Re: re; Folding Schooner
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...> wrote:
(see above). Interesting website.
The sequence of photos showing the unfolding of the FS make a lot of
sense. The long wooden "caliper" with unequal length arms works pretty
effectively in practive for raising an object like that. The first 45
degrees is the heaviest part. You lift with the longer arm and the
shorter one swings down along the ground and acts as a support, You
can have one person on each arm to start off with. Then when you get
high enough to install the mast you can use it as a gin pole to lower
the hull the rest of the way using the winch. Looks like the fellow
did it all on his own.
I am not sure how he attaches the bow line to the mast. Seems there is
a cleat on the side of mast to catch the bow line as it slides down
the mast during the last part of the lowering process?
When you run the photos in reverse it would show how to fold it up
again. I expect one would use a boat hook to flip the bowline up over
the mast cleat.
Nels
>Thanks, I finally got it to open when I removed the comma at the end
> Hi Nels, Sorry about the link, try
> this ;http://www.hmshtf.org/CollectionDocs/Bolger.htm
>
> I suppose that the further away from the pivot point you apply effort,
> the easier it would be, (leverage ?), still no mean load though.
> Kev
>
(see above). Interesting website.
The sequence of photos showing the unfolding of the FS make a lot of
sense. The long wooden "caliper" with unequal length arms works pretty
effectively in practive for raising an object like that. The first 45
degrees is the heaviest part. You lift with the longer arm and the
shorter one swings down along the ground and acts as a support, You
can have one person on each arm to start off with. Then when you get
high enough to install the mast you can use it as a gin pole to lower
the hull the rest of the way using the winch. Looks like the fellow
did it all on his own.
I am not sure how he attaches the bow line to the mast. Seems there is
a cleat on the side of mast to catch the bow line as it slides down
the mast during the last part of the lowering process?
When you run the photos in reverse it would show how to fold it up
again. I expect one would use a boat hook to flip the bowline up over
the mast cleat.
Nels
Hi Nels, Sorry about the link, try
this ;http://www.hmshtf.org/CollectionDocs/Bolger.htm,
I suppose that the further away from the pivot point you apply effort,
the easier it would be, (leverage ?), still no mean load though.
Kev
this ;http://www.hmshtf.org/CollectionDocs/Bolger.htm,
I suppose that the further away from the pivot point you apply effort,
the easier it would be, (leverage ?), still no mean load though.
Kev
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...> wrote:
decision-making....
-- Sue --
(better yet, build an Insolent 60!)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>The Amherst Galley *is* a schooner, if that helps in your
> Yes you are right, but building a schooner instead of for
> instance, a very ordinary sort of a boat, is a statement about me
decision-making....
-- Sue --
(better yet, build an Insolent 60!)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
into the open space in the rear hull, if you use higher cabin sides
(sort of 1'6", you'd have about 3'3" headroom, (at the transom), you
could then use a standard hull hight, and have a sit-in-able cabin.
>for
>
>
> > > Susan Davis <futabachan@>
> > >
> > Hi Susan, Randomly Hacking !!!!!, (it's what I do best !!!), but
> > seriously, Yes you are right, but building a schooner instead of
> > instance, a very ordinary sort of a boat, is a statement aboutme (I
> > think ), and especially the folding schooner, it's a sort ofthumbing
> > ones nose at the establishment, and going for theunconventional, but
> > I'm a bit more complicated than that, in so far as I'd like my1930s, ie;
> > schooner to look like it's straight out of the convensional
> > two cabins, centre cockpit, etc, a bit tricky but I'm sure notpracticality of
> > impossible. I'd have the style I really like, with the
> > a folding hull, so as to store, and trailer with ease, and Icould tow
> > it with my 1972 Ford Capri, instead of having to buy an awful4x4, and
> > I think it's going to have to be a case of "build it and see",(if I
> > do, I'll keep every informed, as I think it's a very popularidea).
> > All the bestwhen
> > Kev
>
> 1972 Ford Capri!? That had the six right? I often drove a friends
> he overdulged at the pub. Great car - and he put a lot of miles onit
> - but rusted out on out northern salt infested roads.designs
>
> Well Susan answered one question for me. No point in enquiring with
> PCB&F about any changes - they would just try to sell us AMHERST
> GALLEY plans:-)
>
> Can't blame them as they are anxious for some of their unbuilt
> to see the light of day. AH would probably cost 4 times as much tobuild a
> build and who needs room for eight large kids?
>
> When I enquired about a LONG MICRO NAVIGATOR I was advised to
> COLONEL HASLER as they were anxious to see one completed. Howeverthey
> did not have time to convert it to plywood at the time. Anothermember
> enquired about a LM NAV and was told it would be easy to do butnobody
> had asked.and a
>
> I already have FS plans. (AG cost $300) I already have a trailer
> building site that would work and I even have the crane/winchthingy
> that fits the trailer, and could be used to raise and lower the bowand
> section. Already have the mini van that could tow it.
>
> Now I am wondering if one built with the rear cabin a bit higher
> sloped forward and then make the forward cabin a bolt-on hard-top -a
> tiny version of le Cabotin's. Could one then use the original hingevehicle,
> plans? The foreward cabin could be carried in or on the tow
> like a dinghy, or even left at home if one was out day sailing inforward
> light winds. The bow well would be under cover of the inverted
> hull when traveling. Or covered with a tonneau and/or a boom tentto
> keep out rain when camping.and
>
> This would also make the folding bow section lighter to raise and
> lower. One could add some water containers for proper balance along
> with the house batteries like BWII.
>
> It would probably take a liesurely morning to get it all rigged up
> made shipshape for a cruise but not more than an hour ifdaysailing.
>removeable one, and the fore cabin (when the hull is folded) fits
> Nels
>Hi Nels, Yes, like the idea, but how about the rear cabin being the
into the open space in the rear hull, if you use higher cabin sides
(sort of 1'6", you'd have about 3'3" headroom, (at the transom), you
could then use a standard hull hight, and have a sit-in-able cabin.
> > Susan Davis <futabachan@>1972 Ford Capri!? That had the six right? I often drove a friends when
> >
> Hi Susan, Randomly Hacking !!!!!, (it's what I do best !!!), but
> seriously, Yes you are right, but building a schooner instead of for
> instance, a very ordinary sort of a boat, is a statement about me (I
> think ), and especially the folding schooner, it's a sort of thumbing
> ones nose at the establishment, and going for the unconventional, but
> I'm a bit more complicated than that, in so far as I'd like my
> schooner to look like it's straight out of the convensional 1930s, ie;
> two cabins, centre cockpit, etc, a bit tricky but I'm sure not
> impossible. I'd have the style I really like, with the practicality of
> a folding hull, so as to store, and trailer with ease, and I could tow
> it with my 1972 Ford Capri, instead of having to buy an awful 4x4, and
> I think it's going to have to be a case of "build it and see", (if I
> do, I'll keep every informed, as I think it's a very popular idea).
> All the best
> Kev
he overdulged at the pub. Great car - and he put a lot of miles on it
- but rusted out on out northern salt infested roads.
Well Susan answered one question for me. No point in enquiring with
PCB&F about any changes - they would just try to sell us AMHERST
GALLEY plans:-)
Can't blame them as they are anxious for some of their unbuilt designs
to see the light of day. AH would probably cost 4 times as much to
build and who needs room for eight large kids?
When I enquired about a LONG MICRO NAVIGATOR I was advised to build a
COLONEL HASLER as they were anxious to see one completed. However they
did not have time to convert it to plywood at the time. Another member
enquired about a LM NAV and was told it would be easy to do but nobody
had asked.
I already have FS plans. (AG cost $300) I already have a trailer and a
building site that would work and I even have the crane/winch thingy
that fits the trailer, and could be used to raise and lower the bow
section. Already have the mini van that could tow it.
Now I am wondering if one built with the rear cabin a bit higher and
sloped forward and then make the forward cabin a bolt-on hard-top - a
tiny version of le Cabotin's. Could one then use the original hinge
plans? The foreward cabin could be carried in or on the tow vehicle,
like a dinghy, or even left at home if one was out day sailing in
light winds. The bow well would be under cover of the inverted forward
hull when traveling. Or covered with a tonneau and/or a boom tent to
keep out rain when camping.
This would also make the folding bow section lighter to raise and
lower. One could add some water containers for proper balance along
with the house batteries like BWII.
It would probably take a liesurely morning to get it all rigged up and
made shipshape for a cruise but not more than an hour if daysailing.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@...> wrote:
seriously, Yes you are right, but building a schooner instead of for
instance, a very ordinary sort of a boat, is a statement about me (I
think ), and especially the folding schooner, it's a sort of thumbing
ones nose at the establishment, and going for the unconventional, but
I'm a bit more complicated than that, in so far as I'd like my
schooner to look like it's straight out of the convensional 1930s, ie;
two cabins, centre cockpit, etc, a bit tricky but I'm sure not
impossible. I'd have the style I really like, with the practicality of
a folding hull, so as to store, and trailer with ease, and I could tow
it with my 1972 Ford Capri, instead of having to buy an awful 4x4, and
I think it's going to have to be a case of "build it and see", (if I
do, I'll keep every informed, as I think it's a very popular idea).
All the best
Kev
>Hi Susan, Randomly Hacking !!!!!, (it's what I do best !!!), but
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone checked out the Amherst Galley, (a sort of Birdwatcher/
> > light Schooner, with lots of oars), and a huge cruising potential.
>
> David Ryan, the other I60 builder so far, received a set of Amherst
> Galley plans from PCB&F in response to a similar requirement to the
> one being discussed for the Folding Schooner. I suspect that the AG
> would meet those requirements better than randomly hacking the FS
> would....
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>
seriously, Yes you are right, but building a schooner instead of for
instance, a very ordinary sort of a boat, is a statement about me (I
think ), and especially the folding schooner, it's a sort of thumbing
ones nose at the establishment, and going for the unconventional, but
I'm a bit more complicated than that, in so far as I'd like my
schooner to look like it's straight out of the convensional 1930s, ie;
two cabins, centre cockpit, etc, a bit tricky but I'm sure not
impossible. I'd have the style I really like, with the practicality of
a folding hull, so as to store, and trailer with ease, and I could tow
it with my 1972 Ford Capri, instead of having to buy an awful 4x4, and
I think it's going to have to be a case of "build it and see", (if I
do, I'll keep every informed, as I think it's a very popular idea).
All the best
Kev
A 4 man (or woman), rowing boat, it would certainly be able to shift,
with that long slim hull, watch out Cambridge !!, but along those
lines, it could also make a very useable motor launch, with a centre
enclosed cockpit with a sliding roof, and fore and aft cabins, I don't
suppose the hight would be to critical, (all folding of course so as
to preserve it's unique main feature of folding in half and being
trailerable). On the camping/cruising schooner idea, I might just
lower the cabin hight to 3', and carry water ballast in bilge tanks
underneath the hull, or let go of the fore and main sheets when things
get a bit sticky,
with that long slim hull, watch out Cambridge !!, but along those
lines, it could also make a very useable motor launch, with a centre
enclosed cockpit with a sliding roof, and fore and aft cabins, I don't
suppose the hight would be to critical, (all folding of course so as
to preserve it's unique main feature of folding in half and being
trailerable). On the camping/cruising schooner idea, I might just
lower the cabin hight to 3', and carry water ballast in bilge tanks
underneath the hull, or let go of the fore and main sheets when things
get a bit sticky,
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...> wrote:
Galley plans from PCB&F in response to a similar requirement to the
one being discussed for the Folding Schooner. I suspect that the AG
would meet those requirements better than randomly hacking the FS
would....
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
>David Ryan, the other I60 builder so far, received a set of Amherst
> Has anyone checked out the Amherst Galley, (a sort of Birdwatcher/
> light Schooner, with lots of oars), and a huge cruising potential.
Galley plans from PCB&F in response to a similar requirement to the
one being discussed for the Folding Schooner. I suspect that the AG
would meet those requirements better than randomly hacking the FS
would....
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...> wrote:
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger7/files/Amherst%20Galley/>
To me it is the extended schooner version of CAMPER 640
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Camper%20Daysailer/>
Both designs rely on heavy bottoms and crew weight down low - as you
mention - for stability. Both would remain dry even knocked down on
beam ends, according to Bolger.
A raised deck FS would be a schooner version of a BIRDWATCHER, more or
less.
Graeme's points are still worth considering however.
Being heavier, a gin pole and winch set-up would likely be handy for
two people to fold and unfold it. Not a very big challenge really
compared to same masts on bigger boats.
It could also have two rowing stations. In fact it would make a pretty
good rowing machine with the rig removed and 4 rowers.
Nels
>There's a couple articles about the AG 643 over in Bolger7
> Hi Guy's, Would a double thickness bottom, and the crew below deck on
> the windward bilges, sailing from inside the hinged cabins, be the
> answer, or maybe "water ballast" ??. With a centre cockpit and remote
> tiller (at the cockpit) you'd only really need the helmsman to see
> over the cabin, and the fore cabin roof could be just below eye level
> so would you need cockpit seating any higher than 6"-9". Using the
> Light Schooner redrawn 2 cabin idea (in files under light schooner).
> Has anyone checked out the Amherst Galley, (a sort of Birdwatcher/
> light Schooner, with lots of oars), and a huge cruising potential.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger7/files/Amherst%20Galley/>
To me it is the extended schooner version of CAMPER 640
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Camper%20Daysailer/>
Both designs rely on heavy bottoms and crew weight down low - as you
mention - for stability. Both would remain dry even knocked down on
beam ends, according to Bolger.
A raised deck FS would be a schooner version of a BIRDWATCHER, more or
less.
Graeme's points are still worth considering however.
Being heavier, a gin pole and winch set-up would likely be handy for
two people to fold and unfold it. Not a very big challenge really
compared to same masts on bigger boats.
It could also have two rowing stations. In fact it would make a pretty
good rowing machine with the rig removed and 4 rowers.
Nels
Hi Guy's, Would a double thickness bottom, and the crew below deck on
the windward bilges, sailing from inside the hinged cabins, be the
answer, or maybe "water ballast" ??. With a centre cockpit and remote
tiller (at the cockpit) you'd only really need the helmsman to see
over the cabin, and the fore cabin roof could be just below eye level
so would you need cockpit seating any higher than 6"-9". Using the
Light Schooner redrawn 2 cabin idea (in files under light schooner).
Has anyone checked out the Amherst Galley, (a sort of Birdwatcher/
light Schooner, with lots of oars), and a huge cruising potential.
the windward bilges, sailing from inside the hinged cabins, be the
answer, or maybe "water ballast" ??. With a centre cockpit and remote
tiller (at the cockpit) you'd only really need the helmsman to see
over the cabin, and the fore cabin roof could be just below eye level
so would you need cockpit seating any higher than 6"-9". Using the
Light Schooner redrawn 2 cabin idea (in files under light schooner).
Has anyone checked out the Amherst Galley, (a sort of Birdwatcher/
light Schooner, with lots of oars), and a huge cruising potential.
FWIW, I suspect that the end result of accounting for the concerns below
would be something like William Jochems Schooner.
V/R
Chris
snip..
That extra weight up at an increased height will make the FS less
stable. Also, the crew will have to sit higher, probably on raised
seating or cushions in order to see over the higher decks, and their
weight at increased height will further increase instability. If the
crew are heavy and athletic enough to sail while hiked well out then
the effect of the bigger, raised, CoB may be offset (some, like
Mostly Harmless, have tried trapeezes). To prevent inversion after
capsise a lot more foam is likely needed up high under the raised
decks, more so if the decked over cabin space is ever flooded. That
foam will weigh something too, as will the extra cruising gear
cabins collect. Given then that the boat won't invert or stay that
way, will the crew be heavy and strong enough to right the boat from
on her side? Will they be able to empty her and get under way again?
... Snip
would be something like William Jochems Schooner.
V/R
Chris
snip..
That extra weight up at an increased height will make the FS less
stable. Also, the crew will have to sit higher, probably on raised
seating or cushions in order to see over the higher decks, and their
weight at increased height will further increase instability. If the
crew are heavy and athletic enough to sail while hiked well out then
the effect of the bigger, raised, CoB may be offset (some, like
Mostly Harmless, have tried trapeezes). To prevent inversion after
capsise a lot more foam is likely needed up high under the raised
decks, more so if the decked over cabin space is ever flooded. That
foam will weigh something too, as will the extra cruising gear
cabins collect. Given then that the boat won't invert or stay that
way, will the crew be heavy and strong enough to right the boat from
on her side? Will they be able to empty her and get under way again?
... Snip
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...>
wrote:
an extra 150lbs, at least?
That extra weight up at an increased height will make the FS less
stable. Also, the crew will have to sit higher, probably on raised
seating or cushions in order to see over the higher decks, and their
weight at increased height will further increase instability. If the
crew are heavy and athletic enough to sail while hiked well out then
the effect of the bigger, raised, CoB may be offset (some, like
Mostly Harmless, have tried trapeezes). To prevent inversion after
capsise a lot more foam is likely needed up high under the raised
decks, more so if the decked over cabin space is ever flooded. That
foam will weigh something too, as will the extra cruising gear
cabins collect. Given then that the boat won't invert or stay that
way, will the crew be heavy and strong enough to right the boat from
on her side? Will they be able to empty her and get under way again?
I think there's a lot of figuring to do in order to realise the
intentions for the suggested modifications. It may be possible, and
good luck with it, I just wonder why it hasn't been done already as
nearly everyone starts dreaming of improvements and added
accomodations to FS would be fairly common I would think.
again, have each skipper decide prior to the start whether or not it
is safe to compete in the conditions in their boat - and there are
rescue boats on the course. Cruisers have to weather the worst
because at some time they will be caught out - alone.
Graeme
wrote:
> I can't see that these mods would add a great deal of weight toWouldn't this be about an extra 4 sheets of ply? And therefore about
> the original spec, the 9 inch hull tops, 1 foot high cabin sides,
> and the decking,
an extra 150lbs, at least?
That extra weight up at an increased height will make the FS less
stable. Also, the crew will have to sit higher, probably on raised
seating or cushions in order to see over the higher decks, and their
weight at increased height will further increase instability. If the
crew are heavy and athletic enough to sail while hiked well out then
the effect of the bigger, raised, CoB may be offset (some, like
Mostly Harmless, have tried trapeezes). To prevent inversion after
capsise a lot more foam is likely needed up high under the raised
decks, more so if the decked over cabin space is ever flooded. That
foam will weigh something too, as will the extra cruising gear
cabins collect. Given then that the boat won't invert or stay that
way, will the crew be heavy and strong enough to right the boat from
on her side? Will they be able to empty her and get under way again?
I think there's a lot of figuring to do in order to realise the
intentions for the suggested modifications. It may be possible, and
good luck with it, I just wonder why it hasn't been done already as
nearly everyone starts dreaming of improvements and added
accomodations to FS would be fairly common I would think.
> Mr.Bolger, designed the folding schooner for a race, and so wentDaysailers choose their wind - and weather it, or not. Racers,
> for light but strong, and does say that the main sail could take
> an extra foot on the foot, if you get my drift, so maybe the moded
> one wouldn't be much slower than the racing schooner.
>
again, have each skipper decide prior to the start whether or not it
is safe to compete in the conditions in their boat - and there are
rescue boats on the course. Cruisers have to weather the worst
because at some time they will be caught out - alone.
Graeme
Hi Alex, Thanks for the info, this type of thing is exactly what I
need, the value of "what others have found to be true", is worth it's
weight in gold. I would have gone ahead with my plans oblivious to the
weight being such a problem. It's not immediately obvious that a
couple of extra sheets of ply would produce such a huge effect, but
Mr. Bolger did write about avoiding adding too much additional weight
especially at the bow, and came up with the floor stiffeners, which in
his view were a better option to doubling the ply, and would help
protect the bottom when beaching. Will you be posting info about your
schooner when it's finished??.
need, the value of "what others have found to be true", is worth it's
weight in gold. I would have gone ahead with my plans oblivious to the
weight being such a problem. It's not immediately obvious that a
couple of extra sheets of ply would produce such a huge effect, but
Mr. Bolger did write about avoiding adding too much additional weight
especially at the bow, and came up with the floor stiffeners, which in
his view were a better option to doubling the ply, and would help
protect the bottom when beaching. Will you be posting info about your
schooner when it's finished??.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...> wrote:
Breakdown Schooner, although it has a small pilothouse aft.
You can see the profile and cross-section diagrams here.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/
Or in the book BWAOM.
The cartoon of a Light Scooner is in the file at this site under that
name. This might work.
http://tinyurl.com/2ahk6r
It shows two separate cabin spaces - so that might be a challange to
hinge - but it looks great to my eye. Could it be a continuous raised
deck with the hinge on the top - like you mention. It would sort of
have the profile of a BLACK SKIMMER which is not bad!
With 2 cabins crew could sit outside the aft end of either one if one
wanted to go hiking:-)
One could have more sitting headroom aft and it would still look
great. I am a bit chlostraphobic when it comes to sleeping space. I
had a pop-top camper van with 3 ft of headroom over the upper bed and
found that was great. Anything less I found uncomfortable.
Nels
>I was thinking of a raised deck only - with no cabin - like the
> Hi Nels, Thanks for your reply, (if only you knew of the totaly
> negative response I got with this idea on "cruising dinghy's " site).
> The idea of removable hinge pins is an excellent one, increases the
> options. The reason that I don't think you'd need that much head room
> below deck, is because this would be sleeping space, (check out
> the "Sleeper", on "smallsailboats.co.uk", under "Micro Sailboats", and
> that was the idea without cabins, just decks, (dry stores and sleeping
> only), but the cabin option would give you about 3'6" headroom.
Breakdown Schooner, although it has a small pilothouse aft.
You can see the profile and cross-section diagrams here.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/
Or in the book BWAOM.
The cartoon of a Light Scooner is in the file at this site under that
name. This might work.
http://tinyurl.com/2ahk6r
It shows two separate cabin spaces - so that might be a challange to
hinge - but it looks great to my eye. Could it be a continuous raised
deck with the hinge on the top - like you mention. It would sort of
have the profile of a BLACK SKIMMER which is not bad!
With 2 cabins crew could sit outside the aft end of either one if one
wanted to go hiking:-)
One could have more sitting headroom aft and it would still look
great. I am a bit chlostraphobic when it comes to sleeping space. I
had a pop-top camper van with 3 ft of headroom over the upper bed and
found that was great. Anything less I found uncomfortable.
Nels
Hi Nels, Thanks for your reply, (if only you knew of the totaly
negative response I got with this idea on "cruising dinghy's " site).
The idea of removable hinge pins is an excellent one, increases the
options. The reason that I don't think you'd need that much head room
below deck, is because this would be sleeping space, (check out
the "Sleeper", on "smallsailboats.co.uk", under "Micro Sailboats", and
that was the idea without cabins, just decks, (dry stores and sleeping
only), but the cabin option would give you about 3'6" headroom, (2'6"
with raised deck, and 1' cabin hight, I suppose it would depend on how
wide the side decks were to make the headroom useable ie; sitting back
against the hull and leaning forward so as to not crick your neck, I
think the beam would be cossy, as Paradox is only 4' beam, and sleeps
2, and the folding schooner is 4' beam on its bottom. I can't see that
these mods would add a great deal of weight to the original spec, the
9 inch hull tops, 1 foot high cabin sides, and the decking, Mr.
Bolger, designed the folding schooner for a race, and so went for
light but strong, and does say that the main sail could take an extra
foot on the foot, if you get my drift, so maybe the moded one wouldn't
be much slower than the racing schooner.
negative response I got with this idea on "cruising dinghy's " site).
The idea of removable hinge pins is an excellent one, increases the
options. The reason that I don't think you'd need that much head room
below deck, is because this would be sleeping space, (check out
the "Sleeper", on "smallsailboats.co.uk", under "Micro Sailboats", and
that was the idea without cabins, just decks, (dry stores and sleeping
only), but the cabin option would give you about 3'6" headroom, (2'6"
with raised deck, and 1' cabin hight, I suppose it would depend on how
wide the side decks were to make the headroom useable ie; sitting back
against the hull and leaning forward so as to not crick your neck, I
think the beam would be cossy, as Paradox is only 4' beam, and sleeps
2, and the folding schooner is 4' beam on its bottom. I can't see that
these mods would add a great deal of weight to the original spec, the
9 inch hull tops, 1 foot high cabin sides, and the decking, Mr.
Bolger, designed the folding schooner for a race, and so went for
light but strong, and does say that the main sail could take an extra
foot on the foot, if you get my drift, so maybe the moded one wouldn't
be much slower than the racing schooner.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "lordborrolan" <lordborrolan@...> wrote:
would suggest to build a scale model along with a scale model "person"
to help visualize what the finished design accomodations would work
out to.
One factor would be to decide if one would prefer to sit on deck and
be able to hike out, as shown in the photos you linked us to. Or sit
below decks as in BIRDWATCHER. If one preferred the second option then
the decks would have to be a bit higher I would suggest - probably
about at about 3 foot clearance. This would also provde more room
below decks with the covers in place if one got caught in the rain for
example. The forward deck could be sloped aft so as not to require
more overhang and cut off sharply in the stern as in the BBREAK-DOWN
SCHOONER.
http://www.boatdesign.com/jumps/mckib/Page.html
This design also has an alternative boom design which is self vanging
and raises the booms higher. Notice the photo with the caption "Making
Knots with Tyvek Sails".
The hinge could be made with a removeable pin(s) so one would have the
option of either folding it or separating it. The entire boat would be
somewhat heavier to move about of course.
I find it interesting that the design was drawn in 1973 and is
basically two flat-iron skiffs connected together. CAMPER 640 - drawn
much more recently is also a flat-iron skiff with a raised deck - so
the basic hull form has stood the test of time.
Nels
>Your ideas seem really sound and doable. It would be worthwhile I
> Hi Nels, The idea I had was to raise the deck about 9 inches
> amidships, vertically, bringing hull depth to about 2'6", keeping
> the 5 foot "beam on deck", I'd do this because I wouldn't want to
> increase the overhang, the deck would be horizontal from the bow to
> the stern, (bringing the stern up to about 5 inches higher, it would
> look similar to the Micro). The cabins would be hinged, and as
> a "Birdwatcher" style cabin with a 2 foot wide walkway (foremast to
> stern) would be very sensible, the cabin's would be in 2 seperate
> sides, hinged to a combing, and sealed with felt gaskets,
> (lubricated with Linseed oil in an attempt to keep things water
> tight), not too sure how I'd lock them in the up position, but I'd
> use a canvas cover over the entire slot, to keep out the rain/spray.
> With the hull hinges fitted to the new deck hight, and the cabins
> folding, it's still trailerable folded. A "Schooner" 2 cabin
> arrangement is in the light schooner files somewhere, very
> traditional looking, lovely!!!!. The berths in the fore cabin would
> be from the transom to the bulkhead at the foremast, (feet in the
> bouyancy tank), and the rear cabin berths would be under the cockpit
> seats. I'd also, use a doubled ply bottom, and the floor stiffeners.
> I've not given too much thought to it yet, but single handed would
> be good, an outboard box, and steering in the centre cockpit. What
> do you reckon ??
>
would suggest to build a scale model along with a scale model "person"
to help visualize what the finished design accomodations would work
out to.
One factor would be to decide if one would prefer to sit on deck and
be able to hike out, as shown in the photos you linked us to. Or sit
below decks as in BIRDWATCHER. If one preferred the second option then
the decks would have to be a bit higher I would suggest - probably
about at about 3 foot clearance. This would also provde more room
below decks with the covers in place if one got caught in the rain for
example. The forward deck could be sloped aft so as not to require
more overhang and cut off sharply in the stern as in the BBREAK-DOWN
SCHOONER.
http://www.boatdesign.com/jumps/mckib/Page.html
This design also has an alternative boom design which is self vanging
and raises the booms higher. Notice the photo with the caption "Making
Knots with Tyvek Sails".
The hinge could be made with a removeable pin(s) so one would have the
option of either folding it or separating it. The entire boat would be
somewhat heavier to move about of course.
I find it interesting that the design was drawn in 1973 and is
basically two flat-iron skiffs connected together. CAMPER 640 - drawn
much more recently is also a flat-iron skiff with a raised deck - so
the basic hull form has stood the test of time.
Nels
Hi Nels, The idea I had was to raise the deck about 9 inches
amidships, vertically, bringing hull depth to about 2'6", keeping
the 5 foot "beam on deck", I'd do this because I wouldn't want to
increase the overhang, the deck would be horizontal from the bow to
the stern, (bringing the stern up to about 5 inches higher, it would
look similar to the Micro). The cabins would be hinged, and as
a "Birdwatcher" style cabin with a 2 foot wide walkway (foremast to
stern) would be very sensible, the cabin's would be in 2 seperate
sides, hinged to a combing, and sealed with felt gaskets,
(lubricated with Linseed oil in an attempt to keep things water
tight), not too sure how I'd lock them in the up position, but I'd
use a canvas cover over the entire slot, to keep out the rain/spray.
With the hull hinges fitted to the new deck hight, and the cabins
folding, it's still trailerable folded. A "Schooner" 2 cabin
arrangement is in the light schooner files somewhere, very
traditional looking, lovely!!!!. The berths in the fore cabin would
be from the transom to the bulkhead at the foremast, (feet in the
bouyancy tank), and the rear cabin berths would be under the cockpit
seats. I'd also, use a doubled ply bottom, and the floor stiffeners.
I've not given too much thought to it yet, but single handed would
be good, an outboard box, and steering in the centre cockpit. What
do you reckon ??
amidships, vertically, bringing hull depth to about 2'6", keeping
the 5 foot "beam on deck", I'd do this because I wouldn't want to
increase the overhang, the deck would be horizontal from the bow to
the stern, (bringing the stern up to about 5 inches higher, it would
look similar to the Micro). The cabins would be hinged, and as
a "Birdwatcher" style cabin with a 2 foot wide walkway (foremast to
stern) would be very sensible, the cabin's would be in 2 seperate
sides, hinged to a combing, and sealed with felt gaskets,
(lubricated with Linseed oil in an attempt to keep things water
tight), not too sure how I'd lock them in the up position, but I'd
use a canvas cover over the entire slot, to keep out the rain/spray.
With the hull hinges fitted to the new deck hight, and the cabins
folding, it's still trailerable folded. A "Schooner" 2 cabin
arrangement is in the light schooner files somewhere, very
traditional looking, lovely!!!!. The berths in the fore cabin would
be from the transom to the bulkhead at the foremast, (feet in the
bouyancy tank), and the rear cabin berths would be under the cockpit
seats. I'd also, use a doubled ply bottom, and the floor stiffeners.
I've not given too much thought to it yet, but single handed would
be good, an outboard box, and steering in the centre cockpit. What
do you reckon ??