Re: [bolger] Martha Jane ballast
Dear Mark,
Yes I think fifteen degrees is exactly right closehauled, but she sails
there most of the day at ten.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail athttp://www.hotmail.com
Yes I think fifteen degrees is exactly right closehauled, but she sails
there most of the day at ten.
>From: Mark Albanese <marka@...>________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To:bolger@egroups.com
>To:bolger@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [bolger] Martha Jane ballast
>Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 15:52:32 -0700
>
>Ed,
>
>Thinking you might be right, I wonder if you're experience
>shows 15 degrees heel is optimum for the type?
>
>Happy the Post Office isn't as slow with my paychecks as
>with MAIB,
>Mark
>
>edward haile wrote:
> >
> > In my opinion, if the MJ has too much ballast she will not heel properly
>on
> > the wind in a blow, hence will pound excessively. My route is to lighten
>her
> > aloft first.
> >
> > ED HAILE
> > Martha Jane "Terrapin"
> >
> > >From:col_mooney@...
> > >Reply-To:bolger@egroups.com
> > >To:bolger@egroups.com
> > >Subject: [bolger] Martha Jane ballast
> > >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:44:41 -0000
> > >
> > >
> > >I have been following the ballast discussion with interest, i.e. more
> > >is better, but I'd like to keep my intended MJ as light as possible
> > >for trailering. I'm still unsure if I want to increase the ballast,
> > >I have sailed on a MJ built from the original plans and thought she
> > >was great. If I do decide to build mine with more ballast, would
> > >there be any drawbacks in stretching the water ballast tanks to give
> > >an equivalent water weight to that proposed for solid ballast? I
> > >haven't read the MAIB discussion on the updates yet, maybe its
> > >mentioned in there, but until then, can someone outline any pro's or
> > >cons?
> > >
> > > Col Mooney
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail athttp://www.hotmail.com
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
> >http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/13/_/3457/_/962486074/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing
> > - stay on topic
> > - use punctuation
> > - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> > - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail athttp://www.hotmail.com
Ed,
Thinking you might be right, I wonder if you're experience
shows 15 degrees heel is optimum for the type?
Happy the Post Office isn't as slow with my paychecks as
with MAIB,
Mark
edward haile wrote:
Thinking you might be right, I wonder if you're experience
shows 15 degrees heel is optimum for the type?
Happy the Post Office isn't as slow with my paychecks as
with MAIB,
Mark
edward haile wrote:
>
> In my opinion, if the MJ has too much ballast she will not heel properly on
> the wind in a blow, hence will pound excessively. My route is to lighten her
> aloft first.
>
> ED HAILE
> Martha Jane "Terrapin"
>
> >From:col_mooney@...
> >Reply-To:bolger@egroups.com
> >To:bolger@egroups.com
> >Subject: [bolger] Martha Jane ballast
> >Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:44:41 -0000
> >
> >
> >I have been following the ballast discussion with interest, i.e. more
> >is better, but I'd like to keep my intended MJ as light as possible
> >for trailering. I'm still unsure if I want to increase the ballast,
> >I have sailed on a MJ built from the original plans and thought she
> >was great. If I do decide to build mine with more ballast, would
> >there be any drawbacks in stretching the water ballast tanks to give
> >an equivalent water weight to that proposed for solid ballast? I
> >haven't read the MAIB discussion on the updates yet, maybe its
> >mentioned in there, but until then, can someone outline any pro's or
> >cons?
> >
> > Col Mooney
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail athttp://www.hotmail.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Life's too short to send boring email. Let SuperSig come to the rescue.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/6137/13/_/3457/_/962486074/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
In my opinion, if the MJ has too much ballast she will not heel properly on
the wind in a blow, hence will pound excessively. My route is to lighten her
aloft first.
ED HAILE
Martha Jane "Terrapin"
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail athttp://www.hotmail.com
the wind in a blow, hence will pound excessively. My route is to lighten her
aloft first.
ED HAILE
Martha Jane "Terrapin"
>From:col_mooney@...________________________________________________________________________
>Reply-To:bolger@egroups.com
>To:bolger@egroups.com
>Subject: [bolger] Martha Jane ballast
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 07:44:41 -0000
>
>
>I have been following the ballast discussion with interest, i.e. more
>is better, but I'd like to keep my intended MJ as light as possible
>for trailering. I'm still unsure if I want to increase the ballast,
>I have sailed on a MJ built from the original plans and thought she
>was great. If I do decide to build mine with more ballast, would
>there be any drawbacks in stretching the water ballast tanks to give
>an equivalent water weight to that proposed for solid ballast? I
>haven't read the MAIB discussion on the updates yet, maybe its
>mentioned in there, but until then, can someone outline any pro's or
>cons?
>
> Col Mooney
>
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail athttp://www.hotmail.com