Re: Light Schooner With Training Wheels......martha jane
> Yes, there were reports of 1999 Martha Jane capsizings.Thanks,
>
> Perhaps searching this Bolger list messages might find more.
Bruce i found the small book you posted on the matter, not sure how
i missed it.
If anyone is interested in the evolution of MJ:
==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.
jason
FBBB,
Years ago I asked Bolger about possible modification to make the
Light Scooner more capsize resistant. The resulting cartoon was a
LS/Birdwatcher hybrid that lacked either the rakish lines of the LS,
or the capabilities of the Birdwatcher. I decided not to pursue it
and build the boat as draw (save widening the deck, which has
benefits and liabilities.)
I would counsel against building a Light Scooner if the typical crew
arrangement will be two adults, one of whom is afraid of the water.
This is my exact situation, and the boat has proven less than ideal
for me and my family. Unless you want to sail her reefed under all by
the lightest conditions, you will dump. Even if you have a crew of
4-5, you'll still dump. My personal record is going over with a crew
of nine adults, all sitting on the weather rail. We got hit with a
zephyr as we round a point, the foresail crewman was late slacking
the sheet, and over we went. As the lake where I sail is surrounded
by people who think any sailboat on beam ends constitutes a disaster,
I've been visited by the Coast Guard RIB no less than three times.
Since they are prohibited from rendering assistance if there no
threat to life or property, it's a pretty silly sight; them all
suited up in the RIB, me sitting on the half-sunk hull of the scooner
waiting for the wind to carry me to the lee shore.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Scooner! We've had some wonderful
family outings ghosting around the lake when the wind is barely
rippling the water, and in few more years I expect to press my
daughter and her friends into service on a regular basis (I'll need
about 10 of them to sail in the afternoon shore breeze.) But if I had
it to do over again, I'd build a Birdwatcher.
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
Years ago I asked Bolger about possible modification to make the
Light Scooner more capsize resistant. The resulting cartoon was a
LS/Birdwatcher hybrid that lacked either the rakish lines of the LS,
or the capabilities of the Birdwatcher. I decided not to pursue it
and build the boat as draw (save widening the deck, which has
benefits and liabilities.)
I would counsel against building a Light Scooner if the typical crew
arrangement will be two adults, one of whom is afraid of the water.
This is my exact situation, and the boat has proven less than ideal
for me and my family. Unless you want to sail her reefed under all by
the lightest conditions, you will dump. Even if you have a crew of
4-5, you'll still dump. My personal record is going over with a crew
of nine adults, all sitting on the weather rail. We got hit with a
zephyr as we round a point, the foresail crewman was late slacking
the sheet, and over we went. As the lake where I sail is surrounded
by people who think any sailboat on beam ends constitutes a disaster,
I've been visited by the Coast Guard RIB no less than three times.
Since they are prohibited from rendering assistance if there no
threat to life or property, it's a pretty silly sight; them all
suited up in the RIB, me sitting on the half-sunk hull of the scooner
waiting for the wind to carry me to the lee shore.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Scooner! We've had some wonderful
family outings ghosting around the lake when the wind is barely
rippling the water, and in few more years I expect to press my
daughter and her friends into service on a regular basis (I'll need
about 10 of them to sail in the afternoon shore breeze.) But if I had
it to do over again, I'd build a Birdwatcher.
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
>idea,
> I agree with a lot of the preceeding comments that express the
> in one way or another, that the proper remedies for ignorance andHear ,Hear Peter. Start sailing with care and respect for the water
> incompetence are education and experience.
>
> Peter
and the boat and it will come to you. dont forget the photos. you
will have to get someone else to sail ut so you can photograph it.
cheers Paul
Thanks for all the inputs. From your learned responses I have
decided to try three courses. I will sail her reefed, add a few
hundred pounds centerline fore and aft the mainmast trunk (not quite
the additional 500 in the thread unless she feels too loose) and add
sponsons outboard (painted PVC with bouyancy foam inside). She will
be somewhat an ugly slow duck until the learning and comfort period
is over (hopefully just two or three outings oh ye gods of sail and
sea foam?) and the changes are easily removed to bring her to
original form.
After my original idea, I ran out some whatifs on CAD and filled in
the lines for a 3D cartoon lookabout and the bloody thing looked
ridiculous. I'm glad you all had some better choices before I
created the ugly two masted multihull beast...
decided to try three courses. I will sail her reefed, add a few
hundred pounds centerline fore and aft the mainmast trunk (not quite
the additional 500 in the thread unless she feels too loose) and add
sponsons outboard (painted PVC with bouyancy foam inside). She will
be somewhat an ugly slow duck until the learning and comfort period
is over (hopefully just two or three outings oh ye gods of sail and
sea foam?) and the changes are easily removed to bring her to
original form.
After my original idea, I ran out some whatifs on CAD and filled in
the lines for a 3D cartoon lookabout and the bloody thing looked
ridiculous. I'm glad you all had some better choices before I
created the ugly two masted multihull beast...
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <kreamer@a...> wrote:
> I would sail with double reefs. You'll get the desired effect,
without all the (probably unsuccessful, definitely unnecessary)
design and building effort. And, you'll be transitioning to "regular"
sailing in a short time.
> >
> > From: "jlentz365" <jim_lentz@c...>
> > Date: 2004/06/08 Tue PM 09:55:52 EDT
> > To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [bolger] Light Schooner With Training Wheels
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
loss) at least at first :)
So it's not really a micro navigator any more.
It's just a cheap mockup for now from luanne ply and some crappy
studs that were laying around, to try out anglesand such. Once i see
the revised sail plan i'll make a move and try it for real.
Just so you know i took the leeboard pivit/guard design off the
leeboard catboat (pg 358, BWAOM) canted out at 15 degrees(no toe
in)....the original martha jane board shape shortened slightly, then
added an outer guard to stop the chicken winging mess(from zieger's
luna). I drew up a way to have 4 different pivit points over about
18" allowing me to fine tune it for proper balance. It sticks out a
bit and looks funny, like the rest of the boat and offers a kick ass
boarding step. I drew the rudder to use the existing shaft, hole and
bracing but shortened to the hulls maximum depth. There will be a
skeg out front about a foot long to protect the rudder from hits and
to brace the shaft. The rudder will have a rather large endplate to
hopefully counter act the rudder's reduced size. I'll probably make
two rudders(one protruding farther aft) and try them along with
different leeboard pivit locations to see what works best. If it all
sucks, back to the garage for a proper keel fitting this winter.
Oh yeah i'm figuring 550lbs of lead pigs below the sole bolted onto
and secured by yet to be installed stringers.
I ran out of epoxy so i'm not getting anything but daydreaming done.
Jason
> The Micro Navigator has spectacular stability curves!Ohhhhhhhhh, that's just it i'm not going to have a fin keel,(my
> ...with low down ballast hanging in the fin keel and
> high up buoyancy from the high decks and the cabin.
> I wouldn't worry about your aluminum mast ever
> touching the water.
loss) at least at first :)
So it's not really a micro navigator any more.
It's just a cheap mockup for now from luanne ply and some crappy
studs that were laying around, to try out anglesand such. Once i see
the revised sail plan i'll make a move and try it for real.
Just so you know i took the leeboard pivit/guard design off the
leeboard catboat (pg 358, BWAOM) canted out at 15 degrees(no toe
in)....the original martha jane board shape shortened slightly, then
added an outer guard to stop the chicken winging mess(from zieger's
luna). I drew up a way to have 4 different pivit points over about
18" allowing me to fine tune it for proper balance. It sticks out a
bit and looks funny, like the rest of the boat and offers a kick ass
boarding step. I drew the rudder to use the existing shaft, hole and
bracing but shortened to the hulls maximum depth. There will be a
skeg out front about a foot long to protect the rudder from hits and
to brace the shaft. The rudder will have a rather large endplate to
hopefully counter act the rudder's reduced size. I'll probably make
two rudders(one protruding farther aft) and try them along with
different leeboard pivit locations to see what works best. If it all
sucks, back to the garage for a proper keel fitting this winter.
Oh yeah i'm figuring 550lbs of lead pigs below the sole bolted onto
and secured by yet to be installed stringers.
I ran out of epoxy so i'm not getting anything but daydreaming done.
Jason
The Micro Navigator has spectacular stability curves!
...with low down ballast hanging in the fin keel and
high up buoyancy from the high decks and the cabin.
I wouldn't worry about your aluminum mast ever
touching the water.
Yes, there were reports of 1999 Martha Jane capsizings.
Perhaps searching this Bolger list messages might find more.
...with low down ballast hanging in the fin keel and
high up buoyancy from the high decks and the cabin.
I wouldn't worry about your aluminum mast ever
touching the water.
Yes, there were reports of 1999 Martha Jane capsizings.
Perhaps searching this Bolger list messages might find more.
Bruce?-
Do you know the story on matha's revamp reasoning? Were the boats
unable to right from a knockdown...... say 90 degrees or were they
turning turtle?
What do they believe the maximum angle of recovery was before and
after the modifications?
Navigator wise, i've got those aluminum masts, that will have holes
and wiring running through them so i don't belive they will hold
air.....could some foam noodles in there be benificial or just be
adding a few pounds up high where it will make matters worse?
Finally does anyone know much about mast head floats? or if bolger
has ever used them?
Jason
Do you know the story on matha's revamp reasoning? Were the boats
unable to right from a knockdown...... say 90 degrees or were they
turning turtle?
What do they believe the maximum angle of recovery was before and
after the modifications?
Navigator wise, i've got those aluminum masts, that will have holes
and wiring running through them so i don't belive they will hold
air.....could some foam noodles in there be benificial or just be
adding a few pounds up high where it will make matters worse?
Finally does anyone know much about mast head floats? or if bolger
has ever used them?
Jason
> After the Martha Jane capsizing(s) they:<pvanderwaart@y...> wrote:
>
> Calculated stability curves and found that
> low actual freeboard was the culprit.
>
> Their fix: Added buoyant volume above the
> center of gravity and added ballast below the C.G..
>
> Their first instinct was to raise the low afterdeck,
> but they discarded that idea because the low
> afterdeck was such a comforatable place to sit!
> Instead they added sponsons, outside the rail,
> two air chambers with 200 lbs floatation each.
>
> Plus, optionally, they designed a 'high house'
> Navigator style cabin for more high up buoyancy.
> [Not an option on LIght Schooner.]
>
> Worth noting, the buoyancy from the masts
> serve to help keep the boat from turning
> bottom up.
>
> They also recommended the addition of a 1/2"
> steel plate 500lb 'shoe' on the bottom of the boat,
> for dual duty of improved stability and armor
> plating when the boat grounds on the bottom.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:46:39 -0000, pvanderwaart
> >floats,
> > If, for example, you put made a "sponson" with fenders, or
> > or noodles, or whatever attached along the (outside of the)sheer,
> > you might be able to give the boat a sort of "soft stop" to keepto
> > some percentage of possible capsizes from going all the way. It
> > would have the bad effect, however, of making the boat difficult
> > impossible to right if the bad thing ever did happen. Quite anumber
> > of possible "fixes" would have similar problems, and/or other badidea,
> > side effects.
> >
> > I agree with a lot of the preceeding comments that express the
> > in one way or another, that the proper remedies for ignorance and
> > incompetence are education and experience.
> >
> > Peter
WWBD? What would Bolger do?
After the Martha Jane capsizing(s) they:
Calculated stability curves and found that
low actual freeboard was the culprit.
Their fix: Added buoyant volume above the
center of gravity and added ballast below the C.G..
Their first instinct was to raise the low afterdeck,
but they discarded that idea because the low
afterdeck was such a comforatable place to sit!
Instead they added sponsons, outside the rail,
two air chambers with 200 lbs floatation each.
Plus, optionally, they designed a 'high house'
Navigator style cabin for more high up buoyancy.
[Not an option on LIght Schooner.]
Worth noting, the buoyancy from the masts
serve to help keep the boat from turning
bottom up.
They also recommended the addition of a 1/2"
steel plate 500lb 'shoe' on the bottom of the boat,
for dual duty of improved stability and armor
plating when the boat grounds on the bottom.
After the Martha Jane capsizing(s) they:
Calculated stability curves and found that
low actual freeboard was the culprit.
Their fix: Added buoyant volume above the
center of gravity and added ballast below the C.G..
Their first instinct was to raise the low afterdeck,
but they discarded that idea because the low
afterdeck was such a comforatable place to sit!
Instead they added sponsons, outside the rail,
two air chambers with 200 lbs floatation each.
Plus, optionally, they designed a 'high house'
Navigator style cabin for more high up buoyancy.
[Not an option on LIght Schooner.]
Worth noting, the buoyancy from the masts
serve to help keep the boat from turning
bottom up.
They also recommended the addition of a 1/2"
steel plate 500lb 'shoe' on the bottom of the boat,
for dual duty of improved stability and armor
plating when the boat grounds on the bottom.
On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 17:46:39 -0000, pvanderwaart <pvanderwaart@...> wrote:
>
> If, for example, you put made a "sponson" with fenders, or floats,
> or noodles, or whatever attached along the (outside of the) sheer,
> you might be able to give the boat a sort of "soft stop" to keep
> some percentage of possible capsizes from going all the way. It
> would have the bad effect, however, of making the boat difficult to
> impossible to right if the bad thing ever did happen. Quite a number
> of possible "fixes" would have similar problems, and/or other bad
> side effects.
>
> I agree with a lot of the preceeding comments that express the idea,
> in one way or another, that the proper remedies for ignorance and
> incompetence are education and experience.
>
> Peter
If, for example, you put made a "sponson" with fenders, or floats,
or noodles, or whatever attached along the (outside of the) sheer,
you might be able to give the boat a sort of "soft stop" to keep
some percentage of possible capsizes from going all the way. It
would have the bad effect, however, of making the boat difficult to
impossible to right if the bad thing ever did happen. Quite a number
of possible "fixes" would have similar problems, and/or other bad
side effects.
I agree with a lot of the preceeding comments that express the idea,
in one way or another, that the proper remedies for ignorance and
incompetence are education and experience.
Peter
or noodles, or whatever attached along the (outside of the) sheer,
you might be able to give the boat a sort of "soft stop" to keep
some percentage of possible capsizes from going all the way. It
would have the bad effect, however, of making the boat difficult to
impossible to right if the bad thing ever did happen. Quite a number
of possible "fixes" would have similar problems, and/or other bad
side effects.
I agree with a lot of the preceeding comments that express the idea,
in one way or another, that the proper remedies for ignorance and
incompetence are education and experience.
Peter
>> New to bolger. I was considering building a light schooner, butYou could even consider a couple shorter masts with some surplus sails from
>> before I bought lumber I found one needing some TLC. I am in the
>> process of refurb, but have a squirrely question for the group.
>> Since I am a somewhat experienced sailor, but the second part of my
>> crew just learned to swim two years ago (poor city girl)--I am
>> considering building outriggers for the schooner to lessen the
>> tippability until the wife learns to enjoy the ride.
racing dinghies to cut the sail area down. Balance would be an issue but
can be worked out.
As far as "wheels" how about sponsons on the gunwales?
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jlentz365" <jim_lentz@c...> wrote:
them heel rather than trying to keep them level. the suggestion of
reefing is good.
I would leave the jib furled whist learning, dont sail in excessive
blowsor too rough seas.
something to consider is to let your wife take the helm and run the
show . they will soon love it or leave it. after 2 years of me
running our schooner I handed over and let others have a go . I start
friends as forard hand/babysitter, then to mainsheets then helm. If I
have another couple along I let the ladies do the sailing whilst I
advise on sail tuning/course adjustments.
last weekend I just ran aruond the boat chatting to the crew one at
a time. as the forard hand can feel a bit left out
.
Ballast . I tend to ask all the crew to sit on the bottom of the
boat. I have good comfy floorboards and lots of pieces of old carpet
that can be placed for comfort.for the kids i have a trapeze line on
the mainmast for them to play on to give them confidence I've had a 6
year old out on trapeze having a ball.
lastly , work up to the fullsail screaming reach experience, these
schooners will do it beautifully.
cheers paul
I love my schooner
> Hi all,Schooners like these will sail better and less skittish if you let
>
> New to bolger. I was considering building a light schooner, but
> before I bought lumber I found one needing some TLC. I am in the
> process of refurb, but have a squirrely question for the group.
> Since I am a somewhat experienced sailor, but the second part of my
> crew just learned to swim two years ago (poor city girl)--I am
> considering building outriggers for the schooner to lessen the
> tippability until the wife learns to enjoy the ride.
them heel rather than trying to keep them level. the suggestion of
reefing is good.
I would leave the jib furled whist learning, dont sail in excessive
blowsor too rough seas.
something to consider is to let your wife take the helm and run the
show . they will soon love it or leave it. after 2 years of me
running our schooner I handed over and let others have a go . I start
friends as forard hand/babysitter, then to mainsheets then helm. If I
have another couple along I let the ladies do the sailing whilst I
advise on sail tuning/course adjustments.
last weekend I just ran aruond the boat chatting to the crew one at
a time. as the forard hand can feel a bit left out
.
Ballast . I tend to ask all the crew to sit on the bottom of the
boat. I have good comfy floorboards and lots of pieces of old carpet
that can be placed for comfort.for the kids i have a trapeze line on
the mainmast for them to play on to give them confidence I've had a 6
year old out on trapeze having a ball.
lastly , work up to the fullsail screaming reach experience, these
schooners will do it beautifully.
cheers paul
I love my schooner
I would sail with double reefs. You'll get the desired effect, without all the (probably unsuccessful, definitely unnecessary) design and building effort. And, you'll be transitioning to "regular" sailing in a short time.
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: "jlentz365" <jim_lentz@...>
> Date: 2004/06/08 Tue PM 09:55:52 EDT
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [bolger] Light Schooner With Training Wheels
>
>
Hi all,
New to bolger. I was considering building a light schooner, but
before I bought lumber I found one needing some TLC. I am in the
process of refurb, but have a squirrely question for the group.
Since I am a somewhat experienced sailor, but the second part of my
crew just learned to swim two years ago (poor city girl)--I am
considering building outriggers for the schooner to lessen the
tippability until the wife learns to enjoy the ride. I also think
this will give me a chance to reaffirm my sailing gene since the last
time I sailed a gaff rig was 18 years ago and have never attempted
the full schooner rigging with two masts on something so skittish.
Has anyone attempted such a feat? Any advice beyond adding extra
bouyancy--already read that one and have taken to plan on refurb. May
even add some extra bouyancy tanks under low bench seats in aft and
mid ships afore the mainmast/daggerboard trunk for when we are
sailing lazy. I also plan to ballast for some potential at self-
righting after I run the calcs since we will usually crew with just
two (sometimes four if friends venture out to learn).
New to bolger. I was considering building a light schooner, but
before I bought lumber I found one needing some TLC. I am in the
process of refurb, but have a squirrely question for the group.
Since I am a somewhat experienced sailor, but the second part of my
crew just learned to swim two years ago (poor city girl)--I am
considering building outriggers for the schooner to lessen the
tippability until the wife learns to enjoy the ride. I also think
this will give me a chance to reaffirm my sailing gene since the last
time I sailed a gaff rig was 18 years ago and have never attempted
the full schooner rigging with two masts on something so skittish.
Has anyone attempted such a feat? Any advice beyond adding extra
bouyancy--already read that one and have taken to plan on refurb. May
even add some extra bouyancy tanks under low bench seats in aft and
mid ships afore the mainmast/daggerboard trunk for when we are
sailing lazy. I also plan to ballast for some potential at self-
righting after I run the calcs since we will usually crew with just
two (sometimes four if friends venture out to learn).