Re: [bolger] planing dinghy designs
You might want to consider the OzRacer RV. It is a updated version of the Puddle Duck Racer. It is an easily built , and supposedly, rather stable little sailboat. I believe plans are available thru Diuckworks (via Storer.)
BobfromSWOhio
There are a number of boats that fit that description, you might want to pick through this index to see if you can find it.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Wayne Gilham<wgilham@...>wrote:I remember some Bolger article in MAIB years ago, about a plywood "box" with some sophistication, designed to replace function of typical rigid inflatable as hung from davits of larger cruising sailboats.
Anybody have details on such a project?
lightweight, easily beachable, suitable for 10-15hp for planing two or more occupants, not more than say 10' long... rowing not a high priority (only for emergency when the outboard is balky)
"Bee" comes to mind, but it was bigger, and with more compartments, than that study in simplicity. Was such a dinghy ever designed with built-in WHEELS, for easier re-launch when the tide goes out and leaves dinghy stranded?
Might be interested to hang a Bolger "box" from my tupperware cruising sailboat... Maybe Susan can advise the perfect set of plans to order...
Wayne Gilham
Breakdown punt is probably what you are thinking of the only wheelbarrow type boat i RECALL WAS BY HOWARD CHAPPEL i THINK WAS IN HIS BOAT BUILDING BOAT MAY ALSO BEEN JOHN GARDENER
I remember some Bolger article in MAIB years ago, about a plywood "box" with some sophistication, designed to replace function of typical rigid inflatable as hung from davits of larger cruising sailboats.
Anybody have details on such a project?
lightweight, easily beachable, suitable for 10-15hp for planing two or more occupants, not more than say 10' long... rowing not a high priority (only for emergency when the outboard is balky)
"Bee" comes to mind, but it was bigger, and with more compartments, than that study in simplicity. Was such a dinghy ever designed with built-in WHEELS, for easier re-launch when the tide goes out and leaves dinghy stranded?
Might be interested to hang a Bolger "box" from my tupperware cruising sailboat... Maybe Susan can advise the perfect set of plans to order...
Wayne Gilham
Seesaws? Swings, springs, pushes, bounces, pulls, and kerplopses?
Some day one or the other of us will build that boat!
Meanwhile, what's a rough and ready way to think about roll times for flat bottom boats?
On Jan 16, 2014 8:32 PM, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:Hi Mark. The buoyancy is there in the stern due to the shape regardless of added ballast although it is there to float the intended added ballast. I think the far greater asymmetry of that flat run stern with respect to the forward rising half of the boat bottom profile puts one ends tendency to pitch at a certain frequency more out of sync with the other's. The asymmetry of ballast placed out toward one end should dampen that harmonising too, but I suspect weight stowed in the boat forward according to level trim under sail might see the mass of each half amounting to about the same...Pocket Change is of shorter wider proportions which may mitigate pitching tendencies of the rather symmetrical narrow pointed ends, I suspect. If it were around the 6:1 L:B of Eeek or ESC it would perhaps really rock!Quite possibly. The extra buoyancy in the stern, if not completely eaten up by the ballast, could give her more stability for and aft to minimize pitching.
The results of my little experiment with the similar 12' SBJ Cruising Canoe showed the trade off to trend towards being a bit of a roller, tho.
On Jan 14, 2014 11:33 PM, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:Agreed Don. Perhaps some second thoughts by clcboats are involved re what's "workable" then?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/57006
Ballasting and weight distribution changed to a more usual arrangement and geometry in Pocket Change, but I wonder if the Eeek/Anhinga/ESC geometry might not be more comfortable in a seaway, not least by pitching less?
Hi Mark. The buoyancy is there in the stern due to the shape regardless of added ballast although it is there to float the intended added ballast. I think the far greater asymmetry of that flat run stern with respect to the forward rising half of the boat bottom profile puts one ends tendency to pitch at a certain frequency more out of sync with the other's. The asymmetry of ballast placed out toward one end should dampen that harmonising too, but I suspect weight stowed in the boat forward according to level trim under sail might see the mass of each half amounting to about the same...
Pocket Change is of shorter wider proportions which may mitigate pitching tendencies of the rather symmetrical narrow pointed ends, I suspect. If it were around the 6:1 L:B of Eeek or ESC it would perhaps really rock!
---In bolger@yahoogroups.com, <marka97203@...> wrote:
Quite possibly. The extra buoyancy in the stern, if not completely eaten up by the ballast, could give her more stability for and aft to minimize pitching.
The results of my little experiment with the similar 12' SBJ Cruising Canoe showed the trade off to trend towards being a bit of a roller, tho.
On Jan 14, 2014 11:33 PM, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:Agreed Don. Perhaps some second thoughts by clcboats are involved re what's "workable" then?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/57006
Ballasting and weight distribution changed to a more usual arrangement and geometry in Pocket Change, but I wonder if the Eeek/Anhinga/ESC geometry might not be more comfortable in a seaway, not least by pitching less?
Quite possibly. The extra buoyancy in the stern, if not completely eaten up by the ballast, could give her more stability for and aft to minimize pitching.
The results of my little experiment with the similar 12' SBJ Cruising Canoe showed the trade off to trend towards being a bit of a roller, tho.
On Jan 14, 2014 11:33 PM, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:Agreed Don. Perhaps some second thoughts by clcboats are involved re what's "workable" then?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/57006
Ballasting and weight distribution changed to a more usual arrangement and geometry in Pocket Change, but I wonder if the Eeek/Anhinga/ESC geometry might not be more comfortable in a seaway, not least by pitching less?
Agreed Don. Perhaps some second thoughts by clcboats are involved re what's "workable" then?
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/bolger/conversations/messages/57006
Ballasting and weight distribution changed to a more usual arrangement and geometry in Pocket Change, but I wonder if the Eeek/Anhinga/ESC geometry might not be more comfortable in a seaway, not least by pitching less?
Well, OK...But...IMO the essay in 30 Odd Boats points out that EEEK!'s purpose was to prove the bottom profile for "Economy Seagoing Cruiser". An Anhinga has been built, and named "Sandy Bottoms" but the largest version of the family has not been done, yet.
The main thing about the design is/was the straight run of the bottom to the stern when viewed in profile.
Changing that straight run to a fully rockered bottom along with the topside mods makes it something else, not a tweaked Anhinga.
The main thing about the design is/was the straight run of the bottom to the stern when viewed in profile.
Changing that straight run to a fully rockered bottom along with the topside mods makes it something else, not a tweaked Anhinga.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
> > Here we go, redesigning the boat! Hard to resist the impulse...
>
Pocket change looks like a Big Teal {with a 30 second look on my phone, )
Still need to mock up an Eek! cockpit to see if my shoulders will fit . Looks like 18-20" of shoulder space.
Justin
> Here we go, redesigning the boat! Hard to resist the impulse...
http://www.clcboats.com/images/blog/lugs/Pocket-Change.jpg
fromhttp://www.clcboats.com/life-of-boats-blog/lug-nuts-lug-rigs.html
When I built my Windsprint I anticipated a noticeable advantage on one
side with the balanced lug. What surprised me was that the advantage is
to the side where the mast distorts the sail. Sail shape on the other
tack includes too much belly away from the mast, I think. This with a
parrel on the yard and a boom downhaul typically pulled tight as I can
pull it.
Patrick
loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
side with the balanced lug. What surprised me was that the advantage is
to the side where the mast distorts the sail. Sail shape on the other
tack includes too much belly away from the mast, I think. This with a
parrel on the yard and a boom downhaul typically pulled tight as I can
pull it.
Patrick
loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
> ...
> That said the main drawback of the balanced lug over the dipping lug is that on one tack
> the shape of the sail is compromised by the fact that it is distorted by the mast. Over the
> years many "fixes" have been tried and all of them a bit of a kludge.
>
> ...
>
> ... I am something of a lug
> freak but am the first to admit there was a pronounced advantage on one tack over the
> other that had me wishing for a dipping lug from time to time.
>
> Bob
PS It is also the reason I never went forward with Summer Ease and why
I've been pondering a simple rig for Oldshoe, as the "21" at 2200 lbs is
getting to be more than I'm comfortable, getting on and off the lift. Clyde
Clyde Wisner wrote:
I've been pondering a simple rig for Oldshoe, as the "21" at 2200 lbs is
getting to be more than I'm comfortable, getting on and off the lift. Clyde
Clyde Wisner wrote:
> I haven't seen many wishbone rigs on Freedoms. I talked to Garry Hoyt at[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> the Show in Annapolis and asked him if he would trade his "21" for an
> Alerion and he said probably not. I bought a Freedom 21 because' with
> some of its extras removed it becomes a catboat, about as close to
> Bolger's Keel Daysailer as I think one can get. Clyde
>
> Douglas Pollard wrote:
>
> > Those Freedom rigs were touted as the best thing around for a while but
> > I have noticed in recent years a lot of them have had the wishbones
> > removed and replaced with sprits or booms. Seems like they must have
> > been a pain the the rear end to at least some folks. My Bolger boat
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
I haven't seen many wishbone rigs on Freedoms. I talked to Garry Hoyt at
the Show in Annapolis and asked him if he would trade his "21" for an
Alerion and he said probably not. I bought a Freedom 21 because' with
some of its extras removed it becomes a catboat, about as close to
Bolger's Keel Daysailer as I think one can get. Clyde
Douglas Pollard wrote:
the Show in Annapolis and asked him if he would trade his "21" for an
Alerion and he said probably not. I bought a Freedom 21 because' with
some of its extras removed it becomes a catboat, about as close to
Bolger's Keel Daysailer as I think one can get. Clyde
Douglas Pollard wrote:
> Those Freedom rigs were touted as the best thing around for a while but[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I have noticed in recent years a lot of them have had the wishbones
> removed and replaced with sprits or booms. Seems like they must have
> been a pain the the rear end to at least some folks. My Bolger boat
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome <bagacayboatworks@...>
wrote:
you said not what I said. I don't think he is building anything for
now. Designer just.
On the fiberglass, I think it is stronger by weight, but not stiffer in
use by weight. Depends a little on what we mean by glass, from chopped
strand to hyper tech manufactured pultrusions. The stuff we use is
generally not stiffer (always by weight) at design levels of
deflection. In fact I'm not even sure it is stiffer at the deflection
levels of a bow, but you will experience a lot less problems with yield
and ultimate strength. Which I believe means - :) - it is less of a
knife's edge whether the bow takes a set, or breaks. If you absolutely
aced the wood structure you might be even, or ahead, but it probably
won't last long and will have other problems. Anywho, in our world,
stiffness tends to be the issue, and wood has the weight advantage
there. We just need enough glass to keep the water out, prottect
agianst dings, split propagation, and for sellective strengthening.
On HBR the top yard and the bottom thing are supposed to stay in phase
due to the wires that come down the luff and leech. That was part of
the piece I didn't really get, but I am sure he said it.
wrote:
>he?
> > On thing that is different, for now, about this rig is that it he is
> > offering the rig for sale, not a sailboat, so he may be willing to
> > leave the end use up to the enduser.
>
>
> I think he said he would license it for a moderate fee too, didn't
> This would open its use to any commercial builder.At 56K I am not going to be able to check it, but I think he said what
>
> Sincerely,
> Ken Grome
> Bagacay Boatworks
> www.bagacayboatworks.com
>
you said not what I said. I don't think he is building anything for
now. Designer just.
On the fiberglass, I think it is stronger by weight, but not stiffer in
use by weight. Depends a little on what we mean by glass, from chopped
strand to hyper tech manufactured pultrusions. The stuff we use is
generally not stiffer (always by weight) at design levels of
deflection. In fact I'm not even sure it is stiffer at the deflection
levels of a bow, but you will experience a lot less problems with yield
and ultimate strength. Which I believe means - :) - it is less of a
knife's edge whether the bow takes a set, or breaks. If you absolutely
aced the wood structure you might be even, or ahead, but it probably
won't last long and will have other problems. Anywho, in our world,
stiffness tends to be the issue, and wood has the weight advantage
there. We just need enough glass to keep the water out, prottect
agianst dings, split propagation, and for sellective strengthening.
On HBR the top yard and the bottom thing are supposed to stay in phase
due to the wires that come down the luff and leech. That was part of
the piece I didn't really get, but I am sure he said it.
> On thing that is different, for now, about this rig is that it he isI think he said he would license it for a moderate fee too, didn't he?
> offering the rig for sale, not a sailboat, so he may be willing to
> leave the end use up to the enduser.
This would open its use to any commercial builder.
Sincerely,
Ken Grome
Bagacay Boatworks
www.bagacayboatworks.com
Those Freedom rigs were touted as the best thing around for a while but
I have noticed in recent years a lot of them have had the wishbones
removed and replaced with sprits or booms. Seems like they must have
been a pain the the rear end to at least some folks. My Bolger boat
with sprite rigs (Wolftrap) I don't think suffered at al in comparison
to the Freedom 40's. At least I never envied the owners at all.
Doug
proaconstrictor wrote:
I have noticed in recent years a lot of them have had the wishbones
removed and replaced with sprits or booms. Seems like they must have
been a pain the the rear end to at least some folks. My Bolger boat
with sprite rigs (Wolftrap) I don't think suffered at al in comparison
to the Freedom 40's. At least I never envied the owners at all.
Doug
proaconstrictor wrote:
>
> > This is no cruising rig, in my view, and it certainly doesn't look
> > like anything I'd want for shorthanded sailing. This looks like a
> > rig for well financed racing boats sailing in carefully selected
> > weather, close to shore, with a support boat astern and a crane
> > ready at the dock.
> >
> > Jon Kolb
> > www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
> >
> I doubt he really has the racing guys in mind. They don't need or
> probably want improved sails, and will always find a way to keep you
> out. Battens would be a simple improvement for existing rigs, but no
> can do.
>
> I think he is just comparing it to the other rigs as to racing
> performance for the sailor who sails "casually" in a rated format.
> He is trying to say that you won't fall off the fun if you run this
> rig. Like anyone running the Freedom might have won on corrected
> time, but... And also it is part of the rigs' success if it actually
> can outsail some other alternatives. It would be an important step
> forward for people to simply realize that square sails were more
> efficient. Hoyt's personal design work seems to be directed to
> making sialing work better, not just racing, where all that maters is
> that people are on a comon footing.
>
> In other parts of the vid, like the tight handling scenes, he is
> clearly fishing for crusisers or casual sailors.
>
> On thing that is different, for now, about this rig is that it he is
> offering the rig for sale, not a sailboat, so he may be willing to
> leave the end use up to the enduser.
>
>
Donald Street, a man with a lot more cruising experience than me,
thought very highly of the original Freedom 40. He liked the simplicity
and ease of handling of the rig, the shallow draft, and the lack of
complex systems. Sound like anybody else we know?
If I remember correctly the original ones were without engines.
HJ
proaconstrictor wrote:
thought very highly of the original Freedom 40. He liked the simplicity
and ease of handling of the rig, the shallow draft, and the lack of
complex systems. Sound like anybody else we know?
If I remember correctly the original ones were without engines.
HJ
proaconstrictor wrote:
>> This is no cruising rig, in my view, and it certainly doesn't look
>> like anything I'd want for shorthanded sailing. This looks like a
>> rig for well financed racing boats sailing in carefully selected
>> weather, close to shore, with a support boat astern and a crane
>> ready at the dock.
>>
>> Jon Kolb
>> www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
>>
>>
> I doubt he really has the racing guys in mind. They don't need or
> probably want improved sails, and will always find a way to keep you
> out. Battens would be a simple improvement for existing rigs, but no
> can do.
>
> I think he is just comparing it to the other rigs as to racing
> performance for the sailor who sails "casually" in a rated format.
> He is trying to say that you won't fall off the fun if you run this
> rig. Like anyone running the Freedom might have won on corrected
> time, but... And also it is part of the rigs' success if it actually
> can outsail some other alternatives. It would be an important step
> forward for people to simply realize that square sails were more
> efficient. Hoyt's personal design work seems to be directed to
> making sialing work better, not just racing, where all that maters is
> that people are on a comon footing.
>
> In other parts of the vid, like the tight handling scenes, he is
> clearly fishing for crusisers or casual sailors.
>
> On thing that is different, for now, about this rig is that it he is
> offering the rig for sale, not a sailboat, so he may be willing to
> leave the end use up to the enduser.
>
>
>
>
I'd call Hoyt a promoter - and a good one as he puts his money where
his mouth is - in real, full scale, working models of his ideas. The
Alerion wasn't his boat, but he saw a good idea and added his boom.
Same story with the Alerion Cat, but including an update to the
barn-door rudder. I remember seeing him sail in circles all day long
around the Newport harbor at a boat show - he obviously didn't buy a
space, but instead built a boat and got noticed.
I don't even thing the Freedom concept was all that original - I could
be wrong, but I think Herreschoff started the free-standing cat-ketch
idea with a 33 or 39:
http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/8608
Hoyt saw a good idea and had him draw up and modernize the idea - I
think that started with the 40. I have a 44, which is a cool boat for
the way most people sail (shorthanded) and no doubt wouldn't have
existed without commercialization.
This rig looks great - I don't see any structural challenges, and
weight aloft might not be too significant as it will be a squat rig.
Very slick in a lot of ways. Being a balanced rig, it might plug
intothe mast might not
I guess the top and bottom swivel independently. I suppose you will
need a preventer of some sort to prevent them from turning more than a
circle and boogering up halyards. Or, I wonder if one halyard will
suffice? I suppose the sheet will accomplish that task.
What you you make of the reverse vang - does that tension the "forestay"?
Gregg Carlson
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
<loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
his mouth is - in real, full scale, working models of his ideas. The
Alerion wasn't his boat, but he saw a good idea and added his boom.
Same story with the Alerion Cat, but including an update to the
barn-door rudder. I remember seeing him sail in circles all day long
around the Newport harbor at a boat show - he obviously didn't buy a
space, but instead built a boat and got noticed.
I don't even thing the Freedom concept was all that original - I could
be wrong, but I think Herreschoff started the free-standing cat-ketch
idea with a 33 or 39:
http://www.sailboatlistings.com/view/8608
Hoyt saw a good idea and had him draw up and modernize the idea - I
think that started with the 40. I have a 44, which is a cool boat for
the way most people sail (shorthanded) and no doubt wouldn't have
existed without commercialization.
This rig looks great - I don't see any structural challenges, and
weight aloft might not be too significant as it will be a squat rig.
Very slick in a lot of ways. Being a balanced rig, it might plug
intothe mast might not
I guess the top and bottom swivel independently. I suppose you will
need a preventer of some sort to prevent them from turning more than a
circle and boogering up halyards. Or, I wonder if one halyard will
suffice? I suppose the sheet will accomplish that task.
What you you make of the reverse vang - does that tension the "forestay"?
Gregg Carlson
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
<loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>spars are required for
> I'm not so sure that it is such an expensive structure, or if carbon
> the idea to work ( a buddy of mine has had fifteen great years onhis junk schooner using
> Shakespere flag poles in fiberlass that only cost $500 apop..Heavier than carbon but only
> by 20% and 30% lighter than a free standing spar in wood). Theactual pivot points would
> work just fine as pipe on pipe.much that it would
>
> One of the easy things about boats is making them expensive...So
> seem we always take it for granted that the most expensive route isalways the way to go.
>wants to sell you something
> Like I said Hoyt is a huckster ( and not in a negative sense) he
> and like all of us he needs to keep food on the table. You simplyhave to look past the
> hype and look at the rig.was a great article
>
> Way back when I was building our Micro ( pre Loose Moose days) there
> about a Dutch guy in Practical Boat Owner ( a good read by the way)who had designed a
> really neat rig out of plywood where the boom went past the mastsand rotated about it
> setting both the jib and main on the boom ( can you spell aero rig)for the price of a few
> sheets of plywood and some glass cloth,epoxy and carbon graphitepowder plus a bit of
> sense and and smart design. Anyway some months later Aero rig wasborn and the poor
> guy with his plywood boom was forgotten in the yachting press as theAero rig was so
> much more sexy and expensive. Plywood spar or carbon though theywere the same rig
> and both worked.and just another
>
> The Ballestron/Aero/Whatever someone decides to call it rig is neat
> version of the Lug though not nearly as powerful as it share a lotof the disadvatages with
> the Bermudean sloop. Like a lot of advances sort of the two stepsforward three steps back
> sort of thing. A few years back I had a job delivering a Prout catfrom the Med to the
> Caribbean with the Aerorig and while I admired a lot about itcertainly not a rig I'd choose
> for a cruising boat.progress is done in little
>
> On the better front...Of course one can always do better but most
> steps and I have to respect progress. Reading Bolgers 101 Small boatrigs or "The
> Sailmakers Apprentice" both talk about just how hard it is toimprove on rigs that have by
> most peoples standards reached their peak a hundred years ago.joints.
>
> Bob
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>
> PS By the way are you still doing the cheap guitar ting?
>
>
>
> > This rig looks clever and is clever but is it the best one can do for
> > the level of technology involved. That is one expensive looking
> > structure. It only works with carbon and some fairly complex
> > Something like the Ballestron is also pretty effective, and asidefrom
> > the free standing carbon spar, it only needs some Home Depot stuff to
> > run, no three spars and bearings.
> >
>
I'm not sure how this applies to spars, but I was reading about planking last night. The things boat people read.... Anyway, it mentioned that fiberglass is not even close to wood in weight to strength ration, but it did not give any exact figures. If this is all coming about because of problems with stepping a mast, have you considered changing the fulcrum for better mechanical advantage? Doing this requires no changes to center of effort, or materials used.
Rick
----- Original Message ----
From: proaconstrictor <proaconstrictor@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 2:32:16 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Hoyt Rig
--- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "loosemoosefilmwork s"
<loosemoosefilmwork s@...> wrote:
glass is lighter than wood, it's normally about the same or heavier,
takes a hit better, and molds to all kinds of wild shapes. The
current crop of sailplanes in Carbon tend to be 90% wood a little
carbon, no glass in sight.
I would agree there isn't anything that says it has to be made out of
carbon, but only if the rig is small on a biggish boat I think the
parts would get to heavy or fragile in anything else. Carbon was on
the verge of being cheap before the war started (or something) the
prices should eventually dip back down. The to was about 4 bucks a
pound pre war, now at best it seems to be 20. If that would calm
back down a little it would make things easier, the only problem now
is waiting for it to happen is taken a lot of wind out of my sails.
particularly cheaply though. I did make one that lacked any moorish
fancy work, but it's amazing how people stick to traditional looks no
mater how far fetched. It takes a serious break or great design to
break away. Not as though I was trying to sell anyone on it.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Rick
----- Original Message ----
From: proaconstrictor <proaconstrictor@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 2:32:16 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Hoyt Rig
--- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "loosemoosefilmwork s"
<loosemoosefilmwork s@...> wrote:
>carbon spars are required for
> I'm not so sure that it is such an expensive structure, or if
> the idea to work ( a buddy of mine has had fifteen great years onhis junk schooner using
> Shakespere flag poles in fiberlass that only cost $500 apop..Heavier than carbon but only
> by 20% and 30% lighter than a free standing spar in wood). Theactual pivot points would
> work just fine as pipe on pipe.Carbon is a lot lighter than 20 percent lighter, and I'm not sure
>
glass is lighter than wood, it's normally about the same or heavier,
takes a hit better, and molds to all kinds of wild shapes. The
current crop of sailplanes in Carbon tend to be 90% wood a little
carbon, no glass in sight.
I would agree there isn't anything that says it has to be made out of
carbon, but only if the rig is small on a biggish boat I think the
parts would get to heavy or fragile in anything else. Carbon was on
the verge of being cheap before the war started (or something) the
prices should eventually dip back down. The to was about 4 bucks a
pound pre war, now at best it seems to be 20. If that would calm
back down a little it would make things easier, the only problem now
is waiting for it to happen is taken a lot of wind out of my sails.
>Is this for Craig? As to me, I am still making guitars, not
> PS By the way are you still doing the cheap guitar ting?
>
particularly cheaply though. I did make one that lacked any moorish
fancy work, but it's amazing how people stick to traditional looks no
mater how far fetched. It takes a serious break or great design to
break away. Not as though I was trying to sell anyone on it.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> This is no cruising rig, in my view, and it certainly doesn't lookI doubt he really has the racing guys in mind. They don't need or
> like anything I'd want for shorthanded sailing. This looks like a
> rig for well financed racing boats sailing in carefully selected
> weather, close to shore, with a support boat astern and a crane
> ready at the dock.
>
> Jon Kolb
> www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
>
probably want improved sails, and will always find a way to keep you
out. Battens would be a simple improvement for existing rigs, but no
can do.
I think he is just comparing it to the other rigs as to racing
performance for the sailor who sails "casually" in a rated format.
He is trying to say that you won't fall off the fun if you run this
rig. Like anyone running the Freedom might have won on corrected
time, but... And also it is part of the rigs' success if it actually
can outsail some other alternatives. It would be an important step
forward for people to simply realize that square sails were more
efficient. Hoyt's personal design work seems to be directed to
making sialing work better, not just racing, where all that maters is
that people are on a comon footing.
In other parts of the vid, like the tight handling scenes, he is
clearly fishing for crusisers or casual sailors.
On thing that is different, for now, about this rig is that it he is
offering the rig for sale, not a sailboat, so he may be willing to
leave the end use up to the enduser.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"
<loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
glass is lighter than wood, it's normally about the same or heavier,
takes a hit better, and molds to all kinds of wild shapes. The
current crop of sailplanes in Carbon tend to be 90% wood a little
carbon, no glass in sight.
I would agree there isn't anything that says it has to be made out of
carbon, but only if the rig is small on a biggish boat I think the
parts would get to heavy or fragile in anything else. Carbon was on
the verge of being cheap before the war started (or something) the
prices should eventually dip back down. The to was about 4 bucks a
pound pre war, now at best it seems to be 20. If that would calm
back down a little it would make things easier, the only problem now
is waiting for it to happen is taken a lot of wind out of my sails.
particularly cheaply though. I did make one that lacked any moorish
fancy work, but it's amazing how people stick to traditional looks no
mater how far fetched. It takes a serious break or great design to
break away. Not as though I was trying to sell anyone on it.
<loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>carbon spars are required for
> I'm not so sure that it is such an expensive structure, or if
> the idea to work ( a buddy of mine has had fifteen great years onhis junk schooner using
> Shakespere flag poles in fiberlass that only cost $500 apop..Heavier than carbon but only
> by 20% and 30% lighter than a free standing spar in wood). Theactual pivot points would
> work just fine as pipe on pipe.Carbon is a lot lighter than 20 percent lighter, and I'm not sure
>
glass is lighter than wood, it's normally about the same or heavier,
takes a hit better, and molds to all kinds of wild shapes. The
current crop of sailplanes in Carbon tend to be 90% wood a little
carbon, no glass in sight.
I would agree there isn't anything that says it has to be made out of
carbon, but only if the rig is small on a biggish boat I think the
parts would get to heavy or fragile in anything else. Carbon was on
the verge of being cheap before the war started (or something) the
prices should eventually dip back down. The to was about 4 bucks a
pound pre war, now at best it seems to be 20. If that would calm
back down a little it would make things easier, the only problem now
is waiting for it to happen is taken a lot of wind out of my sails.
>Is this for Craig? As to me, I am still making guitars, not
> PS By the way are you still doing the cheap guitar ting?
>
particularly cheaply though. I did make one that lacked any moorish
fancy work, but it's amazing how people stick to traditional looks no
mater how far fetched. It takes a serious break or great design to
break away. Not as though I was trying to sell anyone on it.
Once a Balanced lug rig gets big enough to have to reef on a regular basis its the nature of
the beast to get complicated. Something we discovered on our Jessie Cooper and it took
some four years of sailing it and some three thousand miles to get it uncomplicated.
By the way I was not suggesting that everyone go out and buy the Hoyt rig simply that there
is a lot of good in it that could be used by people building boats such as the Jessie Cooper
and other Bolger Lug rig boats that given a bit of study might come in handy.
As someone who has worked as a rigger internal halyards are pretty fool proof and where I
am anchored I suspect that of the twent boats at anchor we just might be the only boat
without internal halyards! That said there is no reason whatsoever that the hoyt rig needs to
have an internal halyard...A block hanging at the mast head would work finest kind.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
the beast to get complicated. Something we discovered on our Jessie Cooper and it took
some four years of sailing it and some three thousand miles to get it uncomplicated.
By the way I was not suggesting that everyone go out and buy the Hoyt rig simply that there
is a lot of good in it that could be used by people building boats such as the Jessie Cooper
and other Bolger Lug rig boats that given a bit of study might come in handy.
As someone who has worked as a rigger internal halyards are pretty fool proof and where I
am anchored I suspect that of the twent boats at anchor we just might be the only boat
without internal halyards! That said there is no reason whatsoever that the hoyt rig needs to
have an internal halyard...A block hanging at the mast head would work finest kind.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
My first reaction was that a lot of the simplicity of the lug rig is
lost, and it's got to cost a lot more. Hoyt seems to be aiming it at
racing, and simplicity and cost are not going matter to those guys.
For those internal halyards to work, I suppose the yard must be
fixed at the masthead. What if one of those halyards jams, say at
the peak end of the yard? How do you get up there to clear it? A
bosun's chair, requiring another sheave at that end of the yard
(presumably with another internal halyard)? Footropes like a square-
rigger, maybe? Even if you could do it, would you really want to
be at the end of the yard, possibly with full sail (if it jammed on
lowering) trying to clear the jam?. Not me. What state does one
put the boat in when this happens and you've got some fearless
(idiot) crewmember up there in a rising wind?
I don't think I'd want to maintain the bearings at the masthead,
either. Lowing the mast, even if in tabernacle, seems to be greatly
complicated, since the yard and boom will need to be rotated
athwartships, which means you probably couldn't do it in a slip or
even at a dock. The weight of the masthead in any case would be
substantially increased, requiring more leverage or counterweight in
the mast. The yard and boom could probably be made to lower, but
that would complicate the cantilever structure of each and add more
weight aloft. Removing either looks like a lot more effort than
disconnecting a parrell. And what about windage while at anchor
from the always-aloft yard? Worse, what about riding out storms -
you'd have the extra windage if the yard were aloft, and if you
somehow could lower the mast, the yard and boom would be sticking
out over the sides waiting to catch high waves.
On the bright side, you could fly a stunning array of flags from the
halyard jackstays.
This is no cruising rig, in my view, and it certainly doesn't look
like anything I'd want for shorthanded sailing. This looks like a
rig for well financed racing boats sailing in carefully selected
weather, close to shore, with a support boat astern and a crane
ready at the dock.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
lost, and it's got to cost a lot more. Hoyt seems to be aiming it at
racing, and simplicity and cost are not going matter to those guys.
For those internal halyards to work, I suppose the yard must be
fixed at the masthead. What if one of those halyards jams, say at
the peak end of the yard? How do you get up there to clear it? A
bosun's chair, requiring another sheave at that end of the yard
(presumably with another internal halyard)? Footropes like a square-
rigger, maybe? Even if you could do it, would you really want to
be at the end of the yard, possibly with full sail (if it jammed on
lowering) trying to clear the jam?. Not me. What state does one
put the boat in when this happens and you've got some fearless
(idiot) crewmember up there in a rising wind?
I don't think I'd want to maintain the bearings at the masthead,
either. Lowing the mast, even if in tabernacle, seems to be greatly
complicated, since the yard and boom will need to be rotated
athwartships, which means you probably couldn't do it in a slip or
even at a dock. The weight of the masthead in any case would be
substantially increased, requiring more leverage or counterweight in
the mast. The yard and boom could probably be made to lower, but
that would complicate the cantilever structure of each and add more
weight aloft. Removing either looks like a lot more effort than
disconnecting a parrell. And what about windage while at anchor
from the always-aloft yard? Worse, what about riding out storms -
you'd have the extra windage if the yard were aloft, and if you
somehow could lower the mast, the yard and boom would be sticking
out over the sides waiting to catch high waves.
On the bright side, you could fly a stunning array of flags from the
halyard jackstays.
This is no cruising rig, in my view, and it certainly doesn't look
like anything I'd want for shorthanded sailing. This looks like a
rig for well financed racing boats sailing in carefully selected
weather, close to shore, with a support boat astern and a crane
ready at the dock.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
I'm not so sure that it is such an expensive structure, or if carbon spars are required for
the idea to work ( a buddy of mine has had fifteen great years on his junk schooner using
Shakespere flag poles in fiberlass that only cost $500 a pop..Heavier than carbon but only
by 20% and 30% lighter than a free standing spar in wood). The actual pivot points would
work just fine as pipe on pipe.
One of the easy things about boats is making them expensive...So much that it would
seem we always take it for granted that the most expensive route is always the way to go.
Like I said Hoyt is a huckster ( and not in a negative sense) he wants to sell you something
and like all of us he needs to keep food on the table. You simply have to look past the
hype and look at the rig.
Way back when I was building our Micro ( pre Loose Moose days) there was a great article
about a Dutch guy in Practical Boat Owner ( a good read by the way) who had designed a
really neat rig out of plywood where the boom went past the masts and rotated about it
setting both the jib and main on the boom ( can you spell aero rig) for the price of a few
sheets of plywood and some glass cloth,epoxy and carbon graphite powder plus a bit of
sense and and smart design. Anyway some months later Aero rig was born and the poor
guy with his plywood boom was forgotten in the yachting press as the Aero rig was so
much more sexy and expensive. Plywood spar or carbon though they were the same rig
and both worked.
The Ballestron/Aero/Whatever someone decides to call it rig is neat and just another
version of the Lug though not nearly as powerful as it share a lot of the disadvatages with
the Bermudean sloop. Like a lot of advances sort of the two steps forward three steps back
sort of thing. A few years back I had a job delivering a Prout cat from the Med to the
Caribbean with the Aerorig and while I admired a lot about it certainly not a rig I'd choose
for a cruising boat.
On the better front...Of course one can always do better but most progress is done in little
steps and I have to respect progress. Reading Bolgers 101 Small boat rigs or "The
Sailmakers Apprentice" both talk about just how hard it is to improve on rigs that have by
most peoples standards reached their peak a hundred years ago.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
PS By the way are you still doing the cheap guitar ting?
the idea to work ( a buddy of mine has had fifteen great years on his junk schooner using
Shakespere flag poles in fiberlass that only cost $500 a pop..Heavier than carbon but only
by 20% and 30% lighter than a free standing spar in wood). The actual pivot points would
work just fine as pipe on pipe.
One of the easy things about boats is making them expensive...So much that it would
seem we always take it for granted that the most expensive route is always the way to go.
Like I said Hoyt is a huckster ( and not in a negative sense) he wants to sell you something
and like all of us he needs to keep food on the table. You simply have to look past the
hype and look at the rig.
Way back when I was building our Micro ( pre Loose Moose days) there was a great article
about a Dutch guy in Practical Boat Owner ( a good read by the way) who had designed a
really neat rig out of plywood where the boom went past the masts and rotated about it
setting both the jib and main on the boom ( can you spell aero rig) for the price of a few
sheets of plywood and some glass cloth,epoxy and carbon graphite powder plus a bit of
sense and and smart design. Anyway some months later Aero rig was born and the poor
guy with his plywood boom was forgotten in the yachting press as the Aero rig was so
much more sexy and expensive. Plywood spar or carbon though they were the same rig
and both worked.
The Ballestron/Aero/Whatever someone decides to call it rig is neat and just another
version of the Lug though not nearly as powerful as it share a lot of the disadvatages with
the Bermudean sloop. Like a lot of advances sort of the two steps forward three steps back
sort of thing. A few years back I had a job delivering a Prout cat from the Med to the
Caribbean with the Aerorig and while I admired a lot about it certainly not a rig I'd choose
for a cruising boat.
On the better front...Of course one can always do better but most progress is done in little
steps and I have to respect progress. Reading Bolgers 101 Small boat rigs or "The
Sailmakers Apprentice" both talk about just how hard it is to improve on rigs that have by
most peoples standards reached their peak a hundred years ago.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
PS By the way are you still doing the cheap guitar ting?
> This rig looks clever and is clever but is it the best one can do for
> the level of technology involved. That is one expensive looking
> structure. It only works with carbon and some fairly complex joints.
> Something like the Ballestron is also pretty effective, and aside from
> the free standing carbon spar, it only needs some Home Depot stuff to
> run, no three spars and bearings.
>
> allows the sail to set perfectly on either tack...Such a simpleGary Lepak wrote here, and elsewhere, a year or so ago on some results
> addition I can't imagine why it has not been done before
of trials on his Bufflehead. He did splits, but mainly non-dipper
dippers suspended from an athwartships spar between two masts. IIRC his
next trials were towards the athwartships spar being cantilevered from
one mast only.
Also, the New Orleans Lugger (ASSC, H I Chapelle, p 282) achieved the
same end, from the early C19th on, by tensioning the foot out and away
from the mast on the wrong tack of the dipper. Non-dipping-dipping
lugsail - gotta luv that!
Graeme
"So where Hoyt does get it right here and I'll bet its really the only
part of
the rig that is
patented is the offset boom and yard/gaff which allows the sail to set
perfectly
on either
tack...Such a simple addition I can't imagine why it has not been done
before
but it is a
huge step forward for the balanced lug rig."
This rig looks clever and is clever but is it the best one can do for
the level of technology involved. That is one expensive looking
structure. It only works with carbon and some fairly complex joints.
Something like the Ballestron is also pretty effective, and aside from
the free standing carbon spar, it only needs some Home Depot stuff to
run, no three spars and bearings.
part of
the rig that is
patented is the offset boom and yard/gaff which allows the sail to set
perfectly
on either
tack...Such a simple addition I can't imagine why it has not been done
before
but it is a
huge step forward for the balanced lug rig."
This rig looks clever and is clever but is it the best one can do for
the level of technology involved. That is one expensive looking
structure. It only works with carbon and some fairly complex joints.
Something like the Ballestron is also pretty effective, and aside from
the free standing carbon spar, it only needs some Home Depot stuff to
run, no three spars and bearings.
> I'm assuming #4 is intended to refer to "big rig" yachts, sinceThat's like saying They eliminated the congestion of city living in the
> sharpies et al "eliminated traditional rigging" more than a century
> ago;
fifth century - hardly any people in the cities and no cars designed as
yet. :)
Hoyt is always a hoot from our perspective. I remember Jim Brown's
incredulity over that boat he designed with the amas but somehow
managed to market without saying the word "multihull". I guess
topologically he was right.
There is a lot on Lug rigs in Duckworks. Gary Blankenship who is on this
list has comments on the lug rig
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/howto/lugsails/index.htm
He says he doesn't see any difference on the tacks.
HJ
loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
list has comments on the lug rig
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/howto/lugsails/index.htm
He says he doesn't see any difference on the tacks.
HJ
loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
> Gary Hoyt has always been something of a huckster and of course just like the freedom rig
> before he tends to take credit for a lot of the rigs advantages which have always been
> there for all to see for as long as the rig has been around. Believe it or not but a LOT of
> people believe Gary Hoyt invented the unstayed mast!
>
> That said the main drawback of the balanced lug over the dipping lug is that on one tack
> the shape of the sail is compromised by the fact that it is distorted by the mast. Over the
> years many "fixes" have been tried and all of them a bit of a kludge.
>
> My favorite was sailing on a French dipping lug schooner that had two sails for each
> mast...A pair for each tack...Sure worked and it got around dipping the sail but frankly I
> always thought there HAD to be a better way.
>
> VArious split rigs (where the lug rig sail was actualy two sails one in front of the mast and
> a larger behind but treated as one) were also in favor for a bit but again kind of clunky...
>
> So where Hoyt does get it right here and I'll bet its really the only part of the rig that is
> patented is the offset boom and yard/gaff which allows the sail to set perfectly on either
> tack...Such a simple addition I can't imagine why it has not been done before but it is a
> huge step forward for the balanced lug rig.
>
> Hoyt also while a lot better at promoting his skills than someone like Bolger is still a very
> bright fellow where making things work simply and well is the object...Face you really have
> to love someone who pisses off the sailing establishment as much a Hoyt does. He's our
> kind of guy...
>
> With our Jessie Cooper we surprised a lot of people (including myself) at just how fast a
> flat bottomed 26 foot boat would go and as I have said before I am something of a lug
> freak but am the first to admit there was a pronounced advantage on one tack over the
> other that had me wishing for a dipping lug from time to time.
>
> Bob
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, c o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
>
>> It's an interesting idea and I see he's patented it, though I'm
>> willing to bet there's prior art on this lost somewhere in the
>> yachting press from the 1860-1900s.
>>
>> In form it is basically the rig on the "Mary and Lamb" proa with one
>> leg removed and pointing straight up thanks to modern materials. (a
>> bipod in the one case, a cantilever in the other). Kudos for working
>> out the details and an elegant implementation.
>>
>> He says:
>>
>> In Summary
>>
>> The Patented Hoyt Balanced Rig uniquely delivers:
>>
>>
>> * More drive due to a totally clean leading edge and the optimum
>> square headed profile that minimizes tip vortex and induced drag
>> * Reduced sheeting loads due to the balance effect of carrying
>> 20% of the sail area ahead of the mast pivot point
>> * Greater safety by dramatically softening the "slam" factor of
>> the jibe - the most dangerous maneuver in sailing
>> * A drastic reduction in windage drag by eliminating traditional
>> rigging
>> * More economy by simplifying the rig to 3 light, strong, carbon
>> tubes
>> * Balanced reefing that lowers the center of effort of the sail
>> without alternating the balance and maintaining a clean leading edge
>>
>> But #2 is true of any balanced lugsail. It ain't unique, Bruce, get
>> out your OED and look up the word!
>>
>> As is #3; also true of any balanced lug sail.
>>
>> I'm assuming #4 is intended to refer to "big rig" yachts, since
>> sharpies et al "eliminated traditional rigging" more than a century
>> ago; and #5 reminds me of an old Eddie Harris song ... "Compared to
>> Whut?" ... maybe to Cup racers?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
I say more power to 'im. The patent part will run the cost up, of
course, but it's not cheap if it's all carbon anyway.
course, but it's not cheap if it's all carbon anyway.
On Mar 23, 2008, at 7:24 PM, loosemoosefilmworks wrote:
> Gary Hoyt has always been something of a huckster and of course
> just like the freedom rig
> before he tends to take credit for a lot of the rigs advantages
> which have always been
> there for all to see for as long as the rig has been around.
> Believe it or not but a LOT of
> people believe Gary Hoyt invented the unstayed mast!
>
>
>
> Bob
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, c o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's an interesting idea and I see he's patented it, though I'm
> > willing to bet there's prior art on this lost somewhere in the
> > yachting press from the 1860-1900s.
> >
> > In form it is basically the rig on the "Mary and Lamb" proa with one
> > leg removed and pointing straight up thanks to modern materials. (a
> > bipod in the one case, a cantilever in the other). Kudos for working
> > out the details and an elegant implementation.
> >
> > He says:
> >
> > In Summary
> >
> > The Patented Hoyt Balanced Rig uniquely delivers:
> >
> >
> > * More drive due to a totally clean leading edge and the optimum
> > square headed profile that minimizes tip vortex and induced drag
> > * Reduced sheeting loads due to the balance effect of carrying
> > 20% of the sail area ahead of the mast pivot point
> > * Greater safety by dramatically softening the "slam" factor of
> > the jibe - the most dangerous maneuver in sailing
> > * A drastic reduction in windage drag by eliminating traditional
> > rigging
> > * More economy by simplifying the rig to 3 light, strong, carbon
> > tubes
> > * Balanced reefing that lowers the center of effort of the sail
> > without alternating the balance and maintaining a clean leading edge
> >
> > But #2 is true of any balanced lugsail. It ain't unique, Bruce, get
> > out your OED and look up the word!
> >
> > As is #3; also true of any balanced lug sail.
> >
> > I'm assuming #4 is intended to refer to "big rig" yachts, since
> > sharpies et al "eliminated traditional rigging" more than a century
> > ago; and #5 reminds me of an old Eddie Harris song ... "Compared to
> > Whut?" ... maybe to Cup racers?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gary Hoyt has always been something of a huckster and of course just like the freedom rig
before he tends to take credit for a lot of the rigs advantages which have always been
there for all to see for as long as the rig has been around. Believe it or not but a LOT of
people believe Gary Hoyt invented the unstayed mast!
That said the main drawback of the balanced lug over the dipping lug is that on one tack
the shape of the sail is compromised by the fact that it is distorted by the mast. Over the
years many "fixes" have been tried and all of them a bit of a kludge.
My favorite was sailing on a French dipping lug schooner that had two sails for each
mast...A pair for each tack...Sure worked and it got around dipping the sail but frankly I
always thought there HAD to be a better way.
VArious split rigs (where the lug rig sail was actualy two sails one in front of the mast and
a larger behind but treated as one) were also in favor for a bit but again kind of clunky...
So where Hoyt does get it right here and I'll bet its really the only part of the rig that is
patented is the offset boom and yard/gaff which allows the sail to set perfectly on either
tack...Such a simple addition I can't imagine why it has not been done before but it is a
huge step forward for the balanced lug rig.
Hoyt also while a lot better at promoting his skills than someone like Bolger is still a very
bright fellow where making things work simply and well is the object...Face you really have
to love someone who pisses off the sailing establishment as much a Hoyt does. He's our
kind of guy...
With our Jessie Cooper we surprised a lot of people (including myself) at just how fast a
flat bottomed 26 foot boat would go and as I have said before I am something of a lug
freak but am the first to admit there was a pronounced advantage on one tack over the
other that had me wishing for a dipping lug from time to time.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
before he tends to take credit for a lot of the rigs advantages which have always been
there for all to see for as long as the rig has been around. Believe it or not but a LOT of
people believe Gary Hoyt invented the unstayed mast!
That said the main drawback of the balanced lug over the dipping lug is that on one tack
the shape of the sail is compromised by the fact that it is distorted by the mast. Over the
years many "fixes" have been tried and all of them a bit of a kludge.
My favorite was sailing on a French dipping lug schooner that had two sails for each
mast...A pair for each tack...Sure worked and it got around dipping the sail but frankly I
always thought there HAD to be a better way.
VArious split rigs (where the lug rig sail was actualy two sails one in front of the mast and
a larger behind but treated as one) were also in favor for a bit but again kind of clunky...
So where Hoyt does get it right here and I'll bet its really the only part of the rig that is
patented is the offset boom and yard/gaff which allows the sail to set perfectly on either
tack...Such a simple addition I can't imagine why it has not been done before but it is a
huge step forward for the balanced lug rig.
Hoyt also while a lot better at promoting his skills than someone like Bolger is still a very
bright fellow where making things work simply and well is the object...Face you really have
to love someone who pisses off the sailing establishment as much a Hoyt does. He's our
kind of guy...
With our Jessie Cooper we surprised a lot of people (including myself) at just how fast a
flat bottomed 26 foot boat would go and as I have said before I am something of a lug
freak but am the first to admit there was a pronounced advantage on one tack over the
other that had me wishing for a dipping lug from time to time.
Bob
http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, c o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
>
>
> It's an interesting idea and I see he's patented it, though I'm
> willing to bet there's prior art on this lost somewhere in the
> yachting press from the 1860-1900s.
>
> In form it is basically the rig on the "Mary and Lamb" proa with one
> leg removed and pointing straight up thanks to modern materials. (a
> bipod in the one case, a cantilever in the other). Kudos for working
> out the details and an elegant implementation.
>
> He says:
>
> In Summary
>
> The Patented Hoyt Balanced Rig uniquely delivers:
>
>
> * More drive due to a totally clean leading edge and the optimum
> square headed profile that minimizes tip vortex and induced drag
> * Reduced sheeting loads due to the balance effect of carrying
> 20% of the sail area ahead of the mast pivot point
> * Greater safety by dramatically softening the "slam" factor of
> the jibe - the most dangerous maneuver in sailing
> * A drastic reduction in windage drag by eliminating traditional
> rigging
> * More economy by simplifying the rig to 3 light, strong, carbon
> tubes
> * Balanced reefing that lowers the center of effort of the sail
> without alternating the balance and maintaining a clean leading edge
>
> But #2 is true of any balanced lugsail. It ain't unique, Bruce, get
> out your OED and look up the word!
>
> As is #3; also true of any balanced lug sail.
>
> I'm assuming #4 is intended to refer to "big rig" yachts, since
> sharpies et al "eliminated traditional rigging" more than a century
> ago; and #5 reminds me of an old Eddie Harris song ... "Compared to
> Whut?" ... maybe to Cup racers?
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
It's an interesting idea and I see he's patented it, though I'm
willing to bet there's prior art on this lost somewhere in the
yachting press from the 1860-1900s.
In form it is basically the rig on the "Mary and Lamb" proa with one
leg removed and pointing straight up thanks to modern materials. (a
bipod in the one case, a cantilever in the other). Kudos for working
out the details and an elegant implementation.
He says:
In Summary
The Patented Hoyt Balanced Rig uniquely delivers:
* More drive due to a totally clean leading edge and the optimum
square headed profile that minimizes tip vortex and induced drag
* Reduced sheeting loads due to the balance effect of carrying
20% of the sail area ahead of the mast pivot point
* Greater safety by dramatically softening the "slam" factor of
the jibe - the most dangerous maneuver in sailing
* A drastic reduction in windage drag by eliminating traditional
rigging
* More economy by simplifying the rig to 3 light, strong, carbon
tubes
* Balanced reefing that lowers the center of effort of the sail
without alternating the balance and maintaining a clean leading edge
But #2 is true of any balanced lugsail. It ain't unique, Bruce, get
out your OED and look up the word!
As is #3; also true of any balanced lug sail.
I'm assuming #4 is intended to refer to "big rig" yachts, since
sharpies et al "eliminated traditional rigging" more than a century
ago; and #5 reminds me of an old Eddie Harris song ... "Compared to
Whut?" ... maybe to Cup racers?
willing to bet there's prior art on this lost somewhere in the
yachting press from the 1860-1900s.
In form it is basically the rig on the "Mary and Lamb" proa with one
leg removed and pointing straight up thanks to modern materials. (a
bipod in the one case, a cantilever in the other). Kudos for working
out the details and an elegant implementation.
He says:
In Summary
The Patented Hoyt Balanced Rig uniquely delivers:
* More drive due to a totally clean leading edge and the optimum
square headed profile that minimizes tip vortex and induced drag
* Reduced sheeting loads due to the balance effect of carrying
20% of the sail area ahead of the mast pivot point
* Greater safety by dramatically softening the "slam" factor of
the jibe - the most dangerous maneuver in sailing
* A drastic reduction in windage drag by eliminating traditional
rigging
* More economy by simplifying the rig to 3 light, strong, carbon
tubes
* Balanced reefing that lowers the center of effort of the sail
without alternating the balance and maintaining a clean leading edge
But #2 is true of any balanced lugsail. It ain't unique, Bruce, get
out your OED and look up the word!
As is #3; also true of any balanced lug sail.
I'm assuming #4 is intended to refer to "big rig" yachts, since
sharpies et al "eliminated traditional rigging" more than a century
ago; and #5 reminds me of an old Eddie Harris song ... "Compared to
Whut?" ... maybe to Cup racers?
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"5 more possible mods have been suggested - to that category add:
Box-keel cutwater
Mast tabernacle, or
Stayed mast
Laced-on rudder
Batteries (replacing some ballast)"
Another mod I mentioned was make the hull more like the Dovekie. One
could just bash out a Dovekie in strip foam, but I think most of what
it is could come from a Birdwatcher type hull, or a ply hull with
some extra work in the chines and the bow and stern. Should be
interesting rather than tedious. Bolger did originally intend the
Dovekie for wood construction.
From the Sandy Bottoms trials I would suggest an actual airtight
construction to the main compartment at least relative to the
cockpit. The self-righting improved a lot and only a "few gallons"
of water got into the cabin when the main access points were blocked
off. The vent tubes from the cockpit could be sealed with pihis, and
the hatch could be made watertight.
A mod that was made or anticipated with SB was to extend the rudder
which probably doesn't remain in the water when the boat heels. The
model drawn on the amended plans was very similar to that on the 36'
version. The end plate is supposed to make this unnecessary. But
the endplate wasn't sufficient, at least not given the ballance of
the rig use (?).
Regarding the tabernacle: The design calls for the hollow spar or a
solid one. The solid one would raise the CG more than any
tabernacle, and the tabernacle could be cored like the hollow spar if
less weight was required.
Re-reading some of the correspondence, it sounds as though two to
three of these things were in the build at one time. DB's - Sandy
Bottoms; DC, who intended to use the boat in the Gulf Stream as well
as shoal draft in the Keys, from what I can tell. Or at least that
was what he was looking for when he contacted Bolger, and Bolger
suggested A. DC wanted to add the dipping lug to the boat; Ron
Morrill, for whom the boat was drawn, seems to have intended ot build
her when his shop was ready, don't know what happened there.
DB modified the boat as follows:
DB built a full size cardboard model and noted:
Cons
Poor reefing; walls like canyons; seats too low; footing around mast
only 18"; outboard not provided for
Pros
Oars positioned to make coming alongside a dock easier; Spar short
for trailering; Shoal draft rudder; separate cabin; water ballast;
graceful from a number of views; and apparently buildable in the
basement.
- DB added fin like step from the bottom (seems to have been passed
by Bolger)
- used 1/2" ply rather than double nailed
- Tabernacle.
- Changed to cat ketch rig which has many effects not least of which
as done, with a placement off center, it seriously affected trim. It
also may have caused weather helm as designed.
- Added boom gallows
Overall seems to have been on his way to sorting out his problems, my
files don't provide a final, final summary in which he either traded
his dreams in for a bass boat, or fully satisfied sailed happily on
many voyages. The over all fooling around was not particularly
disproportionate for a new design.
Box-keel cutwater
Mast tabernacle, or
Stayed mast
Laced-on rudder
Batteries (replacing some ballast)"
Another mod I mentioned was make the hull more like the Dovekie. One
could just bash out a Dovekie in strip foam, but I think most of what
it is could come from a Birdwatcher type hull, or a ply hull with
some extra work in the chines and the bow and stern. Should be
interesting rather than tedious. Bolger did originally intend the
Dovekie for wood construction.
From the Sandy Bottoms trials I would suggest an actual airtight
construction to the main compartment at least relative to the
cockpit. The self-righting improved a lot and only a "few gallons"
of water got into the cabin when the main access points were blocked
off. The vent tubes from the cockpit could be sealed with pihis, and
the hatch could be made watertight.
A mod that was made or anticipated with SB was to extend the rudder
which probably doesn't remain in the water when the boat heels. The
model drawn on the amended plans was very similar to that on the 36'
version. The end plate is supposed to make this unnecessary. But
the endplate wasn't sufficient, at least not given the ballance of
the rig use (?).
Regarding the tabernacle: The design calls for the hollow spar or a
solid one. The solid one would raise the CG more than any
tabernacle, and the tabernacle could be cored like the hollow spar if
less weight was required.
Re-reading some of the correspondence, it sounds as though two to
three of these things were in the build at one time. DB's - Sandy
Bottoms; DC, who intended to use the boat in the Gulf Stream as well
as shoal draft in the Keys, from what I can tell. Or at least that
was what he was looking for when he contacted Bolger, and Bolger
suggested A. DC wanted to add the dipping lug to the boat; Ron
Morrill, for whom the boat was drawn, seems to have intended ot build
her when his shop was ready, don't know what happened there.
DB modified the boat as follows:
DB built a full size cardboard model and noted:
Cons
Poor reefing; walls like canyons; seats too low; footing around mast
only 18"; outboard not provided for
Pros
Oars positioned to make coming alongside a dock easier; Spar short
for trailering; Shoal draft rudder; separate cabin; water ballast;
graceful from a number of views; and apparently buildable in the
basement.
- DB added fin like step from the bottom (seems to have been passed
by Bolger)
- used 1/2" ply rather than double nailed
- Tabernacle.
- Changed to cat ketch rig which has many effects not least of which
as done, with a placement off center, it seriously affected trim. It
also may have caused weather helm as designed.
- Added boom gallows
Overall seems to have been on his way to sorting out his problems, my
files don't provide a final, final summary in which he either traded
his dreams in for a bass boat, or fully satisfied sailed happily on
many voyages. The over all fooling around was not particularly
disproportionate for a new design.
> The tougher question is: What modifications might make the AnhingaThe slot top may come out near cost neutral - mostly just a
> less complex, or less costly?
reallocation of material to beams and carlines. The complexity may
come out less as the number of times the rig is handled with greater
ease (less complexity) over it's life-time use should more than
compensate for the small extra building trouble.
5 more possible mods have been suggested - to that category add:
Box-keel cutwater
Mast tabernacle, or
Stayed mast
Laced-on rudder
Batteries (replacing some ballast)
Further to what you say below, Bruce, I don't recall if the tiller
has ever been mentioned. What way to modify the tiller? I wouldn't
want to stand all the time, and having an arm always raised above
shoulder height when seated is even less comfortable, I would
imagine. The Birdwatchers had two different solutions to the tiller
problem!
To the possible mod list add:
Tiller
Suggestions: A line around the cockpit from a rudder yoke; curve the
tiller down into the cockpit; a simple hinged tiller extension;
push/pull pole(s) to a rudder yoke; drag links and rod similar to
Birdwatcher 1 (a plumb sternpost, good, but aft bouyancy compartment
plumbing?); aft cockpit tiller and yoke conected to rudder yoke by
lines; wheel steering...
BTW, these pro, con, and possible modification considerations for the
Anhinga design certainly focus the mind on the Birdwatcher designs by
comparison. You begin to see how the boxes were ticked as Birdwatcher
emerged. Quite a few boxes, some none too subtle, others almost
imperceptible, many trick. A stunning synthesis. "It remains my
favourite of all my designs,... With a brainstorm based on some
rather rare knowledge, I had a boat that weighed 800lbs,...", wrote
PCB about Birdwatcher 1 (a then 19 year old design) in "Birdwatcher
II, Part 2" (a MAIB 2004, Bolger On Design article)
Graeme
PS Anhinga
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
Extra included flotation high-up (solutions are as likely essential)
Thicker bottom - for ballasting, camping dry,
Solid ballast/steel shoe
Ballasted daggerboard(s) [125lbs+/- total]
Box-keel cutwater
Batteries
Permanent reefed snotter luff roving
Alternate sailplans - lugs, lateens, yawls,
Cabin slot-top
Mast tabernacle, or
Stayed mast
Leeboards
Rigged for sailing away from stern-to anchoring
Laced-on rudder (Wharram style)
Tiller??
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> > > POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
>
> Most of your mods are a description of a Birdwatcher.
>
> If you are willing to accept a more complex and more costly boat,
you
> probably should build a Birdwatcher.
>
> The tougher question is: What modifications might make the Anhinga
> less complex, or less costly?
>
> AllI can think of is to use MDO plywood and omit fiberglass, epoxy
and paint.
>
> the insanely smart Edey & Duff spar management scheme, that mastDovekie for the benefit of those reading along (if any :)) was about a
> would have been out of bounds for my 150-pound weakling frame.
> Still, I dropped it hard on the mast arch a few times, even with all
> those clever controls.
foot wider on the deck, which might make rigging a spar on the deck a
little harder with shroud angles tighter. Though, if one were making
a change, reconfiguring her as a dory shape should be pretty much
first thing on the list.
Dovekie, had the plans out today, was basically the same waterline
beam as A. which rather surprised me. I make here 60.25 inches at the
100mm waterline, comapared to A.'s 60 inches.
Doug,
Look in the Anhinga folder in the yahoo "bolgercartoons" group for
Sandy_bottoms.jpg. More on the way, I think..
Mark
Look in the Anhinga folder in the yahoo "bolgercartoons" group for
Sandy_bottoms.jpg. More on the way, I think..
Mark
> I have looked several times for a picture of Anhinga on line to see
> what
> she looks like and have not found one does any one have a link?
"Somewhere up there in the thread were remarks about Anhinga's hull
not being a pious Bolger Flow Theory shape, and thus suspect."
To the list of suspect hulls one could add the Dovekie itself. If was
flat as a frying pan, and yet much beloved, by both owners and the
designer himself.
The oddish shape of the A. is somewhat reminiscent of various seaplane
hulls (not the flat bottom, but in terms of it pushing water down in
the front and releasing it to the sides in the back. These seaplanes
like the Sikorsky seen in the recent movie the Aviator, are very
beautiful hulls. I guess more obvious comparisons would be various
runabouts.
not being a pious Bolger Flow Theory shape, and thus suspect."
To the list of suspect hulls one could add the Dovekie itself. If was
flat as a frying pan, and yet much beloved, by both owners and the
designer himself.
The oddish shape of the A. is somewhat reminiscent of various seaplane
hulls (not the flat bottom, but in terms of it pushing water down in
the front and releasing it to the sides in the back. These seaplanes
like the Sikorsky seen in the recent movie the Aviator, are very
beautiful hulls. I guess more obvious comparisons would be various
runabouts.
Just looking at
I think "Not Heavy, Awkward" is where you are with that spar. You
wouldn't want to have to get it down if it was rough or windy. The
sail is identical to Dovekie's, near as I can tell, so my old
Dovekie's spar must be roughly the same specs, though lighter for
being deck-stepped and stayed. (Someone told me my #135 Dovekie was
about the last one with a wooden stick.) Anyway, if it weren't for
the insanely smart Edey & Duff spar management scheme, that mast
would have been out of bounds for my 150-pound weakling frame.
Still, I dropped it hard on the mast arch a few times, even with all
those clever controls.
Building that stick lighter would be high on my imaginary list. I
still don't think a tabernacle would be smart. A tabernacle for a
140sqft unstayed rig has to be strong, and thus heavy unless its
components are graphite baked in an autoclave. And all that weight
is up at deck level and beyond, on a boat with an already limited
range of stability.
I'd make that stick as light and bendy as a coachwhip. Bendy spars
let leeches go soft to spill the wind in a puff.
Somewhere up there in the thread were remarks about Anhinga's hull
not being a pious Bolger Flow Theory shape, and thus suspect. From a
career in dealing with narrow hulls, I think a lot of that goes out
the door A) because Anhinga's 5-foot wide hull is so narrow that
resistance is very low to begin with and B) Anhinga will never be
very fast so a few strange burbles astern from the straight rocker
ain't going to amount to a hill o' beans. And C) you'll be heeled
anytime you're going even 5 knots or something, at which point you do
have some rocker back there. If the boat is upright it's because
you're rowing at 2 or 2.5 knots in a flat calm.
Cheers,
John Harris
> the paper, I'd guess the balalnce point is at 9 foot. So you haveto
> stand on deck and raise the spar 3.5 feet to totally clear thedeck,
> might be a fraction less in practice, we are lifting 30 poundshere.
I think "Not Heavy, Awkward" is where you are with that spar. You
wouldn't want to have to get it down if it was rough or windy. The
sail is identical to Dovekie's, near as I can tell, so my old
Dovekie's spar must be roughly the same specs, though lighter for
being deck-stepped and stayed. (Someone told me my #135 Dovekie was
about the last one with a wooden stick.) Anyway, if it weren't for
the insanely smart Edey & Duff spar management scheme, that mast
would have been out of bounds for my 150-pound weakling frame.
Still, I dropped it hard on the mast arch a few times, even with all
those clever controls.
Building that stick lighter would be high on my imaginary list. I
still don't think a tabernacle would be smart. A tabernacle for a
140sqft unstayed rig has to be strong, and thus heavy unless its
components are graphite baked in an autoclave. And all that weight
is up at deck level and beyond, on a boat with an already limited
range of stability.
I'd make that stick as light and bendy as a coachwhip. Bendy spars
let leeches go soft to spill the wind in a puff.
Somewhere up there in the thread were remarks about Anhinga's hull
not being a pious Bolger Flow Theory shape, and thus suspect. From a
career in dealing with narrow hulls, I think a lot of that goes out
the door A) because Anhinga's 5-foot wide hull is so narrow that
resistance is very low to begin with and B) Anhinga will never be
very fast so a few strange burbles astern from the straight rocker
ain't going to amount to a hill o' beans. And C) you'll be heeled
anytime you're going even 5 knots or something, at which point you do
have some rocker back there. If the boat is upright it's because
you're rowing at 2 or 2.5 knots in a flat calm.
Cheers,
John Harris
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill"
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
have lines that finish with normal art, fore and aft, can be draw
with the hydro in mind. One might well ask whether that design works
with a water ballasted craft where the stability is a little more
catamara like. At 45 degrees, where the hydro looks nice in a box,
one may well be as good as over. But you are also right in the sense
that nobody said this was the be all and end all of the evolution of
his sharpie design, yet people still want to build one.
I was putting away my package on Anhinga after an earlier response
and noticed that there is a picture in the MAIB article, or it could
be just more pics attached to that sheet, that shows the owner of SB
rasing the spar with the tabernacle, and it looks easy.
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
>feature of
> I think I read somewhere in one of PCB's books that a crucial
> the flat-bottom sharpie is the rocker fore _and aft_. As I recall,the
> curvature is necessary to achieve a clean entry and exit of thechine.
> With Anhinga's lack of stern rocker I think the stern becomes atrailing
> edge and could cause hydrodynamic problems.That's what he said and it explains the boxes which not having to
have lines that finish with normal art, fore and aft, can be draw
with the hydro in mind. One might well ask whether that design works
with a water ballasted craft where the stability is a little more
catamara like. At 45 degrees, where the hydro looks nice in a box,
one may well be as good as over. But you are also right in the sense
that nobody said this was the be all and end all of the evolution of
his sharpie design, yet people still want to build one.
I was putting away my package on Anhinga after an earlier response
and noticed that there is a picture in the MAIB article, or it could
be just more pics attached to that sheet, that shows the owner of SB
rasing the spar with the tabernacle, and it looks easy.
I think I read somewhere in one of PCB's books that a crucial feature of
the flat-bottom sharpie is the rocker fore _and aft_. As I recall, the
curvature is necessary to achieve a clean entry and exit of the chine.
With Anhinga's lack of stern rocker I think the stern becomes a trailing
edge and could cause hydrodynamic problems.
Bruce Hallman wrote:
the flat-bottom sharpie is the rocker fore _and aft_. As I recall, the
curvature is necessary to achieve a clean entry and exit of the chine.
With Anhinga's lack of stern rocker I think the stern becomes a trailing
edge and could cause hydrodynamic problems.
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> > POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
>>
>
> Most of your mods are a description of a Birdwatcher.
>
> If you are willing to accept a more complex and more costly boat, you
> probably should build a Birdwatcher.
>
> The tougher question is: What modifications might make the Anhinga
> less complex, or less costly?
>
> AllI can think of is to use MDO plywood and omit fiberglass, epoxy and paint.
>
>
>
"I appreciate the comments, and I think this is a valid criticism of
the design. I've owned a Dovekie and rowing into the wind with the
mast up is a backbreaker."
I can imagine it might be difficult to hold it into the wind if the
nose catches any wind.
"A way to get the mast down quickly is critical if you really
expect to move a 23-foot boat under oars."
Just back of the envelop, the widest crossection of spar is 10.375
square inches. The top is 1 square inch immediately below the
masthead ( 2 square inches). Over the 24 foot length, I make the
total volume of wood to be 1.73 cubic feet, if the whole spar were
max diameter. I think the haircut on that is probably pretty close
to 40%, basically one cubic foot, around 30 pounds. The only
hardware up there is one sheave and a strap, etc... Just looking at
the paper, I'd guess the balalnce point is at 9 foot. So you have to
stand on deck and raise the spar 3.5 feet to totally clear the deck,
might be a fraction less in practice, we are lifting 30 pounds here.
Then with my hads above me to about the 7 foot point I would have to
release about 2 foot of spar to have a ballances object of 30 pounds
that I could work to the horizontal. That doesn't sound too bad,
though I regularly have problems with my tri spar of 26 feet using
any means at my disposal, but I think the awkwardness would be less
here, and the weight about half.
"My engineless Folkboat has a mysterious ability to
start sailing to windward from a dead stop, doubtless because of the
lift of its full keel, which starts generating lift at 0.5 knots."
I don't think it would be all that difficult to put an outboard
inside the Anhinga, though I would have to see the space to really
havea feel for it. JR Watson had a good article on this in
Epoxyworks that showed their standard through the floor detail, and a
flat run would be perfect. Since i had my only outboard stolen,
though, I am off gas for good...
"Eyeballing the plans, I think you could figure out a clean deck-slot
scheme for dousing the mast. (I don't think the hull can bear the
weight of a tabernacle.)"
Sandy Bottoms had one, for what that is worth.
" Or, there might be enough beam to stay a
deck-stepped mast as on Dovekie. A stayed mast could be lighter,
which would make the boat less tippy."
You may be right, but assuming Bolger was right on this spar's
strength, I don't see an easy way to make it a lot lighter than one
square inch at the top, stiffer is another mater.
"Here we go, redesigning the boat! Hard to resist the impulse..."
I'm just suprised nobody has suggested a folding Anhinga!
the design. I've owned a Dovekie and rowing into the wind with the
mast up is a backbreaker."
I can imagine it might be difficult to hold it into the wind if the
nose catches any wind.
"A way to get the mast down quickly is critical if you really
expect to move a 23-foot boat under oars."
Just back of the envelop, the widest crossection of spar is 10.375
square inches. The top is 1 square inch immediately below the
masthead ( 2 square inches). Over the 24 foot length, I make the
total volume of wood to be 1.73 cubic feet, if the whole spar were
max diameter. I think the haircut on that is probably pretty close
to 40%, basically one cubic foot, around 30 pounds. The only
hardware up there is one sheave and a strap, etc... Just looking at
the paper, I'd guess the balalnce point is at 9 foot. So you have to
stand on deck and raise the spar 3.5 feet to totally clear the deck,
might be a fraction less in practice, we are lifting 30 pounds here.
Then with my hads above me to about the 7 foot point I would have to
release about 2 foot of spar to have a ballances object of 30 pounds
that I could work to the horizontal. That doesn't sound too bad,
though I regularly have problems with my tri spar of 26 feet using
any means at my disposal, but I think the awkwardness would be less
here, and the weight about half.
"My engineless Folkboat has a mysterious ability to
start sailing to windward from a dead stop, doubtless because of the
lift of its full keel, which starts generating lift at 0.5 knots."
I don't think it would be all that difficult to put an outboard
inside the Anhinga, though I would have to see the space to really
havea feel for it. JR Watson had a good article on this in
Epoxyworks that showed their standard through the floor detail, and a
flat run would be perfect. Since i had my only outboard stolen,
though, I am off gas for good...
"Eyeballing the plans, I think you could figure out a clean deck-slot
scheme for dousing the mast. (I don't think the hull can bear the
weight of a tabernacle.)"
Sandy Bottoms had one, for what that is worth.
" Or, there might be enough beam to stay a
deck-stepped mast as on Dovekie. A stayed mast could be lighter,
which would make the boat less tippy."
You may be right, but assuming Bolger was right on this spar's
strength, I don't see an easy way to make it a lot lighter than one
square inch at the top, stiffer is another mater.
"Here we go, redesigning the boat! Hard to resist the impulse..."
I'm just suprised nobody has suggested a folding Anhinga!
>and paint.
> AllI can think of is to use MDO plywood and omit fiberglass, epoxy
>I don't think the Glass or epoxy are called for, on memory, though I
have a hard time sticking to the plans :) in that regard. If i built
one I would probably try the "real" method, just to see what it's
worth.
If a person was looking to diverge, I think a Wharram lace on rudder
would be an option, and a solid bottom with plastic refilable tanks or
something of that sort.
I have looked several times for a picture of Anhinga on line to see what
she looks like and have not found one does any one have a link?
Doug
Bruce Hallman wrote:
she looks like and have not found one does any one have a link?
Doug
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
> > > POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
>
> Most of your mods are a description of a Birdwatcher.
>
> If you are willing to accept a more complex and more costly boat, you
> probably should build a Birdwatcher.
>
> The tougher question is: What modifications might make the Anhinga
> less complex, or less costly?
>
> AllI can think of is to use MDO plywood and omit fiberglass, epoxy and
> paint.
>
>
> > POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONSMost of your mods are a description of a Birdwatcher.
If you are willing to accept a more complex and more costly boat, you
probably should build a Birdwatcher.
The tougher question is: What modifications might make the Anhinga
less complex, or less costly?
AllI can think of is to use MDO plywood and omit fiberglass, epoxy and paint.
In all a very thorough recap, Graeme.
To mods, add box keel cutwater, especially for any all electric version.
Mark
To mods, add box keel cutwater, especially for any all electric version.
Mark
On Mar 15, 2008, at 7:13 PM, graeme19121984 wrote:
>
> Below, a "back of the envelope" summary of points mentioned that I
> can recall; feel free to ammend:
>
> FOR
> AGAINST
>
> POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
>
> Extra included flotation high-up (solutions are as likely essential)
> Alternate sailplans - lugs, lateens, yawls,
> Permanent reefed snotter luff roving
> Thicker bottom - for ballasting, camping dry,
> Solid ballast/steel shoe
> Ballasted daggerboard(s) [125lbs+/- total]
> Cabin slot-top
> Leeboards
> Rigged for sailing away from stern-to anchoring
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
Right you are, HJ. Caprice is one helluva boat. Overall, Jim makes
the water ballast work pretty well in a variety of craft.
One thing in Anhinga's favor may be that the narrower the boat, the
sooner any water ballast comes in to play.
Mark
the water ballast work pretty well in a variety of craft.
One thing in Anhinga's favor may be that the narrower the boat, the
sooner any water ballast comes in to play.
Mark
On Mar 16, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Harry James wrote:
> One that seems to work is Chuck's Caprice. He has been really happy
> with
> it.
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/01/articles/caprice/index.htm
>
> Here is a story on cruising it, look at the pictures at the bottom of
> the page and look at the wake with the helm lashed. That says a lot.
>
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/02/articles/pearl/index.htm
>
> HJ
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>Or maybe just offer up a prize for the first one.
> Another option would be to sell 5 dollar tickets for some of these
> designs and use the proceeds to purchase insurance against the
> possibility that anyone actually builds it.
One that seems to work is Chuck's Caprice. He has been really happy with
it.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/01/articles/caprice/index.htm
Here is a story on cruising it, look at the pictures at the bottom of
the page and look at the wake with the helm lashed. That says a lot.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/02/articles/pearl/index.htm
HJ
proaconstrictor wrote:
it.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/01/articles/caprice/index.htm
Here is a story on cruising it, look at the pictures at the bottom of
the page and look at the wake with the helm lashed. That says a lot.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/02/articles/pearl/index.htm
HJ
proaconstrictor wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> wrote:
>
>> Have the recurrent Anhinga discussion threads over time made
>> progress? (Not that they must.) Have issues been clarrified? Have
>> more been revealed? (Helpful.)
>>
>> Below, a "back of the envelope" summary of points mentioned that I
>> can recall; feel free to ammend:
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think your list is a good step forward for people considering the
> design. As far as designs are concerned the key is synthesis, and
> working over hit lists is unlikely to get you there.
>
>
> If I built Anhinga (hey, I got 1/8th of the way, almost) I would
> build her exactly as Bolger drew her. Obviously the main
> fascination with the design is whether it works, and that can never
> be settled unless someone builds the boat drawn. I'm not sure the
> record so far in water ballasted sharpies deserves that confidence,
> but I would be rooting for it.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
design. As far as designs are concerned the key is synthesis, and
working over hit lists is unlikely to get you there.
If I built Anhinga (hey, I got 1/8th of the way, almost) I would
build her exactly as Bolger drew her. Obviously the main
fascination with the design is whether it works, and that can never
be settled unless someone builds the boat drawn. I'm not sure the
record so far in water ballasted sharpies deserves that confidence,
but I would be rooting for it.
wrote:
>I think your list is a good step forward for people considering the
> Have the recurrent Anhinga discussion threads over time made
> progress? (Not that they must.) Have issues been clarrified? Have
> more been revealed? (Helpful.)
>
> Below, a "back of the envelope" summary of points mentioned that I
> can recall; feel free to ammend:
>
>
design. As far as designs are concerned the key is synthesis, and
working over hit lists is unlikely to get you there.
If I built Anhinga (hey, I got 1/8th of the way, almost) I would
build her exactly as Bolger drew her. Obviously the main
fascination with the design is whether it works, and that can never
be settled unless someone builds the boat drawn. I'm not sure the
record so far in water ballasted sharpies deserves that confidence,
but I would be rooting for it.
Another option would be to sell 5 dollar tickets for some of these
designs and use the proceeds to purchase insurance against the
possibility that anyone actually builds it. Like a Hole-in-one
competition. Then if someone does build it, insurance in the amount
of the price of the plans is sent to Bolger.
designs and use the proceeds to purchase insurance against the
possibility that anyone actually builds it. Like a Hole-in-one
competition. Then if someone does build it, insurance in the amount
of the price of the plans is sent to Bolger.
> That is an interesting, fresh proposition. If not on a one to one
> medium is it not already on the one to many PCB "cartoon" continuum?
> I wonder. Somehow I think PCB has had this worked into his business
> plan from early days. In the early days here he even wrote: "Good to
> see this much time wasted on a good cause! On a more serious note: -
> All our designs are available directly from us."
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/1156
>
Have the recurrent Anhinga discussion threads over time made
progress? (Not that they must.) Have issues been clarrified? Have
more been revealed? (Helpful.)
Below, a "back of the envelope" summary of points mentioned that I
can recall; feel free to ammend:
FOR
Rowable
Short oars
Laced luff
Boom drops with sail
Luff snotter slinging
Building ease
Low building cost
Large return on cost (bang for buck)
Very shallow draft
Cabin space for 2
No hullslap anchored stern-to
Anchor handling stern-to from within deep cockpit
Easy launch and retrieve
Water ballast
Low trailer weight
Good aerodynamics for trailer towed boat at speed
Looks?
Uniqueness (= wow factor ?)
Proven designer
AGAINST
Seaworthiness?? possibly
Water ballast stability issues?? possibly
High crew cog
Water ballast rot susceptibility??
No motor??
Lee-daggerboard handling??
Stepping/striking mast
Sail reefing
Reefed boom
Reef snotter slinging
Mast partner cabin drip?? possibly
Plans cost
Trailer length and cost
Unproven design
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
Extra included flotation high-up (solutions are as likely essential)
Alternate sailplans - lugs, lateens, yawls,
Permanent reefed snotter luff roving
Thicker bottom - for ballasting, camping dry,
Solid ballast/steel shoe
Ballasted daggerboard(s) [125lbs+/- total]
Cabin slot-top
Leeboards
Rigged for sailing away from stern-to anchoring
progress? (Not that they must.) Have issues been clarrified? Have
more been revealed? (Helpful.)
Below, a "back of the envelope" summary of points mentioned that I
can recall; feel free to ammend:
FOR
Rowable
Short oars
Laced luff
Boom drops with sail
Luff snotter slinging
Building ease
Low building cost
Large return on cost (bang for buck)
Very shallow draft
Cabin space for 2
No hullslap anchored stern-to
Anchor handling stern-to from within deep cockpit
Easy launch and retrieve
Water ballast
Low trailer weight
Good aerodynamics for trailer towed boat at speed
Looks?
Uniqueness (= wow factor ?)
Proven designer
AGAINST
Seaworthiness?? possibly
Water ballast stability issues?? possibly
High crew cog
Water ballast rot susceptibility??
No motor??
Lee-daggerboard handling??
Stepping/striking mast
Sail reefing
Reefed boom
Reef snotter slinging
Mast partner cabin drip?? possibly
Plans cost
Trailer length and cost
Unproven design
POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS
Extra included flotation high-up (solutions are as likely essential)
Alternate sailplans - lugs, lateens, yawls,
Permanent reefed snotter luff roving
Thicker bottom - for ballasting, camping dry,
Solid ballast/steel shoe
Ballasted daggerboard(s) [125lbs+/- total]
Cabin slot-top
Leeboards
Rigged for sailing away from stern-to anchoring
Thats actually a pretty good idea, maybe a $1.50 for a study plan and
discussion. Of course we are jaded, we know that if we wait a bit Bruce
will have a posting of the lines.
HJ
proaconstrictor wrote:
discussion. Of course we are jaded, we know that if we wait a bit Bruce
will have a posting of the lines.
HJ
proaconstrictor wrote:
> I
>
>>> would build one in a minute if I didn't have other projects on
>>>
> the
>
>>> burner.
>>>
>
>
> That is the generic response and basically the response attached to
> any design nobody actually wants to build, but likes to talk about.
> There are such designs, and they really ought to be downloadable from
> ITunes, or some similar, method of getting some value back to the
> designer when the value really isn't in the physical item itself.
>
>
>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> I'm torn. I, like you, am immensely attracted to the concept and
>> design, yet I balk at the US$200 plan cost - for a boat with issues.
>>
>> I really should brush up on all the scaling math and build a two,
>>
> or
>
>> four foot one for capsise testing in the bath, and for tow testing
>> along a pool side...
>>
>
> That would be a difficult because there are so many unknowns. The
> boat is very light so where the weight is centered when the boat is
> actually used is going to be anyone's guess.
>
>
>
>> I might mount the designed mast on a tabernacle too - easy to raise
>> and strike, no interior mast drip, and the aero drag from the
>> tabernacle stub when trailering would be hardly noticeable...
>>
>
> As built Sandy Bottoms had a tabernacle. I did wonder a little
> though whether it was really required. The mast is a special
> design,assymetric structure, square ,hollow, and very tapered out
> towards the end. Plus the top of the boat is a dead flat run. I
> wonder whether it is really necesarry to have an assist in raising
> the spar. and what is lost in adding that mass to the spar low
> down. I can't see it being all that big a problem except perhaps it
> butchers a neater solution. I would build the spar as designed then
> find some similar piece of terrain like a lawn and a window well, or
> ditch, and see how she went up.
>
>
>
>
Anybody have Tennessee plans he would like to
sell/trade? I would consider either "never-built" or
"built" plans--the latter as study plans only, which
is what I am looking for at this point. Also, I'd
love to hear a performance report on the Tennessee,
from anyone who has experienced one. Thanks. Sam
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
sell/trade? I would consider either "never-built" or
"built" plans--the latter as study plans only, which
is what I am looking for at this point. Also, I'd
love to hear a performance report on the Tennessee,
from anyone who has experienced one. Thanks. Sam
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
build A, no? The gap is between "works", and "workable". Another
abyss is the Dickensian notion of financial comfort and calamity -
pennies.
medium is it not already on the one to many PCB "cartoon" continuum?
I wonder. Somehow I think PCB has had this worked into his business
plan from early days. In the early days here he even wrote: "Good to
see this much time wasted on a good cause! On a more serious note: -
All our designs are available directly from us."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/1156
appropriate amount of scaled down weight is positioned for crew,
gear, and so on, in addition to the hull knowns. Proportionally
slowed down playback of high speed video for wake, hull wave
generation, wave interaction, roll, pitch, and yaw has helped experts
refine their ideas in models, I've heard...
that the mast partner slot is enough forward of the cockpit to make
it difficult to erect and strike. It seems it would be easier to lay
the mast on the cabin top, then crawl to the forward hatch and
leaning aft erect it from there - maybe using a foot below to force
the mast heel to the step. Could be simple enough in low wind, on
flat water. Wear head protection for the dash. This looks like it may
need a fair bit of brute strength too, especially compared to walking
the mast upright - but Anhinga's cabin top is not meant for walking
on. I mean that's how it's looked to me - Micro's 3/8ths" cabin top
can be walked upon without damage, that's a fact, but I doubt it for
Anhinga where it, more than any other panel, should likely be 1/4". --
Extra deck beams?
Graeme
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>Oh Thomas, no, no no , no ,no. I like to talk about A, yes. I want to
> I
> > > would build one in a minute if I didn't have other projects on
> the
> > > burner.
> That is the generic response and basically the response attached to
> any design nobody actually wants to build, but likes to talk about.
build A, no? The gap is between "works", and "workable". Another
abyss is the Dickensian notion of financial comfort and calamity -
pennies.
> There are such designs, and they really ought to be downloadablefrom
> ITunes, or some similar, method of getting some value back to theThat is an interesting, fresh proposition. If not on a one to one
> designer when the value really isn't in the physical item itself.
medium is it not already on the one to many PCB "cartoon" continuum?
I wonder. Somehow I think PCB has had this worked into his business
plan from early days. In the early days here he even wrote: "Good to
see this much time wasted on a good cause! On a more serious note: -
All our designs are available directly from us."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/1156
> > Hi Jim,issues.
> >
> > I'm torn. I, like you, am immensely attracted to the concept and
> > design, yet I balk at the US$200 plan cost - for a boat with
> >testing
> > I really should brush up on all the scaling math and build a two,
> or
> > four foot one for capsise testing in the bath, and for tow
> > along a pool side...Can't scaling take into account all those variables? You know, the
>
> That would be a difficult because there are so many unknowns. The
> boat is very light so where the weight is centered when the boat is
> actually used is going to be anyone's guess.
appropriate amount of scaled down weight is positioned for crew,
gear, and so on, in addition to the hull knowns. Proportionally
slowed down playback of high speed video for wake, hull wave
generation, wave interaction, roll, pitch, and yaw has helped experts
refine their ideas in models, I've heard...
>raise
>
> >
> > I might mount the designed mast on a tabernacle too - easy to
> > and strike, no interior mast drip, and the aero drag from theit
> > tabernacle stub when trailering would be hardly noticeable...
>
> As built Sandy Bottoms had a tabernacle. I did wonder a little
> though whether it was really required. The mast is a special
> design,assymetric structure, square ,hollow, and very tapered out
> towards the end. Plus the top of the boat is a dead flat run. I
> wonder whether it is really necesarry to have an assist in raising
> the spar. and what is lost in adding that mass to the spar low
> down. I can't see it being all that big a problem except perhaps
> butchers a neater solution. I would build the spar as designedthen
> find some similar piece of terrain like a lawn and a window well,or
> ditch, and see how she went up.A good suggestion to model it in the real. It has always seemed to me
>
that the mast partner slot is enough forward of the cockpit to make
it difficult to erect and strike. It seems it would be easier to lay
the mast on the cabin top, then crawl to the forward hatch and
leaning aft erect it from there - maybe using a foot below to force
the mast heel to the step. Could be simple enough in low wind, on
flat water. Wear head protection for the dash. This looks like it may
need a fair bit of brute strength too, especially compared to walking
the mast upright - but Anhinga's cabin top is not meant for walking
on. I mean that's how it's looked to me - Micro's 3/8ths" cabin top
can be walked upon without damage, that's a fact, but I doubt it for
Anhinga where it, more than any other panel, should likely be 1/4". --
Extra deck beams?
Graeme
I
any design nobody actually wants to build, but likes to talk about.
There are such designs, and they really ought to be downloadable from
ITunes, or some similar, method of getting some value back to the
designer when the value really isn't in the physical item itself.
boat is very light so where the weight is centered when the boat is
actually used is going to be anyone's guess.
though whether it was really required. The mast is a special
design,assymetric structure, square ,hollow, and very tapered out
towards the end. Plus the top of the boat is a dead flat run. I
wonder whether it is really necesarry to have an assist in raising
the spar. and what is lost in adding that mass to the spar low
down. I can't see it being all that big a problem except perhaps it
butchers a neater solution. I would build the spar as designed then
find some similar piece of terrain like a lawn and a window well, or
ditch, and see how she went up.
> > would build one in a minute if I didn't have other projects onthe
> > burner.That is the generic response and basically the response attached to
any design nobody actually wants to build, but likes to talk about.
There are such designs, and they really ought to be downloadable from
ITunes, or some similar, method of getting some value back to the
designer when the value really isn't in the physical item itself.
>or
> Hi Jim,
>
> I'm torn. I, like you, am immensely attracted to the concept and
> design, yet I balk at the US$200 plan cost - for a boat with issues.
>
> I really should brush up on all the scaling math and build a two,
> four foot one for capsise testing in the bath, and for tow testingThat would be a difficult because there are so many unknowns. The
> along a pool side...
boat is very light so where the weight is centered when the boat is
actually used is going to be anyone's guess.
>As built Sandy Bottoms had a tabernacle. I did wonder a little
> I might mount the designed mast on a tabernacle too - easy to raise
> and strike, no interior mast drip, and the aero drag from the
> tabernacle stub when trailering would be hardly noticeable...
though whether it was really required. The mast is a special
design,assymetric structure, square ,hollow, and very tapered out
towards the end. Plus the top of the boat is a dead flat run. I
wonder whether it is really necesarry to have an assist in raising
the spar. and what is lost in adding that mass to the spar low
down. I can't see it being all that big a problem except perhaps it
butchers a neater solution. I would build the spar as designed then
find some similar piece of terrain like a lawn and a window well, or
ditch, and see how she went up.
I think Bruce mentioned something about electric power and usuing
battery weight for ballast. Karl Stambaugh of Chesapeake Marine Design
has a catbird 24ft sharpie with an electric trolling motor moulded into
the rudder. He brought it across the Bay to St Michaels and said he got
about 5knts. Much longer and heavier than my Lily, but Lily was designed
to go 8 hrs at top speed(4 knts) with 6 D27 batteries, and a lot longer
when you kick the speed down.
Clyde
graeme19121984 wrote:
battery weight for ballast. Karl Stambaugh of Chesapeake Marine Design
has a catbird 24ft sharpie with an electric trolling motor moulded into
the rudder. He brought it across the Bay to St Michaels and said he got
about 5knts. Much longer and heavier than my Lily, but Lily was designed
to go 8 hrs at top speed(4 knts) with 6 D27 batteries, and a lot longer
when you kick the speed down.
Clyde
graeme19121984 wrote:
> Did PCB ever place an outboard motor on the rudder for any design[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> other than the Economy Seagoing Cruiser?
>
> How would such a mounting actually perform?
>
> With Anhinga in mind, here's some weights:
> Two-strokes
> Marine/Mercury 3.3 weighs 14kg
> Tohatsu 2.5hp " 12.5 kgs (27.6 lbs)
> Tohatsu M9.8B " 27kg
> Tohatsu M18E2 " 37kg
>
> Four-strokes
> Suziki DF2.5 weighs 13kgDepends on how fast you need to go
> Yamaha F2.5A " 17.5kg
> Honda BF2D " 14kg
>
> Soooo-o... not much... ...but?
>
>http://www.boatpoint.com.au/boat-review/1953334.aspx
> <http://www.boatpoint.com.au/boat-review/1953334.aspx>
>
> Compare many in lbs athttp://www.outboardmotor.net/
> <http://www.outboardmotor.net/>
>
> Graeme
>
>
For a settee that looks like what's being discussed, Google "cheap
pages american proas"
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pages american proas"
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Did PCB ever place an outboard motor on the rudder for any design
other than the Economy Seagoing Cruiser?
How would such a mounting actually perform?
With Anhinga in mind, here's some weights:
Two-strokes
Marine/Mercury 3.3 weighs 14kg
Tohatsu 2.5hp " 12.5 kgs (27.6 lbs)
Tohatsu M9.8B " 27kg
Tohatsu M18E2 " 37kg
Four-strokes
Suziki DF2.5 weighs 13kg
Yamaha F2.5A " 17.5kg
Honda BF2D " 14kg
Soooo-o... not much... ...but?
http://www.boatpoint.com.au/boat-review/1953334.aspx
Compare many in lbs athttp://www.outboardmotor.net/
Graeme
other than the Economy Seagoing Cruiser?
How would such a mounting actually perform?
With Anhinga in mind, here's some weights:
Two-strokes
Marine/Mercury 3.3 weighs 14kg
Tohatsu 2.5hp " 12.5 kgs (27.6 lbs)
Tohatsu M9.8B " 27kg
Tohatsu M18E2 " 37kg
Four-strokes
Suziki DF2.5 weighs 13kg
Yamaha F2.5A " 17.5kg
Honda BF2D " 14kg
Soooo-o... not much... ...but?
http://www.boatpoint.com.au/boat-review/1953334.aspx
Compare many in lbs athttp://www.outboardmotor.net/
Graeme
Hi Mark,
I don't think it nesessarily gets the fully hoisted sail CE lower
down in some shapes, in fact it may be higher. However, the
rectangular area below the "lateen" triangle can be progressively
reefed as the yard is lowered anyway, and then there's the angled
reefing of the triangular top bit to lower the yard even more. I
think whatever is the lowest front point of the sail is the tack, or
reef tack, and the corner at the yard is the heel [to which are
attached the heel guy(s) for that end of the yard], but I suppose the
terms for a lugsail, or fore'naft squaresail, would do too -
"peak", "throat", & etc.
It can be more like the shape of a relatively quite long, but low,
dipping lugsail - not as attractive a profile shape as the more
lateen (IMHO)- but with some of the clean luff windward performance
of the dipper, a lower CE, and the noticeable lifting effect which
ought mitigate some heeling in Anhinga. The downside (apart from
looks) for this low trapezoid(?) profile is that it may require a
degree of extra shaping than just a flat cut with edge curvature as
for the high peaked lateen kinds.
Graeme
I don't think it nesessarily gets the fully hoisted sail CE lower
down in some shapes, in fact it may be higher. However, the
rectangular area below the "lateen" triangle can be progressively
reefed as the yard is lowered anyway, and then there's the angled
reefing of the triangular top bit to lower the yard even more. I
think whatever is the lowest front point of the sail is the tack, or
reef tack, and the corner at the yard is the heel [to which are
attached the heel guy(s) for that end of the yard], but I suppose the
terms for a lugsail, or fore'naft squaresail, would do too -
"peak", "throat", & etc.
It can be more like the shape of a relatively quite long, but low,
dipping lugsail - not as attractive a profile shape as the more
lateen (IMHO)- but with some of the clean luff windward performance
of the dipper, a lower CE, and the noticeable lifting effect which
ought mitigate some heeling in Anhinga. The downside (apart from
looks) for this low trapezoid(?) profile is that it may require a
degree of extra shaping than just a flat cut with edge curvature as
for the high peaked lateen kinds.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
>
> Graeme,
>
> I don't find a line drawing of the settee to scale the way I did
the
> others. Good idea, though. The way they are cut without the point
at
> the front (still call that the tack?) probablly gets the CE down
> lower than the standard lateen, which won't hurt Angie a bit, will
it?
>
> x
> x x
> x x
> x x
> x x
> x x
> x x
> x x
Graeme,
I don't find a line drawing of the settee to scale the way I did the
others. Good idea, though. The way they are cut without the point at
the front (still call that the tack?) probablly gets the CE down
lower than the standard lateen, which won't hurt Angie a bit, will it?
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Mark
I don't find a line drawing of the settee to scale the way I did the
others. Good idea, though. The way they are cut without the point at
the front (still call that the tack?) probablly gets the CE down
lower than the standard lateen, which won't hurt Angie a bit, will it?
x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Mark
On Mar 12, 2008, at 6:16 AM, graeme19121984 wrote:
> Mark, I think both of those rigs look good. How about a settee rig?
> Folkhard extolls its virtues for small, light, and relatively narrow
> boats - not for seagoing though. Harvey says when the spar is
> appropriately guyed, as for the lateen, the settee combines the best
> of the lateen and dipping lug, without the dipping...
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>Mississippi.
> This beach cruising/canoe yawl style cruising is both fascinating
> and frustrating. I built a Wisp 20+ years ago and have used her
> extensively in the Apostle Islands and 250 miles on the
> The mast up and down is always a pattern/problem though in Wisp itI appreciate the comments, and I think this is a valid criticism of
> is pretty easy to the mast down. I row most of the time with the
> mast up (usually for no wind) as it keeps it out of the boat - but
> there have been times when I've had to row hard staight into a
> heavy blow
the design. I've owned a Dovekie and rowing into the wind with the
mast up is a backbreaker. Rowing upwind with the mast up in a
confined anchorage---forget it. As soon as you run out of space to
wield those oars, you're going to crash.
Anhinga's shorter oars offer some advantage here--and not just on
width. The quicker strokes of the short oars will help you claw
away from a leeside obstacle, whereas Dovekie's 9'6" oars feel
ponderous sometimes. All the same, just based on the two or three
launch spots I use all the time, there will arise circumstances of
wind direction and strength that would leave you stranded at the
ramp. I had to warp the Dovekie out from the dock with a dinghy
once. A way to get the mast down quickly is critical if you really
expect to move a 23-foot boat under oars.
Likewise, my top 10 anchorages in the upper Chesapeake usually have
lee shores. My engineless Folkboat has a mysterious ability to
start sailing to windward from a dead stop, doubtless because of the
lift of its full keel, which starts generating lift at 0.5 knots.
Anhinga will blow away to leeward like a leaf while you try to get
the flow attached to the high-aspect fin. Here's where Anhinga's
peculiar hull might be an advantage: if rain wasn't blowing down
the companionway, I'd be inclined to anchor by the stern, to inhibit
bow-slapping noise, to make it easy to set and retrieve the anchor
from the cockpit, and to easily sail the boat away from the anchor.
Eyeballing the plans, I think you could figure out a clean deck-slot
scheme for dousing the mast. (I don't think the hull can bear the
weight of a tabernacle.) Or, there might be enough beam to stay a
deck-stepped mast as on Dovekie. A stayed mast could be lighter,
which would make the boat less tippy.
Here we go, redesigning the boat! Hard to resist the impulse...
I failed to write what I was thinking when I wrote "maximum beam
further aft". What I had in mind was making the hull an asymmetric
double ender with more full waterlines aft and maximum beam still
amidships. Eek and the ocean going cruiser concept were drawn
symmetrical. Yes, the stern will float higher, unless there is a
crowd in the cockpit. I think one just increases the rocker forward
until the stem is clear. You might have to adjust the sheer line to
make it look right with a normally distributed load.
Then again, the whole point, looking back in "30-Odd Boats", is to
make a sharpie hull capable of carrying more ballast on a given
midsection. The fuller section aft needs more ballast to float with
the run level, so add more ballast. Form stability increases and the
righting moment from the ballast increases.
I think the master has said that one can better tolerate poor hull
form aft than forward. If the aft hull deviates from SOP theory, so
be it. Keep the forward half of the hull as drawn.
Doug
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
further aft". What I had in mind was making the hull an asymmetric
double ender with more full waterlines aft and maximum beam still
amidships. Eek and the ocean going cruiser concept were drawn
symmetrical. Yes, the stern will float higher, unless there is a
crowd in the cockpit. I think one just increases the rocker forward
until the stem is clear. You might have to adjust the sheer line to
make it look right with a normally distributed load.
Then again, the whole point, looking back in "30-Odd Boats", is to
make a sharpie hull capable of carrying more ballast on a given
midsection. The fuller section aft needs more ballast to float with
the run level, so add more ballast. Form stability increases and the
righting moment from the ballast increases.
I think the master has said that one can better tolerate poor hull
form aft than forward. If the aft hull deviates from SOP theory, so
be it. Keep the forward half of the hull as drawn.
Doug
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@> wrote:
> > I wonder if the design could be improved, without losing the
> > simplicity, by carrying the maximum beam further aft.
>
> A great idea! The Centennial II for one has this plan view shape (and
> so too Teal). In relative terms would that be enough?
>
> More floor area aft would mean the ballast tank could be of less
> depth - and so help lower the cog a bit by its own lower cog, but
> also the crew would sit that little bit lower too. There may be a
> problem: if you move the widest beam aft, then the centre of bouyancy
> of the hull will also move aft (the cob like the fulcrum of a balance
> beam balancing mass times distance), then more ballast may be
> required to sink the stern to level trim (the lighter bow having
> distance if not mass), then having done that it may be found that the
> ballasted hull cob has moved forward again. Not much may have been
> gained other than increased draft. This would grant some extra
> reserve stability, but less initial.
>
> One issue though: in the forward half of Anhinga the sections conform
> to Bolger's flow theory - if the maximum beam were further aft could
> the curves satisfy it?
>
> Graeme
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@> wrote:
> > I wonder if the design could be improved, without losing the
> > simplicity, by carrying the maximum beam further aft. (I think this
> > is called Swede form.) Make it as full aft as one can and still
> bend
> > the hull sides to the stern post. This puts more heeled buoyancy
> aft
> > where the weight is. It would also make the cockpit a bit more
> > livable.
> >
> > As the fuller stern heeled down, it would pick up buoyancy earlier
> > compared to the original, forcing the bow down to where the forward
> > part of the hull can contribute some righting moment. The higher
> the
> > stern floats, the better the chance of keeping the cockpit coaming
> out
> > of the waves.
> >
> > I have no feel for whether this mod could be made extreme enough to
> > substantially improve the safety of the design. There seems so much
> > interest in this simple hull though, that it might be a rewarding
> > exercise for someone who is a whiz with the hull design software.
> >
> > Doug
> >
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@...> wrote:
so too Teal). In relative terms would that be enough?
More floor area aft would mean the ballast tank could be of less
depth - and so help lower the cog a bit by its own lower cog, but
also the crew would sit that little bit lower too. There may be a
problem: if you move the widest beam aft, then the centre of bouyancy
of the hull will also move aft (the cob like the fulcrum of a balance
beam balancing mass times distance), then more ballast may be
required to sink the stern to level trim (the lighter bow having
distance if not mass), then having done that it may be found that the
ballasted hull cob has moved forward again. Not much may have been
gained other than increased draft. This would grant some extra
reserve stability, but less initial.
One issue though: in the forward half of Anhinga the sections conform
to Bolger's flow theory - if the maximum beam were further aft could
the curves satisfy it?
Graeme
> I wonder if the design could be improved, without losing theA great idea! The Centennial II for one has this plan view shape (and
> simplicity, by carrying the maximum beam further aft.
so too Teal). In relative terms would that be enough?
More floor area aft would mean the ballast tank could be of less
depth - and so help lower the cog a bit by its own lower cog, but
also the crew would sit that little bit lower too. There may be a
problem: if you move the widest beam aft, then the centre of bouyancy
of the hull will also move aft (the cob like the fulcrum of a balance
beam balancing mass times distance), then more ballast may be
required to sink the stern to level trim (the lighter bow having
distance if not mass), then having done that it may be found that the
ballasted hull cob has moved forward again. Not much may have been
gained other than increased draft. This would grant some extra
reserve stability, but less initial.
One issue though: in the forward half of Anhinga the sections conform
to Bolger's flow theory - if the maximum beam were further aft could
the curves satisfy it?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@...> wrote:
> I wonder if the design could be improved, without losing the
> simplicity, by carrying the maximum beam further aft. (I think this
> is called Swede form.) Make it as full aft as one can and still
bend
> the hull sides to the stern post. This puts more heeled buoyancy
aft
> where the weight is. It would also make the cockpit a bit more
> livable.
>
> As the fuller stern heeled down, it would pick up buoyancy earlier
> compared to the original, forcing the bow down to where the forward
> part of the hull can contribute some righting moment. The higher
the
> stern floats, the better the chance of keeping the cockpit coaming
out
> of the waves.
>
> I have no feel for whether this mod could be made extreme enough to
> substantially improve the safety of the design. There seems so much
> interest in this simple hull though, that it might be a rewarding
> exercise for someone who is a whiz with the hull design software.
>
> Doug
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "james caldwell" <jcaldwell29@...>
wrote:
I'm torn. I, like you, am immensely attracted to the concept and
design, yet I balk at the US$200 plan cost - for a boat with issues.
I really should brush up on all the scaling math and build a two, or
four foot one for capsise testing in the bath, and for tow testing
along a pool side...
I might mount the designed mast on a tabernacle too - easy to raise
and strike, no interior mast drip, and the aero drag from the
tabernacle stub when trailering would be hardly noticeable...
I don't think it's been mentioned how well Anhinga will trailer. PCB
mentions the benefits of the Birdwatcher design for trailering -
relatively light weight, low drag at highway speeds, camping by the
wayside etc - well, Anhinga should share in these, and due to the
bottom profile be much easier to launch and retrieve while empty of
ballast.
Graeme
wrote:
> but I agree with the Anhinga concept and (righting ballastHi Jim,
> asymetries aside) think the design is pure Bolger inspiration and I
> would build one in a minute if I didn't have other projects on the
> burner.
I'm torn. I, like you, am immensely attracted to the concept and
design, yet I balk at the US$200 plan cost - for a boat with issues.
I really should brush up on all the scaling math and build a two, or
four foot one for capsise testing in the bath, and for tow testing
along a pool side...
I might mount the designed mast on a tabernacle too - easy to raise
and strike, no interior mast drip, and the aero drag from the
tabernacle stub when trailering would be hardly noticeable...
I don't think it's been mentioned how well Anhinga will trailer. PCB
mentions the benefits of the Birdwatcher design for trailering -
relatively light weight, low drag at highway speeds, camping by the
wayside etc - well, Anhinga should share in these, and due to the
bottom profile be much easier to launch and retrieve while empty of
ballast.
Graeme
>of
> This beach cruising/canoe yawl style cruising is both fascinating
> and frustrating. I built a Wisp 20+ years ago and have used her
> extensively in the Apostle Islands and 250 miles on the Mississippi.
> The mast up and down is always a pattern/problem though in Wisp it
> is pretty easy to the mast down. I row most of the time with the
> mast up (usually for no wind) as it keeps it out of the boat - but
> there have been times when I've had to row hard staight into a
> heavy blow (luckily no too far) and the mast was down. So being able
> to get the mast up and down fairly easily is important but does not
> drive the decision to use a boat as a canoe yawl style cruiser).
> Ultimately I built a Wish II (with a tabernacle for the mainmast)
> and put an outboard in her (as previously described) as we got sick
> rowing really long runs and looking though the mud for camping spotsthe
> (though we did sleep in the cockpit end on some) but I agree with
> Anhinga concept and (righting ballast asymetries aside) think thebecause
> design is pure Bolger inspiration and I would build one in a minute
> if I didn't have other projects on the burner.
>
> Jim
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "clcboats" <jazzyachts@> wrote:
> >
> > > I have a suspicion that Bolger hasn't promoted the design
> > > nobody will build it the way he designed it, or means to use itthe
> > > way he intended it to be used.
Mark, I think both of those rigs look good. How about a settee rig?
Folkhard extolls its virtues for small, light, and relatively narrow
boats - not for seagoing though. Harvey says when the spar is
appropriately guyed, as for the lateen, the settee combines the best
of the lateen and dipping lug, without the dipping...
Graeme
Folkhard extolls its virtues for small, light, and relatively narrow
boats - not for seagoing though. Harvey says when the spar is
appropriately guyed, as for the lateen, the settee combines the best
of the lateen and dipping lug, without the dipping...
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> sorry. The lug rig is at
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/
> > sailplan3.gif
>
>
> Couldn't resist this 160 ft. lateen too. Said to be one of the
> easiest rigs to handle and to work pretty well cut flat.
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Sailplan4.g
if
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...>
wrote:
I wonder if you're agreeable to cc that material to others? I could
Paypal you the cost for copying etc, & p&h to the other side of the
planet. I didn't know there were other pictures of Anhinga sailing...
Graeme
wrote:
> I will see if I can do anything with that, or email me your address >and I will send you copies of the MAIB article and the rig, if I
> can get that on a photocopier.Thomas,
I wonder if you're agreeable to cc that material to others? I could
Paypal you the cost for copying etc, & p&h to the other side of the
planet. I didn't know there were other pictures of Anhinga sailing...
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
weigh in. The pictures show the boat very high in the water. About as
much bottom paint showing and bootstrap. Still I seem to be able to
weigh the rest of my life down just fine: maybe a hot tub, a wood
stove...
various cameras. I will see if I can do anything with that, or email
me your address and I will send you copies of the MAIB article and the
rig, if I can get that on a photocopier.
>That is where the problems with the tall sides and narrow cockpit may
>
> >
> > The pictures of Sandy Bottoms show her high but level with several
> > people aboard and sail up.
> >
>
> The hull has 7" draft at 2400 pounds displacement. I always thought
> part of the beauty was that it could be built at 400 - 600 pounds
> dead weight. With ballast, that leaves room for a gang of 6 or 8 for
> an afternoon.
weigh in. The pictures show the boat very high in the water. About as
much bottom paint showing and bootstrap. Still I seem to be able to
weigh the rest of my life down just fine: maybe a hot tub, a wood
stove...
>I should be able to arrange that. I don't have a scanner, I do have
> Would love to see those pictures and the master's balanced lug rig,
> Thomas. . .
various cameras. I will see if I can do anything with that, or email
me your address and I will send you copies of the MAIB article and the
rig, if I can get that on a photocopier.
> Mark
>
sorry. The lug rig is at
easiest rigs to handle and to work pretty well cut flat.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Sailplan4.gif
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Couldn't resist this 160 ft. lateen too. Said to be one of the
> sailplan3.gif
easiest rigs to handle and to work pretty well cut flat.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Sailplan4.gif
>The hull has 7" draft at 2400 pounds displacement. I always thought
> The pictures of Sandy Bottoms show her high but level with several
> people aboard and sail up.
>
part of the beauty was that it could be built at 400 - 600 pounds
dead weight. With ballast, that leaves room for a gang of 6 or 8 for
an afternoon.
Would love to see those pictures and the master's balanced lug rig,
Thomas. . .
Mark
On Mar 5, 2008, at 8:25 PM, c o'donnell wrote:
152 sq. ft.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/sailplan3
>Hah! This lets us get the balanced lug to a much more normal looking
> Tom Colvin says forget the balance portion of a lugsail when
> calculating COE and mast position.
152 sq. ft.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/sailplan3
There seems so much
blizzard of numbers for every design, but a good designer will know
where he going in his mind before he gets the numbers.
The pictures of Sandy Bottoms show her high but level with several
people aboard and sail up.
> interest in this simple hull though, that it might be a rewardingDon't be too impressed with hull design sofware, granted it creates a
> exercise for someone who is a whiz with the hull design software.
>
> Doug
>
blizzard of numbers for every design, but a good designer will know
where he going in his mind before he gets the numbers.
The pictures of Sandy Bottoms show her high but level with several
people aboard and sail up.
> I totally, fully , and whole-heartedly agree with those who sayI agree it's a nice looking boat. Which is slightly odd given it is
> Anhinga is really something. I concur with Bolger that she is
> attractive. "Aesthetically pleasing", I wrote him. A view he shared,
> but with other caveats. Gawd, I think it must be one of Bolger's
> greatest artistic triumphs of style. He and muse were in the groove
> with this ESC series. Look at his profile drawing! It's living,
> breathing animal; yet contrarily just regular rectangular. Heart
> beats in plywood sheets. Shapeshifting; still life. Up there with the
> Gull (that impeccable hull shape of but eight iterations).
>
> Graeme
>
virtually square in two views and has a 2 dimensional shear line...
Having lived with it in my back yard, half size, for quite a while, I
think it possible photos better than it really looks. I have two
canoes and a ply catamaran in the same yard; the Anhinga lines will
not draw your eye away from any of these. Of course the half size boat
doesn't have much presence, but then neither does A in some of the MAIB
photos. I'm a sucker for a double ender regardless. There is a
difference between being willing to build one dang the cost, and
loosing control of one's analysis.
William Garden followed this approach in his Tillie Howard design, a
46' x 8' daysailer ketch sharpie with 555 sq.ft. of sail area and
3,600 lb (just under half the displacement)on the bottom of a lifting
daggerboard.
He said that all sharpies needed external ballast to provide sail-
carrying power. The traditional ones either lacked sail-carrying power
when light, or were sluggish under sail when ballasted with rock or
oysters.
I think Bolger has to an extent disproved this view with his
successful early designs like Pointer and Blackgaunt, but only by
putting a lot of steel or lead ballast on the bottom. Smaller ones
like the Folding Schooner rely on live ballast.
Howard
46' x 8' daysailer ketch sharpie with 555 sq.ft. of sail area and
3,600 lb (just under half the displacement)on the bottom of a lifting
daggerboard.
He said that all sharpies needed external ballast to provide sail-
carrying power. The traditional ones either lacked sail-carrying power
when light, or were sluggish under sail when ballasted with rock or
oysters.
I think Bolger has to an extent disproved this view with his
successful early designs like Pointer and Blackgaunt, but only by
putting a lot of steel or lead ballast on the bottom. Smaller ones
like the Folding Schooner rely on live ballast.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> > A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.
>
> Running numbers, it would take 125 lbs on the tip of the dagger board
> to double the righting moment. Based on the concerns about the
> Centennial II ballasted dagger boards, I am not sure this is an ideal
> fix. but it could help.
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
simplicity, by carrying the maximum beam further aft. (I think this
is called Swede form.) Make it as full aft as one can and still bend
the hull sides to the stern post. This puts more heeled buoyancy aft
where the weight is. It would also make the cockpit a bit more
livable.
As the fuller stern heeled down, it would pick up buoyancy earlier
compared to the original, forcing the bow down to where the forward
part of the hull can contribute some righting moment. The higher the
stern floats, the better the chance of keeping the cockpit coaming out
of the waves.
I have no feel for whether this mod could be made extreme enough to
substantially improve the safety of the design. There seems so much
interest in this simple hull though, that it might be a rewarding
exercise for someone who is a whiz with the hull design software.
Doug
wrote:
>I wonder if the design could be improved, without losing the
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <howardstephenson@> wrote:
> You will see that, due to the narrowing stern,
> there is now no aft immersed volume to support the above heeled
> waterline water-ballast in that attitude; so the aft must naturally
> sink under the weight of the elevated water-ballast, and the boat
> assume other than level trim, rocking back on its side and lifting
> the bow. Are there issues now to be dealt with in that attitude, and
> will it even remain in that attitude?
>
simplicity, by carrying the maximum beam further aft. (I think this
is called Swede form.) Make it as full aft as one can and still bend
the hull sides to the stern post. This puts more heeled buoyancy aft
where the weight is. It would also make the cockpit a bit more
livable.
As the fuller stern heeled down, it would pick up buoyancy earlier
compared to the original, forcing the bow down to where the forward
part of the hull can contribute some righting moment. The higher the
stern floats, the better the chance of keeping the cockpit coaming out
of the waves.
I have no feel for whether this mod could be made extreme enough to
substantially improve the safety of the design. There seems so much
interest in this simple hull though, that it might be a rewarding
exercise for someone who is a whiz with the hull design software.
Doug
This beach cruising/canoe yawl style cruising is both fascinating
and frustrating. I built a Wisp 20+ years ago and have used her
extensively in the Apostle Islands and 250 miles on the Mississippi.
The mast up and down is always a pattern/problem though in Wisp it
is pretty easy to the mast down. I row most of the time with the
mast up (usually for no wind) as it keeps it out of the boat - but
there have been times when I've had to row hard staight into a
heavy blow (luckily no too far) and the mast was down. So being able
to get the mast up and down fairly easily is important but does not
drive the decision to use a boat as a canoe yawl style cruiser).
Ultimately I built a Wish II (with a tabernacle for the mainmast)
and put an outboard in her (as previously described) as we got sick of
rowing really long runs and looking though the mud for camping spots
(though we did sleep in the cockpit end on some) but I agree with the
Anhinga concept and (righting ballast asymetries aside) think the
design is pure Bolger inspiration and I would build one in a minute
if I didn't have other projects on the burner.
Jim
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
and frustrating. I built a Wisp 20+ years ago and have used her
extensively in the Apostle Islands and 250 miles on the Mississippi.
The mast up and down is always a pattern/problem though in Wisp it
is pretty easy to the mast down. I row most of the time with the
mast up (usually for no wind) as it keeps it out of the boat - but
there have been times when I've had to row hard staight into a
heavy blow (luckily no too far) and the mast was down. So being able
to get the mast up and down fairly easily is important but does not
drive the decision to use a boat as a canoe yawl style cruiser).
Ultimately I built a Wish II (with a tabernacle for the mainmast)
and put an outboard in her (as previously described) as we got sick of
rowing really long runs and looking though the mud for camping spots
(though we did sleep in the cockpit end on some) but I agree with the
Anhinga concept and (righting ballast asymetries aside) think the
design is pure Bolger inspiration and I would build one in a minute
if I didn't have other projects on the burner.
Jim
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "clcboats" <jazzyachts@> wrote:
>
> > I have a suspicion that Bolger hasn't promoted the design because
> > nobody will build it the way he designed it, or means to use it the
> > way he intended it to be used. Anhinga is one of those completel-
> > realized designs for which, if tinkered with, the elegance is lost
> > but the boxy gawkiness remains.
>
> Bolger said that the design was technically obsolete. I think for
> several reasons, but largely made so by the Birdwatcher design. This
> may be why he hasn't promoted it.
>
> Bolger mentions the "contortions" required to reduce or strike the l-
> o-m sprit boom sail in Dovekie. In Anhinga he didn't even bother to
> solve this, simply opting to lower the sail to the deck, and leaving
> the mast all standing when rowing, which wouldn't be the best in any
> wind. A big benefit of the Birdwatcher breakthrough slot top is the
> ease of sail and mast handling. Now, given that the design is for
> light work, and in semi-protected estuaries at worst, then wouldn't a
> slot top to the Anhinga cabin add to the gentleman cruiser's comfort?
>
> Graeme
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "clcboats" <jazzyachts@...> wrote:
several reasons, but largely made so by the Birdwatcher design. This
may be why he hasn't promoted it.
Bolger mentions the "contortions" required to reduce or strike the l-
o-m sprit boom sail in Dovekie. In Anhinga he didn't even bother to
solve this, simply opting to lower the sail to the deck, and leaving
the mast all standing when rowing, which wouldn't be the best in any
wind. A big benefit of the Birdwatcher breakthrough slot top is the
ease of sail and mast handling. Now, given that the design is for
light work, and in semi-protected estuaries at worst, then wouldn't a
slot top to the Anhinga cabin add to the gentleman cruiser's comfort?
Graeme
> I have a suspicion that Bolger hasn't promoted the design becauseBolger said that the design was technically obsolete. I think for
> nobody will build it the way he designed it, or means to use it the
> way he intended it to be used. Anhinga is one of those completel-
> realized designs for which, if tinkered with, the elegance is lost
> but the boxy gawkiness remains.
several reasons, but largely made so by the Birdwatcher design. This
may be why he hasn't promoted it.
Bolger mentions the "contortions" required to reduce or strike the l-
o-m sprit boom sail in Dovekie. In Anhinga he didn't even bother to
solve this, simply opting to lower the sail to the deck, and leaving
the mast all standing when rowing, which wouldn't be the best in any
wind. A big benefit of the Birdwatcher breakthrough slot top is the
ease of sail and mast handling. Now, given that the design is for
light work, and in semi-protected estuaries at worst, then wouldn't a
slot top to the Anhinga cabin add to the gentleman cruiser's comfort?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
starboard daggerboards? A plumb verticle hoist, and executed from
within waist high cockpit sides for bracing against too.
This would be nothing like the gut popping and ergonomic problems of
Centenial II. On Centenniall II the ballast to be man-handled was
110lbs each side IIRC? Worse, the boards were canted way out from the
low cockpit sides - bad enough for back trouble in still water, how
much more difficult then in waves?
Definately it could help, and it would hardly be seen!
Graeme
>So on Anhinga that would be only an estimated 62lbs each for port and
> > A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.
>
> Running numbers, it would take 125 lbs on the tip of the dagger
> board to double the righting moment. Based on the concerns about
> the Centennial II ballasted dagger boards, I am not sure this is an
> ideal fix. but it could help.
>
starboard daggerboards? A plumb verticle hoist, and executed from
within waist high cockpit sides for bracing against too.
This would be nothing like the gut popping and ergonomic problems of
Centenial II. On Centenniall II the ballast to be man-handled was
110lbs each side IIRC? Worse, the boards were canted way out from the
low cockpit sides - bad enough for back trouble in still water, how
much more difficult then in waves?
Definately it could help, and it would hardly be seen!
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<howardstephenson@...> wrote:
more ordinary weight configured handling. Bolger tells us at many
places (easy references to find are Canard, and His & Hers Schooners
in BWAOM) that this generic kind of stern shape isn't too bad and can
be trimmed down quite a bit at the stern without detracting from
performance. (OTOH it is this similar bow shape that causes him great
concern, but in Anhinga he has that remedied per his flow theory.) A
similar pointy stern performed well at good speed on Tarantula, &
etc. So it's not ordinarily too bad for handling; acceptable
steering, drag, etc.
The problem is the extraordinary weight configuration in conjunction
with the plan and profile shape, and water-ballast. Consider the two
static situations of the boat upright, and on beam ends. First,
consider the upright profile shape in level trim, its proper
attitude: there is all that volume above the deepish flat aft bottom
to support the aft water ballast. Then consider the plan view shape
as, keeping the boat level fore and aft, you heel the boat onto its
beam ends after having noted the upright hull centre of bouyancy
located more or less centrally at the cabin aft bulkhead 'D' on the
panel layout drawing. You will see that, due to the narrowing stern,
there is now no aft immersed volume to support the above heeled
waterline water-ballast in that attitude; so the aft must naturally
sink under the weight of the elevated water-ballast, and the boat
assume other than level trim, rocking back on its side and lifting
the bow. Are there issues now to be dealt with in that attitude, and
will it even remain in that attitude?
As heeling progresses from upright to beam ends, so to the "rocking
back". And so to then do Anhinga's feet come closer together; this
exacerbates heeling. Not exactly what is wanted at this juncture!
This happens because the centre of bouyancy shifts aft naturally as
the stern sinks, and therefore though the bouyant righting force
remains the same, all else being equal, the righting arm diminishes
more rapidly as the heeling progresses due to the narrowing stern
sections - perhaps equilibrium is attained before inundation... All
else, however, in reality is unlikely to remain equal though, as
scrambling crew weight moves to the wrong side, cabin gear shifts,
waves rock the boat, and intensifying gusts may increase heeling
force, & etc.
Water entry through the aft vents, or the aft compartment hatch means
big flooded cabin trouble. I think I'd have truly water tight hatches
closed at the aft end of the cockpit seat ventilation ducts when
sailing, at the least. However this may not prevent capsise, for in
the "rocked back" attitude we as likely will get the same problem as
in the original Martha Jane when heeled: a centre of bouyancy almost
in line with, or on the wrong side of the centre of gravity; that is,
a negative righting arm.
The Martha Jane was later fitted with high quarter flower boxes and a
heavy steel plate under her bottom; then a Navigator glass house to
really counter the problem. Bolger suggests internal flotation up
high in Anhinga - is that enough?
I'm not sure just the internal mod would make her self rescuing,
much less so about her self righting. She would never likely sink out
from under you anyway, so anything more than Bolger's suggested
internal flotation is not necessarily a life-saver in temperate
waters. Going no further than Bolger's suggestion, however, would
allow the saving of something else quite important - Looks.
I totally, fully , and whole-heartedly agree with those who say
Anhinga is really something. I concur with Bolger that she is
attractive. "Aesthetically pleasing", I wrote him. A view he shared,
but with other caveats. Gawd, I think it must be one of Bolger's
greatest artistic triumphs of style. He and muse were in the groove
with this ESC series. Look at his profile drawing! It's living,
breathing animal; yet contrarily just regular rectangular. Heart
beats in plywood sheets. Shapeshifting; still life. Up there with the
Gull (that impeccable hull shape of but eight iterations).
Graeme
<howardstephenson@...> wrote:
> Yes, but what I've been wondering about with Anhinga and Eeek isNo, I don't think it's that particularly. Not the steering, nor the
> that Bolger does not seem to have continued with this unusual hull
> shape, where the bottom aft of amidships does not rise, but just
> narrows to a kind of canoe stern. Is there some kind of inherent
> fault in the shape in the way it handles or steers or something? I
> dunno.
more ordinary weight configured handling. Bolger tells us at many
places (easy references to find are Canard, and His & Hers Schooners
in BWAOM) that this generic kind of stern shape isn't too bad and can
be trimmed down quite a bit at the stern without detracting from
performance. (OTOH it is this similar bow shape that causes him great
concern, but in Anhinga he has that remedied per his flow theory.) A
similar pointy stern performed well at good speed on Tarantula, &
etc. So it's not ordinarily too bad for handling; acceptable
steering, drag, etc.
The problem is the extraordinary weight configuration in conjunction
with the plan and profile shape, and water-ballast. Consider the two
static situations of the boat upright, and on beam ends. First,
consider the upright profile shape in level trim, its proper
attitude: there is all that volume above the deepish flat aft bottom
to support the aft water ballast. Then consider the plan view shape
as, keeping the boat level fore and aft, you heel the boat onto its
beam ends after having noted the upright hull centre of bouyancy
located more or less centrally at the cabin aft bulkhead 'D' on the
panel layout drawing. You will see that, due to the narrowing stern,
there is now no aft immersed volume to support the above heeled
waterline water-ballast in that attitude; so the aft must naturally
sink under the weight of the elevated water-ballast, and the boat
assume other than level trim, rocking back on its side and lifting
the bow. Are there issues now to be dealt with in that attitude, and
will it even remain in that attitude?
As heeling progresses from upright to beam ends, so to the "rocking
back". And so to then do Anhinga's feet come closer together; this
exacerbates heeling. Not exactly what is wanted at this juncture!
This happens because the centre of bouyancy shifts aft naturally as
the stern sinks, and therefore though the bouyant righting force
remains the same, all else being equal, the righting arm diminishes
more rapidly as the heeling progresses due to the narrowing stern
sections - perhaps equilibrium is attained before inundation... All
else, however, in reality is unlikely to remain equal though, as
scrambling crew weight moves to the wrong side, cabin gear shifts,
waves rock the boat, and intensifying gusts may increase heeling
force, & etc.
Water entry through the aft vents, or the aft compartment hatch means
big flooded cabin trouble. I think I'd have truly water tight hatches
closed at the aft end of the cockpit seat ventilation ducts when
sailing, at the least. However this may not prevent capsise, for in
the "rocked back" attitude we as likely will get the same problem as
in the original Martha Jane when heeled: a centre of bouyancy almost
in line with, or on the wrong side of the centre of gravity; that is,
a negative righting arm.
The Martha Jane was later fitted with high quarter flower boxes and a
heavy steel plate under her bottom; then a Navigator glass house to
really counter the problem. Bolger suggests internal flotation up
high in Anhinga - is that enough?
I'm not sure just the internal mod would make her self rescuing,
much less so about her self righting. She would never likely sink out
from under you anyway, so anything more than Bolger's suggested
internal flotation is not necessarily a life-saver in temperate
waters. Going no further than Bolger's suggestion, however, would
allow the saving of something else quite important - Looks.
I totally, fully , and whole-heartedly agree with those who say
Anhinga is really something. I concur with Bolger that she is
attractive. "Aesthetically pleasing", I wrote him. A view he shared,
but with other caveats. Gawd, I think it must be one of Bolger's
greatest artistic triumphs of style. He and muse were in the groove
with this ESC series. Look at his profile drawing! It's living,
breathing animal; yet contrarily just regular rectangular. Heart
beats in plywood sheets. Shapeshifting; still life. Up there with the
Gull (that impeccable hull shape of but eight iterations).
Graeme
One problem soloing a Birdwatcher type boat (and esp rowing) is how
far aft the one crewperson is. You want the weight more amidships.
far aft the one crewperson is. You want the weight more amidships.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 4:07 PM, proaconstrictor wrote:
> > I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable to
> > 'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to
> > lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!
> >
> As usual I'm too oblique. I think the concern is that from the seat
> the next assumable position is to step down on the lee rail.
>
> I do agree though with John that this might be a reasonable light
> boat. It would be interesting to see how well she rowed. The pictures
> of that look comfortable, and the construction is reasonably light.
> She doesn't carry an extravagent cloud of sail. Also my 1/2 scale
> model does not look too narrow. I think a good part of it would be
> whether one had the right sort of place to sail her. I doubt Lake
> Ontario, or Grand Lake NB where I play, would be right for her.
> Possibly the Saint John, NB river would serve.
>
> Another point would be whether this kind of thing shouldn't be started
> from something more proven like the Monroeish Egret. Smaller versions
> of that have worked.
>
>
>
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill"
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
heavier bottom ply, and moving on up to batteries for aux electric,
which would solve some motor hanging problems due to shaft length,
and so forth. More weight in the bottom is a natural fo this design.
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
>board
> That's about like SHS
>
> Bruce Hallman wrote:
> >> A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.
> >>
> >
> > Running numbers, it would take 125 lbs on the tip of the dagger
> > to double the righting moment. Based on the concerns about theideal
> > Centennial II ballasted dagger boards, I am not sure this is an
> > fix. but it could help.One thing that would be possible is some real ballast starting with
> >
> >
heavier bottom ply, and moving on up to batteries for aux electric,
which would solve some motor hanging problems due to shaft length,
and so forth. More weight in the bottom is a natural fo this design.
That's about like SHS
Bruce Hallman wrote:
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.
>>
>
> Running numbers, it would take 125 lbs on the tip of the dagger board
> to double the righting moment. Based on the concerns about the
> Centennial II ballasted dagger boards, I am not sure this is an ideal
> fix. but it could help.
>
>
>
> I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable toAs usual I'm too oblique. I think the concern is that from the seat
> 'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to
> lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!
>
the next assumable position is to step down on the lee rail.
I do agree though with John that this might be a reasonable light
boat. It would be interesting to see how well she rowed. The pictures
of that look comfortable, and the construction is reasonably light.
She doesn't carry an extravagent cloud of sail. Also my 1/2 scale
model does not look too narrow. I think a good part of it would be
whether one had the right sort of place to sail her. I doubt Lake
Ontario, or Grand Lake NB where I play, would be right for her.
Possibly the Saint John, NB river would serve.
Another point would be whether this kind of thing shouldn't be started
from something more proven like the Monroeish Egret. Smaller versions
of that have worked.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<howardstephenson@...> wrote:
built, I think that was in one of the threads a while back. When the
boat was originally designed in the mid 80s. the plans cost 25 bucks
so if they had really been of interest you would think the waterfront
would be papered with them. And yet I think it is up there as one of
his most beautiful designs in the rectilinear idiom. And it has a
lot of daydream believers.
On the question of dead branches, my feeling is it is past time to
trek back to some of those forks before the evolution got so
whacked. Before we discovered that not to much math was involved in
the enterprise. Back when boats like Dovekie and Black Skimmer were
scooting about. There are an ample number of boats that worked, and
maybe a few that are worth a second look. And then again some people
will make stuff that clearly wasn't all that great just to see how
bad it was. So as long as a builder is flexible about it, it's a no
loose.
<howardstephenson@...> wrote:
>before
> Interesting, but isn't this design pretty much a dead branch on the
> evolutionary tree as far as Bolger is concerned? There was Eeek
> it but nothing since, as far as I know.There are the three designs. Rumour has it the larger boat was
>
> Howard
built, I think that was in one of the threads a while back. When the
boat was originally designed in the mid 80s. the plans cost 25 bucks
so if they had really been of interest you would think the waterfront
would be papered with them. And yet I think it is up there as one of
his most beautiful designs in the rectilinear idiom. And it has a
lot of daydream believers.
On the question of dead branches, my feeling is it is past time to
trek back to some of those forks before the evolution got so
whacked. Before we discovered that not to much math was involved in
the enterprise. Back when boats like Dovekie and Black Skimmer were
scooting about. There are an ample number of boats that worked, and
maybe a few that are worth a second look. And then again some people
will make stuff that clearly wasn't all that great just to see how
bad it was. So as long as a builder is flexible about it, it's a no
loose.
It is possible to trail a sprit boom in the water without losing control,
done that many times in a brick. Granted the boom trailed to starboard a
lot sooner than to port.
BubbaP
To:bolger@yahoogroups.comFrom:wetherillc@...: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:42:04 -0500Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Anhinga Isometrics
I'll concede your point about the sprit boom. However, I think it is in general better to head up when feasible.I too think the big point with the "hiking" issue is the crew height above the keel. I suspect, however, that lowering is not simple. Going spread-eagle on the cockpit sole may still be too high. I suspect that the center of bouyancy resides somewhere in line with the chine. A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.Bruce Hallman wrote:> Anhinga has a sprit boom. It is hard to imagine the sprit boom hitting> the water that easy.>> I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable to> 'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to> lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!>>>>
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
done that many times in a brick. Granted the boom trailed to starboard a
lot sooner than to port.
BubbaP
To:bolger@yahoogroups.comFrom:wetherillc@...: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 13:42:04 -0500Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Anhinga Isometrics
I'll concede your point about the sprit boom. However, I think it is in general better to head up when feasible.I too think the big point with the "hiking" issue is the crew height above the keel. I suspect, however, that lowering is not simple. Going spread-eagle on the cockpit sole may still be too high. I suspect that the center of bouyancy resides somewhere in line with the chine. A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.Bruce Hallman wrote:> Anhinga has a sprit boom. It is hard to imagine the sprit boom hitting> the water that easy.>> I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable to> 'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to> lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!>>>>
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> A counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.Running numbers, it would take 125 lbs on the tip of the dagger board
to double the righting moment. Based on the concerns about the
Centennial II ballasted dagger boards, I am not sure this is an ideal
fix. but it could help.
I'll concede your point about the sprit boom. However, I think it is in
general better to head up when feasible.
I too think the big point with the "hiking" issue is the crew height
above the keel. I suspect, however, that lowering is not simple. Going
spread-eagle on the cockpit sole may still be too high. I suspect that
the center of bouyancy resides somewhere in line with the chine. A
counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.
Bruce Hallman wrote:
general better to head up when feasible.
I too think the big point with the "hiking" issue is the crew height
above the keel. I suspect, however, that lowering is not simple. Going
spread-eagle on the cockpit sole may still be too high. I suspect that
the center of bouyancy resides somewhere in line with the chine. A
counterweighted centerboard may be worth consideration.
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> Anhinga has a sprit boom. It is hard to imagine the sprit boom hitting
> the water that easy.
>
> I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable to
> 'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to
> lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!
>
>
>
>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Christopher C. Wetherill
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
the water that easy.
I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable to
'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to
lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!
<wetherillc@...> wrote:
> Is it possible that a significant factor is the tendency to ease theAnhinga has a sprit boom. It is hard to imagine the sprit boom hitting
> sheet as opposed to heading up? I can envision a situation where, on
> the cusp if a knockdown, the skipper lets go the sheet and the boom
> hits the water.
the water that easy.
I do see the point about the body weight of the crew being unable to
'hike out' in an Anhinga. The anti-knockdown 'drill' would be to
lower your bocy weight, and that is hardly instinctive!
All this talk about knockdown potential has me wondering about the
helmsman's part in the problem.
I have seen reference to the same tendencies in Windsprint and other
threads. Since Windsprint is more conventional in form, perhaps it's a
function of something other than hull shape.
Is it possible that a significant factor is the tendency to ease the
sheet as opposed to heading up? I can envision a situation where, on
the cusp if a knockdown, the skipper lets go the sheet and the boom
hits the water. This negates the slack sheet so the sail doesn't spill
its wind and it drags the boat off the wind. These two actions together
tend to increase the heel.
helmsman's part in the problem.
I have seen reference to the same tendencies in Windsprint and other
threads. Since Windsprint is more conventional in form, perhaps it's a
function of something other than hull shape.
Is it possible that a significant factor is the tendency to ease the
sheet as opposed to heading up? I can envision a situation where, on
the cusp if a knockdown, the skipper lets go the sheet and the boom
hits the water. This negates the slack sheet so the sail doesn't spill
its wind and it drags the boat off the wind. These two actions together
tend to increase the heel.
> The point about the submersed tail having an overturning force is I
> think Bolger's, though the effect may not be all that telling, either
> way.
>
>
>
>
I haven't re-read all the correspondece recently, but I don't
remember her turning turtle. The problem as I recall was that she
knocked down too easily, in the owner's estimation. The post knock
down consition was a huge amount of water had to be moved out by
laborious means to set her right. I'm not sure how many times this
happened, or whether once was enough. In the MAIB article she had
just been launched in pleasant circumstances , and all was smiles.
I think the issue with the cockpit is that on a relative basis it is
more like sailing a kayak than say hiking out on a dingy, as she
starts to go over eventually your weight pulls her down, no such
thing as positive righting moment, from the live ballaat until the
spar kisses the water. It seems also that the cockpit isn't
comfortable, you can't see out of it for one thing.
The point about the submersed tail having an overturning force is I
think Bolger's, though the effect may not be all that telling, either
way.
remember her turning turtle. The problem as I recall was that she
knocked down too easily, in the owner's estimation. The post knock
down consition was a huge amount of water had to be moved out by
laborious means to set her right. I'm not sure how many times this
happened, or whether once was enough. In the MAIB article she had
just been launched in pleasant circumstances , and all was smiles.
I think the issue with the cockpit is that on a relative basis it is
more like sailing a kayak than say hiking out on a dingy, as she
starts to go over eventually your weight pulls her down, no such
thing as positive righting moment, from the live ballaat until the
spar kisses the water. It seems also that the cockpit isn't
comfortable, you can't see out of it for one thing.
The point about the submersed tail having an overturning force is I
think Bolger's, though the effect may not be all that telling, either
way.
>windward
> > 2) The sides are high and straight, so it is said that when she
> > heels over you can't sit (or otherwise get your weight) to
I posted a longer reply, I hope it didn't end up in some unrelated
group!
The max side height is 3,5,4
The half beam is 2,5,2.
These are measured at Station "D", which is 0,9,1 aft of the 11' mark
on the expanded panel, or roughly the 7.25" point on the drawings at
3/4"'1' scale.
When I made Eeek! I remember there being some oddity like the max
height and beam didn't coincide.
The bow is 2,6,0
The sail is 140 square feet, and the center is pretty much over the
center of the board. The spar is a asymetric hollow mast section.
There is a lightly hand drawn lug design on my set, that has 144 area
at the forward edge of the board, seems to share the same spar. OK,
turns out that lightly drawn outline was by Bolger himself.
The SB rig had slightly less than 140 split between two sails.
group!
The max side height is 3,5,4
The half beam is 2,5,2.
These are measured at Station "D", which is 0,9,1 aft of the 11' mark
on the expanded panel, or roughly the 7.25" point on the drawings at
3/4"'1' scale.
When I made Eeek! I remember there being some oddity like the max
height and beam didn't coincide.
The bow is 2,6,0
The sail is 140 square feet, and the center is pretty much over the
center of the board. The spar is a asymetric hollow mast section.
There is a lightly hand drawn lug design on my set, that has 144 area
at the forward edge of the board, seems to share the same spar. OK,
turns out that lightly drawn outline was by Bolger himself.
The SB rig had slightly less than 140 split between two sails.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
all with a simgle spritsail, it's way too much of a fire drill for a
solo sailor. A spritsail cat yawl with a mizzen to allow leaving the
tiller and fooling with the mainsail is the only sensible solution ...
unless there's some very clever reefing rigging already provided on
the spritsail. ANd then that defeats the point of spritsail simplicity.
... it's one thing to be able to toss the whole rig out of the boat.
It's another to have a mast this large.
A battened lug (similar to a canoe sail) would make more sense if
there's no mizzen. No need to create Chinese Sheet Complication.
>I hate to second-guess or disagree with PCB, but as far as reefing and
> Here are a couple isometrics of the PCB simple cat rigged version.
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/
>
all with a simgle spritsail, it's way too much of a fire drill for a
solo sailor. A spritsail cat yawl with a mizzen to allow leaving the
tiller and fooling with the mainsail is the only sensible solution ...
unless there's some very clever reefing rigging already provided on
the spritsail. ANd then that defeats the point of spritsail simplicity.
... it's one thing to be able to toss the whole rig out of the boat.
It's another to have a mast this large.
A battened lug (similar to a canoe sail) would make more sense if
there's no mizzen. No need to create Chinese Sheet Complication.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 1:38 AM, proaconstrictor
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
Buoyancy, lying on her side, the Anhinga has massive buoyancy from the
cabin, (10,000 lbs to sink her) about 200 lbs per inch of immersion.
This buoyancy is centered about 1.75 feet "up" from the 'bottom'.
Her ballast is roughly 400 pounds of water tank.
(I am estimating that the weight of the mast and sail roughly offsets
the weight of the bottom wood.)
1.75 x 400 = 750 foot pounds of righting force.
Equivalent of one man standing on a 4 foot lever.
That is quite a bit, but not an overwhelming amount.
I would guess that if the 'live load' (gear and crew) shifted to the
lee rail, that yes, you might have to take a swim to pull the boat
back upright from a knockdown. And/or, keeping the heavy gear
fastened tight to the bottom would probably also be good seamanship.
As far as turning turtle, I think it would be extremely difficult
(with 200 pounds of flotation per inch of immersion and 750 ft/lbs of
righting moment) to turn her turtle as long as the air chambers remain
unflooded.
This is 'tumbnail math', and you could also chart the buoyancy curve.
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>We can do the math. (Using quick and dirty math now:)
> 2) The sides are high and straight, so it is said that when she
> heels over you can't sit (or otherwise get your weight) to windward
> on the provided seat without sorta falling to the lee side.
Buoyancy, lying on her side, the Anhinga has massive buoyancy from the
cabin, (10,000 lbs to sink her) about 200 lbs per inch of immersion.
This buoyancy is centered about 1.75 feet "up" from the 'bottom'.
Her ballast is roughly 400 pounds of water tank.
(I am estimating that the weight of the mast and sail roughly offsets
the weight of the bottom wood.)
1.75 x 400 = 750 foot pounds of righting force.
Equivalent of one man standing on a 4 foot lever.
That is quite a bit, but not an overwhelming amount.
I would guess that if the 'live load' (gear and crew) shifted to the
lee rail, that yes, you might have to take a swim to pull the boat
back upright from a knockdown. And/or, keeping the heavy gear
fastened tight to the bottom would probably also be good seamanship.
As far as turning turtle, I think it would be extremely difficult
(with 200 pounds of flotation per inch of immersion and 750 ft/lbs of
righting moment) to turn her turtle as long as the air chambers remain
unflooded.
This is 'tumbnail math', and you could also chart the buoyancy curve.
Gee I guess my spidie senses were tingling. I just shot over here,
and as usual there is a discusion of Anhinga going on. I think that
A is the exact same proportions as Eeek! Except that the latter is
narrower as is the seagoing version. I built an Eeek! to the Anhinga
proportions years ago, but never put it in the water. If I don't do
it, it will need re-building soon.
Part of the overturning problems with A are probably due to:
1) The Bolger experiment with water ballast has not been successful,
and I am not one of those who views Birdwatcher as a significant step
forward either conceptually or practically. If a Martha Jane needs
plant boxes and steel ballast this thing would need amas. Well
arguably...
2) The sides are high and straight, so it is said that when she
heels over you can't sit (or otherwise get your weight) to windward
on the provided seat without sorta falling to the lee side. Plus the
double endedness makes the seats narrower than in boats with a
transom.
3) As she heels, the displacement in the flat run aft is an
overturning bouyant force.
I'm still a fan, and in particular Bolger does have a succesful track
record building large, heavily ballasted sharpies so the larger
version would be on my list if I made a significant lottery win.
Anything I can pick out of the package for you please let me know.
and as usual there is a discusion of Anhinga going on. I think that
A is the exact same proportions as Eeek! Except that the latter is
narrower as is the seagoing version. I built an Eeek! to the Anhinga
proportions years ago, but never put it in the water. If I don't do
it, it will need re-building soon.
Part of the overturning problems with A are probably due to:
1) The Bolger experiment with water ballast has not been successful,
and I am not one of those who views Birdwatcher as a significant step
forward either conceptually or practically. If a Martha Jane needs
plant boxes and steel ballast this thing would need amas. Well
arguably...
2) The sides are high and straight, so it is said that when she
heels over you can't sit (or otherwise get your weight) to windward
on the provided seat without sorta falling to the lee side. Plus the
double endedness makes the seats narrower than in boats with a
transom.
3) As she heels, the displacement in the flat run aft is an
overturning bouyant force.
I'm still a fan, and in particular Bolger does have a succesful track
record building large, heavily ballasted sharpies so the larger
version would be on my list if I made a significant lottery win.
Anything I can pick out of the package for you please let me know.
HJ:
WoodenBoat #89, July/August, 1989 / Launchings:
23’3” SANDY BOTTOMS
Dave Bredemier of Rehoboth, Massachusetts, followed Phil Bolger’s
plans for the water ballasted Anhinga Sharpie –but the young builder
added a mizzen, a tabernacle for the mainmaist, boom gallows, and
“step fins” under the oar ports.
A pic giving a good idea of the scale is in the Bolger Cartoons
Anhinga folder.
http://tinyurl.com/ysud78
I don't know much more. It did mysteriously turn turtle. In a
knockdown for whatever reason, I've always thought the step fins
would not have been helpful. Dave sold the boat. I do not know where
she is now. Googling him returns null.
Proaconstrictor had some correspondence with him. Here are a couple
of his own comments
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51291
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51288
Phil. Bolger encouraged me to build it to plan, but I've never had
the space.
Some might think the boat was superseded by the transom sterned
series, including Martha Jane, but Anhinga is a much lighter
proposition.
Cheerz
WoodenBoat #89, July/August, 1989 / Launchings:
23’3” SANDY BOTTOMS
Dave Bredemier of Rehoboth, Massachusetts, followed Phil Bolger’s
plans for the water ballasted Anhinga Sharpie –but the young builder
added a mizzen, a tabernacle for the mainmaist, boom gallows, and
“step fins” under the oar ports.
A pic giving a good idea of the scale is in the Bolger Cartoons
Anhinga folder.
http://tinyurl.com/ysud78
I don't know much more. It did mysteriously turn turtle. In a
knockdown for whatever reason, I've always thought the step fins
would not have been helpful. Dave sold the boat. I do not know where
she is now. Googling him returns null.
Proaconstrictor had some correspondence with him. Here are a couple
of his own comments
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51291
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51288
Phil. Bolger encouraged me to build it to plan, but I've never had
the space.
Some might think the boat was superseded by the transom sterned
series, including Martha Jane, but Anhinga is a much lighter
proposition.
Cheerz
On Mar 6, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Harry James wrote:
> Mark
>
> What is the story behind Sandy Bottoms? It looks as if she is built as
> drawn.
>
> HJ
>>
>
>
Mark
What is the story behind Sandy Bottoms? It looks as if she is built as
drawn.
HJ
Mark Albanese wrote:
What is the story behind Sandy Bottoms? It looks as if she is built as
drawn.
HJ
Mark Albanese wrote:
> Yes, Thomas Dalzell had the sheet.
>
> Good thought about the mast location. Though, I recall figuring once
> that for my Windsprint, mast location for the stock 113 sg. ft rig
> and a short, 59 sq ft standard instant boat rig were just about the
> same.
>
> 2x Anhinga's jib headed rig would be about 280, which seems rather a
> lot. But a lug sail roughly 16' on the foot and about 18' high would
> leave the CE right where it is on the same mast location.
>
> BTW Though I've had the blueprints a long, long while, your fine ISO,
> Bruce, is as close to 3d as I've seen this boat. For others who care
> to look at PB's original drawings, find here.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
experience with sprit rigs (just my Teal), but they clearly have
advantages too. Simplicity, cost, and self-vanging for sure.
I understand the technique for reefing is to tighten down the snotter
to make the sail flat, then to feather the sail in gusts. I think
that a skilled sailmaker is vital. Bolger has had tons of experience
with sprit rigs so I tend to believe him. I see from 100 Sailing
Rigs, that sprit sails can be reefed by bunching up sail along the
foot, but I don't see reefing points on the Anhinga drawings. Anhinga
does have a halyard (but no track), so reefing should be possible even
with a laced luff, but I am not sure.
>A balanced lug rig does reef nicely. I don't have tons of personal
>
> I think the lug is easier to reef then the sprit,
experience with sprit rigs (just my Teal), but they clearly have
advantages too. Simplicity, cost, and self-vanging for sure.
I understand the technique for reefing is to tighten down the snotter
to make the sail flat, then to feather the sail in gusts. I think
that a skilled sailmaker is vital. Bolger has had tons of experience
with sprit rigs so I tend to believe him. I see from 100 Sailing
Rigs, that sprit sails can be reefed by bunching up sail along the
foot, but I don't see reefing points on the Anhinga drawings. Anhinga
does have a halyard (but no track), so reefing should be possible even
with a laced luff, but I am not sure.
I think the lug is easier to reef then the sprit, at least Gary's rig
looks very easy to reef coupled with the Jack stay on his Le Dulcimer.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/howto/lugsails/index.htm
HJ
Mark Albanese wrote:
looks very easy to reef coupled with the Jack stay on his Le Dulcimer.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/howto/lugsails/index.htm
HJ
Mark Albanese wrote:
> Bruce,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Doesn't the larger area of the lug sail aft of the sprits'ls triangle
> count for anything?
> Maybe your rule of thumb works for sails of the same square footage.
>
> I've written to Thomas directly. Maybe he'll tell more of what Phil
> Bolger intended.
>
> Here's what Anhinga might look like with a Balanced lug of 250 sq
> ft., placing the mast identically.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/sailplan2.gif
>
> Looks huge, but I've often heard that one of the advantages of a
> balanced lug is that reefing doesn't affect the CE very much. So,
> couldn't one also just make the sail a little smaller to begin with?
> Pre-reefed, so to speak.
> Mark
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Mark Albanese
>> <marka@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> the mast location.
>>>
>> A sprit sail is 100% aft of the mast.
>> A balanced lug is split roughly 80% aft and 20% forward.
>>
>> So, for a balanced lug to keep the same center of sail area,
>> the mast needs to move 20% towards the aft. (+/-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:17 AM, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
and oversimplifies to an extreme.
The impetus behind my personal theory comes from reading and studying
the geometry of the Bolger rigs in his book 103 Sailing Rigs. It
looks to me that the Lug sail rigs, like the Balanced Lug rig, have
the mast set towards the aft, compared with his Sprit Rig masts.
This is not to say that a Balanced Lug could not be made to work on
the Anhinga, other options exist. I think that moving the dagger
board forward a little bit could balance things out, or also the
addition of a mizzen yawl sail.
Still, as a observation, I see that Bolger does seem to step his Lug
masts further aft than he steps his sprit sail masts.
>Yes, you are right to real extent, and my 'rule of thumb' is personal
> Doesn't the larger area of the lug sail aft of the sprits'ls triangle
> count for anything?
and oversimplifies to an extreme.
The impetus behind my personal theory comes from reading and studying
the geometry of the Bolger rigs in his book 103 Sailing Rigs. It
looks to me that the Lug sail rigs, like the Balanced Lug rig, have
the mast set towards the aft, compared with his Sprit Rig masts.
This is not to say that a Balanced Lug could not be made to work on
the Anhinga, other options exist. I think that moving the dagger
board forward a little bit could balance things out, or also the
addition of a mizzen yawl sail.
Still, as a observation, I see that Bolger does seem to step his Lug
masts further aft than he steps his sprit sail masts.
Harry,
If the lug is about twice the size of the sprit'sl, the mast can stay
just about where it started.
For a Windsprint, the CE of the 113 sq ft. lugsail falls 3' 1 1/4"
abaft the mast. The CE of the 59 sq ft Instant Boat rig is back 3'.
Mark
If the lug is about twice the size of the sprit'sl, the mast can stay
just about where it started.
For a Windsprint, the CE of the 113 sq ft. lugsail falls 3' 1 1/4"
abaft the mast. The CE of the 59 sq ft Instant Boat rig is back 3'.
Mark
On Mar 5, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Harry James wrote:
> Bruce
>
> Thats not necessarily true, its where the center of area is.
> Because of
> the shape of the Lug, its center of area is aft of where the center of
> area of the sprit is if you lay them out together. Whether it is far
> enough aft to make up for the balanced part I don't know, I would have
> to do some samples.
>
> HJ
>
> Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Mark Albanese
>> <marka@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> the mast location.
>>>
>>
>
>
Bruce,
Doesn't the larger area of the lug sail aft of the sprits'ls triangle
count for anything?
Maybe your rule of thumb works for sails of the same square footage.
I've written to Thomas directly. Maybe he'll tell more of what Phil
Bolger intended.
Here's what Anhinga might look like with a Balanced lug of 250 sq
ft., placing the mast identically.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/sailplan2.gif
Looks huge, but I've often heard that one of the advantages of a
balanced lug is that reefing doesn't affect the CE very much. So,
couldn't one also just make the sail a little smaller to begin with?
Pre-reefed, so to speak.
Mark
Doesn't the larger area of the lug sail aft of the sprits'ls triangle
count for anything?
Maybe your rule of thumb works for sails of the same square footage.
I've written to Thomas directly. Maybe he'll tell more of what Phil
Bolger intended.
Here's what Anhinga might look like with a Balanced lug of 250 sq
ft., placing the mast identically.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/sailplan2.gif
Looks huge, but I've often heard that one of the advantages of a
balanced lug is that reefing doesn't affect the CE very much. So,
couldn't one also just make the sail a little smaller to begin with?
Pre-reefed, so to speak.
Mark
On Mar 5, 2008, at 7:11 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Mark Albanese
> <marka@...> wrote:
>
>
>> the mast location.
>
> A sprit sail is 100% aft of the mast.
> A balanced lug is split roughly 80% aft and 20% forward.
>
> So, for a balanced lug to keep the same center of sail area,
> the mast needs to move 20% towards the aft. (+/-)
>
>
Bruce
Thats not necessarily true, its where the center of area is. Because of
the shape of the Lug, its center of area is aft of where the center of
area of the sprit is if you lay them out together. Whether it is far
enough aft to make up for the balanced part I don't know, I would have
to do some samples.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
Thats not necessarily true, its where the center of area is. Because of
the shape of the Lug, its center of area is aft of where the center of
area of the sprit is if you lay them out together. Whether it is far
enough aft to make up for the balanced part I don't know, I would have
to do some samples.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>> the mast location.
>>
>
> A sprit sail is 100% aft of the mast.
> A balanced lug is split roughly 80% aft and 20% forward.
>
> So, for a balanced lug to keep the same center of sail area,
> the mast needs to move 20% towards the aft. (+/-)
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Tom Colvin says forget the balance portion of a lugsail when
calculating COE and mast position.
calculating COE and mast position.
On Mar 5, 2008, at 10:11 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Mark Albanese
> <marka@...> wrote:
>
> > the mast location.
>
> A sprit sail is 100% aft of the mast.
> A balanced lug is split roughly 80% aft and 20% forward.
>
> So, for a balanced lug to keep the same center of sail area,
> the mast needs to move 20% towards the aft. (+/-)
>
>
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
A balanced lug is split roughly 80% aft and 20% forward.
So, for a balanced lug to keep the same center of sail area,
the mast needs to move 20% towards the aft. (+/-)
> the mast location.A sprit sail is 100% aft of the mast.
A balanced lug is split roughly 80% aft and 20% forward.
So, for a balanced lug to keep the same center of sail area,
the mast needs to move 20% towards the aft. (+/-)
Yes, Thomas Dalzell had the sheet.
Good thought about the mast location. Though, I recall figuring once
that for my Windsprint, mast location for the stock 113 sg. ft rig
and a short, 59 sq ft standard instant boat rig were just about the
same.
2x Anhinga's jib headed rig would be about 280, which seems rather a
lot. But a lug sail roughly 16' on the foot and about 18' high would
leave the CE right where it is on the same mast location.
BTW Though I've had the blueprints a long, long while, your fine ISO,
Bruce, is as close to 3d as I've seen this boat. For others who care
to look at PB's original drawings, find here.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/
Mark
Good thought about the mast location. Though, I recall figuring once
that for my Windsprint, mast location for the stock 113 sg. ft rig
and a short, 59 sq ft standard instant boat rig were just about the
same.
2x Anhinga's jib headed rig would be about 280, which seems rather a
lot. But a lug sail roughly 16' on the foot and about 18' high would
leave the CE right where it is on the same mast location.
BTW Though I've had the blueprints a long, long while, your fine ISO,
Bruce, is as close to 3d as I've seen this boat. For others who care
to look at PB's original drawings, find here.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/
Mark
On Mar 4, 2008, at 1:28 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> There is a balanced lug alternative from PB&F. ( Thomas, are you out
>> there? how many sq feet? )
>
> Is there a PCB balanced lug rig drawn?
snip
> If you move the mast aft, you would have water drip
> problems where you sleep.
>
Yes, but what I've been wondering about with Anhinga and Eeek is
that Bolger does not seem to have continued with this unusual hull
shape, where the bottom aft of amidships does not rise, but just
narrows to a kind of canoe stern. Is there some kind of inherent
fault in the shape in the way it handles or steers or something? I
dunno.
Howard
that Bolger does not seem to have continued with this unusual hull
shape, where the bottom aft of amidships does not rise, but just
narrows to a kind of canoe stern. Is there some kind of inherent
fault in the shape in the way it handles or steers or something? I
dunno.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Howard Stephenson
> <howardstephenson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting, but isn't this design pretty much a dead branch on
the
> > evolutionary tree as far as Bolger is concerned? There was Eeek
before
> > it but nothing since, as far as I know.
> >
> > Howard
>
> I imagine that Birdwatcher is the boat on the evolutionary tree
> following Anhinga. Birdwatcher is superior in many ways, but not
all.
> The biggest being, I think, is that the simpler Anhinga could be
> built quicker than the more complex Birdwatcher. Also, much
cheaper,
> without a $1,000 to spend on Lexan.
>
Do you have a scan of the original MAIB article on your site? My copies
only go back to the late nineties. Getting to be a storage issue.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
only go back to the late nineties. Getting to be a storage issue.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
>
>> Somehow I had it mind that it was in one of the books but that turned
>> out to be wrong. Was it ever in SBJ?
>>
>
> No, I have a full set of SBJ's and I don't think it was ever in the SBJ.
>
> There has been much Anhinga discussion in this Yahoo group, years ago,
> including putting up scans of the drawings. Also, Mark Albanese wrote
> in this group on Oct 15, 2006 that he read a letter from PCB about
> Anhinga and it is posted in whole "somewhere in the archive". If you
> dig around and find it, please repost.
>
>
>
Thanks for doing the isometrics, Bruce!
Anhinga has been in my Top 20 Bolger designs forever. Hope I can
build one someday. EXACTLY as designed.
I think it's important to place Anhinga in the right thematic zone.
It's a canoe yawl, in the Albert Strange-George Holmes genre (not
referring to the rig), and meant to be used the way gentleman
yachtsmen were using canoe yawls in the 1890's. That means a small,
easily-driven boat for exploring estuaries, working with wind and
tide, going with the flow. A canoe yawl is proportioned to be
propelled with oars, and there's usually a small cuddy where you can
sit out foul tides or weather.
Bolger has written widely about his appreciation for this approach to
cruising. To build a real canoe yawl like "Wenda," "Daisy," and
others is a huge, huge project, a 3000-hour ordeal for the skilled
amateur, in the six figures if you have it built. What Bolger was
after with Anhinga was a boat that distilled the essence of the fancy
canoe yawls without losing any of their qualities.
Here's a good page on canoe yawls:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/canoe_mirror/canoe_ya
wl.html Courtesy of Craig O'Donnell.
I think to appreciate Anhinga you need to approach the design with a
willingness to Go Simple and adopt the canoe yawl ethos. I'm
discouraged by all the worries that there isn't a good way to add
power. Bolger has tons of shallow boats with good engine
mounts, and you should definitely build one of those rather
than hacking an Anhinga.
Having studied the complete drawings for hours, I think if built as
designed it should compete with Dovekie on most points, except in
light air to windward. It'll be tender when the wind's up---
you'd want to pay attention. I'd add reef points to the sail. As
drawn he means for you to flatten the sail with the snotter
and "feather" your way through the puffs, something that works better
on paper than in real life. The stern wave might be a little odd
looking, but that hull shape will have no affect on speed at 2.5kts
under oars or 5kts under sail.
You'd probably come to hate everything about the daggerboard except
the fact that you built the board and its external mount in a
fraction of the time of other solutions. I suspect the boat might
sail for a season with the daggerboard, then sprout leeboards. On
the other hand, I sail all over the Chesapeake in an engineless
keelboat with only very rare groundings, so if you're willing to pay
attention to where you're going the daggerboard isn't the end of the
world. Add the days of construction you saved to your cruising
schedule.
I have a suspicion that Bolger hasn't promoted the design because
nobody will build it the way he designed it, or means to use it the
way he intended it to be used. Anhinga is one of those completel-
realized designs for which, if tinkered with, the elegance is lost
but the boxy gawkiness remains.
John Harris
Anhinga has been in my Top 20 Bolger designs forever. Hope I can
build one someday. EXACTLY as designed.
I think it's important to place Anhinga in the right thematic zone.
It's a canoe yawl, in the Albert Strange-George Holmes genre (not
referring to the rig), and meant to be used the way gentleman
yachtsmen were using canoe yawls in the 1890's. That means a small,
easily-driven boat for exploring estuaries, working with wind and
tide, going with the flow. A canoe yawl is proportioned to be
propelled with oars, and there's usually a small cuddy where you can
sit out foul tides or weather.
Bolger has written widely about his appreciation for this approach to
cruising. To build a real canoe yawl like "Wenda," "Daisy," and
others is a huge, huge project, a 3000-hour ordeal for the skilled
amateur, in the six figures if you have it built. What Bolger was
after with Anhinga was a boat that distilled the essence of the fancy
canoe yawls without losing any of their qualities.
Here's a good page on canoe yawls:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/canoe_mirror/canoe_ya
wl.html Courtesy of Craig O'Donnell.
I think to appreciate Anhinga you need to approach the design with a
willingness to Go Simple and adopt the canoe yawl ethos. I'm
discouraged by all the worries that there isn't a good way to add
power. Bolger has tons of shallow boats with good engine
mounts, and you should definitely build one of those rather
than hacking an Anhinga.
Having studied the complete drawings for hours, I think if built as
designed it should compete with Dovekie on most points, except in
light air to windward. It'll be tender when the wind's up---
you'd want to pay attention. I'd add reef points to the sail. As
drawn he means for you to flatten the sail with the snotter
and "feather" your way through the puffs, something that works better
on paper than in real life. The stern wave might be a little odd
looking, but that hull shape will have no affect on speed at 2.5kts
under oars or 5kts under sail.
You'd probably come to hate everything about the daggerboard except
the fact that you built the board and its external mount in a
fraction of the time of other solutions. I suspect the boat might
sail for a season with the daggerboard, then sprout leeboards. On
the other hand, I sail all over the Chesapeake in an engineless
keelboat with only very rare groundings, so if you're willing to pay
attention to where you're going the daggerboard isn't the end of the
world. Add the days of construction you saved to your cruising
schedule.
I have a suspicion that Bolger hasn't promoted the design because
nobody will build it the way he designed it, or means to use it the
way he intended it to be used. Anhinga is one of those completel-
realized designs for which, if tinkered with, the elegance is lost
but the boxy gawkiness remains.
John Harris
Answering my own question, here is PCB's handwritten letter (The
'Mark', I think, is Mark Albanese), transcribed:
Philip C. Bolger
29 Ferry Street
Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S.A.
March 6, 1991
Dear Mark,
I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a superior solution
to the same wish list, but it's a fact that I find the Anhinga design
attractive
and would like to see one built as designed. The Eeek! canoe is not
much of a boat, but its behavior suggested that a bigger version would be
respectable.
At worst, it may need more positive buoyancy. Placing this will make
it much less roomy, so she shouldn't have it if she can get by without.
I don't see how the modified Anhinga could have got bottom up unless
the stern compartment flooded some way.
Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted to a yawl.
'Mark', I think, is Mark Albanese), transcribed:
Philip C. Bolger
29 Ferry Street
Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S.A.
March 6, 1991
Dear Mark,
I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a superior solution
to the same wish list, but it's a fact that I find the Anhinga design
attractive
and would like to see one built as designed. The Eeek! canoe is not
much of a boat, but its behavior suggested that a bigger version would be
respectable.
At worst, it may need more positive buoyancy. Placing this will make
it much less roomy, so she shouldn't have it if she can get by without.
I don't see how the modified Anhinga could have got bottom up unless
the stern compartment flooded some way.
Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted to a yawl.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
There has been much Anhinga discussion in this Yahoo group, years ago,
including putting up scans of the drawings. Also, Mark Albanese wrote
in this group on Oct 15, 2006 that he read a letter from PCB about
Anhinga and it is posted in whole "somewhere in the archive". If you
dig around and find it, please repost.
>No, I have a full set of SBJ's and I don't think it was ever in the SBJ.
> Somehow I had it mind that it was in one of the books but that turned
> out to be wrong. Was it ever in SBJ?
There has been much Anhinga discussion in this Yahoo group, years ago,
including putting up scans of the drawings. Also, Mark Albanese wrote
in this group on Oct 15, 2006 that he read a letter from PCB about
Anhinga and it is posted in whole "somewhere in the archive". If you
dig around and find it, please repost.
I went back and looked at the small motor sailer and she has a
multichine bottom and uses the box to gain headroom, but I still think
it could work. Clyde
Clyde Wisner wrote:
multichine bottom and uses the box to gain headroom, but I still think
it could work. Clyde
Clyde Wisner wrote:
> Sorry I can't spell Bruce and I must admit to looking at the lack of[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> rocker and thinking evil thoughts. What if it had a box keel and a small
> diesel (1GM10), could it become a "small motor sailer"? Many of us
> really liked that concept. Clyde
>
> Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
> > >
> > > . What subtle insights did
> > > you pick up?
> >
> > I don't know if this is an insight, but one interesting thing to note
> > is the unusual Anhinga bottom which lacks any rocker aft. In the PCB
> > commentary on Eeek, he explains his hypothesis to be that more ballast
> > can be carried this way without added width to the midsection. The
> > obvious question is what turbulence might occur with the drag from
> > submerging more hull at the trailing end. And, I have a hunch, that
> > PCB was scheming the affect of the role of flat plate of the rudder,
> > versus this trailing turbulence. (Is Anhinga the first Bolger design
> > with a flat plate on the bottom of the rudder?)
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Somehow I had it mind that it was in one of the books but that turned
out to be wrong. Was it ever in SBJ?
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
out to be wrong. Was it ever in SBJ?
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> Where did you come across Anhinga?
>>
>
> Anhinga is in article is in an very old issue of MAIB from 1988, Vol.
> 6, Number 11.
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Where did you come across Anhinga?Anhinga is in article is in an very old issue of MAIB from 1988, Vol.
6, Number 11.
Bruce
Bolger did a flat plate on the rudder for 'Romp' from Different Boats
because of the shallow draft requirement. He mentioned tht he thought
it should be deeper but the owner did not report any problems.
When explaining Eeek he said it was a 1/3 version of a proposed quick
and dirty off-shore cruiser and developed the shape to carry more
ballast 'farther aft' !! He said that he had sold a set of plans but
the purchased speced a standing lug (but he himself wasn't too keen
on). I'm not sure if she (the larger version) was ever built. He said
Eeek was okay to sail though.
My guess is that at speed you get a pretty healthy rooser tail similar
to what happens to baidarka shaped kayaks that also carry a deep vee
all the way to the end (but the kayaks handle great). I'd like to
see hope it would affect the rudder/steering).
Where did you come across Anhinga? I have never heard of her - but
then there is a lot I haven't heard of.
I was fascinated with the design oncept but with no easy engine
solution went on to other boats.
Thanks isometrics (as always)
Jim
Bolger did a flat plate on the rudder for 'Romp' from Different Boats
because of the shallow draft requirement. He mentioned tht he thought
it should be deeper but the owner did not report any problems.
When explaining Eeek he said it was a 1/3 version of a proposed quick
and dirty off-shore cruiser and developed the shape to carry more
ballast 'farther aft' !! He said that he had sold a set of plans but
the purchased speced a standing lug (but he himself wasn't too keen
on). I'm not sure if she (the larger version) was ever built. He said
Eeek was okay to sail though.
My guess is that at speed you get a pretty healthy rooser tail similar
to what happens to baidarka shaped kayaks that also carry a deep vee
all the way to the end (but the kayaks handle great). I'd like to
see hope it would affect the rudder/steering).
Where did you come across Anhinga? I have never heard of her - but
then there is a lot I haven't heard of.
I was fascinated with the design oncept but with no easy engine
solution went on to other boats.
Thanks isometrics (as always)
Jim
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry I can't spell Bruce and I must admit to looking at the lack of
> rocker and thinking evil thoughts. What if it had a box keel and a
small
> diesel (1GM10), could it become a "small motor sailer"? Many of us
> really liked that concept. Clyde
>
> Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
> > >
> > > . What subtle insights did
> > > you pick up?
> >
> > I don't know if this is an insight, but one interesting thing to note
> > is the unusual Anhinga bottom which lacks any rocker aft. In the PCB
> > commentary on Eeek, he explains his hypothesis to be that more ballast
> > can be carried this way without added width to the midsection. The
> > obvious question is what turbulence might occur with the drag from
> > submerging more hull at the trailing end. And, I have a hunch, that
> > PCB was scheming the affect of the role of flat plate of the rudder,
> > versus this trailing turbulence. (Is Anhinga the first Bolger design
> > with a flat plate on the bottom of the rudder?)
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> There is a balanced lug alternative from PB&F. ( Thomas, are you outIs there a PCB balanced lug rig drawn? I figure that Anhinga, with a
> there? how many sq feet? )
balanced lug rig, would require moving the mast towards the aft by a
foot or two, which would encroach into the cuddy space. Part of what
is clever about the sprit rig, is that the mast is located just
forward of the bulkhead at 16'9", which could serve to help catch
water drips, rainwater running down the mast, and keep the bedding
more dry. If you move the mast aft, you would have water drip
problems where you sleep.
Dovkie has an even deader flat bottom and is popular with owners.
Given the experimental stern, Anhinga is rockered where it counts, at
the bow.
There is a balanced lug alternative from PB&F. ( Thomas, are you out
there? how many sq feet? )
Mark
Given the experimental stern, Anhinga is rockered where it counts, at
the bow.
There is a balanced lug alternative from PB&F. ( Thomas, are you out
there? how many sq feet? )
Mark
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
>>
>> I must admit to looking at the lack of
>> rocker and thinking evil thoughts.
>
> And, I think, PCB would agree that lack of rocker is to be suspected,
> but so too is a wide midsection to be suspected.
> mailto:bolger-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>And, I think, PCB would agree that lack of rocker is to be suspected,
> I must admit to looking at the lack of
> rocker and thinking evil thoughts.
but so too is a wide midsection to be suspected. There are trade
offs. Still, the Anhinga looks more pointy and streamline than many
of the sailboats I see at boat shows. And, measured per pound or per
dollar, I bet Anhinga could win many races against other 24 foot
cruisers.
Sorry I can't spell Bruce and I must admit to looking at the lack of
rocker and thinking evil thoughts. What if it had a box keel and a small
diesel (1GM10), could it become a "small motor sailer"? Many of us
really liked that concept. Clyde
Bruce Hallman wrote:
rocker and thinking evil thoughts. What if it had a box keel and a small
diesel (1GM10), could it become a "small motor sailer"? Many of us
really liked that concept. Clyde
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > . What subtle insights did
> > you pick up?
>
> I don't know if this is an insight, but one interesting thing to note
> is the unusual Anhinga bottom which lacks any rocker aft. In the PCB
> commentary on Eeek, he explains his hypothesis to be that more ballast
> can be carried this way without added width to the midsection. The
> obvious question is what turbulence might occur with the drag from
> submerging more hull at the trailing end. And, I have a hunch, that
> PCB was scheming the affect of the role of flat plate of the rudder,
> versus this trailing turbulence. (Is Anhinga the first Bolger design
> with a flat plate on the bottom of the rudder?)
>
>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
attempting to improve it.
I am reminded that the only Anhinga ever built was a seriously
modified version, and we never have actually seen a unmodified Anhinga
in action.
>My instinct would be to try the design exactly per plans before
> Bruce
>
> What about a standing lug
>
> HJ
attempting to improve it.
I am reminded that the only Anhinga ever built was a seriously
modified version, and we never have actually seen a unmodified Anhinga
in action.
Bruce
What about a standing lug
HJ
Clyde Wisner wrote:
What about a standing lug
HJ
Clyde Wisner wrote:
> Buce, I think you're right on,as usual. Like Centenial, 11 shts of ply
> and not much time and you're sailing. Sails might be the biggest
> complication. Clyde
>
> Bruce Hallman wrote:
>
>
>> Here are a couple isometrics of the PCB simple cat rigged version.
>>
>>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/
>> <http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
One other thing I noticed. For years I had presumed that the Anhinga
sides are made from full 4 foot sheets of plywood. When I modeled it,
(unless I am mistaken) I had to conclude that the sides are made from
plywood panels which are actually only 3 feet 9 inches wide.
sides are made from full 4 foot sheets of plywood. When I modeled it,
(unless I am mistaken) I had to conclude that the sides are made from
plywood panels which are actually only 3 feet 9 inches wide.
>I don't know if this is an insight, but one interesting thing to note
> . What subtle insights did
> you pick up?
is the unusual Anhinga bottom which lacks any rocker aft. In the PCB
commentary on Eeek, he explains his hypothesis to be that more ballast
can be carried this way without added width to the midsection. The
obvious question is what turbulence might occur with the drag from
submerging more hull at the trailing end. And, I have a hunch, that
PCB was scheming the affect of the role of flat plate of the rudder,
versus this trailing turbulence. (Is Anhinga the first Bolger design
with a flat plate on the bottom of the rudder?)
Buce, I think you're right on,as usual. Like Centenial, 11 shts of ply
and not much time and you're sailing. Sails might be the biggest
complication. Clyde
Bruce Hallman wrote:
and not much time and you're sailing. Sails might be the biggest
complication. Clyde
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> Here are a couple isometrics of the PCB simple cat rigged version.[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/
> <http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/>
>
>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Howard Stephenson
<howardstephenson@...> wrote:
following Anhinga. Birdwatcher is superior in many ways, but not all.
The biggest being, I think, is that the simpler Anhinga could be
built quicker than the more complex Birdwatcher. Also, much cheaper,
without a $1,000 to spend on Lexan.
<howardstephenson@...> wrote:
>I imagine that Birdwatcher is the boat on the evolutionary tree
> Interesting, but isn't this design pretty much a dead branch on the
> evolutionary tree as far as Bolger is concerned? There was Eeek before
> it but nothing since, as far as I know.
>
> Howard
following Anhinga. Birdwatcher is superior in many ways, but not all.
The biggest being, I think, is that the simpler Anhinga could be
built quicker than the more complex Birdwatcher. Also, much cheaper,
without a $1,000 to spend on Lexan.
Interesting, but isn't this design pretty much a dead branch on the
evolutionary tree as far as Bolger is concerned? There was Eeek before
it but nothing since, as far as I know.
Howard
evolutionary tree as far as Bolger is concerned? There was Eeek before
it but nothing since, as far as I know.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> Anhinga Isometrics here:
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2307596965/
>
Here are a couple isometrics of the PCB simple cat rigged version.
http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/
http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2308015723/
I take back what I wrote, as I have learned that the cat-yawl version
of Anhinga was not "per plans". The PCB version is a simple cat with
a trisale laced on a narrow mast.. This matches, I guess, the concept
that this is a simple boat.
of Anhinga was not "per plans". The PCB version is a simple cat with
a trisale laced on a narrow mast.. This matches, I guess, the concept
that this is a simple boat.
Anhinga actually is an intriguing boat. An extremely common (and
often unspoken) problem with backyard boats is that they lack "bang
for the buck" A thousand hours, and several thousand of dollars
later, you end up with a boat worth $1,000 or less. Anhinga tries to
solve that problem. I bet that I could build a rough version in four
weekends.
I seriously doubt the reports of flooding problems on capsize. I bet
you could knock her down easy enough, but she would pop back up and
the amount of water taken in would be minimal. She has lots of
buoyancy built in. Notice that the oar ports are at a lower height
than the cabin hatch lip, and any excess water in the cockpit would
pour out the oar ports before flooding the cabin.
Modeling the sails was a bit of a guess, and I have only seen photos
of the completed boat and have not seen the sail plan. I do notice
that the tiller arm swings clear of off-center the mizzen mast by
just a fraction of an inch. This is a clever (typical PCB) solution
to the perennial problem of the tiller arm and mizzen mast conflict in
yawls (versus ketches).
often unspoken) problem with backyard boats is that they lack "bang
for the buck" A thousand hours, and several thousand of dollars
later, you end up with a boat worth $1,000 or less. Anhinga tries to
solve that problem. I bet that I could build a rough version in four
weekends.
I seriously doubt the reports of flooding problems on capsize. I bet
you could knock her down easy enough, but she would pop back up and
the amount of water taken in would be minimal. She has lots of
buoyancy built in. Notice that the oar ports are at a lower height
than the cabin hatch lip, and any excess water in the cockpit would
pour out the oar ports before flooding the cabin.
Modeling the sails was a bit of a guess, and I have only seen photos
of the completed boat and have not seen the sail plan. I do notice
that the tiller arm swings clear of off-center the mizzen mast by
just a fraction of an inch. This is a clever (typical PCB) solution
to the perennial problem of the tiller arm and mizzen mast conflict in
yawls (versus ketches).
It doesn't get much simpler ie boxy than that. What subtle insights did
you pick up?
Does this mean you want to build an Anhinga too??
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
you pick up?
Does this mean you want to build an Anhinga too??
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> Anhinga Isometrics here:
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/2307596965/
>
>
>
>