Re: [bolger] Re: Steel bottom on a Micro?
Yes it is fun to kick ideas around and what they would
do for a given boat design or aricraft design for that
matter.
As for why to make a change well I think it has to do
with making it your own. Or just because you can.
As for the changes you are making to your Shoe just
makes it better for what you plan to do with it.
Dennis nice work on your craft as well.
A good reason for a change... Well back in the 80s
NASA came up with an airfoil that was to be the best
thing going and a number of designers used it.... Well
in the real world the airfoil is a dog! I know Burt
Rutan used it on a number of his designs. The airfoil
was so bad it made the aircraft unsafe to fly unless
the wing was clean of all bugs or dew for that matter.
Also forget flying in the rain! But this was not found
out till it had been around a couple of years and in
use.
Oh it was also the airfoil that was on the comuter
turbo-prop aircraft that crashed back east in a
rainstorm killing all onboard about 20 years ago. The
sad part is the FAA blamed the aircraft maker for the
crash. Myself I blame NASA for pushing the airfoil and
the FAA for giving the aircraft a cert with a very
poor airfoil design and they knew it at the time.
So there is a good reason to change something!
Sorry for getting off track, but it does show at times
the designer may not have all the answers.
It's also fun to make changes just to see how things
react as well. But I think RC aircraft is a good way
to test some ideas. But you know that would also work
for boats as well!
Blessings Krissie
--- lancasterdennis <dlancast@...> wrote:
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
do for a given boat design or aricraft design for that
matter.
As for why to make a change well I think it has to do
with making it your own. Or just because you can.
As for the changes you are making to your Shoe just
makes it better for what you plan to do with it.
Dennis nice work on your craft as well.
A good reason for a change... Well back in the 80s
NASA came up with an airfoil that was to be the best
thing going and a number of designers used it.... Well
in the real world the airfoil is a dog! I know Burt
Rutan used it on a number of his designs. The airfoil
was so bad it made the aircraft unsafe to fly unless
the wing was clean of all bugs or dew for that matter.
Also forget flying in the rain! But this was not found
out till it had been around a couple of years and in
use.
Oh it was also the airfoil that was on the comuter
turbo-prop aircraft that crashed back east in a
rainstorm killing all onboard about 20 years ago. The
sad part is the FAA blamed the aircraft maker for the
crash. Myself I blame NASA for pushing the airfoil and
the FAA for giving the aircraft a cert with a very
poor airfoil design and they knew it at the time.
So there is a good reason to change something!
Sorry for getting off track, but it does show at times
the designer may not have all the answers.
It's also fun to make changes just to see how things
react as well. But I think RC aircraft is a good way
to test some ideas. But you know that would also work
for boats as well!
Blessings Krissie
--- lancasterdennis <dlancast@...> wrote:
> -____________________________________________________________________________________
> Dear Folks,
>
> I think its fun to kick around ideas for change, but
> it puzzles me as
> to why the tendency is to make changes. Any change,
> in my books, can
> and will affect how the boat behaves. I like to
> trust the designer
> and stick to the design..... or, pass the change
> along to the
> designer and get his/her recommendation. There are
> small changes
> that probably won't make any difference and I can
> relate to doing
> something like that.. in fact, already on my "Old
> Shoe" project, my
> lead is heavier by 26lbs than spec. and I desire to
> add a wood shoe
> to the bottom of my keel, so that my lead is totally
> incapsulated...
> just to make me feel better. I also plan to add
> support gussets to
> the stern corners, up near the cap rail, as this was
> found to be a
> weak area on another "Shoe" over time. I also want
> to add an inner
> wood strip to my cap rail, only because I desire the
> cap rail to be
> thicker.... so, what am I doing? Deviating from the
> plans?
>
> My "Shoe" is now on the strongback and sides will be
> going on soon.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Dennis
> Bellngham, WA.
>
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
I can't remember where I read it, certainly not from Payson who suggest never altering the design, but somebody said as long as the hull and sail plan remain the same the rest is OK. This would make sense as long as it does not alter the structure too I would think. When I built my Payson Pirouge, I put a single thwart about where my back would sit, and placed gunwhales on both the inside and outside of the plywood. It made the sides stiff enough, and seemed to work well. The other thing I did was to leave the skeg off. I thought this would help me scoot over logs etc. Well after one trip on a pond with a cross wind that kept blowing me towards a Swan and her cygnets, I promptly placed the skeg on the boat. So I guess, inside the boat changes, OK, outside..... not a good idea.
Rick
Nels <arvent@...> wrote:
Rick
Nels <arvent@...> wrote:
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
>
> My "Shoe" is now on the strongback and sides will be going on soon.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Dennis
> Bellngham, WA.
>
Hi Dennis,
Any chance of having some photos posted? There is an "Oldshoe" folder
already in the files but it is empty and just waiting for you:-)
Changes like you made are fairly incidental and can actually be
beneficial strengthwise. Phil has mentioned that he tends to show his
designs with fairly light scantlings, knowing the tendency of
homebuilders to beef things up on their own. Some over-beef and then
get a boat that is sluggish.
Any changes to the sailing end of things should be run by the designer
first. If they are worthwhile they are often incorporated in the plans
and the person given credit for the suggestions.
There is a good article here, showing how Peter Lenihan handled rocky
shorelines with LESTAT and loved the keel set-up as is.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/01/articles/mayflies/index.htm
There is also an article link to his keel build that doesn't seem to
work from the article, but is here:
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro/index.htm
Peter was quite nervous when PCB came aboard LESTAT, but Bolger
approved the changes as they were all based on sound building
practices. (Bud McIntosh's HOW TO BUILD A WOODEN BOAT.)A great read
even if you never build a boat.
Two things that seem to annoy a sailboat designer above all else are
"improvements" to the keel configuration or sail rig.
Nels
---------------------------------
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lancasterdennis" <dlancast@...> wrote:
Any chance of having some photos posted? There is an "Oldshoe" folder
already in the files but it is empty and just waiting for you:-)
Changes like you made are fairly incidental and can actually be
beneficial strengthwise. Phil has mentioned that he tends to show his
designs with fairly light scantlings, knowing the tendency of
homebuilders to beef things up on their own. Some over-beef and then
get a boat that is sluggish.
Any changes to the sailing end of things should be run by the designer
first. If they are worthwhile they are often incorporated in the plans
and the person given credit for the suggestions.
There is a good article here, showing how Peter Lenihan handled rocky
shorelines with LESTAT and loved the keel set-up as is.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/01/articles/mayflies/index.htm
There is also an article link to his keel build that doesn't seem to
work from the article, but is here:
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro/index.htm
Peter was quite nervous when PCB came aboard LESTAT, but Bolger
approved the changes as they were all based on sound building
practices. (Bud McIntosh's HOW TO BUILD A WOODEN BOAT.)A great read
even if you never build a boat.
Two things that seem to annoy a sailboat designer above all else are
"improvements" to the keel configuration or sail rig.
Nels
>Hi Dennis,
> My "Shoe" is now on the strongback and sides will be going on soon.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Dennis
> Bellngham, WA.
>
Any chance of having some photos posted? There is an "Oldshoe" folder
already in the files but it is empty and just waiting for you:-)
Changes like you made are fairly incidental and can actually be
beneficial strengthwise. Phil has mentioned that he tends to show his
designs with fairly light scantlings, knowing the tendency of
homebuilders to beef things up on their own. Some over-beef and then
get a boat that is sluggish.
Any changes to the sailing end of things should be run by the designer
first. If they are worthwhile they are often incorporated in the plans
and the person given credit for the suggestions.
There is a good article here, showing how Peter Lenihan handled rocky
shorelines with LESTAT and loved the keel set-up as is.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/01/articles/mayflies/index.htm
There is also an article link to his keel build that doesn't seem to
work from the article, but is here:
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro/index.htm
Peter was quite nervous when PCB came aboard LESTAT, but Bolger
approved the changes as they were all based on sound building
practices. (Bud McIntosh's HOW TO BUILD A WOODEN BOAT.)A great read
even if you never build a boat.
Two things that seem to annoy a sailboat designer above all else are
"improvements" to the keel configuration or sail rig.
Nels
At first glance, the idea of adding a wooden shoe to encapsulate the lead seems elegant, but then I got to thinking.
Protecting wood from the ravages of the world is a full time job. Lead is rather inert, if not pretty. With a good flux, fixing lead is easier than fixing wood. Both wood and lead will cushion blows with the wood having a bit more elasticity.
On the other hand, I did encapsulate the lead on my centerboard with fiberglass and epoxy, but the reasoning was to protect the lead/wood joint (and to hide the fact that my lead pour was not perfect).
Roger (I dunno.)
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
Protecting wood from the ravages of the world is a full time job. Lead is rather inert, if not pretty. With a good flux, fixing lead is easier than fixing wood. Both wood and lead will cushion blows with the wood having a bit more elasticity.
On the other hand, I did encapsulate the lead on my centerboard with fiberglass and epoxy, but the reasoning was to protect the lead/wood joint (and to hide the fact that my lead pour was not perfect).
Roger (I dunno.)
derbyrm@...
http://home.insightbb.com/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: lancasterdennis
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Steel bottom on a Micro?
<snip> ... and I desire to add a wood shoe to the bottom of my keel, so that my lead is totally incapsulated ... just to make me feel better.
Recent Activity
a.. 5New Members
b.. 3New Photos
Visit Your Group
SPONSORED LINKS
a.. Bolger center
b.. Bolger
Health Zone
Look your best!
Groups to help you
look & feel great.
Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal
Guides, news,
advice & more.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Dear Folks,
I think its fun to kick around ideas for change, but it puzzles me as
to why the tendency is to make changes. Any change, in my books, can
and will affect how the boat behaves. I like to trust the designer
and stick to the design..... or, pass the change along to the
designer and get his/her recommendation. There are small changes
that probably won't make any difference and I can relate to doing
something like that.. in fact, already on my "Old Shoe" project, my
lead is heavier by 26lbs than spec. and I desire to add a wood shoe
to the bottom of my keel, so that my lead is totally incapsulated...
just to make me feel better. I also plan to add support gussets to
the stern corners, up near the cap rail, as this was found to be a
weak area on another "Shoe" over time. I also want to add an inner
wood strip to my cap rail, only because I desire the cap rail to be
thicker.... so, what am I doing? Deviating from the plans?
My "Shoe" is now on the strongback and sides will be going on soon.
Best to all,
Dennis
Bellngham, WA.
-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
______________
Dear Folks,
I think its fun to kick around ideas for change, but it puzzles me as
to why the tendency is to make changes. Any change, in my books, can
and will affect how the boat behaves. I like to trust the designer
and stick to the design..... or, pass the change along to the
designer and get his/her recommendation. There are small changes
that probably won't make any difference and I can relate to doing
something like that.. in fact, already on my "Old Shoe" project, my
lead is heavier by 26lbs than spec. and I desire to add a wood shoe
to the bottom of my keel, so that my lead is totally incapsulated...
just to make me feel better. I also plan to add support gussets to
the stern corners, up near the cap rail, as this was found to be a
weak area on another "Shoe" over time. I also want to add an inner
wood strip to my cap rail, only because I desire the cap rail to be
thicker.... so, what am I doing? Deviating from the plans?
My "Shoe" is now on the strongback and sides will be going on soon.
Best to all,
Dennis
Bellngham, WA.
-- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>______________________________________________________________________
> The idea of a steel bottom Micro is not a bad idea and
> then adding the bilge keels makes it even better.
>
> The drawback I see is the weight of the steel needed
> to sheet the bottom and then the plate for the bilge
> keels would be more lbs then the lead for the keel.
>
> I think it would be a better choise for say a long
> Micro, or one of the bigger boats.
>
> If you were going to sheet the bottom you would want
> to use 3/16 sheet and for the keels I would look at 1
> inch plate with say a half inch plate welded to the
> keels for a bolting flange. Then the bilge keel are
> your replacement for the single keel that is your
> hulls strong back.
>
> The nice thing about the bilge keels is it moves the
> some of the keel weight away from the CofB so it had
> more righting arm.
>
> It would also be intersting to build a Micro with
> bilge keels just to see how well she sails! And not
> plate the bottom.
>
> I know I'm not a sailor so my views are from a
> diffrent angle.
>
> Blessings Krissie
>
> --- Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
>
> > I believe that PB&F have specified steel sheets on
> > the bottoms of some of
> > their boats, not only for ballast but also for
> > bottom protection. I wonder
> > how a sheet of steel might work on a Micro bottom?
> >
> > It seems to me that a sheet of steel installed over
> > the bottom would protect
> > the boat very well from groundings, and perhaps more
> > importantly eliminate
> > the need for a lead-filled keel. The keel might be
> > made of steel and welded
> > to the new steel bottom, too.
> >
> > Or perhaps weld two steel "bilge keels" onto the
> > bottom, one on each side.
> > This might allow the boat to sit upright when the
> > tide goes out. It might
> > even allow the boat to be beached on rocky shores
> > without damage if a
> > pivoting rudder were used.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Ken Grome
> > Bagacay Boatworks
> > www.bagacayboatworks.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
______________
> Be a PS3 game guru.Yahoo! Games.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at
>http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>
The idea of a steel bottom Micro is not a bad idea and
then adding the bilge keels makes it even better.
The drawback I see is the weight of the steel needed
to sheet the bottom and then the plate for the bilge
keels would be more lbs then the lead for the keel.
I think it would be a better choise for say a long
Micro, or one of the bigger boats.
If you were going to sheet the bottom you would want
to use 3/16 sheet and for the keels I would look at 1
inch plate with say a half inch plate welded to the
keels for a bolting flange. Then the bilge keel are
your replacement for the single keel that is your
hulls strong back.
The nice thing about the bilge keels is it moves the
some of the keel weight away from the CofB so it had
more righting arm.
It would also be intersting to build a Micro with
bilge keels just to see how well she sails! And not
plate the bottom.
I know I'm not a sailor so my views are from a
diffrent angle.
Blessings Krissie
--- Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
then adding the bilge keels makes it even better.
The drawback I see is the weight of the steel needed
to sheet the bottom and then the plate for the bilge
keels would be more lbs then the lead for the keel.
I think it would be a better choise for say a long
Micro, or one of the bigger boats.
If you were going to sheet the bottom you would want
to use 3/16 sheet and for the keels I would look at 1
inch plate with say a half inch plate welded to the
keels for a bolting flange. Then the bilge keel are
your replacement for the single keel that is your
hulls strong back.
The nice thing about the bilge keels is it moves the
some of the keel weight away from the CofB so it had
more righting arm.
It would also be intersting to build a Micro with
bilge keels just to see how well she sails! And not
plate the bottom.
I know I'm not a sailor so my views are from a
diffrent angle.
Blessings Krissie
--- Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
> I believe that PB&F have specified steel sheets on____________________________________________________________________________________
> the bottoms of some of
> their boats, not only for ballast but also for
> bottom protection. I wonder
> how a sheet of steel might work on a Micro bottom?
>
> It seems to me that a sheet of steel installed over
> the bottom would protect
> the boat very well from groundings, and perhaps more
> importantly eliminate
> the need for a lead-filled keel. The keel might be
> made of steel and welded
> to the new steel bottom, too.
>
> Or perhaps weld two steel "bilge keels" onto the
> bottom, one on each side.
> This might allow the boat to sit upright when the
> tide goes out. It might
> even allow the boat to be beached on rocky shores
> without damage if a
> pivoting rudder were used.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ken Grome
> Bagacay Boatworks
> www.bagacayboatworks.com
>
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...> wrote:
I have been pondering the situation as well, since lead is becoming
more difficult to obtain and more expensive all the tim. Still seems
to be the best solution is to build to plan. Or even better, construct
the keel as Peter Lenihan did for LESTAT, with no free flooding sections.
David is correct that the keel forms a curved support "beam" that is
an integral part of the overall hull structure. A sacrifical wood shoe
can be added to the bottom edge and extra glassing to the chines and
bottom if one is concerned about impact damage. The thing is that
MICRO doesn't really go fast enough or have enough momentum to really
hurt itself.
The keel profile also allows one to get close to shore without
grounding out although one can't usually step onto dry land from the
bow. On the other hand the keel protects both the rudder and engine
and they are both right on the centerline - one of things I like best
about the design.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger3/photos/view/624d?b=45
If I was going to be sailing in tidal flats most of the time I would
really put a push on PCB&F to complete Wondervogel plans.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger3/photos/browse/3cab
Other alternatives are CAMPER 640, BW2, MARTHA JANE. AMHERST GALLEY,
OFF SHORE LEEBOARDER, RED ZINGER, ST. VALERY, JOCHEMS SCHOONER,
AS29.and probably several others I have missed.
Two things I have noticed this past while.
1. Leeboards seem to have been rejected in favor of either forward
centerboards off-centerboards or box keels.
2. Susanne's influences seem to add greatly to the complexity of the
design upgrades, and they end up not often getting built. I also have
to wonder if the two opposing philosophy's is a factor in the newer
designs taking ages to complete?
Nels
>some of
> I believe that PB&F have specified steel sheets on the bottoms of
> their boats, not only for ballast but also for bottom protection. Iwonder
> how a sheet of steel might work on a Micro bottom?protect
>
> It seems to me that a sheet of steel installed over the bottom would
> the boat very well from groundings, and perhaps more importantlyeliminate
> the need for a lead-filled keel. The keel might be made of steeland welded
> to the new steel bottom, too.side.
>
> Or perhaps weld two steel "bilge keels" onto the bottom, one on each
> This might allow the boat to sit upright when the tide goes out. Itmight
> even allow the boat to be beached on rocky shores without damage if aHi Ken,
> pivoting rudder were used.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ken Grome
> Bagacay Boatworks
> www.bagacayboatworks.com
I have been pondering the situation as well, since lead is becoming
more difficult to obtain and more expensive all the tim. Still seems
to be the best solution is to build to plan. Or even better, construct
the keel as Peter Lenihan did for LESTAT, with no free flooding sections.
David is correct that the keel forms a curved support "beam" that is
an integral part of the overall hull structure. A sacrifical wood shoe
can be added to the bottom edge and extra glassing to the chines and
bottom if one is concerned about impact damage. The thing is that
MICRO doesn't really go fast enough or have enough momentum to really
hurt itself.
The keel profile also allows one to get close to shore without
grounding out although one can't usually step onto dry land from the
bow. On the other hand the keel protects both the rudder and engine
and they are both right on the centerline - one of things I like best
about the design.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger3/photos/view/624d?b=45
If I was going to be sailing in tidal flats most of the time I would
really put a push on PCB&F to complete Wondervogel plans.
http://ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger3/photos/browse/3cab
Other alternatives are CAMPER 640, BW2, MARTHA JANE. AMHERST GALLEY,
OFF SHORE LEEBOARDER, RED ZINGER, ST. VALERY, JOCHEMS SCHOONER,
AS29.and probably several others I have missed.
Two things I have noticed this past while.
1. Leeboards seem to have been rejected in favor of either forward
centerboards off-centerboards or box keels.
2. Susanne's influences seem to add greatly to the complexity of the
design upgrades, and they end up not often getting built. I also have
to wonder if the two opposing philosophy's is a factor in the newer
designs taking ages to complete?
Nels
Having actually sailed built and sailed a Micro, here are my thoughts
on the steel plate proposal.
1. The keel is as shallow as it can be to still get some kind of
windward performance, a critical component of the boat's performance is
the presence of the lead ballast way down low. This was not a major
portion of the boat building process. It just took some planning and
in my case, contracting the pouring out to a pro.
2. Putting steel plate on the bottom would not accomplish much as the
fiberglass/epoxy sheathing does a pretty good job already. You would
not be running this boat up on beaches anyways.
3. The keel attaches via a keel batten that is a crucial structural
piece and very easy to build, If anything steel plating the bottom
would seem to add a lot of hours to the boat and not give it any better
performance or protection than the original configuration.
Just my two cents. (In this case, "a buck").
D. Jost
on the steel plate proposal.
1. The keel is as shallow as it can be to still get some kind of
windward performance, a critical component of the boat's performance is
the presence of the lead ballast way down low. This was not a major
portion of the boat building process. It just took some planning and
in my case, contracting the pouring out to a pro.
2. Putting steel plate on the bottom would not accomplish much as the
fiberglass/epoxy sheathing does a pretty good job already. You would
not be running this boat up on beaches anyways.
3. The keel attaches via a keel batten that is a crucial structural
piece and very easy to build, If anything steel plating the bottom
would seem to add a lot of hours to the boat and not give it any better
performance or protection than the original configuration.
Just my two cents. (In this case, "a buck").
D. Jost
I believe that PB&F have specified steel sheets on the bottoms of some of
their boats, not only for ballast but also for bottom protection. I wonder
how a sheet of steel might work on a Micro bottom?
It seems to me that a sheet of steel installed over the bottom would protect
the boat very well from groundings, and perhaps more importantly eliminate
the need for a lead-filled keel. The keel might be made of steel and welded
to the new steel bottom, too.
Or perhaps weld two steel "bilge keels" onto the bottom, one on each side.
This might allow the boat to sit upright when the tide goes out. It might
even allow the boat to be beached on rocky shores without damage if a
pivoting rudder were used.
Sincerely,
Ken Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
www.bagacayboatworks.com
their boats, not only for ballast but also for bottom protection. I wonder
how a sheet of steel might work on a Micro bottom?
It seems to me that a sheet of steel installed over the bottom would protect
the boat very well from groundings, and perhaps more importantly eliminate
the need for a lead-filled keel. The keel might be made of steel and welded
to the new steel bottom, too.
Or perhaps weld two steel "bilge keels" onto the bottom, one on each side.
This might allow the boat to sit upright when the tide goes out. It might
even allow the boat to be beached on rocky shores without damage if a
pivoting rudder were used.
Sincerely,
Ken Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
www.bagacayboatworks.com
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:
that building "Paloma Blanco fashion" would be my choice as well.
In other words build MICRO to plan and then add the doghouse/hard
dodger after, once you get a feel for the regular MICRO. That way it
can all be built inside your shop as it is and the dodger
pre-fabricated afterwards in the same shop and added when the boat is
outside.
Having a regular companionway and hatch also gives back-up weather
proof security if the hard dodger ever got damaged. Rodger uses the
space around the companionway as "shelving" for and storage inside the
dodger.
I would still consider a forward hatch and companionway to gain access
to the ground tackle without going on deck.
Nels
>Upon reflecting on your building site, I have come to the conclusion
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Hmm, I don't have a lot of clearance to the top of the shed door
> frame.
>
> I guess I'm looking at a similar building method as yours.
>
> The hull speed doesn't bother me either. I just enjoy being out on
> the water and in no great rush to get anywhere.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
that building "Paloma Blanco fashion" would be my choice as well.
In other words build MICRO to plan and then add the doghouse/hard
dodger after, once you get a feel for the regular MICRO. That way it
can all be built inside your shop as it is and the dodger
pre-fabricated afterwards in the same shop and added when the boat is
outside.
Having a regular companionway and hatch also gives back-up weather
proof security if the hard dodger ever got damaged. Rodger uses the
space around the companionway as "shelving" for and storage inside the
dodger.
I would still consider a forward hatch and companionway to gain access
to the ground tackle without going on deck.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:
general in nature, but there was a pic of Paloma Blanca and a little
about Roger's cruising exploits.
Graeme
> I wasn't aware of that article in Cruising Helsman. I would love toOne from this year, Paul. IIRC just a month or so ago. The article was
> read that. What month/edition is it in?
general in nature, but there was a pic of Paloma Blanca and a little
about Roger's cruising exploits.
Graeme
Hi Graeme,
No, actually about 9 years ago I bought plans for a Martha Jane.
Just recently, my circumstances changed and I am in a better position
to look at building.
Having dragged out the MJ plans and costing it all, the Micro popped
into my mind and I now think it is a much better, safer design and so
much cheaper to build.
Then I saw Roger Keyes Micro 'Paloma Blanca' on this forum and it is
exactly what I want. What Roger has been doing is exactly the kind of
cruising I had in mind.
I have snail mailed PCB&F to order the Micro plans and the additional
Navigator option that I am considering.
I wasn't aware of that article in Cruising Helsman. I would love to
read that. What month/edition is it in?
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
No, actually about 9 years ago I bought plans for a Martha Jane.
Just recently, my circumstances changed and I am in a better position
to look at building.
Having dragged out the MJ plans and costing it all, the Micro popped
into my mind and I now think it is a much better, safer design and so
much cheaper to build.
Then I saw Roger Keyes Micro 'Paloma Blanca' on this forum and it is
exactly what I want. What Roger has been doing is exactly the kind of
cruising I had in mind.
I have snail mailed PCB&F to order the Micro plans and the additional
Navigator option that I am considering.
I wasn't aware of that article in Cruising Helsman. I would love to
read that. What month/edition is it in?
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>with
> Paul,
>
> did that recent Cruising Helmsman article on entry level cruising,
> the pic of Paloma Blanca, initially get you interested in the Micro?Australia.
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:
>
>
> > That has decided it for me.
> >
> > That type of cruising is exactly what I want to do here in
> >
> > Port hopping around the coast.
>
Paul,
did that recent Cruising Helmsman article on entry level cruising, with
the pic of Paloma Blanca, initially get you interested in the Micro?
Graeme
did that recent Cruising Helmsman article on entry level cruising, with
the pic of Paloma Blanca, initially get you interested in the Micro?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:
> That has decided it for me.
>
> That type of cruising is exactly what I want to do here in Australia.
>
> Port hopping around the coast.
Nels,
Thanks for the congratulations. It's been a busy couple of months.
Heck, it's been a busy couple of years. Here's where I am at with my
ballast.
First, a little history on my LM build. I built the basic hull while
upside down, built my keel-framing, and then sheathed the bottom in
fiberglass. I then flipped the hull 90 degrees and laid fiberglass
on one side (much easier with gravity helping). I then flipped hull
onto the other side and repeated with the fiberglassing. At this
point I also did most of the internal framing. The bunks, "galley"
(it sounds much more impressive when I call it a galley, instead
of "the 1.5 foot long kneeling and cooking area." I also made my self
bailing cockpit while the hull was on its side. Someone on the list
suggested this a long time ag0, and somehow (magically I might add) I
remember this bit of good advice.
Second. Life got in the way of my boat. I was enjoying my uber-
bachelor-ness. And then I met my honey, and I sold my house, and
bought a place with her. And work started shipping me to the
Caribbean (not the nice Caribbean- one of the less savory islands)
about one week each month. I'm approaching my four-year anniversary
of building my LM, and although I enjoy every minute of it, I want my
LM in the water this summer.
My keel. Initially I made a wooden mold. Then I welded up a steel
mold, complete with reinforcements. I planned to buy wheel-weights
(at .25 USD per pound), load them into my metal mold, and apply heat
(charcoal with a blower). I figured I wouldn't have to add much lead
to the mold. I also thought about everything that could go wrong
with this whole process, including having a 532 lb. slab of lead tip
over while I was trying to get it slid up into my keel. And holy cow
have I gotten busy a lot lately.
So, in the interest of time, I opted to buy some lead shielding
bricks. Each brick weighs 50 lbs (that's managable), is 2.5 inches
wide (perfect!), 12 inches tall, and 4 (or 5) inches wide. I have to
trim some of the brick, but so far it looks like they'll slide right
up there. I'll slather with epoxy and wood flour, then screw thru
the sides of the keel. The bricks cost more (550 lbs cost 900 USD),
but it saves me a mess of time and just seemed like the best solution
given my constraints.
The Pb purists on the list will shake their heads and mutter "wimp."
But I'm smug in the savings from all that charcoal I didn't have to
buy (*smile*).
Bill, in Ohio
Thanks for the congratulations. It's been a busy couple of months.
Heck, it's been a busy couple of years. Here's where I am at with my
ballast.
First, a little history on my LM build. I built the basic hull while
upside down, built my keel-framing, and then sheathed the bottom in
fiberglass. I then flipped the hull 90 degrees and laid fiberglass
on one side (much easier with gravity helping). I then flipped hull
onto the other side and repeated with the fiberglassing. At this
point I also did most of the internal framing. The bunks, "galley"
(it sounds much more impressive when I call it a galley, instead
of "the 1.5 foot long kneeling and cooking area." I also made my self
bailing cockpit while the hull was on its side. Someone on the list
suggested this a long time ag0, and somehow (magically I might add) I
remember this bit of good advice.
Second. Life got in the way of my boat. I was enjoying my uber-
bachelor-ness. And then I met my honey, and I sold my house, and
bought a place with her. And work started shipping me to the
Caribbean (not the nice Caribbean- one of the less savory islands)
about one week each month. I'm approaching my four-year anniversary
of building my LM, and although I enjoy every minute of it, I want my
LM in the water this summer.
My keel. Initially I made a wooden mold. Then I welded up a steel
mold, complete with reinforcements. I planned to buy wheel-weights
(at .25 USD per pound), load them into my metal mold, and apply heat
(charcoal with a blower). I figured I wouldn't have to add much lead
to the mold. I also thought about everything that could go wrong
with this whole process, including having a 532 lb. slab of lead tip
over while I was trying to get it slid up into my keel. And holy cow
have I gotten busy a lot lately.
So, in the interest of time, I opted to buy some lead shielding
bricks. Each brick weighs 50 lbs (that's managable), is 2.5 inches
wide (perfect!), 12 inches tall, and 4 (or 5) inches wide. I have to
trim some of the brick, but so far it looks like they'll slide right
up there. I'll slather with epoxy and wood flour, then screw thru
the sides of the keel. The bricks cost more (550 lbs cost 900 USD),
but it saves me a mess of time and just seemed like the best solution
given my constraints.
The Pb purists on the list will shake their heads and mutter "wimp."
But I'm smug in the savings from all that charcoal I didn't have to
buy (*smile*).
Bill, in Ohio
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <kingw@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> > At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have
given
> > you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build,
so
> I have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
> > biased and think everyone should build one.
>
> Hi Bill
>
> Great to hear from you and congratulations on all recent upgrades!
> Here's to you and your mate, and future upgrades enjoying many a
happy
> voyage.
>
> I am glad you mentioned the size factor, since it is difficult to
tell
> from the drawings just how big LM really is. I was quite amazed the
> first time I saw the MICRO LESTAT but was still shocked when I first
> saw ZEPHYR in the boatyard. In fact I was literally floored as I
> thought it may not fit on the trailer I had just towed about 2500
> miles. It just barely fit.
>
> Perhaps you could share how you are doing with the keel as that is
the
> major roadblock for a lot of builders I believe. LM's curves and
bends
> are actually more gentle than MICRO. The keel shape is also less
> complicated. And there is more space to work inside.
>
> Nels
>
Hi Bruce,
Hmm, I don't have a lot of clearance to the top of the shed door
frame.
I guess I'm looking at a similar building method as yours.
The hull speed doesn't bother me either. I just enjoy being out on
the water and in no great rush to get anywhere.
Cheers,
Paul.
PS,
Had a look at the pics of your MN. A credit to you. Beautiful!
Hmm, I don't have a lot of clearance to the top of the shed door
frame.
I guess I'm looking at a similar building method as yours.
The hull speed doesn't bother me either. I just enjoy being out on
the water and in no great rush to get anywhere.
Cheers,
Paul.
PS,
Had a look at the pics of your MN. A credit to you. Beautiful!
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> The door height could be a problem for the Micro Navigator. I did a
> workaround for mine by only installing the keel after outside on the
> driveway. That was do-able but involved some tricky on-your-back
work, and
> an invented homemade truck to roll the 400 pound chunk of lead into
place.
> (Not to mention, a little bit of personal risk of being squished
should the
> boat fall from the jack stands.)
>
> Also, have your eyes wide open that a 15'4" long hull has hull speed
> limitations based on the displacement waterline length. Longer
boats can go
> faster, but in my case a short boat is all I could have, and I am
happy with
> the compromise.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the thoughts and ideas.
I am not in a mad rush to finish as such, but I am keen to get
started.
I have previously built a small sailing dinghy and really enjoyed the
experience (I also enjoy woodwork in general, but there is a limit to
the # of buffet & hutch's, coffee tables, bookcases etc etc that I
can fit in the house! : )
I am certain I can build Micro in the shed but will probably need to
move it outside if I want to fit a doghouse or Navigator type
structure. I'll see how I go.
I have to admit, the keel sounds like the most challenging part of
the build, but I have always found that what looks hard on paper or
in my mind usually ends up much easier in reality than on paper or
thought about. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. eek!
Sourcing the lead might be a pain.
I will be using a good quality marine grade ply (gaboon) and hoop
pine for framing lumber along with a few more exotic timbers for
detail & finishing. Then glassing the hull and deck.
Have you a rough idea how many litres of epoxy a Micro would consume?
A Martha Jane builder I have corresponded with reckons he used around
30 gallons on his MJ.?? That sounds an awful lot even for a boat the
size of a MJ.
Cheers,
Paul.
Thanks for the thoughts and ideas.
I am not in a mad rush to finish as such, but I am keen to get
started.
I have previously built a small sailing dinghy and really enjoyed the
experience (I also enjoy woodwork in general, but there is a limit to
the # of buffet & hutch's, coffee tables, bookcases etc etc that I
can fit in the house! : )
I am certain I can build Micro in the shed but will probably need to
move it outside if I want to fit a doghouse or Navigator type
structure. I'll see how I go.
I have to admit, the keel sounds like the most challenging part of
the build, but I have always found that what looks hard on paper or
in my mind usually ends up much easier in reality than on paper or
thought about. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. eek!
Sourcing the lead might be a pain.
I will be using a good quality marine grade ply (gaboon) and hoop
pine for framing lumber along with a few more exotic timbers for
detail & finishing. Then glassing the hull and deck.
Have you a rough idea how many litres of epoxy a Micro would consume?
A Martha Jane builder I have corresponded with reckons he used around
30 gallons on his MJ.?? That sounds an awful lot even for a boat the
size of a MJ.
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Rick Bedard <sctree@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Dull evening here so let me jump in with a few thoughts.
>
> The shed extension could be a good idea depending on your
climate. You could make it so that you only have it up on "building
days" by doing a tarp tossed over the opened doors. Make a
toolbench / workbench on wheels that rolls out so you have the entire
shop for the hull. I built my Microtrawler (14' 6" x 8' 6") in a 10'
x 20' carport enclosure that way.
>
> The working height inside should not be a problem as the keel of
Micro should not go on till very late in construction, say just prior
to final exterior painting and launching day. Some folks put it on
early and pay the price of having to work up high and climb in and
out of the hull. Others fret over attaching the keel, and I've seen
more than one builder struggle with lifting the hull over the upright
keel, totally unnecessary. The original building sequence had the
hull tipped over on it's side on some old tires or carpet and the
keel, on a strong table or bench (keel on it's side) was shoved over
to and onto the keel batten and nailed up. Very simple and a one man
job once the keel is up on the table. Once attached, just pull out
the table and the hull will tip itself upright.
>
> I'm sure you'll make a lovely job of it, but you seem like a guy
interested in getting on the water. If so, may I suggest you don't
make a life long career of building your Micro to goldplater
standards. Some have, and they are beautiful works of art, but the
original design discussion focused on "quick to build". In fact there
was a guy in Florida, in the early Micro days back in the mid 80's,
that I spoke with who built seven or eight Micro bare hulls for sale,
including attached keel (but no fiberglass cloth sheathing or paint)
in less then 45 building man-hours each! I say get on with the
building and get out on the water....
> I had an employer in my youth who would often be heard
saying "The man is not paying us to visit a pile of lumber each week,
he's paying us to get a boat in the water".
>
> * At this point I have to admit, my latest -and last- boat
abuilding is now four, or is it five? years into a six to eight month
build..... :(
>
> Something I've not seen on a standard Micro that might fit your
needs is a hard dodger, a plywood or foam/glass roof on struts with
canvas/clear acrylic sides and front. Sort of what Nels is trying to
talk Jason into doing to his navigator....
>
> Anyway, just some random thoughts. Keep us informed.
>
> Good building.
> Rick
>
> mrfirkin <thurcros@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks heaps for the info. This forum is great.
>
> I was really tempted to build the LM but my building shed is only
> 20ftx14ft with about 6'6" height clearance at the doors and around
> 8ft workable height inside.
>
> I think even the standard Micro may be a challenge to build in a
shed
> this size?
>
> I could create more room by opening the outward swinging doors and
> rigging up a temporary timber frame and some polytarp to the end of
> the shed but that's more hassel than it's worth and I need to be
able
> to lock the shed as I don't live onsite.
>
> Plus I have to consider costs which I am trying to keep at a
minimum.
>
> I will be sailing solo for most of the time so I figure a Micro
(with
> perhaps Navigator option) will be enough room for now.
>
> I am also thinking about a self designed doghouse instead of the
> Navigator upgrade. A bit like Roger Keyes Micro, Paloma Blanca.
>
> First I need to make a start on the basic hull I guess and take it
> from there.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <kingw@> wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> > At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have
given
> > you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build,
> so I
> > have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
> > biased and think everyone should build one.
> >
> > First, think about where you will make your mast. If you build an
> LM,
> > the mast is 29 feet long. I found that too long for my old shop
> > (which was about 22 feet long)so I started laminating the mast on
my
> > living room floor. Luckily I upgraded to a house/shop/wife (v 1.0)
> > and was able to continue shaping and laminating my mast in my new
> > shop. I'm sure people have built their masts outside too.
> >
> > Second, the ceiling in my old shop wasn't high enough for me to
fit
> > the tabernacle posts. And that meant I couldn't lift the boat to
> slide
> > the ballast in either. If I still had my old shop I would have
been
> > forced to move my boat outside to complete it. Again, others have
> > built outside, but it complicates the process. With my LM sitting
on
> > its wheeled strongback, the top of the tabernacle posts are
around
> 6.5
> > feet off the floor (and the keel sits about 5 inches from the
> floor).
> >
> > I like the LM so I'm biased. I pretty much built mine to plans
with
> a
> > few alterations. I also like Nels' drawing of an LM with a hard
> > dodger. I would consider including a full-length companionway in
> the
> > cabin (a la birdwatcher)- I opted not to. If you are near NW Ohio
> and
> > want to see my LM, drop a line.
> >
> > Bill, in Ohio
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking
> about
> > > the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal
> cabin
> > > space it affords.
> > >
> > > Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
> > >
> > > I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real
> benefit?
> > >
> > > And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
> > >
> > > Also I was wondering if the Navigator upgrade (or a doghouse
like
> > > Roger Keyes has done with his Micro 'Paloma Blanca') would be
> > > adaptable to Long Micro?
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in your thought and opinions. I wish I could
> step
> > > aboard a real version of each just to get a feel for the
> differences.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Paul.
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Paul,
Dull evening here so let me jump in with a few thoughts.
The shed extension could be a good idea depending on your climate. You could make it so that you only have it up on "building days" by doing a tarp tossed over the opened doors. Make a toolbench / workbench on wheels that rolls out so you have the entire shop for the hull. I built my Microtrawler (14' 6" x 8' 6") in a 10' x 20' carport enclosure that way.
The working height inside should not be a problem as the keel of Micro should not go on till very late in construction, say just prior to final exterior painting and launching day. Some folks put it on early and pay the price of having to work up high and climb in and out of the hull. Others fret over attaching the keel, and I've seen more than one builder struggle with lifting the hull over the upright keel, totally unnecessary. The original building sequence had the hull tipped over on it's side on some old tires or carpet and the keel, on a strong table or bench (keel on it's side) was shoved over to and onto the keel batten and nailed up. Very simple and a one man job once the keel is up on the table. Once attached, just pull out the table and the hull will tip itself upright.
I'm sure you'll make a lovely job of it, but you seem like a guy interested in getting on the water. If so, may I suggest you don't make a life long career of building your Micro to goldplater standards. Some have, and they are beautiful works of art, but the original design discussion focused on "quick to build". In fact there was a guy in Florida, in the early Micro days back in the mid 80's, that I spoke with who built seven or eight Micro bare hulls for sale, including attached keel (but no fiberglass cloth sheathing or paint) in less then 45 building man-hours each! I say get on with the building and get out on the water....
I had an employer in my youth who would often be heard saying "The man is not paying us to visit a pile of lumber each week, he's paying us to get a boat in the water".
* At this point I have to admit, my latest -and last- boat abuilding is now four, or is it five? years into a six to eight month build..... :(
Something I've not seen on a standard Micro that might fit your needs is a hard dodger, a plywood or foam/glass roof on struts with canvas/clear acrylic sides and front. Sort of what Nels is trying to talk Jason into doing to his navigator....
Anyway, just some random thoughts. Keep us informed.
Good building.
Rick
mrfirkin <thurcros@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,
Thanks heaps for the info. This forum is great.
I was really tempted to build the LM but my building shed is only
20ftx14ft with about 6'6" height clearance at the doors and around
8ft workable height inside.
I think even the standard Micro may be a challenge to build in a shed
this size?
I could create more room by opening the outward swinging doors and
rigging up a temporary timber frame and some polytarp to the end of
the shed but that's more hassel than it's worth and I need to be able
to lock the shed as I don't live onsite.
Plus I have to consider costs which I am trying to keep at a minimum.
I will be sailing solo for most of the time so I figure a Micro (with
perhaps Navigator option) will be enough room for now.
I am also thinking about a self designed doghouse instead of the
Navigator upgrade. A bit like Roger Keyes Micro, Paloma Blanca.
First I need to make a start on the basic hull I guess and take it
from there.
Cheers,
Paul.
Dull evening here so let me jump in with a few thoughts.
The shed extension could be a good idea depending on your climate. You could make it so that you only have it up on "building days" by doing a tarp tossed over the opened doors. Make a toolbench / workbench on wheels that rolls out so you have the entire shop for the hull. I built my Microtrawler (14' 6" x 8' 6") in a 10' x 20' carport enclosure that way.
The working height inside should not be a problem as the keel of Micro should not go on till very late in construction, say just prior to final exterior painting and launching day. Some folks put it on early and pay the price of having to work up high and climb in and out of the hull. Others fret over attaching the keel, and I've seen more than one builder struggle with lifting the hull over the upright keel, totally unnecessary. The original building sequence had the hull tipped over on it's side on some old tires or carpet and the keel, on a strong table or bench (keel on it's side) was shoved over to and onto the keel batten and nailed up. Very simple and a one man job once the keel is up on the table. Once attached, just pull out the table and the hull will tip itself upright.
I'm sure you'll make a lovely job of it, but you seem like a guy interested in getting on the water. If so, may I suggest you don't make a life long career of building your Micro to goldplater standards. Some have, and they are beautiful works of art, but the original design discussion focused on "quick to build". In fact there was a guy in Florida, in the early Micro days back in the mid 80's, that I spoke with who built seven or eight Micro bare hulls for sale, including attached keel (but no fiberglass cloth sheathing or paint) in less then 45 building man-hours each! I say get on with the building and get out on the water....
I had an employer in my youth who would often be heard saying "The man is not paying us to visit a pile of lumber each week, he's paying us to get a boat in the water".
* At this point I have to admit, my latest -and last- boat abuilding is now four, or is it five? years into a six to eight month build..... :(
Something I've not seen on a standard Micro that might fit your needs is a hard dodger, a plywood or foam/glass roof on struts with canvas/clear acrylic sides and front. Sort of what Nels is trying to talk Jason into doing to his navigator....
Anyway, just some random thoughts. Keep us informed.
Good building.
Rick
mrfirkin <thurcros@...> wrote:
Hi Bill,
Thanks heaps for the info. This forum is great.
I was really tempted to build the LM but my building shed is only
20ftx14ft with about 6'6" height clearance at the doors and around
8ft workable height inside.
I think even the standard Micro may be a challenge to build in a shed
this size?
I could create more room by opening the outward swinging doors and
rigging up a temporary timber frame and some polytarp to the end of
the shed but that's more hassel than it's worth and I need to be able
to lock the shed as I don't live onsite.
Plus I have to consider costs which I am trying to keep at a minimum.
I will be sailing solo for most of the time so I figure a Micro (with
perhaps Navigator option) will be enough room for now.
I am also thinking about a self designed doghouse instead of the
Navigator upgrade. A bit like Roger Keyes Micro, Paloma Blanca.
First I need to make a start on the basic hull I guess and take it
from there.
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <kingw@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have given
> you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build,
so I
> have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
> biased and think everyone should build one.
>
> First, think about where you will make your mast. If you build an
LM,
> the mast is 29 feet long. I found that too long for my old shop
> (which was about 22 feet long)so I started laminating the mast on my
> living room floor. Luckily I upgraded to a house/shop/wife (v 1.0)
> and was able to continue shaping and laminating my mast in my new
> shop. I'm sure people have built their masts outside too.
>
> Second, the ceiling in my old shop wasn't high enough for me to fit
> the tabernacle posts. And that meant I couldn't lift the boat to
slide
> the ballast in either. If I still had my old shop I would have been
> forced to move my boat outside to complete it. Again, others have
> built outside, but it complicates the process. With my LM sitting on
> its wheeled strongback, the top of the tabernacle posts are around
6.5
> feet off the floor (and the keel sits about 5 inches from the
floor).
>
> I like the LM so I'm biased. I pretty much built mine to plans with
a
> few alterations. I also like Nels' drawing of an LM with a hard
> dodger. I would consider including a full-length companionway in
the
> cabin (a la birdwatcher)- I opted not to. If you are near NW Ohio
and
> want to see my LM, drop a line.
>
> Bill, in Ohio
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking
about
> > the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal
cabin
> > space it affords.
> >
> > Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
> >
> > I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real
benefit?
> >
> > And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
> >
> > Also I was wondering if the Navigator upgrade (or a doghouse like
> > Roger Keyes has done with his Micro 'Paloma Blanca') would be
> > adaptable to Long Micro?
> >
> > I'd be interested in your thought and opinions. I wish I could
step
> > aboard a real version of each just to get a feel for the
differences.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paul.
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The door height could be a problem for the Micro Navigator. I did a
workaround for mine by only installing the keel after outside on the
driveway. That was do-able but involved some tricky on-your-back work, and
an invented homemade truck to roll the 400 pound chunk of lead into place.
(Not to mention, a little bit of personal risk of being squished should the
boat fall from the jack stands.)
Also, have your eyes wide open that a 15'4" long hull has hull speed
limitations based on the displacement waterline length. Longer boats can go
faster, but in my case a short boat is all I could have, and I am happy with
the compromise.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
workaround for mine by only installing the keel after outside on the
driveway. That was do-able but involved some tricky on-your-back work, and
an invented homemade truck to roll the 400 pound chunk of lead into place.
(Not to mention, a little bit of personal risk of being squished should the
boat fall from the jack stands.)
Also, have your eyes wide open that a 15'4" long hull has hull speed
limitations based on the displacement waterline length. Longer boats can go
faster, but in my case a short boat is all I could have, and I am happy with
the compromise.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Bill,
Thanks heaps for the info. This forum is great.
I was really tempted to build the LM but my building shed is only
20ftx14ft with about 6'6" height clearance at the doors and around
8ft workable height inside.
I think even the standard Micro may be a challenge to build in a shed
this size?
I could create more room by opening the outward swinging doors and
rigging up a temporary timber frame and some polytarp to the end of
the shed but that's more hassel than it's worth and I need to be able
to lock the shed as I don't live onsite.
Plus I have to consider costs which I am trying to keep at a minimum.
I will be sailing solo for most of the time so I figure a Micro (with
perhaps Navigator option) will be enough room for now.
I am also thinking about a self designed doghouse instead of the
Navigator upgrade. A bit like Roger Keyes Micro, Paloma Blanca.
First I need to make a start on the basic hull I guess and take it
from there.
Cheers,
Paul.
Thanks heaps for the info. This forum is great.
I was really tempted to build the LM but my building shed is only
20ftx14ft with about 6'6" height clearance at the doors and around
8ft workable height inside.
I think even the standard Micro may be a challenge to build in a shed
this size?
I could create more room by opening the outward swinging doors and
rigging up a temporary timber frame and some polytarp to the end of
the shed but that's more hassel than it's worth and I need to be able
to lock the shed as I don't live onsite.
Plus I have to consider costs which I am trying to keep at a minimum.
I will be sailing solo for most of the time so I figure a Micro (with
perhaps Navigator option) will be enough room for now.
I am also thinking about a self designed doghouse instead of the
Navigator upgrade. A bit like Roger Keyes Micro, Paloma Blanca.
First I need to make a start on the basic hull I guess and take it
from there.
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <kingw@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have given
> you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build,
so I
> have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
> biased and think everyone should build one.
>
> First, think about where you will make your mast. If you build an
LM,
> the mast is 29 feet long. I found that too long for my old shop
> (which was about 22 feet long)so I started laminating the mast on my
> living room floor. Luckily I upgraded to a house/shop/wife (v 1.0)
> and was able to continue shaping and laminating my mast in my new
> shop. I'm sure people have built their masts outside too.
>
> Second, the ceiling in my old shop wasn't high enough for me to fit
> the tabernacle posts. And that meant I couldn't lift the boat to
slide
> the ballast in either. If I still had my old shop I would have been
> forced to move my boat outside to complete it. Again, others have
> built outside, but it complicates the process. With my LM sitting on
> its wheeled strongback, the top of the tabernacle posts are around
6.5
> feet off the floor (and the keel sits about 5 inches from the
floor).
>
> I like the LM so I'm biased. I pretty much built mine to plans with
a
> few alterations. I also like Nels' drawing of an LM with a hard
> dodger. I would consider including a full-length companionway in
the
> cabin (a la birdwatcher)- I opted not to. If you are near NW Ohio
and
> want to see my LM, drop a line.
>
> Bill, in Ohio
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking
about
> > the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal
cabin
> > space it affords.
> >
> > Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
> >
> > I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real
benefit?
> >
> > And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
> >
> > Also I was wondering if the Navigator upgrade (or a doghouse like
> > Roger Keyes has done with his Micro 'Paloma Blanca') would be
> > adaptable to Long Micro?
> >
> > I'd be interested in your thought and opinions. I wish I could
step
> > aboard a real version of each just to get a feel for the
differences.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Paul.
> >
>
Hi Bruce,
Many thanks.
That has decided it for me.
That type of cruising is exactly what I want to do here in Australia.
Port hopping around the coast.
After careful study, and all the great help from yourself and others
on this forum, I don't think I could find a better design for that
purpose.
Cheers,
Paul.
Many thanks.
That has decided it for me.
That type of cruising is exactly what I want to do here in Australia.
Port hopping around the coast.
After careful study, and all the great help from yourself and others
on this forum, I don't think I could find a better design for that
purpose.
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > Thanks for the thoughts and info.
> >
> > How do you have your Micro's accomodation arranged? Do you still
have
> > the 2 original berths or is the cuddy now living space with the
> > sleeping berths/bunks relocated to the glass doghouse section?
>
> Two 6 foot 6 inch berths, the Micro Navigator has no cuddy. I am
six
> feet tall and find the headroom adequate, I can stand up fully on a
> small section of the floor, and for most of the cabin space I can
> stand with my head tipped a little bit to the side, or most often I
> have the hatch open and stand with my head in the hatch space. For
> cooking, I place a two burner Coleman camp stove on the afterdeck
and
> stand (or sit) in the cabin while cooking. I like this because the
> propane (and cooking steam) is outside the cabin.
>
> Maybe these photos will explain the layout.
>
>http://sports.webshots.com/album/121069753OCENAu?start=24
>
> > Also, is the glass doghouse comfortable in summer? with all that
> > glass it looks like it could get a tad hot (and susceptible to
waves
> > breaking over it, leaking etc).
>
> I live in San Francisco, and it never really gets hot here. Much
more
> common is that it is windy and cold, and the cabin is simply
fantastic
> for this climate. The center front window and the center anchor
well
> hatch open, plus the roof hatch and back hatch all can open, with
this
> you get a pretty good flow through of air, and the remainer of the
> cabin roof provides shade, so I don't think that heat from
the 'glass
> house' effect is a huge problem.
>
> > It appears to me, Phil Bolger designed Navigator as a
bay/riverboat
> > rather than a boat to venture far in. ie: blue water coastal
cruising.
>
> Bolger designed the boat on commission for an Australian who wanted
> the minimum boat possible to safely circumnavigate the continent of
> Australia, including the southern coast.
>
I was at the Harbor Freight for a stud finder and saw the nice,
digital calipers irresistibly on sale at half the price. Since the
buds came in the mail it seemed worthwhile to measure everything
again before installing.
The hubs on my HF utility trailer are both 2.033".
One dust cap was 2.049"+; the other 2.042 - 2.052.
The model 2047 buddies seemed to be actually 2.05".
Quite a spread. It took a couple of pretty good wacks to get them
seated. Doubt they'll fall out now.
Mark
digital calipers irresistibly on sale at half the price. Since the
buds came in the mail it seemed worthwhile to measure everything
again before installing.
The hubs on my HF utility trailer are both 2.033".
One dust cap was 2.049"+; the other 2.042 - 2.052.
The model 2047 buddies seemed to be actually 2.05".
Quite a spread. It took a couple of pretty good wacks to get them
seated. Doubt they'll fall out now.
Mark
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <kingw@...> wrote:
Great to hear from you and congratulations on all recent upgrades!
Here's to you and your mate, and future upgrades enjoying many a happy
voyage.
I am glad you mentioned the size factor, since it is difficult to tell
from the drawings just how big LM really is. I was quite amazed the
first time I saw the MICRO LESTAT but was still shocked when I first
saw ZEPHYR in the boatyard. In fact I was literally floored as I
thought it may not fit on the trailer I had just towed about 2500
miles. It just barely fit.
Perhaps you could share how you are doing with the keel as that is the
major roadblock for a lot of builders I believe. LM's curves and bends
are actually more gentle than MICRO. The keel shape is also less
complicated. And there is more space to work inside.
Nels
>I have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
> Paul,
> At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have given
> you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build, so
> biased and think everyone should build one.Hi Bill
Great to hear from you and congratulations on all recent upgrades!
Here's to you and your mate, and future upgrades enjoying many a happy
voyage.
I am glad you mentioned the size factor, since it is difficult to tell
from the drawings just how big LM really is. I was quite amazed the
first time I saw the MICRO LESTAT but was still shocked when I first
saw ZEPHYR in the boatyard. In fact I was literally floored as I
thought it may not fit on the trailer I had just towed about 2500
miles. It just barely fit.
Perhaps you could share how you are doing with the keel as that is the
major roadblock for a lot of builders I believe. LM's curves and bends
are actually more gentle than MICRO. The keel shape is also less
complicated. And there is more space to work inside.
Nels
>Two 6 foot 6 inch berths, the Micro Navigator has no cuddy. I am six
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Thanks for the thoughts and info.
>
> How do you have your Micro's accomodation arranged? Do you still have
> the 2 original berths or is the cuddy now living space with the
> sleeping berths/bunks relocated to the glass doghouse section?
feet tall and find the headroom adequate, I can stand up fully on a
small section of the floor, and for most of the cabin space I can
stand with my head tipped a little bit to the side, or most often I
have the hatch open and stand with my head in the hatch space. For
cooking, I place a two burner Coleman camp stove on the afterdeck and
stand (or sit) in the cabin while cooking. I like this because the
propane (and cooking steam) is outside the cabin.
Maybe these photos will explain the layout.
http://sports.webshots.com/album/121069753OCENAu?start=24
> Also, is the glass doghouse comfortable in summer? with all thatI live in San Francisco, and it never really gets hot here. Much more
> glass it looks like it could get a tad hot (and susceptible to waves
> breaking over it, leaking etc).
common is that it is windy and cold, and the cabin is simply fantastic
for this climate. The center front window and the center anchor well
hatch open, plus the roof hatch and back hatch all can open, with this
you get a pretty good flow through of air, and the remainer of the
cabin roof provides shade, so I don't think that heat from the 'glass
house' effect is a huge problem.
> It appears to me, Phil Bolger designed Navigator as a bay/riverboatBolger designed the boat on commission for an Australian who wanted
> rather than a boat to venture far in. ie: blue water coastal cruising.
the minimum boat possible to safely circumnavigate the continent of
Australia, including the southern coast.
Paul,
At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have given
you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build, so I
have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
biased and think everyone should build one.
First, think about where you will make your mast. If you build an LM,
the mast is 29 feet long. I found that too long for my old shop
(which was about 22 feet long)so I started laminating the mast on my
living room floor. Luckily I upgraded to a house/shop/wife (v 1.0)
and was able to continue shaping and laminating my mast in my new
shop. I'm sure people have built their masts outside too.
Second, the ceiling in my old shop wasn't high enough for me to fit
the tabernacle posts. And that meant I couldn't lift the boat to slide
the ballast in either. If I still had my old shop I would have been
forced to move my boat outside to complete it. Again, others have
built outside, but it complicates the process. With my LM sitting on
its wheeled strongback, the top of the tabernacle posts are around 6.5
feet off the floor (and the keel sits about 5 inches from the floor).
I like the LM so I'm biased. I pretty much built mine to plans with a
few alterations. I also like Nels' drawing of an LM with a hard
dodger. I would consider including a full-length companionway in the
cabin (a la birdwatcher)- I opted not to. If you are near NW Ohio and
want to see my LM, drop a line.
Bill, in Ohio
At this point the speedy-to-reply micronauts of the list have given
you plenty of information. I'm coming to the end of my LM build, so I
have only a few tidbits of advice. Since I'm building an LM, I'm
biased and think everyone should build one.
First, think about where you will make your mast. If you build an LM,
the mast is 29 feet long. I found that too long for my old shop
(which was about 22 feet long)so I started laminating the mast on my
living room floor. Luckily I upgraded to a house/shop/wife (v 1.0)
and was able to continue shaping and laminating my mast in my new
shop. I'm sure people have built their masts outside too.
Second, the ceiling in my old shop wasn't high enough for me to fit
the tabernacle posts. And that meant I couldn't lift the boat to slide
the ballast in either. If I still had my old shop I would have been
forced to move my boat outside to complete it. Again, others have
built outside, but it complicates the process. With my LM sitting on
its wheeled strongback, the top of the tabernacle posts are around 6.5
feet off the floor (and the keel sits about 5 inches from the floor).
I like the LM so I'm biased. I pretty much built mine to plans with a
few alterations. I also like Nels' drawing of an LM with a hard
dodger. I would consider including a full-length companionway in the
cabin (a la birdwatcher)- I opted not to. If you are near NW Ohio and
want to see my LM, drop a line.
Bill, in Ohio
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking about
> the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal cabin
> space it affords.
>
> Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
>
> I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real benefit?
>
> And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
>
> Also I was wondering if the Navigator upgrade (or a doghouse like
> Roger Keyes has done with his Micro 'Paloma Blanca') would be
> adaptable to Long Micro?
>
> I'd be interested in your thought and opinions. I wish I could step
> aboard a real version of each just to get a feel for the differences.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul.
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:
at the Bolger3 group, during the time Jason and I were looking at
MICRO/LM NAV options.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger3/files/LONG%20MICRO/
In the first sketch I "grafted" the doghouse from "One Person Live
Aboard" - a design proposal from Bolger, that never came to fruition -
onto a LM hull.
In another sketch I grafted a full cabin from a CHEBACCO motorsailor
version onto a LM hull.
The first sketch drew the most favorable response - a small doghouse
with an overhead canopy extension aft, which could be fully enclosed
with canvas when in port. One could sit out and steer from the stern
on a nice day, still get some shade if it got hot, or some shelter if
it rained. Fish or BBQ from.
This also preserves the aft deck space as an second sleeping area.
The second sketch was for an full-sized enclosed pilothouse,
completely off-shore capable, no outside steering station.
Bolger considers these larger houses to be seaworthy if built
strongly. Lexan is stronger than plywood. Of course a lot of off-shore
motor yachts have a lot larger pilothouses than this.
Am hoping to do a mock-up of the first option as soon as I can get
some pressing personal business caught up. I would not consider it
off-shore capable.
I ended up purchaseing the LM shown in the photos.
Nels
>I made a couple of sketchs a few years ago and posted them in a file
> Hi Nels,
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Seems like I still have a bit of thinking to do with choice of boat.
>
> I'm trying to get as much info as I can but have least narrowed my
> search down from about 5 boats to just 2!
>
at the Bolger3 group, during the time Jason and I were looking at
MICRO/LM NAV options.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger3/files/LONG%20MICRO/
In the first sketch I "grafted" the doghouse from "One Person Live
Aboard" - a design proposal from Bolger, that never came to fruition -
onto a LM hull.
In another sketch I grafted a full cabin from a CHEBACCO motorsailor
version onto a LM hull.
The first sketch drew the most favorable response - a small doghouse
with an overhead canopy extension aft, which could be fully enclosed
with canvas when in port. One could sit out and steer from the stern
on a nice day, still get some shade if it got hot, or some shelter if
it rained. Fish or BBQ from.
This also preserves the aft deck space as an second sleeping area.
The second sketch was for an full-sized enclosed pilothouse,
completely off-shore capable, no outside steering station.
Bolger considers these larger houses to be seaworthy if built
strongly. Lexan is stronger than plywood. Of course a lot of off-shore
motor yachts have a lot larger pilothouses than this.
Am hoping to do a mock-up of the first option as soon as I can get
some pressing personal business caught up. I would not consider it
off-shore capable.
I ended up purchaseing the LM shown in the photos.
Nels
Hi Nels,
Thanks for the info.
Seems like I still have a bit of thinking to do with choice of boat.
I'm trying to get as much info as I can but have least narrowed my
search down from about 5 boats to just 2!
Micro or Long Micro, Navigator or Standard. Then there is the type of
modified doghouse Roger Keyes has fitted to Paloma Blanca to think
about.
Hmmm, I might have my decision made for me. Measured my building shed
length today. 19'6" The exact length of Long Micro. I'd only just get
the doors shut! Still, I can always rig up a temporary extension with
a timber frame and polytarp.
Cheers,
Paul.
Thanks for the info.
Seems like I still have a bit of thinking to do with choice of boat.
I'm trying to get as much info as I can but have least narrowed my
search down from about 5 boats to just 2!
Micro or Long Micro, Navigator or Standard. Then there is the type of
modified doghouse Roger Keyes has fitted to Paloma Blanca to think
about.
Hmmm, I might have my decision made for me. Measured my building shed
length today. 19'6" The exact length of Long Micro. I'd only just get
the doors shut! Still, I can always rig up a temporary extension with
a timber frame and polytarp.
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking
about
> > the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal
cabin
> > space it affords.
> >
> > Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
> >
> > I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real
benefit?
> >
> > And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
> >
> Hi Paul,
>
> Re: Standard LONG MICRO
>
> The internal cabin space on LM is lengthened by 2 feet, which
allows a
> dedicated galley area which MICRO does not have. Secondary benefit
is
> that the bunks are farther apart allowing more space to walk forward
> to the bow if you have the forward companionway option - which I
would
> consider almost a necessity at my age - in order to handle ground
tackle.
>
> The forward bulkhead is also larger giving more room for a
> companionway opening, and the bow well is also significantly larger
> with the mast right in the stem position. LM is also deeper
amidships
> giving more headroom inside.
>
> The cockpit is 2 feet longer, with enough space to spread out a 4X6'
> air mattress under a boom tent - which makes cruising with 2 couples
> quite viable.
>
> The most significant factor is the W/L length that is increased from
> 12 to 16 feet, which according to PCB&F makes it far more capable in
> maintaining way off a lee shore if the winds get up. Also it has
more
> power to drive against the waves when using the larger engine.
>
> The longer waterline and larger sail area, with the same beam,
combine
> to make it significantly faster.
>
> LONG MICRO NAVIGATOR
>
> I have enquired about this with Mr. Bolger, over two years ago, but
> they were too busy to address the conversion. I feel reluctant to
> renew my request as others are still wating for their commisions to
be
> completed.
>
> Because the standard LM is deeper amidships one could have standing
> headroom under the aft section of a pilothouse. This would also
allow
> for higher bunks, with more storage under and more comfortable leg
> room when sitting in the forward area of the pilothouse.
>
> There would have to be a second inside steering station however,
with
> the galley to port under the pilothouse. Probably be room for a
small
> cockpit aft with tiller attachment as well as the wheel inside.
>
> The longer waterline would also make a autopilot feasible. In
essence
> it would become a motor sailor.
>
> The big challenge would be if wanting to trailer it. A LM Nav would
> not be considered "micro" in anyones mind!
>
> Nels
>
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for the thoughts and info.
How do you have your Micro's accomodation arranged? Do you still have
the 2 original berths or is the cuddy now living space with the
sleeping berths/bunks relocated to the glass doghouse section?
Sorry to ask such daft questions but I can't quite picture the layout.
Also, is the glass doghouse comfortable in summer? with all that
glass it looks like it could get a tad hot (and susceptible to waves
breaking over it, leaking etc).
It appears to me, Phil Bolger designed Navigator as a bay/riverboat
rather than a boat to venture far in. ie: blue water coastal cruising.
Is that a fair statement?
Cheers,
Paul.
Thanks for the thoughts and info.
How do you have your Micro's accomodation arranged? Do you still have
the 2 original berths or is the cuddy now living space with the
sleeping berths/bunks relocated to the glass doghouse section?
Sorry to ask such daft questions but I can't quite picture the layout.
Also, is the glass doghouse comfortable in summer? with all that
glass it looks like it could get a tad hot (and susceptible to waves
breaking over it, leaking etc).
It appears to me, Phil Bolger designed Navigator as a bay/riverboat
rather than a boat to venture far in. ie: blue water coastal cruising.
Is that a fair statement?
Cheers,
Paul.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> > Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking
about
> > the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal
cabin
> > space it affords.
>
> I own a Micro Navigator, and find the inside to be *plenty* spacious
> for two people and their gear. Plus I find the small 'Micro' hull
> size to be a tremendous benefit. Where I live, the waiting period
for
> a marina berth for a boat the size of a Long Micro was 7 years, and
> the size of Micro only 2 years. Also, Micro can fits on a trailer in
> my driveway, and Long Micro cannot.
>
> One 'downside' of a Micro Navigator is that it doesn't have a
cockpit
> proper. It does have the capability to sit in the cabin hatch,
which
> I find to be plenty satisfying to get that 'sun in your face, and
wind
> in your hair' feeling. The Bolger plans come with a tremendous
amount
> of genius and effort resolving the 'issues' that come up when you
try
> to sail a sailboat without a cockpit. The biggest unresolved issue
is
> that landing the boat at a dock is considerably more complex than
> with an open cockpit boat. All in all, I really like my Micro
> Navigator.
>
> The 'definition' of 'Navigator cabin' is that you sail the boat from
> inside the cabin (versus from the cockpit).
>
> I have penciled a Navigator cabin onto a Long Micro, but I was
> discouraged at how difficult it is to resolve the issues associated
> with making the boat sail from inside a cabin. For instance, the
> geometry of the rudder and tiller are a problem. Also, you would
> need to use a Chinese Gaff rig, and changing the rig type of a
> sailboat is not a trivial thing.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@> wrote:Here is a link with some interesting commentary about a LONG MICRO
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking about
> > the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal cabin
> > space it affords.
leeboard version.
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/zoon.htm
"This worked out great...we were able to make good to windward in up
to 45 knots." !!!
And some useful commentary re: tabernacles.
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2001/0115/index.htm
A LM Nav would likely require the tabernacle be extended in height, so
the mast would lie flat over the pilothouse when lowered. Making it
strong enough would have to be taken into consideration. Especailly
re: the twisting forces at the pivot bolt/mast interface. I would
think some sort of support bushing should be inserted between bolt and
mast wood?
I also expect Susanne Alternberger would have this all figured out:-)
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mrfirkin" <thurcros@...> wrote:
Re: Standard LONG MICRO
The internal cabin space on LM is lengthened by 2 feet, which allows a
dedicated galley area which MICRO does not have. Secondary benefit is
that the bunks are farther apart allowing more space to walk forward
to the bow if you have the forward companionway option - which I would
consider almost a necessity at my age - in order to handle ground tackle.
The forward bulkhead is also larger giving more room for a
companionway opening, and the bow well is also significantly larger
with the mast right in the stem position. LM is also deeper amidships
giving more headroom inside.
The cockpit is 2 feet longer, with enough space to spread out a 4X6'
air mattress under a boom tent - which makes cruising with 2 couples
quite viable.
The most significant factor is the W/L length that is increased from
12 to 16 feet, which according to PCB&F makes it far more capable in
maintaining way off a lee shore if the winds get up. Also it has more
power to drive against the waves when using the larger engine.
The longer waterline and larger sail area, with the same beam, combine
to make it significantly faster.
LONG MICRO NAVIGATOR
I have enquired about this with Mr. Bolger, over two years ago, but
they were too busy to address the conversion. I feel reluctant to
renew my request as others are still wating for their commisions to be
completed.
Because the standard LM is deeper amidships one could have standing
headroom under the aft section of a pilothouse. This would also allow
for higher bunks, with more storage under and more comfortable leg
room when sitting in the forward area of the pilothouse.
There would have to be a second inside steering station however, with
the galley to port under the pilothouse. Probably be room for a small
cockpit aft with tiller attachment as well as the wheel inside.
The longer waterline would also make a autopilot feasible. In essence
it would become a motor sailor.
The big challenge would be if wanting to trailer it. A LM Nav would
not be considered "micro" in anyones mind!
Nels
>Hi Paul,
> Hi guys,
>
> Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking about
> the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal cabin
> space it affords.
>
> Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
>
> I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real benefit?
>
> And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
>
Re: Standard LONG MICRO
The internal cabin space on LM is lengthened by 2 feet, which allows a
dedicated galley area which MICRO does not have. Secondary benefit is
that the bunks are farther apart allowing more space to walk forward
to the bow if you have the forward companionway option - which I would
consider almost a necessity at my age - in order to handle ground tackle.
The forward bulkhead is also larger giving more room for a
companionway opening, and the bow well is also significantly larger
with the mast right in the stem position. LM is also deeper amidships
giving more headroom inside.
The cockpit is 2 feet longer, with enough space to spread out a 4X6'
air mattress under a boom tent - which makes cruising with 2 couples
quite viable.
The most significant factor is the W/L length that is increased from
12 to 16 feet, which according to PCB&F makes it far more capable in
maintaining way off a lee shore if the winds get up. Also it has more
power to drive against the waves when using the larger engine.
The longer waterline and larger sail area, with the same beam, combine
to make it significantly faster.
LONG MICRO NAVIGATOR
I have enquired about this with Mr. Bolger, over two years ago, but
they were too busy to address the conversion. I feel reluctant to
renew my request as others are still wating for their commisions to be
completed.
Because the standard LM is deeper amidships one could have standing
headroom under the aft section of a pilothouse. This would also allow
for higher bunks, with more storage under and more comfortable leg
room when sitting in the forward area of the pilothouse.
There would have to be a second inside steering station however, with
the galley to port under the pilothouse. Probably be room for a small
cockpit aft with tiller attachment as well as the wheel inside.
The longer waterline would also make a autopilot feasible. In essence
it would become a motor sailor.
The big challenge would be if wanting to trailer it. A LM Nav would
not be considered "micro" in anyones mind!
Nels
> Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking aboutI own a Micro Navigator, and find the inside to be *plenty* spacious
> the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal cabin
> space it affords.
for two people and their gear. Plus I find the small 'Micro' hull
size to be a tremendous benefit. Where I live, the waiting period for
a marina berth for a boat the size of a Long Micro was 7 years, and
the size of Micro only 2 years. Also, Micro can fits on a trailer in
my driveway, and Long Micro cannot.
One 'downside' of a Micro Navigator is that it doesn't have a cockpit
proper. It does have the capability to sit in the cabin hatch, which
I find to be plenty satisfying to get that 'sun in your face, and wind
in your hair' feeling. The Bolger plans come with a tremendous amount
of genius and effort resolving the 'issues' that come up when you try
to sail a sailboat without a cockpit. The biggest unresolved issue is
that landing the boat at a dock is considerably more complex than
with an open cockpit boat. All in all, I really like my Micro
Navigator.
The 'definition' of 'Navigator cabin' is that you sail the boat from
inside the cabin (versus from the cockpit).
I have penciled a Navigator cabin onto a Long Micro, but I was
discouraged at how difficult it is to resolve the issues associated
with making the boat sail from inside a cabin. For instance, the
geometry of the rudder and tiller are a problem. Also, you would
need to use a Chinese Gaff rig, and changing the rig type of a
sailboat is not a trivial thing.
Hi guys,
Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking about
the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal cabin
space it affords.
Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real benefit?
And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
Also I was wondering if the Navigator upgrade (or a doghouse like
Roger Keyes has done with his Micro 'Paloma Blanca') would be
adaptable to Long Micro?
I'd be interested in your thought and opinions. I wish I could step
aboard a real version of each just to get a feel for the differences.
Thanks,
Paul.
Just before I commit to building a Micro I have been thinking about
the merits of the Long Micro and just how much more internal cabin
space it affords.
Is the extra few feet worth the extra cost, time and effort ?
I mean is it really that much bigger inside to be of any real benefit?
And what of cockpit area, how do they compare?
Also I was wondering if the Navigator upgrade (or a doghouse like
Roger Keyes has done with his Micro 'Paloma Blanca') would be
adaptable to Long Micro?
I'd be interested in your thought and opinions. I wish I could step
aboard a real version of each just to get a feel for the differences.
Thanks,
Paul.