Re: It Might As Well Be Spring

So you could increase the load carried by 100% and only sink two and a bit inches as BW1 weighs 600-700lbs empty? There's an issue with the extra loading possibly raising the COG height from being close to the floor though... external ballast then? External ballast takes the boat in a different direction, perhaps to do some offshore twitching too. Spring brings out the birds.

Twitchers,

"...I named Birdwatcher -- after reading an article by Jack Dunn in which he used that word for "craft in which one might poke through a marsh or backwater in search of nothing more than a pleasant lunch and a tan." (BWAOM, p234)


BIRDS.
Birdwatcher, Anhinga, Teal, Shearwater, Barn Owl, Sea Bird '86, Blackbird, Double Eagle, Flying Splinter, Storm Petrel, Bird of Dawning, Swallow, Archaeopteryx, Big Bird, Shady Lady, Dovekie, Featherwind, Skimmer, Hawkeye, Nightingale, Sea Hawk

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> A quick BW hull model through Hulls, starting from 800, 1000, and
> 1500 pounds shows a pounds per inch immersion of about 350#.
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:36 PM, c.ruzer wrote:
> > When loaded over the drawn 1500lbs displacement waterlines shown
> > there's a note says to trim with the bow about about 2" clear of
> > still water. Extra loading, and BW2 is built several hundred
> > pounds heavier, would top out at how much?

A quick BW hull model through Hulls, starting from 800, 1000, and
1500 pounds shows a pounds per inch immersion of about 350#.

On Apr 10, 2011, at 9:36 PM, c.ruzer wrote:
> When loaded over the drawn 1500lbs displacement waterlines shown
> there's a note says to trim with the bow about about 2" clear of
> still water. Extra loading, and BW2 is built several hundred pounds
> heavier, would top out at how much?
>

BW2 particulars put a trailer weight of 800 - 1000 pounds, an added 200, and draft, "Still not much,"  presumably on the same 1500 pound max.

When loaded over the drawn 1500lbs displacement waterlines shown there's a note says to trim with the bow about about 2" clear of still water. Extra loading, and BW2 is built several hundred pounds heavier, would top out at how much?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> Then again, regarding BW trim this picture shows it may not be so
> critical.
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3581038080_c5d6601b93_o.jpg
>

Then again, regarding BW trim this picture shows it may not be so
critical.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3581038080_c5d6601b93_o.jpg

Publication date is 1998. I was still able to get a new condition copy recently.

oop? Out Of Print? oops. How long, how far did they cruise? Somewhat removed from the original ideas of relaxed sailing simplicity is it not, with lots more strings 'n things to attend to? On that sort of water though she was probably a cheap, comfy, dry, roomy, and child-safe cruising choice. Good on 'em!

I suppose from the looks that they got the middle and leeboards ideas from Whalewatcher? And chopped off the transom square to mount the outboard motor off the side there - differently to what others have done further forward? And kept the oarports? Looks like a big change in rudder foil profile and chord. Is that a boomkin for a mizzen too? And what... a junk main sail?

There was once a Nacy Jack... open boat, but similar hull IIRC... how would a Birdwatcher do at that size? Cut back on the transparent panelling to lower cost...

How'd their leeboards go? Much weatherhelm?

Thanks for sharing the $600 Boat photo scan.



.--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:

>
>
> This atmospheric photo is taken from Dan Hookham's The Simplistic
> Sailboat, A Family Cruise in a $600 boat, his tale of building, then
> cruising the San Juan and Gulf Islands with wife and infant daughter
> in a self-adapted Birdwatcher.
>
> The book is now oop. Too bad. There are several fine pictures of the
> boat. It's an earnest plea for living simply and a helpful cruising
> guide.
> Mark
>
> 
>

For the tow weight challenged LM lover, here's the Zeiger's old Zoon,
which apparently was sailed without fatality.
http://www.akzeigers.com/DaveAnke.html

As I had felt, the photos show that she livens up a bit and looks a little cuter with something on top to break up the long straight lines, á la Red Zinger and others.  

MR. Bolger in commenting on my wanting my boat 30ft instead of the 28ft as we originally talked about, said "Of course we all know bigger is always better".    This of course was in the context of the boat were were talking about certainly not any or every boat.                 
                                                                        Doug

On 04/03/2011 01:40 PM, loyseal1 wrote:

 

Finally got back home after watching the Texas Rangers beat the Red Sox on opening day. Here is the letter from Bolger.

Dear Mr. Seal,
Plans of Long Micro, our Design #486, are available for $200 to build one boat; of Micro Design #422, $150.

Costs and time vary so wildly, that it useless to give figures, according to builder's habits and circumstances. Long Micro is about 50 % heavier than Micro, 532 lbs. of ballast to 412 , for instance. That would be a fair reflection of relative material cost. The difference in labor time would be much less as all the operations are the same.

In our opinion, and what we hear from owners, Long Micro is the better value for the investment in money and effort. They are powerful good sailers.

Sincerely,
Phil Bolger

So there it is, a direct comparison of the two, directly from Bolger.


--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loyseal1"<loyseal1@...>wrote:
>
> Ten years ago when I lived in New Orleans, I wrote Bolger a letter asking his opinion of the two boats. He closed the his reply with, "Long Micro is a powerful sailor." He indicated that he thought the Long Micro was a better value (my wording)for the time and money invested. I am out of town right now. When I get home, I will post the entire letter for everyone's enjoyment. I am very proud of my letter and proudly display it in my study.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > There's never a final word on our emotional perseverations on this and that boat design, or a wee bit of not harmful ancestor worship in asking what Phil would say...
> >
> > So i'd like to ask what Phil might have felt in comparing his work on micro and long micro. Was the first a more ideal work from first principles and the latter a lesser modification and compromise? Or was the long micro an improvement in significant ways without significant trade-off's?
> >
> > And has anyone completed drawings or mock ups of the long micro with a navigator cabin? Those extra four feet of waterline just don't look as cute or beautiful as the smaller micro to my completely subjective eye.
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> >http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
>

Finally got back home after watching the Texas Rangers beat the Red Sox on opening day. Here is the letter from Bolger.

Dear Mr. Seal,
Plans of Long Micro, our Design #486, are available for $200 to build one boat; of Micro Design #422, $150.

Costs and time vary so wildly, that it useless to give figures, according to builder's habits and circumstances. Long Micro is about 50 % heavier than Micro, 532 lbs. of ballast to 412 , for instance. That would be a fair reflection of relative material cost. The difference in labor time would be much less as all the operations are the same.

In our opinion, and what we hear from owners, Long Micro is the better value for the investment in money and effort. They are powerful good sailers.

Sincerely,
Phil Bolger

So there it is, a direct comparison of the two, directly from Bolger.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loyseal1" <loyseal1@...> wrote:
>
> Ten years ago when I lived in New Orleans, I wrote Bolger a letter asking his opinion of the two boats. He closed the his reply with, "Long Micro is a powerful sailor." He indicated that he thought the Long Micro was a better value (my wording)for the time and money invested. I am out of town right now. When I get home, I will post the entire letter for everyone's enjoyment. I am very proud of my letter and proudly display it in my study.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > There's never a final word on our emotional perseverations on this and that boat design, or a wee bit of not harmful ancestor worship in asking what Phil would say...
> >
> > So i'd like to ask what Phil might have felt in comparing his work on micro and long micro. Was the first a more ideal work from first principles and the latter a lesser modification and compromise? Or was the long micro an improvement in significant ways without significant trade-off's?
> >
> > And has anyone completed drawings or mock ups of the long micro with a navigator cabin? Those extra four feet of waterline just don't look as cute or beautiful as the smaller micro to my completely subjective eye.
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> >http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
>

> And has anyone completed drawings or mock ups of the long micro
> with a navigator cabin?

Long Micro Navigator album(s)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/photos/album/1193635355/pic/list

Ten years ago when I lived in New Orleans, I wrote Bolger a letter asking his opinion of the two boats. He closed the his reply with, "Long Micro is a powerful sailor." He indicated that he thought the Long Micro was a better value (my wording)for the time and money invested. I am out of town right now. When I get home, I will post the entire letter for everyone's enjoyment. I am very proud of my letter and proudly display it in my study.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> There's never a final word on our emotional perseverations on this and that boat design, or a wee bit of not harmful ancestor worship in asking what Phil would say...
>
> So i'd like to ask what Phil might have felt in comparing his work on micro and long micro. Was the first a more ideal work from first principles and the latter a lesser modification and compromise? Or was the long micro an improvement in significant ways without significant trade-off's?
>
> And has anyone completed drawings or mock ups of the long micro with a navigator cabin? Those extra four feet of waterline just don't look as cute or beautiful as the smaller micro to my completely subjective eye.
>
> All the Best,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>

>Was the first a more ideal work from first principles and the latter a lesser modification and compromise? Or was the long micro an improvement in significant ways without significant trade-off's?

Don't know about this but...

>Those extra four feet of waterline just don't look as cute or beautiful as the smaller micro to my completely subjective eye.

speaking of subjectiveness: I think Micro is 100% SMART with a look that says: "4'x8' plywood sheets" and still looking cute;
Long Micro is an ELEGANT small sailboat that happens to have square sections.
As you said:
de gvstibvs non dispvtandvm est.

Ste

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:

> And has anyone completed drawings or mock ups of the long micro with a navigator cabin?

I did some pencil work trying to scheme out a navigator cabin for the
Long Micro a few years back, and the problem that I uncovered in that
process was that the Micro Navigator has the rudder post located above
the rudder, and this reaches fairly sensible into the cabin. The Long
Micro's rudder post is located too far aft for a simple way to be
operated from inside the Navigator cabin.

There's never a final word on our emotional perseverations on this and that boat design, or a wee bit of not harmful ancestor worship in asking what Phil would say...