and is no good. Might capsize even.
 She talks to me and she has told me this. I can feel the surge and the power
 and the parting of the sea on that beautiful chine. I am taking some small
 steps to stiffen my Martha a little, but she is built regulation Bolger."

>One flag pole man said he would not use a flag pole
>> for an unstayed boat mast at all. I believe schedule 40 is a 1/4"
>wall.
>Red Zinger, a Bolger design, has been using an aluminum lamp pole, I
>believe, for some time with good success. I think it's (the hull) about
>a 27 footer, neither especially fat or especially skinny. Appears in
>Boats with an Open Mind. Original wood mast was stiffened with carbon
>later. I seem to recall hearing that the carbon failed at the partners.
>>
>> Ed Haile
>>
>> www.edwardwrighthaile.com
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
>Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/932/5/_/3457/_/949640690/
>
>-- Talk to your group with your own voice!
>--http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1

> > What about Fiberspar? snip
> Can't say. Is that a company or a product?

> PCB says we do not yet
> know the long term and a couple of these "cantilevers" have failed
> dramatically, though he allows more than likely ones not built to Van
> Dusen's standards.

> for an unstayed boat mast at all. I believe schedule 40 is a 1/4"

>
> Ed Haile
>
> www.edwardwrighthaile.com
>

>>

> What about Fiberspar? I would think they were more into masts than van
> Dusen, or has van Dusen changed their focus?

> Ed
>
> Sorry, I can't offer any suggestions for your problem, but I'm

> you dealt with the capsizes and swamping. It sounds like you

> the capsizes okay -- how did you get back up? And once swamped,

> get upright and bail/pump out or did you have to have outside help?
>
> Jamie Orr
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ed haile [mailto:ewhaile@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 6:51 AM
> To:bolger@...
> Subject: [bolger] Martha Jane heavy mast
>
>
> Attention Martha Jane fleet!
>
> I bought a Martha Jane last April 99, which has proved to be

> I capsized 3 or 4 times, once actually swamping the whole boat. The
> solid fir mainmast, built up in three 2x planks, not of very
> close-grained material, weighs 100.5 lbs, including pivot plates and
> halyard block, and that it seems is just too much upstairs for the

> to recover from a knockdown. In fact, at that weight aloft she will

> recover careened under bare poles (the yard, boom, and sail add

> 40 lbs).
>

> Ed, are you quite, quite sure that your ballast tanks are not

> emptying themselves unbeknownst?? I ask because Graham Cheers also had
> problems as you described, and eventually found that the ballast tank,
> windward side, would very slowly empty while heeling, eventually

> the boat susceptible to capsize and, yes, one total swamp. it took a
> long time to notice because, once tyhe boat was back upright, the tank
> surreptitiously refilled...
>
> His solution was to ensure that tanks had positive, airtight, locking
> closures on intakes and vents. As far as I know, there's been no
> repeats over the last year.
>
> Tim & FT2
>
>

> I have a quote on a carbon fiber tube from Ted Van Dusen at Composite
> Marine. A bare, open, unfinished tube with a constant taper from 5"
> down to 2-3/8" over 19 feet is $1120. The wall is 5/32" and the bare
> weight is 21 lbs. Why a foot short? Ted decided the 4-1/2ft tail was

> longer necessary. A through-tube for the pivot pin would cost another
> $100. By the way, shipping is very low since rates are based on

> snip
>
> www.edwardwrighthaile.com
>
>
>

>Attention Martha Jane fleet!
>
>I bought a Martha Jane last April 99, which has proved to be top-heavy.
>I capsized 3 or 4 times, once actually swamping the whole boat. The
>solid fir mainmast, built up in three 2x planks, not of very
>close-grained material, weighs 100.5 lbs, including pivot plates and
>halyard block, and that it seems is just too much upstairs for the boat
>to recover from a knockdown. In fact, at that weight aloft she will not
>recover careened under bare poles (the yard, boom, and sail add another
>40 lbs).
>
>I have the plans and I do not see that the builder deviated in any
>significant way from them, either in scantlings or leeboard weights or
>water tanks. In fact, the mast measures a tad under plan tapers. No, it
>seems he just picked out a very heavy piece of fir to make that
>mainmast. The mizzen and boomkin look to be cut from the same young,
>rapid-growth tree and are also heavy.
>
>PB&F advise my problem is unique among Martha Janes. All the rest are
>reported to be self-righting, even though "the margin is small."
>Nonetheless, since the imbalance is an advantage in all boats, I
>thought I would share some solutions and figures. I have only just
>joined the group.
>
>PB&F suggest 1) adding a 2" by 2' shoe on the bottom 2) gluing perhaps
>300-400 lbs of sheet lead in the aisle, with the caution of furnishing
>a commensurate amount of positive foam flotation 3) lighter mast
>material.
>
>PCB expressed the opinion that the mast was so short that the weight
>savings of building a hollow wooden mast would be of too small
>significance. He did however recommend aluminum or carbon fiber. A 20'
>length of schedule 40 4-inch aluminum pipe (4-1/2 od) would be
>sufficient, weighing about 71 lbs, or 3-inch same, weighing around 5l
>lbs "if you don't have too many people on the gunwale."
>I believe 4" pipe is well under $300.
>
>I have a quote on a carbon fiber tube from Ted Van Dusen at Composite
>Marine. A bare, open, unfinished tube with a constant taper from 5"
>down to 2-3/8" over 19 feet is $1120. The wall is 5/32" and the bare
>weight is 21 lbs. Why a foot short? Ted decided the 4-1/2ft tail was no
>longer necessary. A through-tube for the pivot pin would cost another
>$100. By the way, shipping is very low since rates are based on weight.
>
>Which way am I going? A friend came forward and offered to build me a
>hollow fir spar of "aircraft grade" that we calculate will come in
>around 50 lbs on plan tapers. It is very clear and very old, counting
>20-35 rings per inch. I am trading him an 18ft trimaran he wants very
>badly.
>
>Ed Haile
>
>www.edwardwrighthaile.com
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
>Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
>no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
>credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/930/5/_/3457/_/949589451/
>
>-- Check out your group's private Chat room
>--http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
>
>
>