Re: "Sparkler" with leeboards?
> I've often thought that it should be possible to getThere apparently used to be a Lightning variant called the
> an old one design, add a little ballast, a cabin and a cut down
> rig, and end up with a very nice pocket cruiser for a lot less
> time and money than it would take to build an equivilent boat from
> scratch.
"Skaneateles Gypsy" that stuck a cabin on a Lightning hull. They're
reputed to have been good boats, but only 6 were ever built. I've
seen the sales brochure; it doesn't look like it would be a
particularly difficult conversion from a standard Lightning....
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
For that matter, there are many, many glass Lightnings available, complete
with trailer, all kinds of fittings, and heavily used sails which are
available for a song. I've often thought that it should be possible to get
an old one design, add a little ballast, a cabin and a cut down rig, and end
up with a very nice pocket cruise for a lot less time and money than it
would take to build an equivilent boat from scratch.
John T
with trailer, all kinds of fittings, and heavily used sails which are
available for a song. I've often thought that it should be possible to get
an old one design, add a little ballast, a cabin and a cut down rig, and end
up with a very nice pocket cruise for a lot less time and money than it
would take to build an equivilent boat from scratch.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Davis" <futabachan@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:41 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: "Sparkler" with leeboards?
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, Sparkler is different. She's really just a big
>> flatiron skiff, with a maximum width of about 3'10" on the bottom
>> and 4'11" at the sheer.
>
> Wow. That's not that much wider than my schooner, which is long,
> skinny, and clearly less than half the size of my Lightning. And no
> side decks, either? I'd hesitate before describing her as a "copy of
> a Lightning...."
>
> I'd also point out that if you really want a Lightning, there are a
> lot of old wooden ones lying around in barns that can be had for a
> song, that would make very nice boats after a restoration job. I
> picked up #2033, built in 1946, for free (the prior owner gave me $20
> to haul her away!), and she's still fundamentally sound -- the only
> rot is a small piece of the port aft chine log.
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead
> horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax:
> (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 10/3/2005
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
skinny, and clearly less than half the size of my Lightning. And no
side decks, either? I'd hesitate before describing her as a "copy of
a Lightning...."
I'd also point out that if you really want a Lightning, there are a
lot of old wooden ones lying around in barns that can be had for a
song, that would make very nice boats after a restoration job. I
picked up #2033, built in 1946, for free (the prior owner gave me $20
to haul her away!), and she's still fundamentally sound -- the only
rot is a small piece of the port aft chine log.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>Wow. That's not that much wider than my schooner, which is long,
> Unfortunately, Sparkler is different. She's really just a big
> flatiron skiff, with a maximum width of about 3'10" on the bottom
> and 4'11" at the sheer.
skinny, and clearly less than half the size of my Lightning. And no
side decks, either? I'd hesitate before describing her as a "copy of
a Lightning...."
I'd also point out that if you really want a Lightning, there are a
lot of old wooden ones lying around in barns that can be had for a
song, that would make very nice boats after a restoration job. I
picked up #2033, built in 1946, for free (the prior owner gave me $20
to haul her away!), and she's still fundamentally sound -- the only
rot is a small piece of the port aft chine log.
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Or just move the centerboard off center, as Bolger did in the
Skillygalee design in the same book . . .
Gary Blankenship
Skillygalee design in the same book . . .
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how an off-centre daggerboard (like Windsprint's) would work?
>
> Bill
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
I wonder how an off-centre daggerboard (like Windsprint's) would work?
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi
I didn't mean to be taken seriously, so please don't!
I just pulled out the book and looked at Sparkler. I was surprised
to see there are no side decks, I guess those were sacrificed to
simplicity.
But I learned to sail on an S & S Blue Jay, the 13' version of the
Lightning. It had no seats, but it did have side decks (just the
right distance from the centreboard case for comfort, but I won't
mention that). When we were becalmed, as was often the case on an
inland lake, we'd sit on the bottom boards facing forward or aft, but
when the wind came up, the side decks made great seats. I can't
imagine sitting on Sparkler's rail for any length of time, but you'd
have to or lose a lot of performance.
So at the risk of adding complexity, I'd start by adding sidedecks to
the plan. (Come to think of it, plans for the Blue Jay are still
available -- it was a great little boat.)
Good luck with it whatever way you go!
Jamie
I didn't mean to be taken seriously, so please don't!
I just pulled out the book and looked at Sparkler. I was surprised
to see there are no side decks, I guess those were sacrificed to
simplicity.
But I learned to sail on an S & S Blue Jay, the 13' version of the
Lightning. It had no seats, but it did have side decks (just the
right distance from the centreboard case for comfort, but I won't
mention that). When we were becalmed, as was often the case on an
inland lake, we'd sit on the bottom boards facing forward or aft, but
when the wind came up, the side decks made great seats. I can't
imagine sitting on Sparkler's rail for any length of time, but you'd
have to or lose a lot of performance.
So at the risk of adding complexity, I'd start by adding sidedecks to
the plan. (Come to think of it, plans for the Blue Jay are still
available -- it was a great little boat.)
Good luck with it whatever way you go!
Jamie
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jamie: I have nothing against centerboards in general, and I'm
sure your comments are
> valid for many boats. Unfortunately, Sparkler is different. She's
really just a big flatiron
> skiff, with a maximum width of about 3'10" on the bottom and 4'11"
at the sheer. Depth
> of the hull at that point is about 23 inches, less the
floorboards. There are no seats --
> you sit on the bottom. So picture a 9-foot-long cockpit, not quite
4 feet wide at the
> bottom, with the forward five feet taken up by a centercase that's
almost as tall as the boat
> is deep. There's plenty of room for the helmsman aft of the board,
but any crew will wind
> up sitting on one side or another of the board, and can't shift
from side to side without
> crawling over the top of it.
>
Hi Jamie: I have nothing against centerboards in general, and I'm sure your comments are
valid for many boats. Unfortunately, Sparkler is different. She's really just a big flatiron
skiff, with a maximum width of about 3'10" on the bottom and 4'11" at the sheer. Depth
of the hull at that point is about 23 inches, less the floorboards. There are no seats --
you sit on the bottom. So picture a 9-foot-long cockpit, not quite 4 feet wide at the
bottom, with the forward five feet taken up by a centercase that's almost as tall as the boat
is deep. There's plenty of room for the helmsman aft of the board, but any crew will wind
up sitting on one side or another of the board, and can't shift from side to side without
crawling over the top of it.
valid for many boats. Unfortunately, Sparkler is different. She's really just a big flatiron
skiff, with a maximum width of about 3'10" on the bottom and 4'11" at the sheer. Depth
of the hull at that point is about 23 inches, less the floorboards. There are no seats --
you sit on the bottom. So picture a 9-foot-long cockpit, not quite 4 feet wide at the
bottom, with the forward five feet taken up by a centercase that's almost as tall as the boat
is deep. There's plenty of room for the helmsman aft of the board, but any crew will wind
up sitting on one side or another of the board, and can't shift from side to side without
crawling over the top of it.
The problem with leeboards forward of the point of greatest beam is
the water trap, wide at the front and narrower at the back, that is
created between the leeboard and the hull. It has high drag potential.
I agree that the centerboard is a problem. The hull is quite narrow,
and the spaces between the cb case and the side is not going to be
comfortable for sitting. There are a couple possibilities to consider.
You could put in side-facing seats to keep the crew up out of the
narrow crevasse, or you could put the cb case at the side of the hull,
or you could fit a daggerboard case along the centerline, or on one
side.
Putting in side facing seats with the board just under the inner edge
on one side might be pretty slick.
Peter
the water trap, wide at the front and narrower at the back, that is
created between the leeboard and the hull. It has high drag potential.
I agree that the centerboard is a problem. The hull is quite narrow,
and the spaces between the cb case and the side is not going to be
comfortable for sitting. There are a couple possibilities to consider.
You could put in side-facing seats to keep the crew up out of the
narrow crevasse, or you could put the cb case at the side of the hull,
or you could fit a daggerboard case along the centerline, or on one
side.
Putting in side facing seats with the board just under the inner edge
on one side might be pretty slick.
Peter
Hi
I've got nothing against leeboards, I've only used one in an Elegant
Punt and it worked fine. But I thought I'd put forward another point
of view about centreboards (it's a slow day here....)
Quite apart from their contribution to the sailing ability of your
boat, I think a centreboard makes a huge contribution. Or rather the
centreboard case does -- I consider it a piece of cockpit furniture
as important as the seats. When I'm sailing, I almost invariably sit
back on the seat and put my feet up on the case. Otherwise, I have
to slouch down to brace against the seat on the far side of the
cockpit, or else sit tensed up so I don't slide off my seat.
In my current boat it also makes a handy support when I'm sleeping.
Lying on my air mattress with my back against the case, I can get
very comfortable -- almost like lying in a hammock. It also provides
just the right amount of separation when there's two sleeping aboard.
And it makes a great step up out of either the cuddy or the cockpit,
not to mention somewhere to put a foot when furling the sail. And
finally, on the occasion that I slipped and took a header from deck
to cockpit, I was able to break my fall by grabbing it on the way
down, saving an otherwise inevitable face plant on the bottom boards.
There you are, some advantages to having a centreboard, and I haven't
touched yet on how well the board itself works! (Told you things
were slow here.)
As far as fitting the leeboards forward of the beam, you could always
add strips of wood on the hull to support them (I think they're
called guards). Shape them so they keep the board parallel to the
centreline, things shouldn't get awkward as long as you're not *too*
far from the widest point.
Jamie Orr
I've got nothing against leeboards, I've only used one in an Elegant
Punt and it worked fine. But I thought I'd put forward another point
of view about centreboards (it's a slow day here....)
Quite apart from their contribution to the sailing ability of your
boat, I think a centreboard makes a huge contribution. Or rather the
centreboard case does -- I consider it a piece of cockpit furniture
as important as the seats. When I'm sailing, I almost invariably sit
back on the seat and put my feet up on the case. Otherwise, I have
to slouch down to brace against the seat on the far side of the
cockpit, or else sit tensed up so I don't slide off my seat.
In my current boat it also makes a handy support when I'm sleeping.
Lying on my air mattress with my back against the case, I can get
very comfortable -- almost like lying in a hammock. It also provides
just the right amount of separation when there's two sleeping aboard.
And it makes a great step up out of either the cuddy or the cockpit,
not to mention somewhere to put a foot when furling the sail. And
finally, on the occasion that I slipped and took a header from deck
to cockpit, I was able to break my fall by grabbing it on the way
down, saving an otherwise inevitable face plant on the bottom boards.
There you are, some advantages to having a centreboard, and I haven't
touched yet on how well the board itself works! (Told you things
were slow here.)
As far as fitting the leeboards forward of the beam, you could always
add strips of wood on the hull to support them (I think they're
called guards). Shape them so they keep the board parallel to the
centreline, things shouldn't get awkward as long as you're not *too*
far from the widest point.
Jamie Orr
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
>
> Like several others here, I'm intrigued by Bolger's "Sparkler"
design in 30 Odd Boats, the
> 19-foot "instant boat" version of a Lightning. So far as I can
tell she's never been built,
> which is a pity.
>
> The big drawback, from my perspective, is that the forward half of
the cockpit is split in
> two by a large centerboard. Bolger says that he avoided leeboards
for the sake of
> appearances, but to my mind that centerboard all but ruins her as a
comfortable daysailer.
>
> Any thoughts on whether she could be fitted with a leeboard? I
note that to keep the
> center of lateral resistance the same, the leeboard would have to
be a foot or two forward
> of the widest part of the hull. Is that workable, or is Jim
Michalak right when he says that
> the leeboard has to be at the point of maximum beam?
>
> Any thoughts would be welcome.
>
> Stephen
>
Like several others here, I'm intrigued by Bolger's "Sparkler" design in 30 Odd Boats, the
19-foot "instant boat" version of a Lightning. So far as I can tell she's never been built,
which is a pity.
The big drawback, from my perspective, is that the forward half of the cockpit is split in
two by a large centerboard. Bolger says that he avoided leeboards for the sake of
appearances, but to my mind that centerboard all but ruins her as a comfortable daysailer.
Any thoughts on whether she could be fitted with a leeboard? I note that to keep the
center of lateral resistance the same, the leeboard would have to be a foot or two forward
of the widest part of the hull. Is that workable, or is Jim Michalak right when he says that
the leeboard has to be at the point of maximum beam?
Any thoughts would be welcome.
Stephen
19-foot "instant boat" version of a Lightning. So far as I can tell she's never been built,
which is a pity.
The big drawback, from my perspective, is that the forward half of the cockpit is split in
two by a large centerboard. Bolger says that he avoided leeboards for the sake of
appearances, but to my mind that centerboard all but ruins her as a comfortable daysailer.
Any thoughts on whether she could be fitted with a leeboard? I note that to keep the
center of lateral resistance the same, the leeboard would have to be a foot or two forward
of the widest part of the hull. Is that workable, or is Jim Michalak right when he says that
the leeboard has to be at the point of maximum beam?
Any thoughts would be welcome.
Stephen