Centennial II (Re: Single Handed Schooner Reefing - long)
> Is it the risk of movement and damage in aBoth, but mostly I'm not sure home plywood construction is up to the
> knock down, or is it that the raised ballast
> might lead to a knockdown?
rigors of heavy weights slamming around. I do think that if you are
going to be dealing with shoals a lot, a deep keel boat is not going
to be much fun even if you can get by lifting the keel from time to time.
I did crank up the keel on the Santana when motoring over a shoal. The
boat became very tender. It had a narrow waterline and was none too
stiff to begin with.
Unsecured swing keels, ballasted centreboards, have been known to come
down with an almighty "clunk" when the boat has been knocked down. They
have been known to just keep on going and rip free of the boat, and to
cause injury.
OTOH, unsecured in the "down" position they allow the board to rise
over obstacles. However with the ballast raised this way the boat might
be knocked down in a gust.
The ballasted lee dagger boards on Centennial II would be pinned or
lashed in position.
Bolger allows the 1000lb ballasted daggerboard in the Ostar ClassIV
Racer to be raised from 6'6" to a 3'6" minimum draft to sail when
cruising.
I'm not sure of your caveat. Is it the risk of movement and damage in a
knock down, or is it that the raised ballast might lead to a knockdown?
down with an almighty "clunk" when the boat has been knocked down. They
have been known to just keep on going and rip free of the boat, and to
cause injury.
OTOH, unsecured in the "down" position they allow the board to rise
over obstacles. However with the ballast raised this way the boat might
be knocked down in a gust.
The ballasted lee dagger boards on Centennial II would be pinned or
lashed in position.
Bolger allows the 1000lb ballasted daggerboard in the Ostar ClassIV
Racer to be raised from 6'6" to a 3'6" minimum draft to sail when
cruising.
I'm not sure of your caveat. Is it the risk of movement and damage in a
knock down, or is it that the raised ballast might lead to a knockdown?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...> wrote:
>
> > How far could you lift and pin the boards and still
> > carefully sail? Could they be raised to, say, a 12" draft to cut a
> > corner over that mud bank?
>
> Once upon a time, I had a Santana 21 sloop with a pivoting, cast iron,
> swing keel. The experience turned me off to movable ballast. I want my
> ballast securely locked in position.
>
> How far could you lift and pin the boards and stillOnce upon a time, I had a Santana 21 sloop with a pivoting, cast iron,
> carefully sail? Could they be raised to, say, a 12" draft to cut a
> corner over that mud bank?
swing keel. The experience turned me off to movable ballast. I want my
ballast securely locked in position.
Re Centennial II
Hold on to your hat, Peter, as the next suggested "little alteration"
to an amazingly elegant plan comes along! (The only real hurdle to
building these three sheet long boats is the cost of a road-legal
trailer here.)
Now then, once the boards are verticle and easily fitted and lifted
(this means also that ballast can be increased, but that's further
along...), how far could you lift and pin the boards and still
carefully sail? Could they be raised to, say, a 12" draft to cut a
corner over that mud bank? Would they grant enough RM when only
shallowly set to sail over thin water? Could an auxiliary Bolger-type
leeboard be dropped cautiously over the side on a rope mount in this
situation to help with any course to weather over said mud bank? The
depth of the rudder and how it is shipped is a problem in these
situations, so could it be made like that of the SHS and so be
unshipped from above with steerage then being obtained by deploying a
steering oar?
The idea would be to keep the no-bottom off-shore seaworthiness (as
defined by Bolger), but add a reasonable shoal draft performance
without much complication or extra expense to this most singular
design. (That NZ one Don showed us a while ago has already shown how
to mount an outboard MOTOR! - off the quarter, similar to most BW1s)
(an increase from 13 to 14 sheets of 3/8" ply for the build is hardly
an impediment - if there's a result!)
Can this be done? Should it?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...>
wrote:
[SNIP]...
Hold on to your hat, Peter, as the next suggested "little alteration"
to an amazingly elegant plan comes along! (The only real hurdle to
building these three sheet long boats is the cost of a road-legal
trailer here.)
Now then, once the boards are verticle and easily fitted and lifted
(this means also that ballast can be increased, but that's further
along...), how far could you lift and pin the boards and still
carefully sail? Could they be raised to, say, a 12" draft to cut a
corner over that mud bank? Would they grant enough RM when only
shallowly set to sail over thin water? Could an auxiliary Bolger-type
leeboard be dropped cautiously over the side on a rope mount in this
situation to help with any course to weather over said mud bank? The
depth of the rudder and how it is shipped is a problem in these
situations, so could it be made like that of the SHS and so be
unshipped from above with steerage then being obtained by deploying a
steering oar?
The idea would be to keep the no-bottom off-shore seaworthiness (as
defined by Bolger), but add a reasonable shoal draft performance
without much complication or extra expense to this most singular
design. (That NZ one Don showed us a while ago has already shown how
to mount an outboard MOTOR! - off the quarter, similar to most BW1s)
(an increase from 13 to 14 sheets of 3/8" ply for the build is hardly
an impediment - if there's a result!)
Can this be done? Should it?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...>
wrote:
[SNIP]...
> Of course, the reason for not using one daggerboard on thecenterline,
> like the SHS, is that PCB was saving the middle of the boat to lieboat
> down in. If you were going to eliminate the dog house and use the
> as an open daysailer, that objection would go away.
>
> I think a good modification would be to place the ballastedI had not thought of bringing the boards inboard in wells. Yes, I
> daggerboards inside the boat and vertical, similar to Windsprint.
think that would be a good idea and worth the extra work. The method
for holding the leeboards in place always looked a bit sketchy to me
although apparently it worked OK.
Of course, the reason for not using one daggerboard on the centerline,
like the SHS, is that PCB was saving the middle of the boat to lie
down in. If you were going to eliminate the dog house and use the boat
as an open daysailer, that objection would go away.
> In the essay and plans, Bolger suggests building the sides up fromPart of the idea was to avoid the tyranny of the 8x4 plywood sheet
> strips of 1x4 wood while laying flat, then bending them around forms.
size, but I never did check to see how efficiently Burgundy could be
planked with ply. I do think his strip-planked panels would be too
heavy and too stiff for a one-man build, but the square-sided stock
would be quick to strip-plank in the ordinary way on the molds.
Burgundy also appeared in Bolger's book "30 ODD BOATS", now out of
print. She is a nice looking 28' double end dory. As design she has
a fixed fin keel with almost 1300 lbs of lead in it. The rudder is
mounted on the trailing edge of the fin. Certainly not a shoal draft
boat, but a very easy build for the size and class. In plywood
Burgundy could be consider an instant boat, even assembled using
stitch and tape techniques, until you have to build the fin.
In the essay and plans, Bolger suggests building the sides up from
strips of 1x4 wood while laying flat, then bending them around forms.
Seems like one could choose to build the boat from plywood, and end
up with as nice looking a boat. The intent seems to be to have a boat
equivalent to a Herreschoff Rozinante but much easier to build.
Bolger's design number for Burgundy is #384.
Don Schultz
print. She is a nice looking 28' double end dory. As design she has
a fixed fin keel with almost 1300 lbs of lead in it. The rudder is
mounted on the trailing edge of the fin. Certainly not a shoal draft
boat, but a very easy build for the size and class. In plywood
Burgundy could be consider an instant boat, even assembled using
stitch and tape techniques, until you have to build the fin.
In the essay and plans, Bolger suggests building the sides up from
strips of 1x4 wood while laying flat, then bending them around forms.
Seems like one could choose to build the boat from plywood, and end
up with as nice looking a boat. The intent seems to be to have a boat
equivalent to a Herreschoff Rozinante but much easier to build.
Bolger's design number for Burgundy is #384.
Don Schultz
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> Oops, I hit send before checking. Burgundy was also written up first
> in Small Boat Journal, vol 11, June 1980, back when SBJ was 'large
> format'.
>
There's archived messages here that report Centennial II sails very
well. I think a good modification would be to place the ballasted
daggerboards inside the boat and verticle, similar to Windsprint. The
crew could then stand right above them and inboard the boat when
handling them rather than having to lean outboard. Verticle boards
would tend to bind less than the canted ones. Centennial II takes
only 13 sheets of 3/8" ply (SHS takes 11 sheets of 1/4"). I think
theres a folder in the Bolger Cartoons group.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...>
wrote:
well. I think a good modification would be to place the ballasted
daggerboards inside the boat and verticle, similar to Windsprint. The
crew could then stand right above them and inboard the boat when
handling them rather than having to lean outboard. Verticle boards
would tend to bind less than the canted ones. Centennial II takes
only 13 sheets of 3/8" ply (SHS takes 11 sheets of 1/4"). I think
theres a folder in the Bolger Cartoons group.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...>
wrote:
> [SNIP]... Another interesting boat to look at is PCB's Centennial.It's actually
> quite a lot like a big SHS in hull shape. It has two ballasted foilsleeboards.
> that should be considered as twin removable keels, not as
> This boat is somewhat compromised due to PCB trying to make it as
> cheap in material as possible, but several have been built, and at
> least one was sailed a long way.
> Where is there info about Burgundy? I know you have done a FreeshipYes and no, and yes and no.
> rendering, but I would like to see a drawing. I do not have SBJ.
>
> Do you know of something like this with a centerboard?
I don't thing it would work too well to have a boat that was a lot
like Burgundy with a centerboard. The whole thing is designed round
the deep ballast. It's too narrow to have any sail carrying power
without it.
But of course there have been pretty double-enders with centerboards.
The most obvious is the Albert Strange yawl Wenda
(http://tinyurl.com/3u33w2)for which PCB drew working plans at the
request of Woodenboat. PCB is quick to give all credit to Strange.
There is a double-ended CB schooner about 30' long in William Gardens
book "Yacht Designs II". It looks pretty dandy but it has a full
interior which would make it a much bigger project than Burgundy. In
the same boat there is an open double-ended ketch about 24 feet which
is more like a Swampscott dory.
Another interesting boat to look at is PCB's Centennial. It's actually
quite a lot like a big SHS in hull shape. It has two ballasted foils
that should be considered as twin removable keels, not as leeboards.
This boat is somewhat compromised due to PCB trying to make it as
cheap in material as possible, but several have been built, and at
least one was sailed a long way.
Oops, I hit send before checking. Burgundy was also written up first
in Small Boat Journal, vol 11, June 1980, back when SBJ was 'large
format'.
in Small Boat Journal, vol 11, June 1980, back when SBJ was 'large
format'.
If you scale up SHS to the size of Burgundy, 28 feet long by 6'6"
wide, the ballast goes up to 2,000 lbs, too big for a centerboard!
Burgundy was written up in Chapter 10 of the PCB book 30-Odd Boats.
Copies of this book seem to sell on eBay about once a month for
roughly $50. Burgundy is not exactly a schooner, though it is pretty
close as a cat ketch. Still, Burgundy amounts to a 50% scale-up of
SHS in my opinion.
wide, the ballast goes up to 2,000 lbs, too big for a centerboard!
Burgundy was written up in Chapter 10 of the PCB book 30-Odd Boats.
Copies of this book seem to sell on eBay about once a month for
roughly $50. Burgundy is not exactly a schooner, though it is pretty
close as a cat ketch. Still, Burgundy amounts to a 50% scale-up of
SHS in my opinion.
Bruce,
Where is there info about Burgundy? I know you have done a Freeship
rendering, but I would like to see a drawing. I do not have SBJ.
Do you know of something like this with a centerboard?
V/R
Chris
Bruce Hallman wrote:
Where is there info about Burgundy? I know you have done a Freeship
rendering, but I would like to see a drawing. I do not have SBJ.
Do you know of something like this with a centerboard?
V/R
Chris
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> Now if the SHS were scaled up you could have[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
> A scaled up SHS would essentially be a Bolger Burgundy...
>
>
Graeme,
Some experimentation is in order. If only I could see the jib while
sailing!
Gene T.
Some experimentation is in order. If only I could see the jib while
sailing!
Gene T.
On 22 Sep, 2008, at 6:17 PM, graeme19121984 wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
> wrote:
>
> > The jib sagged and just made a big bucket to catch the wind and pull
> > the bow down wind. The mast just isn't stiff enough to make the jib
> > work in those conditions.
>
> If the rounding to the jib luff is made concave, reducing the draft,
> rather than convex, which adds draft to the sail, then a jib can work
> as the luff sags with rising winds. It doesn't work as well as the
> usual cut on a tightly tensioned luff though. Perhaps the sail
> wardrobe
> could include two jibs, and the most suitable could be rigged
> according
> to the weather forcast?
>
> Graeme
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
rather than convex, which adds draft to the sail, then a jib can work
as the luff sags with rising winds. It doesn't work as well as the
usual cut on a tightly tensioned luff though. Perhaps the sail wardrobe
could include two jibs, and the most suitable could be rigged according
to the weather forcast?
Graeme
wrote:
> The jib sagged and just made a big bucket to catch the wind and pullIf the rounding to the jib luff is made concave, reducing the draft,
> the bow down wind. The mast just isn't stiff enough to make the jib
> work in those conditions.
rather than convex, which adds draft to the sail, then a jib can work
as the luff sags with rising winds. It doesn't work as well as the
usual cut on a tightly tensioned luff though. Perhaps the sail wardrobe
could include two jibs, and the most suitable could be rigged according
to the weather forcast?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
surprising amount of wind; thankfully, I haven't had to try to come up
with a fourth or a fifth yet. :-)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
wrote:
>That's the sequence that I use. Configuration 3 can stand up to a
> Can anybody confirm the steps available in reefing the Single
> Handed Schooner. Here is what I think...
>
> 1 full sails - schooner
> 2 drop jib - cat schooner
> 3 reef main - cat ketch
surprising amount of wind; thankfully, I haven't had to try to come up
with a fourth or a fifth yet. :-)
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Bruce,
That was my understanding and she has proven it to me. I just don't
want to do anything to dumb and get myself in big trouble. I'm very
pleased with the boat and being in it makes the afternoons squalls
that happen so often less frightening. Except for the lightning that
is. And as I was pounding through the swells and chop, I was glad I
wasn't to weight conscious with the build. She is a sturdy boat.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
That was my understanding and she has proven it to me. I just don't
want to do anything to dumb and get myself in big trouble. I'm very
pleased with the boat and being in it makes the afternoons squalls
that happen so often less frightening. Except for the lightning that
is. And as I was pounding through the swells and chop, I was glad I
wasn't to weight conscious with the build. She is a sturdy boat.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 22 Sep, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Michael Graf <mgraf@...>
> wrote:
> > Gene
> > Sounds like your sailing the hell out of that schooner,good for you,
> > glad to hear of your confidence in the vessel. Those Bolger
> designs just
> > work, every one I've had the chance to try, did its job with
> exuberence.
>
> Ditto from me.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the SHS was commissioned as a boat to sail from
> the mainland out to the Santa Catalina Islands on overnight trips, a
> crossing distance of 10 miles of open ocean. Not frightening, but not
> to be taken lightly either. So, I have no doubt that PCB designed the
> SHS to be seaworthy.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mike,
Lots of spray got in over the day and stuff was all wet in the hold.
I think the plans want the hatch on the bulkhead in the cockpit,
which I have but not well dogged. The forward bulkhead would add
security and warm fuzzy's. The hold cover would mainly keep things
dry on a rough day but if the worst were to happen it sure would make
for a nicer outcome. Water in the cockpit alone would be an
annoyance, not a catastrophy.
The masts are free standing so the jib is definitely a light weather
sail. With aft shrouds the jib could be held tight but as is, it
sags in a good wind. Problem is, I can't see that with the foresail
up so I didn't think about it. Phil says that the true heavy weather
configuration is the foresail and reefed main. I think it is as
Graeme said, the sails are small and low so the center of effort is
like 4 to 5 feet up. That's not real tall. I'd expect the keel to
work well against that. One configuration I did sail with by
accident was the jib and main and in the strong wind it wasn't
working. This was when the sheet was off the fore. The jib sagged
and just made a big bucket to catch the wind and pull the bow down
wind. The mast just isn't stiff enough to make the jib work in those
conditions.
The club I'm has a couple of 44 foot Luders Yawls and it amazes me
when we are out in a strong wind with the jib and the mizzen up and
the rail in the water.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
Lots of spray got in over the day and stuff was all wet in the hold.
I think the plans want the hatch on the bulkhead in the cockpit,
which I have but not well dogged. The forward bulkhead would add
security and warm fuzzy's. The hold cover would mainly keep things
dry on a rough day but if the worst were to happen it sure would make
for a nicer outcome. Water in the cockpit alone would be an
annoyance, not a catastrophy.
The masts are free standing so the jib is definitely a light weather
sail. With aft shrouds the jib could be held tight but as is, it
sags in a good wind. Problem is, I can't see that with the foresail
up so I didn't think about it. Phil says that the true heavy weather
configuration is the foresail and reefed main. I think it is as
Graeme said, the sails are small and low so the center of effort is
like 4 to 5 feet up. That's not real tall. I'd expect the keel to
work well against that. One configuration I did sail with by
accident was the jib and main and in the strong wind it wasn't
working. This was when the sheet was off the fore. The jib sagged
and just made a big bucket to catch the wind and pull the bow down
wind. The mast just isn't stiff enough to make the jib work in those
conditions.
The club I'm has a couple of 44 foot Luders Yawls and it amazes me
when we are out in a strong wind with the jib and the mizzen up and
the rail in the water.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
On 22 Sep, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Michael Graf wrote:
> Gene
> Sounds like your sailing the hell out of that schooner,good for you,
> glad to hear of your confidence in the vessel. Those Bolger designs
> just
> work, every one I've had the chance to try, did its job with
> exuberence.
> So am I reading right, your putting w/t hatches in but it really
> doesn't need it? Is the water that's getting you flying across the
> boat
> and not getting in?
> You know sailing often comes down to the sailor and his knife. While
> your putting that boat thru its paces, I wonder if reefing the main
> first...then forsail..... maybe even double reef the main and drop the
> forsail (stil flying the jib) might be another approach
> I never had a schooner, but jig and jigger as they say on my yawl
> was real comfortable have fun and keep writing
> Mike
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> A scaled up SHS would essentially be a Bolger Burgundy...A very interesting observation which does nothing to diminish the
thought that it could be a lot of fun.
> Now if the SHS were scaled up you could haveA scaled up SHS would essentially be a Bolger Burgundy...
I don't fault Phil on the lack of a hatch cover. I have a reasonable
cloth one for trailering but I'd not want to fiddle with it on the
water. It needs to be tied on and it's not good to spend to much
time away from the tiller. Though I must say the "tiller tamer" that
I put on the thing does lock the tiller nicely and still allow its
use. I think it is superior to the comb that Phil suggested. For my
hatch, I want it to have a front half and back half. The front can
be tied down while sailing. The back will be attached to the front
with a canvas hinge so it is not in jepardy of blowing away. To get
in I can just flip the back onto the front. Leaning down with both
hands on the hold rails allows safe entry. It would also allow
standing on top of the hatch to tend to the forsail.
As far as bulkhead hatches go. I was under the impression from the
plans that one was to be made for the cockpit bulkhead going aft. I
saw no call for one on the forward bulkhead in the hold. I
personally think that both bulkheads should get hatches that have
seals and multiple dogs to make them water tight. The front of the
boat will still have the foremast hole to fill from but its location
makes it unlikely to allow much water in. On the boats side it is
way out of the water and inverted needs air leaks at the hatch to
fill. With the keel it shouldn't stay inverted long.
I see this boat as a very secure boat to do some open boat cruising
in. The cockpit isn't that roomy but there is storage behind the aft
bulkhead to you can have all you need right there protected. The
forward hold is large enough to store most anything and long enough
to sleep in. And with the keel it doesn't quickly get you into
trouble. The trick is to remember which line is which! Now if I can
just avoid breaking any more spar yokes I should do just fine.
Now if the SHS were scaled up you could have 30 foot length and 6
foot width. It would be a fun project. How big to make the sails,
keel, and rudder. I'm not into design enough to guess but it would
make for a very roomy boat. The rudder I think would need a redesign
because the increased size would make the rudder shaft necessarily
large, heavy, and expensively bendable if the rudder were run
aground. We would be talking about a different boat for sure. But
I'm assuming double ended, I guess most wouldn't so then the rudder
is no problem.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
cloth one for trailering but I'd not want to fiddle with it on the
water. It needs to be tied on and it's not good to spend to much
time away from the tiller. Though I must say the "tiller tamer" that
I put on the thing does lock the tiller nicely and still allow its
use. I think it is superior to the comb that Phil suggested. For my
hatch, I want it to have a front half and back half. The front can
be tied down while sailing. The back will be attached to the front
with a canvas hinge so it is not in jepardy of blowing away. To get
in I can just flip the back onto the front. Leaning down with both
hands on the hold rails allows safe entry. It would also allow
standing on top of the hatch to tend to the forsail.
As far as bulkhead hatches go. I was under the impression from the
plans that one was to be made for the cockpit bulkhead going aft. I
saw no call for one on the forward bulkhead in the hold. I
personally think that both bulkheads should get hatches that have
seals and multiple dogs to make them water tight. The front of the
boat will still have the foremast hole to fill from but its location
makes it unlikely to allow much water in. On the boats side it is
way out of the water and inverted needs air leaks at the hatch to
fill. With the keel it shouldn't stay inverted long.
I see this boat as a very secure boat to do some open boat cruising
in. The cockpit isn't that roomy but there is storage behind the aft
bulkhead to you can have all you need right there protected. The
forward hold is large enough to store most anything and long enough
to sleep in. And with the keel it doesn't quickly get you into
trouble. The trick is to remember which line is which! Now if I can
just avoid breaking any more spar yokes I should do just fine.
Now if the SHS were scaled up you could have 30 foot length and 6
foot width. It would be a fun project. How big to make the sails,
keel, and rudder. I'm not into design enough to guess but it would
make for a very roomy boat. The rudder I think would need a redesign
because the increased size would make the rudder shaft necessarily
large, heavy, and expensively bendable if the rudder were run
aground. We would be talking about a different boat for sure. But
I'm assuming double ended, I guess most wouldn't so then the rudder
is no problem.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
On 22 Sep, 2008, at 10:20 AM, pvanderwaart wrote:
> > A hard cover over
> > the hold sounds like a good idea. I never quite got why PCB had
> > issues with its storage except maybe when carrying a passenger.
>
> Keep in mind that designers are subject to the same mundane problems
> and whims as the rest of us. PCB was producing these designs on a
> short time frame and, initially at least, for very little money. In
> other words, the $/hour for the original design was quite low. Some
> small percent of designs (Micro, Chebacco, SHS) keep generating a
> trickle of income, but many don't.
>
> So it could well be that when it came time to contemplate a hatch
> cover, he just didn't have the time to spend, or even didn't have a
> great idea for what to do. He could draw a simple hatch cover, but
> that would be difficult to stow, or he could draw some more
> complicated, multi-part or folding affair, but it would take time to
> figure out and draw, and might well add an additional page to the plan
> set. So he punted. I think he is pretty generous to builders who
> improve on minor details, though, like most designers, he can be
> scathing to anyone making big changes without proper analysis.
>
> This design has been fairly slow to catch on. The first boat was built
> right away but didn't get a lot of exposure until it was being sold. I
> think the great pictures of Susan's boat had a lot to do with the
> continuing, perhaps increasing, interest. When you consider that it's
> well over the magic 15' (two-sheet panel) size, has the ballast keel,
> the unusual - though beautiful - rig with all those spars, and is
> pretty intricate (consider the rudder well), it probably would have
> faded away except that it fits a niche that's pretty much ignored. I'm
> sure it helps that it seems a safer alternative to the exciting Light
> Scooner.
>
> Now if we had one the 4-panel size, about 30 feet long......
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Michael Graf <mgraf@...> wrote:
If I am not mistaken, the SHS was commissioned as a boat to sail from
the mainland out to the Santa Catalina Islands on overnight trips, a
crossing distance of 10 miles of open ocean. Not frightening, but not
to be taken lightly either. So, I have no doubt that PCB designed the
SHS to be seaworthy.
> GeneDitto from me.
> Sounds like your sailing the hell out of that schooner,good for you,
> glad to hear of your confidence in the vessel. Those Bolger designs just
> work, every one I've had the chance to try, did its job with exuberence.
If I am not mistaken, the SHS was commissioned as a boat to sail from
the mainland out to the Santa Catalina Islands on overnight trips, a
crossing distance of 10 miles of open ocean. Not frightening, but not
to be taken lightly either. So, I have no doubt that PCB designed the
SHS to be seaworthy.
Gene
Sounds like your sailing the hell out of that schooner,good for you,
glad to hear of your confidence in the vessel. Those Bolger designs just
work, every one I've had the chance to try, did its job with exuberence.
So am I reading right, your putting w/t hatches in but it really
doesn't need it? Is the water that's getting you flying across the boat
and not getting in?
You know sailing often comes down to the sailor and his knife. While
your putting that boat thru its paces, I wonder if reefing the main
first...then forsail..... maybe even double reef the main and drop the
forsail (stil flying the jib) might be another approach
I never had a schooner, but jig and jigger as they say on my yawl
was real comfortable have fun and keep writing
Mike
Gene Tehansky wrote:
Sounds like your sailing the hell out of that schooner,good for you,
glad to hear of your confidence in the vessel. Those Bolger designs just
work, every one I've had the chance to try, did its job with exuberence.
So am I reading right, your putting w/t hatches in but it really
doesn't need it? Is the water that's getting you flying across the boat
and not getting in?
You know sailing often comes down to the sailor and his knife. While
your putting that boat thru its paces, I wonder if reefing the main
first...then forsail..... maybe even double reef the main and drop the
forsail (stil flying the jib) might be another approach
I never had a schooner, but jig and jigger as they say on my yawl
was real comfortable have fun and keep writing
Mike
Gene Tehansky wrote:
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Can anybody confirm the steps available in reefing the Single Handed
> Schooner. Here is what I think...
>
> 1 full sails - schooner
> 2 drop jib - cat schooner
> 3 reef main - cat ketch
>
> It just seems that there should be other options. I don't consider
> sailing just on the main to be a standard reef because it puts to
> much load on the rudder.
>
> I ask this because I had my boat out on Friday and I SHOULD HAVE
> REEFED but, thinking it wasn't necessary I went around the last bend
> into more open water and reefing would have made it easy. As things
> were I had a hard time getting up wind at one point to get a shot at
> the entrance to my marina. I finally got there on main alone but I
> had problems with two clips that held the sheets to the main and the
> forsail and the story gets long from there. Loosing control of a
> sail makes it difficult to do anything nicely, like dropping sail.
> Which I did but it took a knife and I broke 2 of the horns on the
> fore boom and gaff. I'm getting good at gluing those back on. So I
> was able to get the boat into the marina on main alone. You can tell
> by rudder angle that you are compensating for the aft center of
> effort but it sails fine. Big rudder. Oh and this was all at night,
> strong wind, big swell and chop. The boat is good in this but I got
> a few buckets of water on the head during the worst of it.
>
> What am I going to do to the boat as a result of this outting. Seal
> both bulkheads with dogged hatches. This was not necessary here even
> with bad conditions but it would make things bullet proof. Make a
> hard cover for the hold that can be walked on. Make it in 2 pieces
> so that the back half will fold onto the front half for access
> underway. 13 hours of sailing in strong wind brought a lot of
> splashes in and I didn't want the soft cover on so I could get
> forward and so it wouldn't blow away. Replace the trigger clip
> fasteners with screw shackles that won't pop off in a jibe. Oh and
> jibes are not a very big deal on this boat with small sails. Unless
> the sheet pops off!
>
> Coming back down river in the evening I was on a course that was
> slightly more into the wind than I could do. I fooled myself into
> thinking that I was fine sail wise because I was constantly pinching
> which held the hull up. Whenever I felt I was being blown over,
> turning up into the wind was a fine method of righting the boat. It
> isn't that quick to go over. It is a keel boat. I should have reefed.
>
> Ok, speed wise, I sailed from the mouth of the Patuxent (Maryland,
> war of 1812) upriver to Benedict and back. Primarily a reach on the
> way up with only one tack. I was in the 5 and 6 knot range most of
> the way up. The wind was strong but my local weather source,
> Patuxent River, said 9 knots all day, fat chance. At one point I had
> a good gust and the rail was in the water and it hit 7 knots. I
> should have reefed.
>
> Anyway, that is some of it. I have a lot of confidence in the boat
> after that. I really shouldn't have been in that situation but I
> decided to run home in the night rather than sleep out. and the last
> bit surprised me. Since it was open to the Chesapeake bay, I should
> have known. I should have reefed.
>
> Sincerely,
> Gene Tehansky
>
>
Graeme,
Thanks for the comments. I did heave-to in order to mount my nav
lights. I back winded the jib and held the main in hard. It worked
fine. That was Phils recommendation from MAIB I believe. Its a long
way to crawl out on the point of the bow to mount the light or to
press the button to turn it on.
The head dunking was not a head in the water dunking, it was the hull
hitting a wave or swell that sent an overly large chunk of water my
way. It felt like about a bucket. I was beam onto the swells and
wind as I pointing into my marina. It took 4 trys to get in I
think. On one, I thought I was there and squinted and determined
that no, I was a smidge west of the entrance and those were rocks.
Thats when I turned downwind and the fore sail wrapped around the
mast. The entrance green and red are dim and there is a hangar in
the background with some red aero nav lights on it. I must have
thought one of those were the nautical red and been a little off.
Oh, I figured out why the trigger snaps popped off the horse. There
are knots on the horses to limit travel of the sheet. When the snap
hit the knot, it was the right shape to wedge open the snap and off
it went. I ordered some screw on pieces to replace those. In a
static position they would have been secure.
Yes, the boat did take car of me. There were at least 2 occasions
near the end where I was trying to figure out how to handle the sail
fiasco when I just turned the boat to sail downwind. As it got
broadside to the wind she healed over real good but I was beginning
to have a feel for what she could do and knew it wasn't an issue. It
wasn't but it looked exciting.
With my bulkheads sealed and a new hatch for the hold her sea keeping
ability will be vastly improved. I hope I don't ever need it but If
I was out last Friday then who knows what I'll do in the future.
Happy sailing Graeme.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
Thanks for the comments. I did heave-to in order to mount my nav
lights. I back winded the jib and held the main in hard. It worked
fine. That was Phils recommendation from MAIB I believe. Its a long
way to crawl out on the point of the bow to mount the light or to
press the button to turn it on.
The head dunking was not a head in the water dunking, it was the hull
hitting a wave or swell that sent an overly large chunk of water my
way. It felt like about a bucket. I was beam onto the swells and
wind as I pointing into my marina. It took 4 trys to get in I
think. On one, I thought I was there and squinted and determined
that no, I was a smidge west of the entrance and those were rocks.
Thats when I turned downwind and the fore sail wrapped around the
mast. The entrance green and red are dim and there is a hangar in
the background with some red aero nav lights on it. I must have
thought one of those were the nautical red and been a little off.
Oh, I figured out why the trigger snaps popped off the horse. There
are knots on the horses to limit travel of the sheet. When the snap
hit the knot, it was the right shape to wedge open the snap and off
it went. I ordered some screw on pieces to replace those. In a
static position they would have been secure.
Yes, the boat did take car of me. There were at least 2 occasions
near the end where I was trying to figure out how to handle the sail
fiasco when I just turned the boat to sail downwind. As it got
broadside to the wind she healed over real good but I was beginning
to have a feel for what she could do and knew it wasn't an issue. It
wasn't but it looked exciting.
With my bulkheads sealed and a new hatch for the hold her sea keeping
ability will be vastly improved. I hope I don't ever need it but If
I was out last Friday then who knows what I'll do in the future.
Happy sailing Graeme.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
On 22 Sep, 2008, at 7:04 AM, graeme19121984 wrote:
> Gene,
>
> I think for SHS that's it. PCB mentioned also that traditionally
> schooners hove-to under foresail alone with tiller hard over - they
> apparently can forereach quite a lot however. I kinda feel that it
> would take 20 knots or more to heel that boat under full sail, so
> under a 2nd reef of about 70sqft of sail area then centred only about
> 4.5 to 5 ft above the waterline it's going to take a lot of wind to
> heel her right over!
>
> Say, thanks for the good sailing report. Sounds like that boat might
> have looked after you in those conditions you found yourself in. I
> was surprised to hear your head got dunked though! A hardcover over
> the hold sounds like a good idea. I never quite got why PCB had
> issues with its storage except maybe when carrying a passenger there -
> but it is a SHS.
>
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Can anybody confirm the steps available in reefing the Single
> Handed
> > Schooner. Here is what I think...
> >
> > 1 full sails - schooner
> > 2 drop jib - cat schooner
> > 3 reef main - cat ketch
> >
> > It just seems that there should be other options....
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> A hard cover overKeep in mind that designers are subject to the same mundane problems
> the hold sounds like a good idea. I never quite got why PCB had
> issues with its storage except maybe when carrying a passenger.
and whims as the rest of us. PCB was producing these designs on a
short time frame and, initially at least, for very little money. In
other words, the $/hour for the original design was quite low. Some
small percent of designs (Micro, Chebacco, SHS) keep generating a
trickle of income, but many don't.
So it could well be that when it came time to contemplate a hatch
cover, he just didn't have the time to spend, or even didn't have a
great idea for what to do. He could draw a simple hatch cover, but
that would be difficult to stow, or he could draw some more
complicated, multi-part or folding affair, but it would take time to
figure out and draw, and might well add an additional page to the plan
set. So he punted. I think he is pretty generous to builders who
improve on minor details, though, like most designers, he can be
scathing to anyone making big changes without proper analysis.
This design has been fairly slow to catch on. The first boat was built
right away but didn't get a lot of exposure until it was being sold. I
think the great pictures of Susan's boat had a lot to do with the
continuing, perhaps increasing, interest. When you consider that it's
well over the magic 15' (two-sheet panel) size, has the ballast keel,
the unusual - though beautiful - rig with all those spars, and is
pretty intricate (consider the rudder well), it probably would have
faded away except that it fits a niche that's pretty much ignored. I'm
sure it helps that it seems a safer alternative to the exciting Light
Scooner.
Now if we had one the 4-panel size, about 30 feet long......
Gene,
I think for SHS that's it. PCB mentioned also that traditionally
schooners hove-to under foresail alone with tiller hard over - they
apparently can forereach quite a lot however. I kinda feel that it
would take 20 knots or more to heel that boat under full sail, so
under a 2nd reef of about 70sqft of sail area then centred only about
4.5 to 5 ft above the waterline it's going to take a lot of wind to
heel her right over!
Say, thanks for the good sailing report. Sounds like that boat might
have looked after you in those conditions you found yourself in. I
was surprised to hear your head got dunked though! A hardcover over
the hold sounds like a good idea. I never quite got why PCB had
issues with its storage except maybe when carrying a passenger there -
but it is a SHS.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
I think for SHS that's it. PCB mentioned also that traditionally
schooners hove-to under foresail alone with tiller hard over - they
apparently can forereach quite a lot however. I kinda feel that it
would take 20 knots or more to heel that boat under full sail, so
under a 2nd reef of about 70sqft of sail area then centred only about
4.5 to 5 ft above the waterline it's going to take a lot of wind to
heel her right over!
Say, thanks for the good sailing report. Sounds like that boat might
have looked after you in those conditions you found yourself in. I
was surprised to hear your head got dunked though! A hardcover over
the hold sounds like a good idea. I never quite got why PCB had
issues with its storage except maybe when carrying a passenger there -
but it is a SHS.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
>Handed
> Can anybody confirm the steps available in reefing the Single
> Schooner. Here is what I think...
>
> 1 full sails - schooner
> 2 drop jib - cat schooner
> 3 reef main - cat ketch
>
> It just seems that there should be other options....
Can anybody confirm the steps available in reefing the Single Handed
Schooner. Here is what I think...
1 full sails - schooner
2 drop jib - cat schooner
3 reef main - cat ketch
It just seems that there should be other options. I don't consider
sailing just on the main to be a standard reef because it puts to
much load on the rudder.
I ask this because I had my boat out on Friday and I SHOULD HAVE
REEFED but, thinking it wasn't necessary I went around the last bend
into more open water and reefing would have made it easy. As things
were I had a hard time getting up wind at one point to get a shot at
the entrance to my marina. I finally got there on main alone but I
had problems with two clips that held the sheets to the main and the
forsail and the story gets long from there. Loosing control of a
sail makes it difficult to do anything nicely, like dropping sail.
Which I did but it took a knife and I broke 2 of the horns on the
fore boom and gaff. I'm getting good at gluing those back on. So I
was able to get the boat into the marina on main alone. You can tell
by rudder angle that you are compensating for the aft center of
effort but it sails fine. Big rudder. Oh and this was all at night,
strong wind, big swell and chop. The boat is good in this but I got
a few buckets of water on the head during the worst of it.
What am I going to do to the boat as a result of this outting. Seal
both bulkheads with dogged hatches. This was not necessary here even
with bad conditions but it would make things bullet proof. Make a
hard cover for the hold that can be walked on. Make it in 2 pieces
so that the back half will fold onto the front half for access
underway. 13 hours of sailing in strong wind brought a lot of
splashes in and I didn't want the soft cover on so I could get
forward and so it wouldn't blow away. Replace the trigger clip
fasteners with screw shackles that won't pop off in a jibe. Oh and
jibes are not a very big deal on this boat with small sails. Unless
the sheet pops off!
Coming back down river in the evening I was on a course that was
slightly more into the wind than I could do. I fooled myself into
thinking that I was fine sail wise because I was constantly pinching
which held the hull up. Whenever I felt I was being blown over,
turning up into the wind was a fine method of righting the boat. It
isn't that quick to go over. It is a keel boat. I should have reefed.
Ok, speed wise, I sailed from the mouth of the Patuxent (Maryland,
war of 1812) upriver to Benedict and back. Primarily a reach on the
way up with only one tack. I was in the 5 and 6 knot range most of
the way up. The wind was strong but my local weather source,
Patuxent River, said 9 knots all day, fat chance. At one point I had
a good gust and the rail was in the water and it hit 7 knots. I
should have reefed.
Anyway, that is some of it. I have a lot of confidence in the boat
after that. I really shouldn't have been in that situation but I
decided to run home in the night rather than sleep out. and the last
bit surprised me. Since it was open to the Chesapeake bay, I should
have known. I should have reefed.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
Schooner. Here is what I think...
1 full sails - schooner
2 drop jib - cat schooner
3 reef main - cat ketch
It just seems that there should be other options. I don't consider
sailing just on the main to be a standard reef because it puts to
much load on the rudder.
I ask this because I had my boat out on Friday and I SHOULD HAVE
REEFED but, thinking it wasn't necessary I went around the last bend
into more open water and reefing would have made it easy. As things
were I had a hard time getting up wind at one point to get a shot at
the entrance to my marina. I finally got there on main alone but I
had problems with two clips that held the sheets to the main and the
forsail and the story gets long from there. Loosing control of a
sail makes it difficult to do anything nicely, like dropping sail.
Which I did but it took a knife and I broke 2 of the horns on the
fore boom and gaff. I'm getting good at gluing those back on. So I
was able to get the boat into the marina on main alone. You can tell
by rudder angle that you are compensating for the aft center of
effort but it sails fine. Big rudder. Oh and this was all at night,
strong wind, big swell and chop. The boat is good in this but I got
a few buckets of water on the head during the worst of it.
What am I going to do to the boat as a result of this outting. Seal
both bulkheads with dogged hatches. This was not necessary here even
with bad conditions but it would make things bullet proof. Make a
hard cover for the hold that can be walked on. Make it in 2 pieces
so that the back half will fold onto the front half for access
underway. 13 hours of sailing in strong wind brought a lot of
splashes in and I didn't want the soft cover on so I could get
forward and so it wouldn't blow away. Replace the trigger clip
fasteners with screw shackles that won't pop off in a jibe. Oh and
jibes are not a very big deal on this boat with small sails. Unless
the sheet pops off!
Coming back down river in the evening I was on a course that was
slightly more into the wind than I could do. I fooled myself into
thinking that I was fine sail wise because I was constantly pinching
which held the hull up. Whenever I felt I was being blown over,
turning up into the wind was a fine method of righting the boat. It
isn't that quick to go over. It is a keel boat. I should have reefed.
Ok, speed wise, I sailed from the mouth of the Patuxent (Maryland,
war of 1812) upriver to Benedict and back. Primarily a reach on the
way up with only one tack. I was in the 5 and 6 knot range most of
the way up. The wind was strong but my local weather source,
Patuxent River, said 9 knots all day, fat chance. At one point I had
a good gust and the rail was in the water and it hit 7 knots. I
should have reefed.
Anyway, that is some of it. I have a lot of confidence in the boat
after that. I really shouldn't have been in that situation but I
decided to run home in the night rather than sleep out. and the last
bit surprised me. Since it was open to the Chesapeake bay, I should
have known. I should have reefed.
Sincerely,
Gene Tehansky
> 1) The ballast slab is poured on its side.The simple shape of the ballast slab is a big simplification.
I once read that someone found a company that provides lead shielding
for x-rooms, etc. They were willing to pour lead in any thickness, and
were willing to pour the lead and cut it to outline from a template
provided. Which is to say that you might be able to get some help with
the scary parts even if you do a lot of it yourself.
As I did it single handed, I didn't take any photos of myself
installing the 400 lbs of lead ballast on my Micro, but it was
relatively easy I recall.
1) The ballast slab is poured on its side.
2) I started by pushing the slab onto a 3/4" piece of plywood about 4'
square to serve as a truck.
3) Then I jacked the lead slab up 90 degrees and installed some braces
to hold it upright.
4) I then jacked the Micro hull up about 3 feet in the air and rested
it on automotive jack stands and bricks.
5) I then rolled the plywood ballast truck around on pieces of 1" pipe
as rollers until it was precisely in horizontal position under the
hull.
6) Jacking the hull again, I recommend using farm jacks, I lowered the
hull down to precise vertical position over the lead casting.
7) Then the lead casting was fastened to the hull using the 1/4"
plywood sheathing glue and hammering of stout nails per PCB plans.
installing the 400 lbs of lead ballast on my Micro, but it was
relatively easy I recall.
1) The ballast slab is poured on its side.
2) I started by pushing the slab onto a 3/4" piece of plywood about 4'
square to serve as a truck.
3) Then I jacked the lead slab up 90 degrees and installed some braces
to hold it upright.
4) I then jacked the Micro hull up about 3 feet in the air and rested
it on automotive jack stands and bricks.
5) I then rolled the plywood ballast truck around on pieces of 1" pipe
as rollers until it was precisely in horizontal position under the
hull.
6) Jacking the hull again, I recommend using farm jacks, I lowered the
hull down to precise vertical position over the lead casting.
7) Then the lead casting was fastened to the hull using the 1/4"
plywood sheathing glue and hammering of stout nails per PCB plans.
Bruce -
My point was not so much from the strength view, but rather thinking
of ease of installation. Peter Lenihan used a kind of jig saw puzzle
approach with the keel being keyed into deadwood. My suggestion is a
bit simpler. Add keel bolts as part of the pour process.
When installing the keel on the Micro, it fell in mid lift on me.
300lbs of lead slab threw my shoulder out for months. It then dawned
on me that if I had put keel bolts in, the installation would have
been very straight forward. Just position the boat over the keel,
(easier to move the boat than the keel), align the bolts and then seal
and snug up the nuts. The sheathing that Bolger indicates could be
installed at that point as well at a relatively leisurely pace without
fear of anything falling on you.
Got one side of the 18' Work Skiff cut out today. Waiting for
fairing, then will use it as a template for the opposite side
tomorrow. Stem and transom are done as well. Ran out of epoxy...
David
My point was not so much from the strength view, but rather thinking
of ease of installation. Peter Lenihan used a kind of jig saw puzzle
approach with the keel being keyed into deadwood. My suggestion is a
bit simpler. Add keel bolts as part of the pour process.
When installing the keel on the Micro, it fell in mid lift on me.
300lbs of lead slab threw my shoulder out for months. It then dawned
on me that if I had put keel bolts in, the installation would have
been very straight forward. Just position the boat over the keel,
(easier to move the boat than the keel), align the bolts and then seal
and snug up the nuts. The sheathing that Bolger indicates could be
installed at that point as well at a relatively leisurely pace without
fear of anything falling on you.
Got one side of the 18' Work Skiff cut out today. Waiting for
fairing, then will use it as a template for the opposite side
tomorrow. Stem and transom are done as well. Ran out of epoxy...
David
Not to disparage Peter Lenihan and I admire his method of building the
keel, which certainly works. I just would like to add that the Bolger
method also is effective and adequate (and cheaper and faster). This
gets into an area of boat building philosophy. I think that Peter's
keel method is more strong, and the question is: When is 'more
strong' better? When is good enough 'good enough'? Part of the
appeal of the Bolger Micro design is that it simply meets your needs,
simply. I argue that simple is sometimes better even if it is not
stronger. I also accept that this is a personal opinion and subject
to personal philosophy and choice.
keel, which certainly works. I just would like to add that the Bolger
method also is effective and adequate (and cheaper and faster). This
gets into an area of boat building philosophy. I think that Peter's
keel method is more strong, and the question is: When is 'more
strong' better? When is good enough 'good enough'? Part of the
appeal of the Bolger Micro design is that it simply meets your needs,
simply. I argue that simple is sometimes better even if it is not
stronger. I also accept that this is a personal opinion and subject
to personal philosophy and choice.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM1999/articles/micro/index.htm
Here you go!
Here you go!
> Is there a link to to Peter Lenihan's Method?
> Sam
Is there a link to to Peter Lenihan's Method?
Sam
Sam
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dnjost" <davidjost@...> wrote:
>
> The only tricky part for me was the bow transom as there is a reverse
> bevel and it needs to be built large enough to cut the bevel.
>
> This might be a good place to start as it gets you in the groove and
> the tough stuff out of the way first.
>
> I built all the frames, then the sides. What a thrill when it went
3D.
>
> I would recommend using Peter Lenihan's method for laying the keel, or
> at least use traditional keel bolts to help with the process. This is
> the only thing I would change as I found that positioning the keel and
> getting it to line up with the keel batten was a bit of a bear.
>
> good luck,
> David Jost
>
The only tricky part for me was the bow transom as there is a reverse
bevel and it needs to be built large enough to cut the bevel.
This might be a good place to start as it gets you in the groove and
the tough stuff out of the way first.
I built all the frames, then the sides. What a thrill when it went 3D.
I would recommend using Peter Lenihan's method for laying the keel, or
at least use traditional keel bolts to help with the process. This is
the only thing I would change as I found that positioning the keel and
getting it to line up with the keel batten was a bit of a bear.
good luck,
David Jost
bevel and it needs to be built large enough to cut the bevel.
This might be a good place to start as it gets you in the groove and
the tough stuff out of the way first.
I built all the frames, then the sides. What a thrill when it went 3D.
I would recommend using Peter Lenihan's method for laying the keel, or
at least use traditional keel bolts to help with the process. This is
the only thing I would change as I found that positioning the keel and
getting it to line up with the keel batten was a bit of a bear.
good luck,
David Jost
Touche' very good point, didnt think of that, thats why I'm here.
Thanks, Sam
Thanks, Sam
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> I was thinking....on the keel, couldn't a person make it a tad
> > bit wider and maybe a we tad deeper and fill the form with wheel
> > weights and then just poor in epoxy?
> >
> > Sam
>
>
> Try melting lead, it isn't that hard to do.
>
> I am guessing that wheel weights embedded in epoxy is about half the
> density and twice the cost of solid lead, so the keel would need twice
> the volume.
>
FWIW, for the ballast of Seabird'86, it looks like Bolger has used
stacked lead ingots instead of a large single pour. (Does anybody
agree or disagree?)
I imagine that you could cast up 2 inch square by 12 inch long ingots,
and then stack and glue them together using epoxy.
Stacked up and glued ingots would have the advantage of high density,
much higher than wheel weights embedded in epoxy, while at the same
time allowing the ease of dealing with smaller pots of molten lead,
versus a large pot.
Still, in my case casting the ballast for my Micro 'Rose', I found
that melting 400 of lead in three 1/3 batches worked fine. I used a
steel paint bucket setting on bricks, and BBQ briquettes for fuel.
(and a leaf blower for air)
I found that moving the molten metal around was simple through the use
of a ladle, (a can bolted to a metal rod.)
stacked lead ingots instead of a large single pour. (Does anybody
agree or disagree?)
I imagine that you could cast up 2 inch square by 12 inch long ingots,
and then stack and glue them together using epoxy.
Stacked up and glued ingots would have the advantage of high density,
much higher than wheel weights embedded in epoxy, while at the same
time allowing the ease of dealing with smaller pots of molten lead,
versus a large pot.
Still, in my case casting the ballast for my Micro 'Rose', I found
that melting 400 of lead in three 1/3 batches worked fine. I used a
steel paint bucket setting on bricks, and BBQ briquettes for fuel.
(and a leaf blower for air)
I found that moving the molten metal around was simple through the use
of a ladle, (a can bolted to a metal rod.)
Yeah I've got a set of Bolger plans for the Hawkeye. It made sense to
me to have the dimensions in one place.
I agree w' building a poster board model. It reinforces the idea of
building a kit of parts, then assembling the kit. IMO it is an
important mide set to have. Each part is a completed and is therefore
a successful step along the way to a ready to sail craft.
me to have the dimensions in one place.
I agree w' building a poster board model. It reinforces the idea of
building a kit of parts, then assembling the kit. IMO it is an
important mide set to have. Each part is a completed and is therefore
a successful step along the way to a ready to sail craft.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "samang251" <samang251@...> wrote:
>
> Got the plans. Holy Crap! I must be missing something! There are no
> measurements on diagram sheet #3 Panel layout.
> Let me try to get this right-
> * all measurements come from sheet #5 ???
>
I was thinking....on the keel, couldn't a person make it a tad
I am guessing that wheel weights embedded in epoxy is about half the
density and twice the cost of solid lead, so the keel would need twice
the volume.
> bit wider and maybe a we tad deeper and fill the form with wheelTry melting lead, it isn't that hard to do.
> weights and then just poor in epoxy?
>
> Sam
I am guessing that wheel weights embedded in epoxy is about half the
density and twice the cost of solid lead, so the keel would need twice
the volume.
Sam,
You need to do the math and don't forget to compensate for the
negative effect of the extra water displaced by the increased size of
the keel. Since glass is over twice the density of resin, I'd add a
LOT of milled glass fibers to the epoxy. It still lets it flow but
it would be much denser then epoxy alone. It would also be good to
mix in lead shot to fill big holes, or just start with the shot. I
did the keel on my Single Handed Schooner in galvanized buckets on a
Coleman double burner camp grill. Not a big deal. Although my first
try bulged the form. The weight of the lead is hard to believe. I
had to remelt with a propane torch and try again. That was 125
pounds. Wear the right stuff and be careful. Oh, when I melted the
wheel weights I had, a lot of that light stuff called steel floated
to the surface.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
You need to do the math and don't forget to compensate for the
negative effect of the extra water displaced by the increased size of
the keel. Since glass is over twice the density of resin, I'd add a
LOT of milled glass fibers to the epoxy. It still lets it flow but
it would be much denser then epoxy alone. It would also be good to
mix in lead shot to fill big holes, or just start with the shot. I
did the keel on my Single Handed Schooner in galvanized buckets on a
Coleman double burner camp grill. Not a big deal. Although my first
try bulged the form. The weight of the lead is hard to believe. I
had to remelt with a propane torch and try again. That was 125
pounds. Wear the right stuff and be careful. Oh, when I melted the
wheel weights I had, a lot of that light stuff called steel floated
to the surface.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 19 Sep, 2008, at 1:44 AM, samang251 wrote:
> I have the plans for the original Micro. Building a scale model is an
> excellent idea... maybe a 2:1 scale (2" to 1'), I've got fingers like
> snags! I was thinking....on the keel, couldn't a person make it a tad
> bit wider and maybe a we tad deeper and fill the form with wheel
> weights and then just poor in epoxy?
>
> Sam
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-
> boats@...> wrote:
> >
> > ???,
> > Do you have plans for only the conventional Micro or also for the
> > Navigator. 5 of my sheets are numbered (1 of, 2 of...) but I have
> 10
> > total with the Navigator option and Micro II. The sheets are to
> > scale so an architectural rule will be need to get measurements
> off
> > of the layouts it seems. I see a lot of work ahead for me because
> as
> > I read it, the list of steps will build me a regular Micro. Since
> I
> > want the Navigator I have to decide which steps are wrong for the
> > Navigator and modify them or drop them. The panel layout appears
> to
> > be for the conventional Micro only so I can't just cut panels, I
> have
> > to figure out what parts are not in my boat and do layouts for
> those
> > new ones. Another significant item is the keel. The original
> keel
> > is lacking in side force when the anti slap wedges are put in so
> it
> > needs to be enlarged. I feel I should do the right shape from the
> > beginning so I have that to work out. It ain't easy but thats why
> we
> > get paid the big bucks.
> >
> > Bottom line, Bolger plans are not Welsford or Storer plans both
> of
> > which have detailed dimensional information for an amazing amount
> of
> > the build. The details ain't there, well you have to coax them
> out
> > of the plans. This ain't the place to voice opinions about the
> man
> > and he is the only shop in town with this boat so I got what I got
> > and we shall see how it goes. You got to admit, it gives you a
> bit
> > of freedom on how to do it...
> >
> > I felt there was some of the same in the rigging on my Single
> Handed
> > Schooner. If I knew nothing about sailing I'd have some loose
> > sails. Possibly I should have used a magnifying glass on the
> plans.
> > Enough sour grapes for me, its time to build.
> >
> > One last comment... Considering the modifications I have to
> figure
> > out to get the plans into Micro Navigator condition, I think
> starting
> > from a Long Micro would be about the same work! Ok, sail sizes
> > differ but some guesses there should result in a reasonable boat.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Gene T.
> >
> > On 18 Sep, 2008, at 4:51 AM, samang251 wrote:
> >
> > > Got the plans. Holy Crap! I must be missing something! There are
> no
> > > measurements on diagram sheet #3 Panel layout.
> > > Let me try to get this right-
> > > * all measurements come from sheet #5 ???
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Graeme,
The safest would be to keep the same house size and avoid the
increase in windage. Then again, having a longer area to walk in is
a plus. The hatch in front of the house could be lengthened to
provide some additional open air capabilities. Yea, I go with same
size house and a longer "hood" for a bigger engine, Ford Mustang style!
So many boats, so little time!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
The safest would be to keep the same house size and avoid the
increase in windage. Then again, having a longer area to walk in is
a plus. The hatch in front of the house could be lengthened to
provide some additional open air capabilities. Yea, I go with same
size house and a longer "hood" for a bigger engine, Ford Mustang style!
So many boats, so little time!
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 18 Sep, 2008, at 11:58 PM, graeme19121984 wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
> wrote:
>
> > One last comment... Considering the modifications I have to figure
> > out to get the plans into Micro Navigator condition, I think
> starting
> > from a Long Micro would be about the same work! Ok, sail sizes
> > differ but some guesses there should result in a reasonable boat.
>
> Interesting observation, Gene.
>
> Do you suppose that you'd proportionally site the cabin conversion
> longitudinally in the same place, or maybe more aft by just using the
> given measurement in from the transom?
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have the plans for the original Micro. Building a scale model is an
excellent idea... maybe a 2:1 scale (2" to 1'), I've got fingers like
snags! I was thinking....on the keel, couldn't a person make it a tad
bit wider and maybe a we tad deeper and fill the form with wheel
weights and then just poor in epoxy?
Sam
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-
boats@...> wrote:
excellent idea... maybe a 2:1 scale (2" to 1'), I've got fingers like
snags! I was thinking....on the keel, couldn't a person make it a tad
bit wider and maybe a we tad deeper and fill the form with wheel
weights and then just poor in epoxy?
Sam
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-
boats@...> wrote:
>10
> ???,
> Do you have plans for only the conventional Micro or also for the
> Navigator. 5 of my sheets are numbered (1 of, 2 of...) but I have
> total with the Navigator option and Micro II. The sheets are tooff
> scale so an architectural rule will be need to get measurements
> of the layouts it seems. I see a lot of work ahead for me becauseas
> I read it, the list of steps will build me a regular Micro. SinceI
> want the Navigator I have to decide which steps are wrong for theto
> Navigator and modify them or drop them. The panel layout appears
> be for the conventional Micro only so I can't just cut panels, Ihave
> to figure out what parts are not in my boat and do layouts forthose
> new ones. Another significant item is the keel. The originalkeel
> is lacking in side force when the anti slap wedges are put in soit
> needs to be enlarged. I feel I should do the right shape from thewe
> beginning so I have that to work out. It ain't easy but thats why
> get paid the big bucks.of
>
> Bottom line, Bolger plans are not Welsford or Storer plans both
> which have detailed dimensional information for an amazing amountof
> the build. The details ain't there, well you have to coax themout
> of the plans. This ain't the place to voice opinions about theman
> and he is the only shop in town with this boat so I got what I gotbit
> and we shall see how it goes. You got to admit, it gives you a
> of freedom on how to do it...Handed
>
> I felt there was some of the same in the rigging on my Single
> Schooner. If I knew nothing about sailing I'd have some looseplans.
> sails. Possibly I should have used a magnifying glass on the
> Enough sour grapes for me, its time to build.figure
>
> One last comment... Considering the modifications I have to
> out to get the plans into Micro Navigator condition, I thinkstarting
> from a Long Micro would be about the same work! Ok, sail sizesno
> differ but some guesses there should result in a reasonable boat.
>
> Sincerely,
> Gene T.
>
> On 18 Sep, 2008, at 4:51 AM, samang251 wrote:
>
> > Got the plans. Holy Crap! I must be missing something! There are
> > measurements on diagram sheet #3 Panel layout.
> > Let me try to get this right-
> > * all measurements come from sheet #5 ???
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Gene Tehansky <goldranger02-boats@...>
wrote:
Do you suppose that you'd proportionally site the cabin conversion
longitudinally in the same place, or maybe more aft by just using the
given measurement in from the transom?
Graeme
wrote:
> One last comment... Considering the modifications I have to figureInteresting observation, Gene.
> out to get the plans into Micro Navigator condition, I think starting
> from a Long Micro would be about the same work! Ok, sail sizes
> differ but some guesses there should result in a reasonable boat.
Do you suppose that you'd proportionally site the cabin conversion
longitudinally in the same place, or maybe more aft by just using the
given measurement in from the transom?
Graeme
> Bottom line, Bolger plans are not Welsford or Storer plans both ofBolger plans vary in the level of detail depending on the client. I'm
> which have detailed dimensional information for an amazing amount of
> the build. The details ain't there, well you have to coax them out
> of the plans.
sure there is more detail on the Micro plans (intended as a stock
plan) than the SHS (designed for an experienced builder). Most of
Bolger's drawings are quite accurate so that dimensions can be taken
off with a scale (i.e. ruler).
The panel layout drawing sheet is intended to give you a idea as to
the most efficient way to layout the plywood pieces on 4x8 sheets of
plywood to avoid waste when you saw. It is not intended to show
dimensions that can be read elsewhere on the drawing.
It is normal for designers making drawings to be reluctant to show
dimensions at more than one place in the drawings. (The reason for
this is that too often in the past, designers get into trouble when
the dimensions are in conflict.) Rest assured that hundreds of people
before you have built the Micro, and the dimensions shown on the
drawings are complete and correct.
Also, get an Architects scale, because the drawings are accurate
enough that you can read dimensions off the drawings by scaling using
the Architects scale. If you don't have an Architects scale, you must
get one, in my opinion, they are indispensable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect's_scale
the most efficient way to layout the plywood pieces on 4x8 sheets of
plywood to avoid waste when you saw. It is not intended to show
dimensions that can be read elsewhere on the drawing.
It is normal for designers making drawings to be reluctant to show
dimensions at more than one place in the drawings. (The reason for
this is that too often in the past, designers get into trouble when
the dimensions are in conflict.) Rest assured that hundreds of people
before you have built the Micro, and the dimensions shown on the
drawings are complete and correct.
Also, get an Architects scale, because the drawings are accurate
enough that you can read dimensions off the drawings by scaling using
the Architects scale. If you don't have an Architects scale, you must
get one, in my opinion, they are indispensable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architect's_scale
Bruce,
Thanks for the reinforcement. I do believe that this is the only
logical approach to my concerns. I need to build a model with all
the internal bulkheads to know what I need and what I don't.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
Thanks for the reinforcement. I do believe that this is the only
logical approach to my concerns. I need to build a model with all
the internal bulkheads to know what I need and what I don't.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 18 Sep, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Bruce Hallman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:51 AM, samang251 <samang251@...>
> wrote:
> > Got the plans.
>
> That is great. Try not to be overwhelmed. I strongly recommend that
> you get some cardboard and masking tape and build a model at 1 inch =
> 1 foot scale. This process of building a scale model should take just
> few hours and will reveal enough secrets that it can save you a
> hundred hours later.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
???,
Do you have plans for only the conventional Micro or also for the
Navigator. 5 of my sheets are numbered (1 of, 2 of...) but I have 10
total with the Navigator option and Micro II. The sheets are to
scale so an architectural rule will be need to get measurements off
of the layouts it seems. I see a lot of work ahead for me because as
I read it, the list of steps will build me a regular Micro. Since I
want the Navigator I have to decide which steps are wrong for the
Navigator and modify them or drop them. The panel layout appears to
be for the conventional Micro only so I can't just cut panels, I have
to figure out what parts are not in my boat and do layouts for those
new ones. Another significant item is the keel. The original keel
is lacking in side force when the anti slap wedges are put in so it
needs to be enlarged. I feel I should do the right shape from the
beginning so I have that to work out. It ain't easy but thats why we
get paid the big bucks.
Bottom line, Bolger plans are not Welsford or Storer plans both of
which have detailed dimensional information for an amazing amount of
the build. The details ain't there, well you have to coax them out
of the plans. This ain't the place to voice opinions about the man
and he is the only shop in town with this boat so I got what I got
and we shall see how it goes. You got to admit, it gives you a bit
of freedom on how to do it...
I felt there was some of the same in the rigging on my Single Handed
Schooner. If I knew nothing about sailing I'd have some loose
sails. Possibly I should have used a magnifying glass on the plans.
Enough sour grapes for me, its time to build.
One last comment... Considering the modifications I have to figure
out to get the plans into Micro Navigator condition, I think starting
from a Long Micro would be about the same work! Ok, sail sizes
differ but some guesses there should result in a reasonable boat.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
Do you have plans for only the conventional Micro or also for the
Navigator. 5 of my sheets are numbered (1 of, 2 of...) but I have 10
total with the Navigator option and Micro II. The sheets are to
scale so an architectural rule will be need to get measurements off
of the layouts it seems. I see a lot of work ahead for me because as
I read it, the list of steps will build me a regular Micro. Since I
want the Navigator I have to decide which steps are wrong for the
Navigator and modify them or drop them. The panel layout appears to
be for the conventional Micro only so I can't just cut panels, I have
to figure out what parts are not in my boat and do layouts for those
new ones. Another significant item is the keel. The original keel
is lacking in side force when the anti slap wedges are put in so it
needs to be enlarged. I feel I should do the right shape from the
beginning so I have that to work out. It ain't easy but thats why we
get paid the big bucks.
Bottom line, Bolger plans are not Welsford or Storer plans both of
which have detailed dimensional information for an amazing amount of
the build. The details ain't there, well you have to coax them out
of the plans. This ain't the place to voice opinions about the man
and he is the only shop in town with this boat so I got what I got
and we shall see how it goes. You got to admit, it gives you a bit
of freedom on how to do it...
I felt there was some of the same in the rigging on my Single Handed
Schooner. If I knew nothing about sailing I'd have some loose
sails. Possibly I should have used a magnifying glass on the plans.
Enough sour grapes for me, its time to build.
One last comment... Considering the modifications I have to figure
out to get the plans into Micro Navigator condition, I think starting
from a Long Micro would be about the same work! Ok, sail sizes
differ but some guesses there should result in a reasonable boat.
Sincerely,
Gene T.
On 18 Sep, 2008, at 4:51 AM, samang251 wrote:
> Got the plans. Holy Crap! I must be missing something! There are no
> measurements on diagram sheet #3 Panel layout.
> Let me try to get this right-
> * all measurements come from sheet #5 ???
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:51 AM, samang251 <samang251@...> wrote:
you get some cardboard and masking tape and build a model at 1 inch =
1 foot scale. This process of building a scale model should take just
few hours and will reveal enough secrets that it can save you a
hundred hours later.
> Got the plans.That is great. Try not to be overwhelmed. I strongly recommend that
you get some cardboard and masking tape and build a model at 1 inch =
1 foot scale. This process of building a scale model should take just
few hours and will reveal enough secrets that it can save you a
hundred hours later.
Got the plans. Holy Crap! I must be missing something! There are no
measurements on diagram sheet #3 Panel layout.
Let me try to get this right-
* all measurements come from sheet #5 ???
measurements on diagram sheet #3 Panel layout.
Let me try to get this right-
* all measurements come from sheet #5 ???