Re: Insolent Long Micro Navigator:-)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <lestat@b...> wrote:
However, if one
> should ever be between a rock and a hard place, like having to claw
> off a lee shore, and things just aren't working for you, there is
an
> ancient technology that generally works well until things calm down
> abit............anchors;-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Lenihan,who has had his ass saved a few times by such things
as
> the lowly anchor,from along the shores of the mighty
> St.Lawrence........

Hi Peter,

It seems I misunderstood the full meaning of what you suggested about
using an anchor to assist oneself from being washed up onto a lee
shore in a storm. I assumed you meant try to get the hook down into
the sea bed to arrest the boats drift - not to use it as a drogue!

The article about Petrel clarified your intentions and I quote the
enlightening paragraph:-)

"The anchors would be kept in the free-flooding bow. I haven't tried
it under appropriate circumstances, but it seems to me that letting
go one or more anchors with all the warp available, in no-bottom
water, ought to be at least as effective as most sea anchors. I don't
understand why drogues are designed to float, as the deeper they go
the less they'll be in the surface drift, and the nearer vertical the
warp tends, the more resistance it will have and the more effective
it wlll be in steadying the bow of the boat."

Obviously, if the anchor(s) begin to drag on the sea floor at some
point that would also be of assistance and if it stopped the boat
altogether, the natural sag in a long rode would cushion the action
of the surface waves on the boat and allow it to hold position. If
you were so unfortunate as to be in the breaking waves near shore it
would still be safer for the boat to risk foundering than have it
smashed onto the shore.

Perhaps this also demonstrates another advantage of the oft maligned
self-draining bow well (Of course the forward air vent would have
been closed long before this.)

I suppose another tactic might be to attach a sea anchor to one of
the anchor line chains as well, which would get it down in the
quieter water and offer even more resistance to drift.

Canoeists have been known to use this tactic. Tie a bucket to the
anchor and cast it off the bow, secured by a "bridle" attached to the
bow seat risers rather than the bow itself - to allow the bow to
still be able to rise to a wave. The bridle is simply a length of
line from one side of the seat to the other side - being long enough
to go out past the bow, so you end up with a "wishbone" configuration
off the bow. This is also used for lining down rapids to prevent the
bow from digging in.

I can now visualize riding out a storm in a Micro in this fashion
with the anchors off the bow and the mizzen used to maintain the best
angle into the waves to keep them from knocking the boat over.

Now I understand (I think!)

Cheers, Nels

Motors are pretty simple as long as you keep them in good repair. Especially
the new 4-strokes. The most common problem is bad gas. Put a good fuel
filter/water separator between the main tank and the motor and you'll
eliminate most of your troubles.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lenihan" <lestat@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Insolent Long Micro Navigator:-)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:

> Wow. Is the pirate I have heard so much about?
>
> Herein a few photos of a 15 foot minicruiser in the Bahamas fr this
> chilly winter's night:-)
>
>http://www.microcruising.com/2003pics.htm

Yup! It sure is and proud to be accident free in Two oh
three.Actually,being the wimp that I am and not knowing how to swim
somehow compells me to be prudent since I have no desire to become
the protagonist in some future generations collection of sea horror
stories:-)
Thanks for the cheery and tropical photos of Paradox.Coming from the
pinko north land,I have a hard time with sweltering tropical heat and
my wildly out of shape body really really does need the more palatial
comforts offered onboard a boat like WINDERMERE.
And speaking of boats,do my half blind eyes actually spy an outboard
hanging sheepishly off the transom of Paradox? YIKES!!!There goes the
neighbourhood.......:-D

Sincerely,

Peter Lenihan,retired pirate,re-born boat bum and guzzler of spiked
drinks.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <lestat@b...> wrote:

>
> LOL........Not having the option of sail onboard WINDERMERE,I will
> make an obsession of learning everything I can about my

motors,study

> my charts religously and watch the weather like a hawk.

Wow. Is the pirate I have heard so much about?

Herein a few photos of a 15 foot minicruiser in the Bahamas fr this
chilly winter's night:-)

http://www.microcruising.com/2003pics.htm

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:

> Does this mean you will save the cost of a second motor by getting

> big anchor instead? Or use the motor as an anchor if it turns out

not

> to be terribley reliable?;-)

LOL........Not having the option of sail onboard WINDERMERE,I will
make an obsession of learning everything I can about my motors,study
my charts religously and watch the weather like a hawk. And
if,despite the best intentions, I still manage to find myself in a
bad chance then anchors it will be.Besides, I have a lovely boom-
crane up forward to deal with nice big comfy anchors :-) Once safely
anchored with all hatches battened down, I'll rustle up some hot
food,pop a cork of wine, crank the volume up on some Mahler and
decide whether or not to call for assistance on the VHF.Off-shore
work is not in the cards for an estuary cruiser like WINDERMERE and
most so called coastal cruising will be fair weather ventures.

Sincerely,

Peter Lenihan,inland boater and boat bum.................

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <lestat@b...> wrote:

> --- However, if one
> should ever be between a rock and a hard place, like having to claw
> off a lee shore, and things just aren't working for you, there is

> ancient technology that generally works well until things calm down
> abit............anchors;-)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Lenihan,who has had his ass saved a few times by such things

> the lowly anchor,from along the shores of the mighty
> St.Lawrence........

Hi Peter,

Does this mean you will save the cost of a second motor by getting a
big anchor instead? Or use the motor as an anchor if it turns out not
to be terribley reliable?;-)

I must confess that is something I have not considered as an option.
The idea of being anchored in breaking seas seems oddly unappealing.
However having a boat full of water may be a lot safer (for the
boat) than having it smashed to bits on a reef.

I have read many horror stories of motors quiting at the most
inopportune times - being drowned by a wave - bad gas. It may seem
against one's better instincts as a coatal cruiser to head further
out to sea when the waves get larger but that is often the safest
place - if of course you have a good little boat designed for the
task.

On my most recent trip along the north shore of Lake Superior I was
in deep awe of the natives and voyageurs that routinely traveled that
coast in canoes. Very few places to find safe shelter along much f
that coastline. And no sailboats in sight the whole time:-)

Cheers, Nels

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
The motor is the
> usual option - but motors have been known to conk out for no
apparent
> reason.

So true, but the "newer"ones are terribly reliable. However, if one
should ever be between a rock and a hard place, like having to claw
off a lee shore, and things just aren't working for you, there is an
ancient technology that generally works well until things calm down
abit............anchors;-)

Sincerely,

Peter Lenihan,who has had his ass saved a few times by such things as
the lowly anchor,from along the shores of the mighty
St.Lawrence........

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <brucehallman@y...>
wrote:

> How long is the Ostar boat? I imagine
> that the Long Micro is limited by its
> hull speed, which is determined by
> the physics of waterline length.
>
> Ref also message
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/21464

Hi Bruce,

You are entirely correct. There may have been a misunderstanding that
I was considering turning LM into an OSTAR contender. Or that putting
a "racing keel" on a box was ludicrous. What I am suggesting is that
adding a keel with an end plate may be a practical method to improve
offshore capability in a shallow keeled boat designed mainly for
coastal sailing. The same way adding an end plate to the rudder made
barn door rudders redundant on catboats.

I'm not talking speed here as "fast micro" is obviously an oxymoron:-)

I have never seen it mentioned anywhere what the hull speed of a LM
would be. Would 6 knots seem reasonable do you think?

In the message you referred to - the following statement is made:

"2. Rig for offshore. The cat yawl rig is not especially well suited
for offshore for several reasons, but the probably the most important
is that the boom is too long. In a hard chance it may drag in the
water and a) break, b) keep the sail from luffing, c) prevent the
boat from turning into the wind, or d) other. The usual rule for a
boom is twice the beam of the boat, but I would think the fact that
the boat is narrow in way of the mast would made the problem worse.
In the AS-29, the fact that the boom is high off the water would
mitigate to some extent. Other problems with the cat-yawl rig are the
heavy weight of the mast in the bow, lack of working room around the
mast, windage of the mast in the bow which might reduce your options
in a survival situation."

I find this to be an interesting observation since both Fiji and
Halser have such rigs and are touted as offshore boats capable of
circumnavagations. Does this means they are destined to be failures?

Personally, the furthest offshore I might venture in my wildest
dreams is the 40 mile jump from Key West to Bimini. But it might be
fun to have the capability even if it is only a potentiality. It
could also assist one - at some point keep - off a lee shore with a
little less angst than with a shallow keel. So I am not looking at
boat speed but limiting leeway as much as practical. The motor is the
usual option - but motors have been known to conk out for no apparent
reason.

The bottom line is I can AFFORD a LM. I can't afford an I60 or a
Fiji. I'm sure you understand and I appreciate all you comments.

Cheers, Nels

--- Peter, "pvanderwaart" wrote:

> Remember Bolger's Ostar boat (not Gary B's.
> I mean the precursor to the AS-29) with a
> shape not unlike LM plus a deep dagger keel.

I *don't* remember this boat ;-/ I have
thought that the Jessie Cooper was the
pre-curser to the Advanced Sharpie 29.

What length is this Ostar boat? Is
it the well known 'Bolger Box' with
chopped off ends, and equal curvature
on sides and bottom? Like an AS-19?

How long is the Ostar boat? I imagine
that the Long Micro is limited by its
hull speed, which is determined by
the physics of waterline length.

Ref also message
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/21464

--- Nels wrote:

> I notice in the diagrams you are a bit concerned
> about the lateral strength of the keel? Of course >
> in a LM you are
> looking at less than
> 600 lb

600 lbs is still a lot.

Yes, there are a few stress points which would need to
be engineered. By coincidence, I was speaking with SA
on the phone 6 months ago, and she said that they were
well aware of the stresses, and would be sure to
design it with plenty of safety factor.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Bell" <smallboatdesigner@m...>
wrote:

> You're thinking too hard, methinks.
>

That's what happens to us all up here in the Great White North.

The nights are too damned long and the towns too far apart:-(

Cheers, Nels (Wondering if I should widen the keel box instead and
add fillets to the bow to lessen wave-slap, do away with sails
altogether - add a 20 hp Yam and have a poor man's Windermere! Call
it a Rearviewmere)

Is it really the keel that limits progress to windward or is it a
combination of things including the rig, windage, and the keel?

If it's so bad that you have to get to windward or else, money spent on a
good outboard to allow you to motorsail upwind would be a heck of a lot
easier and just about guaranteed to work! It would also cost about the same
or less as designing, engineering, and building a swing wing keel.

You're thinking too hard, methinks.

(I sure am feeling a lot like the Boat Curmudgeon these days... thanks for
indulging me.)

JB

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nels" <arvent@...>
|
| A major trend I have noticed is a move away from leeboards and
| shallow keels and back to using more centerboards - even in
| conjunction with a shallow keel.
|
| PCB seems to feel that once one gets sailing in deeper water - as in
| offshore - and the winds have been persistant for a period of time -
| the sea surface begins to move downwind and shallow draft boats start
| to lose their ability to maintain way. A deeper board mitigates this.
| However in shallow water this keel design (Micro's) will outfoot
| leeboards and centerboards. So having a shallow keel and a
| centerboard gives a wider range of capability.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:

> Tinkering with a Bolger design
> can be fun, but you might as well
> rename it, as it would no longer
> be a Bolger design :-)
>
> Six months back I attempted to
> figure out the geometry of the
> swinging mechanism and put my
> sketches here:
>
>http://www.hallman.org/bolger/Insolent60/
>
>Thanks for the link and comments. I have already contacted PCB&F

about the Navigator mods and of course would get their input if I
wanted to look at the Swing/wing keel. Right now they are not
interested in such trivial matters.

I notice in the diagrams you are a bit concerned about the lateral
strength of the keel? Of course in a LM you are looking at less than
600 lb as compared to 3000 for the I60.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Bell" <smallboatdesigner@m...>
wrote:

> LM is already pretty shoal as it stands. Would you gain that much
> making it a centerboard boat?
>

Hi - Thanks everyone for the response,

I will review a few reasons why I consider it might have some merit
based on studies of PCB&F's seeming design trends of late.

A major trend I have noticed is a move away from leeboards and
shallow keels and back to using more centerboards - even in
conjunction with a shallow keel.

PCB seems to feel that once one gets sailing in deeper water - as in
offshore - and the winds have been persistant for a period of time -
the sea surface begins to move downwind and shallow draft boats start
to lose their ability to maintain way. A deeper board mitigates this.
However in shallow water this keel design (Micro's) will outfoot
leeboards and centerboards. So having a shallow keel and a
centerboard gives a wider range of capability.

PCB also has almost totally moved over to using large but shallow
rudders with end plates on them because they are the most effective
for shallow draft boats. He also suggests that an end plate on a keel
would also be very effective if some way of protecting it could be
developed. Of course the challenge of putting an end plate on a swing
keel is in keeping the end plate horizontal at different keel
depths.The I60 keel design seems to be a breakthrough in that regard
and I expect if succesful will be used on more designs.

My contention is that it will make any hull more effective offshore
and still enable it to sail in shallow waters. Also with the ballest
lower down the righting moment would allow more sail if one is so
inclined.

I don't see the centerboard case taking up that much space in the
cabin since most of the board will be buried in the keel.
Particularly if one is using a Navigator type pilothouse - it will
likely be under the table. This would be a far smaller and lighter
keel than the ones being developed now. (I think it would also work
on the Chebaccos, and various schooners - none of which have the
interior/exterior size ratio of the Long Micro.)

Of course the added expense is a decisive factor as well as whether
the increase in complexity is worth any performance gains. Perhaps
the worse case scenario is to just leave it raised all the time and
you still have an Long micro with a big piece of lead hanging under
it. As I mentioned a way back in the I60 discussion, hitting that
wing a glancing blow against a rock or something while at speed
could be scarey.

Gary didn't want the wing keel for the purpose of speed, rather to
make his boat more useable in the shoal waters of his Florida
panhandle cruising ground. His OSTAR racer originally had a deep lead
fin keel that drew four of five feet. He eventually got tired of
getting stuck in the mud and took a saw and whacked a foot off the
bottom of the fin. Apparently the reduced ballast and righting moment
did not hurt the boat. It also made it somewhat less likely to run
aground, but it was still not a complete solution.

It was during a visit with PCB that the plan to modify Gary's boat
was made. Since then he's built it, but I have yet to see a report.

All this is to say is the reason for it wasn't speed, the boat was
plenty fast (and probably faster) with the original fin. The only
reason to build such a complex retractible wing is make the boat
usable in shoal waters or to facilitate trailering.

LM is already pretty shoal as it stands. Would you gain that much
making it a centerboard boat?

> I was looking in the Files folder "Foils, boards, rudders, keels"
> trying to figure out how the inside steering station was designed on
> Gary Blankenship's 30 ft offshore racer which also seems to be the
> test bed for the I60's swing-wing keel.
>

I was looking in the Files folder "Foils, boards, rudders, keels"
trying to figure out how the inside steering station was designed on
Gary Blankenship's 30 ft offshore racer which also seems to be the
test bed for the I60's swing-wing keel.

This got me to wondering if a small swing-wing keel could be
installed in LM instead of the lead slab called for in the design.
Seems the hoist could be located within an arm's reach of the inside
tiller location. The only limiting factors I can foresee (other than
the complexity.) is that the LM keel is not thick enough to locate
the swing keel with it's internal mechanism that ajusts the angle of
the wing. Also the CE may not be in correct location being amidships.

However it does have some interesting potential for offshore work,
getting the wing down to where it can get more bite than the standard

Both the I60 and the 30 offshore racer are designed first and
foremost to be fast boats, and work backward from there (and through
a few other narrow, some would say fool-headed parameters) to arrive
at the complex and expensive folding keel. Also, while the keel may
make the I60 fast, it's not what makes it safe. It's the Birdwatcher
house that does that.

The biggest argument against using such a contrivance in the Long
Micro is that you'd be paying a lot of money to cut an already narrow
cabin in half without getting much in return for your investment. The
Long Micro isn't really designed to take full advantage of what the
folding winged keel offers, which is sail carrying capacity. Looked
at the right way, the I60 is really a just a Jochem's Schooner that's
been "cheated" to carry 1100 square feet of sail, and "cheated" to
have a waterline that can make real use of all that sail area. In
exchange for putting up with the keel, you get a 30' boat that looks
like a 60 foot boat, and sails like a 60 foot boat. But look at the
displacement; only five tons, clear not the displacement of a 60
footer.

In many of Bolger's designs he invites us to reconsider one of our
most deeply held beliefs about boats -- that a deep, heavy keel makes
a safe boat. It is a tremendously hard misapprehension to leave
behind.

YIBB,

David

--

C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296

--- "pvanderwaart" wrote:

> > I think the Long Micro hull is a
> > poke-a-long kind of displacement
> I'm not so sure. Remember Bolger's Ostar boat

I am not familar, our Database suggests it
was written up in MAIB V#10 Issue#1.

Ostar Racer

Does anybody have this issue? and can and post it?
[hi-res please!]

> I think the Long Micro hull is a
> poke-a-long kind of displacement
> hull. Well suited to the simplicity
> of the lead slab ballast sandwiched
> into a fin.

I'm not so sure. Remember Bolger's Ostar boat (not Gary B's. I mean
the precursor to the AS-29) with a shape not unlike LM plus a deep
dagger keel.

Peter

--- Nels wrote:

> This got me to wondering if a
> small swing-wing keel could be
> installed in LM instead of the
> lead slab called for
> in the design.

Tinkering with a Bolger design
can be fun, but you might as well
rename it, as it would no longer
be a Bolger design :-)

Six months back I attempted to
figure out the geometry of the
swinging mechanism and put my
sketches here:

http://www.hallman.org/bolger/Insolent60/

I think the Long Micro hull is a
poke-a-long kind of displacement
hull. Well suited to the simplicity
of the lead slab ballast sandwiched
into a fin.

The greater complexity of the swinging keel
would give more 'return' for your effort
mounted on a longer, sleeker and faster hull,
maybe a 30 ft sharpie shape, like the Folding
Schooner, or 28 ft Burgundy?

I don't see how to do it without a 'trunk'
eating into the usable cabin space which
would spoil a Long Micro.