Re: Cartoon 40?
Graeme: Alas, I never did get or use a single luff spinnaker. Always
wanted to, but never got it done. I think if I were, I would get a
polytarp one to try out and see how it worked. So I can't speak to
performance and ease of handling with one. Without the single luff
sail, it handled well, steady on the helm but turning on a dime and
keeping its momentum well in a tack. A paragon.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
wanted to, but never got it done. I think if I were, I would get a
polytarp one to try out and see how it worked. So I can't speak to
performance and ease of handling with one. Without the single luff
sail, it handled well, steady on the helm but turning on a dime and
keeping its momentum well in a tack. A paragon.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
>was
> G'day Gary, thanks for your reply. Very interesting. Did you go for
> the complete single-luff spinnaker rig? If so, how did it perform on
> a
> reach? How did it perform when tacking or gybing?
>
> Best regards
> graeme
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-
> week
> > vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which
> > written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in thearticle
> areto
> > complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went
> an
> > aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).
> >
> > I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco
> might
> > be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck
> with
> > it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the
> builder....
G'day Gary, thanks for your reply. Very interesting. Did you go for
the complete single-luff spinnaker rig? If so, how did it perform on
a
reach? How did it perform when tacking or gybing?
Best regards
graeme
the complete single-luff spinnaker rig? If so, how did it perform on
a
reach? How did it perform when tacking or gybing?
Best regards
graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@c...> wrote:
>
> Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-
week
> vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which was
> written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in the article
are
> complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went to
an
> aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).
>
> I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco
might
> be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck
with
> it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the
builder....
Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-week
vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which was
written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in the article are
complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went to an
aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).
I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco might
be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck with
it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the builder. I
had built 4 or five boats at the time, so had a good idea of what was
needed. Under the influence then of Alan Vaitses "Covering Wood Boats
with Fiberglass," I planned a 1/4 inch (AC fir)ply hull, covered with
a lot of glass set in polyester. I think the minimum was a layer of
cloth, a layer of heavy matt, and a final layer of cloth. All this was
overlapped and doubled at the bottom and stem. In fact, there was so
much glass at the stem that the forward part of the inside wooden stem
was probably redundant. I also installed a longitudinal 2" piece of
1/4 inch ply, set on edge, on the forward part of the bottom between
the chine and bottom as extra reinforcement. It was tack and taped in
place. This construction seemed plenty strong, but in retrospect, it
was a somewhat expensive mistake. If I were doing it again, the hull
bottom would be 3/8 ply covered by a layer or two of cloth set in
epoxy, and doubled at the bottom and stem. It would be lighter,
stronger, and cheaper than how mine came out. The topside part of the
hull was 1/4 inch ply, and I think that would be sufficient, because
the panel is not wide. The decks were exterior luaun, which is a bit
less than 1/4 inch. The deck frames were 3/4 by 1 1/2 fir, set on
edge. If I were doing it again, that would be increased to 3/4 by 2
1/2 as the deck was flexible and made cracking noises, although
nothing ever broke or failed. There was also a layer of glass set in
polyester covering the deck. BTW, I made a couple of the frames on the
stern deck 5 or 6 inches deep, so that they projected below the access
cutout in the bulkhead at the aft end of the cockpit. Stringers were
attached to the bottom of the frames, which held a plywood table that
could be pulled out into the cockpit. The extra depth of the frames
meant the stern deck did not flex.
Finally, I don't think there has ever been any particular formal name
for this. I've always referred to it to others as the v-bottom
catboat. . . .
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which was
written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in the article are
complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went to an
aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).
I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco might
be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck with
it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the builder. I
had built 4 or five boats at the time, so had a good idea of what was
needed. Under the influence then of Alan Vaitses "Covering Wood Boats
with Fiberglass," I planned a 1/4 inch (AC fir)ply hull, covered with
a lot of glass set in polyester. I think the minimum was a layer of
cloth, a layer of heavy matt, and a final layer of cloth. All this was
overlapped and doubled at the bottom and stem. In fact, there was so
much glass at the stem that the forward part of the inside wooden stem
was probably redundant. I also installed a longitudinal 2" piece of
1/4 inch ply, set on edge, on the forward part of the bottom between
the chine and bottom as extra reinforcement. It was tack and taped in
place. This construction seemed plenty strong, but in retrospect, it
was a somewhat expensive mistake. If I were doing it again, the hull
bottom would be 3/8 ply covered by a layer or two of cloth set in
epoxy, and doubled at the bottom and stem. It would be lighter,
stronger, and cheaper than how mine came out. The topside part of the
hull was 1/4 inch ply, and I think that would be sufficient, because
the panel is not wide. The decks were exterior luaun, which is a bit
less than 1/4 inch. The deck frames were 3/4 by 1 1/2 fir, set on
edge. If I were doing it again, that would be increased to 3/4 by 2
1/2 as the deck was flexible and made cracking noises, although
nothing ever broke or failed. There was also a layer of glass set in
polyester covering the deck. BTW, I made a couple of the frames on the
stern deck 5 or 6 inches deep, so that they projected below the access
cutout in the bulkhead at the aft end of the cockpit. Stringers were
attached to the bottom of the frames, which held a plywood table that
could be pulled out into the cockpit. The extra depth of the frames
meant the stern deck did not flex.
Finally, I don't think there has ever been any particular formal name
for this. I've always referred to it to others as the v-bottom
catboat. . . .
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
>of
> first a protest.
>
> Such a lovely design has to have a better name than 'Cartoon 40'
> (perhaps though, if one understands the meaning it may be taken as a
> substitute for the secret handshake, denoting one is on the inside
> Bolgerdom, or at least an acolyte), or 'Casual Day Sailor'. Gary did
> you ever correspond with the Designer on this?
>
> Gary, in the article Bruce posted is mentioned that the scantlings
> specs can remain the same for the stretched version you built. What
> are they please?
> Regards
> graeme
first a protest.
Such a lovely design has to have a better name than 'Cartoon 40'
(perhaps though, if one understands the meaning it may be taken as a
substitute for the secret handshake, denoting one is on the inside of
Bolgerdom, or at least an acolyte), or 'Casual Day Sailor'. Gary did
you ever correspond with the Designer on this?
Gary, in the article Bruce posted is mentioned that the scantlings
specs can remain the same for the stretched version you built. What
are they please?
Regards
graeme
Such a lovely design has to have a better name than 'Cartoon 40'
(perhaps though, if one understands the meaning it may be taken as a
substitute for the secret handshake, denoting one is on the inside of
Bolgerdom, or at least an acolyte), or 'Casual Day Sailor'. Gary did
you ever correspond with the Designer on this?
Gary, in the article Bruce posted is mentioned that the scantlings
specs can remain the same for the stretched version you built. What
are they please?
Regards
graeme