Re: Micro Displacement was Romilly
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Stancil" <jasonstancil@h...>
wrote:
Long Micro - when the waterline is up to the designed displacement
there is only 9" of the hull immersed at the center of balance point
and over three and half feet left to the top of the gunnel! It looks
like - if you heel the boat enough to get the windward chine out of
the water the transoms would still not be touching the water,
especially the stern. Also of interest is that the foam bouyancy is
still above the waterline for the most part, and is not even being
applied to support the load yet!
It would be interesting to know how much more weight it would take to
even bring her down to the top of her boot strip. Seems to me there
is a lot of reserve bouyancy.
Of course that extra 4 X 6 feet of volume on the center of balance of
the Long Micro adds a significant amount of load capacity as well as
a 25% increase in waterline length, which means some extra weight
won't bog her down as much as the standard MICRO.
Another point of interest is with both BRICK and OLDSHOE which both
routinely carry weights above their designed displacement without a
care!
Maybe a boat that is slow to begin with has other advantages:-)
Cheers
wrote:
> I hope mine comes out under 1500 lbs with battery the o/b and a fewI can't locate my MICRO plans but looking at the scale drawing for
> days of food/fuel and water, my suburu will hate me if it weighs
> much more. The boat still has to haul me 175lbs, dog 55lbs and lady
> friend 120lbs ..........pushing displacement
> Jason
Long Micro - when the waterline is up to the designed displacement
there is only 9" of the hull immersed at the center of balance point
and over three and half feet left to the top of the gunnel! It looks
like - if you heel the boat enough to get the windward chine out of
the water the transoms would still not be touching the water,
especially the stern. Also of interest is that the foam bouyancy is
still above the waterline for the most part, and is not even being
applied to support the load yet!
It would be interesting to know how much more weight it would take to
even bring her down to the top of her boot strip. Seems to me there
is a lot of reserve bouyancy.
Of course that extra 4 X 6 feet of volume on the center of balance of
the Long Micro adds a significant amount of load capacity as well as
a 25% increase in waterline length, which means some extra weight
won't bog her down as much as the standard MICRO.
Another point of interest is with both BRICK and OLDSHOE which both
routinely carry weights above their designed displacement without a
care!
Maybe a boat that is slow to begin with has other advantages:-)
Cheers
> I am surprised about Long Micro. Knowing the actual weight ofBruce-
> my Micro Navigator is not easy. I am guessing it weighs
> about 1,500 pounds, or perhaps less.
I was thinking mine was that heavy(1500) but if a bolger speced
Micro is what 875lbs.
How much can the house weigh?......150-175lbs ......The bunks should
be about the same as the cockpit seating. The rear deck and bins
another 50ish. The rig another 50? plus another 75lbs of rear
stantions and other stringers and stuff.............That would be
about 1250ish lbs. My boat with 3/8 and double bottom may be 1300-
1400 lbs. Hard to say as my 3/8 MDO is damn close to 1/4 inch a/c
pine when it comes to weight. Just a shot in the dark as i won't
know till i tow it to the scale.
I hope mine comes out under 1500 lbs with battery the o/b and a few
days of food/fuel and water, my suburu will hate me if it weighs
much more. The boat still has to haul me 175lbs, dog 55lbs and lady
friend 120lbs ..........pushing displacement
Jason
> Any idea Bruce what the dry weight of your Navigator is? I believeI am surprised about Long Micro. Knowing the actual weight of
> the advertised DW for a Micro is 875 and the displacement 1650.
> Nels
my Micro Navigator is not easy. I am guessing it weighs
about 1,500 pounds, or perhaps less.
> With a balanced lug, it may not heel much at all as the boom tendsto
> lift more than one attached to the mast, and so pull the boatforward
> rather than heel it.I think 200 sqft of lug should heel it enough! I hope anyhow as
it'll beat me to death in a chop otherwise.
Heeling tends to lengthen the W/L and not really
> sink the boat deeper does it?.............Theoretically anyhow,alot of boats bank on this including MJ and that schooner scow
bolger designed. Not to mention all those boats build back in the
day to sneak around race rules, gracefull but kinda silly with 8' of
overhang bow and stern. I just can't get into organized racing
because of silly things like that.
> That big piece of pipe is certainly overkill and will have someI'm real close to ditching that monster! I finished my tabernacle
> pendulum effect aloft I would suspect.
uprights and braces tonight and i don't like the looks of it. $50 if
anyone wants that dang pipe. Unlike the chinese gaff or the sprit
the lug which is realitively short and long doesn't need that big of
a mast and i think(?) i could step it without the tabernacle
(wood).........i've spent alot of time on that thing but it' doesn't
look right, the round pipe makes the lock staff complicated (not
built) and the pipe and tabernacle are adding alot of weight up
there where i'd rather have a heavy anchor and rode and the
tabernacle will cause me to loose my ventilator.....That's what i
get for fiddling (who am i kidding i love it)
> And you are dispensing with the mizzen? Or is there no room for it?The mizzen is gone as the lug boom is a full 16.5 feet long and hangs
a bit bit beyond the stern like an old school catboat. Not sure how
she'll behave at anchor with that big ol'pilot house so i may have
to rig a little steadying sail for the mooring.
I really feel good about my changes to date I'm definately taking
the K.eep I.t S.imple S.tupid approach. She may not work as well as
bolger designed her but she is going to be real user friendly ,fun
and she'll get plenty of use. Bolger may have drew her but it's my
sweat blood and tears in the epoxy.
Still looks like a Oct. launch not much left to do beyond finish
work, rig stuff and how can i forget the keel!
Jason
>I have read the same report, but cannot figure out how it could
> I have read where a MICRO was driving into head seas and brought
> water in through the cabin vent.
happen unless some variation on the cabin vent / bow transom was
done. The bow is a good 6" off the waterline, and it would take
some serious loading to bring it down to the openings on the bow
transom. I have been out in Nantucket sound in the Chatham/Harwich
triangle (which has a reputation for being pretty bumpy in a SW
breeze) in as much as 20-25 kts and never had a problem with seas
coming through the vent or bow transom. My 9 year old loved to
stand in the well and get his feet wet. I admit to motorsailing if
it was blowing significantly and we were on a schedule.
I imagine that a heavily built, heavily loaded Micro might be
subject to overflooding of the bow well if driven by too much power
into a choppy seaway directly to windward. Simple solution would be
to slow down and go at an angle to the seas. A little handkerchief
of sail might help as well. My Micro never showed these
tendencies, the stern well would start to fill up a little if
driven too fast under power as it would dig a larger hole in the
water, but nothing that was even remotely dangerous.
David Jost
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Stancil" <jasonstancil@h...>
wrote:
I have read where a MICRO was driving into head seas and brought
water in through the cabin vent.
With a balanced lug, it may not heel much at all as the boom tends to
lift more than one attached to the mast, and so pull the boat forward
rather than heel it. Heeling tends to lengthen the W/L and not really
sink the boat deeper does it?
That big piece of pipe is certainly overkill and will have some
pendulum effect aloft I would suspect.
And you are dispensing with the mizzen? Or is there no room for it?
Cheers, Nels
wrote:
>********************
> Sounds about right to me but what about when the boat heels? Would
> the "v" hull sink deeper than when it's laid flat possibly dragging
> the transoms? I have no idea yet but i'll test this out if i ever
> get done :)
I have read where a MICRO was driving into head seas and brought
water in through the cabin vent.
With a balanced lug, it may not heel much at all as the boom tends to
lift more than one attached to the mast, and so pull the boat forward
rather than heel it. Heeling tends to lengthen the W/L and not really
sink the boat deeper does it?
That big piece of pipe is certainly overkill and will have some
pendulum effect aloft I would suspect.
And you are dispensing with the mizzen? Or is there no room for it?
Cheers, Nels
> The Bolger boats seem quite conservative as to advertisedstern
> displacement. I think this is as a result of having the bow and
> above the water. When you add additional weight, those areas addto
> the bouyancy. Just my uneducated guess though.******************
Sounds about right to me but what about when the boat heels? Would
the "v" hull sink deeper than when it's laid flat possibly dragging
the transoms? I have no idea yet but i'll test this out if i ever
get done :)
My boat is well overbuilt. 3/8 everything and 3/4 inch bottom with
mucho dynel and epoxy. I also have that rediculous 4.5" aluminum
pipe mast on a beefy tabernacle, the lack of mizzen and chinese
gaffer stuff should even that out. i figure it weighs right at 1000
lbs.
Jason
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
2400 lb.
The approximate trailer weight is 1500 and Dann Gonneau estimates his
empty is 1800 lb. He used thicker plywood and more glassing than to
plan.
His are the only photos I have seen of one on the water and it seems
hardly down to it's lines in any of them.
Any idea Bruce what the dry weight of your Navigator is? I believe
the advertised DW for a Micro is 875 and the displacement 1650.
The Bolger boats seem quite conservative as to advertised
displacement. I think this is as a result of having the bow and stern
above the water. When you add additional weight, those areas add to
the bouyancy. Just my uneducated guess though.
Nels
> > Displacement 2640 lb.According to my plans the advertised displacement for Long Miro is
> Is about twice that of Long Micro.
2400 lb.
The approximate trailer weight is 1500 and Dann Gonneau estimates his
empty is 1800 lb. He used thicker plywood and more glassing than to
plan.
His are the only photos I have seen of one on the water and it seems
hardly down to it's lines in any of them.
Any idea Bruce what the dry weight of your Navigator is? I believe
the advertised DW for a Micro is 875 and the displacement 1650.
The Bolger boats seem quite conservative as to advertised
displacement. I think this is as a result of having the bow and stern
above the water. When you add additional weight, those areas add to
the bouyancy. Just my uneducated guess though.
Nels
> Displacement 2640 lb.Is about twice that of Long Micro.
I was looking at a year old issue of Classic Boat and saw a design
that could be compared (or contrasted!) somewhat to a Long Micro. It
also gives some idea of the costs involved to purchase a similar
design new and I discovered that there is also a set of plans to
build one in strip planking. The biggest contrast between the two is
that Romilly is obviously built to look breathtakingly beautiful
rather than being totally practical:-)
http://www.nigelirens.demon.co.uk/nid_sail.htm
There is a link from there to the plans. The boat is a cat yawl, with
the unstayed carbon mast in the bow, and a loose footed lugsail main.
Small mizzen on centre.
LOA 22' X 6' 10" Draft board up 1' 8" Down 6' 10"
Displacement 2640 lb. Price 25,850 plus VAT (Pounds Sterling)
It has a very tiny cuddy with just room for a "generous vee birth" A
large cockpit that is not selfbailing. The outboard goes in an
opening in the laserette immediately under the tiller and must be
removed to get the prop above the waterline. The loose-footed sail is
set up almost like genoa with two sheets and a winch on each side
deck.
It was quite interesting to see that the homebuilt plans were
modified to give the design a full keel and a boom for better
downwind performance, resulting in it looking even more like a Long
Micro. Plans price 300 PS and up.
Another interesting detail was the main halyard set-up that is 5
times more complicated than one of Dr. Phils.
All together this was a good exercise in confirming what an
incredible gift we have in Mr. Bolger and his genius.
Cheers, Nels
that could be compared (or contrasted!) somewhat to a Long Micro. It
also gives some idea of the costs involved to purchase a similar
design new and I discovered that there is also a set of plans to
build one in strip planking. The biggest contrast between the two is
that Romilly is obviously built to look breathtakingly beautiful
rather than being totally practical:-)
http://www.nigelirens.demon.co.uk/nid_sail.htm
There is a link from there to the plans. The boat is a cat yawl, with
the unstayed carbon mast in the bow, and a loose footed lugsail main.
Small mizzen on centre.
LOA 22' X 6' 10" Draft board up 1' 8" Down 6' 10"
Displacement 2640 lb. Price 25,850 plus VAT (Pounds Sterling)
It has a very tiny cuddy with just room for a "generous vee birth" A
large cockpit that is not selfbailing. The outboard goes in an
opening in the laserette immediately under the tiller and must be
removed to get the prop above the waterline. The loose-footed sail is
set up almost like genoa with two sheets and a winch on each side
deck.
It was quite interesting to see that the homebuilt plans were
modified to give the design a full keel and a boom for better
downwind performance, resulting in it looking even more like a Long
Micro. Plans price 300 PS and up.
Another interesting detail was the main halyard set-up that is 5
times more complicated than one of Dr. Phils.
All together this was a good exercise in confirming what an
incredible gift we have in Mr. Bolger and his genius.
Cheers, Nels