Re: Rondo II

> Andrew,
> Beauty! The one thing we can't argue too much
> about....almost like
> tellin' a man his wife is ugly :- ) Gotta love the
> one you're with...
> By the way,is it Black Skimmer or Black Skipper(a
> new design?)?
> Peter

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Wallace <visayannz@y...>

> > Chaps,

> > totally destroy the classically beautiful lines of
> > Black Skipper.
> > Andrew.
>
> Andrew,
> Beauty! The one thing we can't argue too much about....almost like
> tellin' a man his wife is ugly :- ) Gotta love the one you're

> By the way,is it Black Skimmer or Black Skipper(a new design?)?
> Peter

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Andrew Wallace <visayannz@y...>

> > Chaps,

> > totally destroy the classically beautiful lines of
> > Black Skipper.
> > Andrew.
>
> Andrew,
> Beauty! The one thing we can't argue too much about....almost like
> tellin' a man his wife is ugly :- ) Gotta love the one you're

> By the way,is it Black Skimmer or Black Skipper(a new design?)?
> Peter

> ..but the leeboards are so damned ugly and in my mind
> totally destroy the classically beautiful lines of
> Black Skipper.
> Andrew.

> Skipjack).
> Andrew Wallace who is/was in Alberta about a year
> ago, wanted to buy
> Skipjack, and came over here and talked to the
> owner. Bad luck, she
> was sold just before he got here. You could try
> emailing him.....I
> don't know if his address is still current, but it
> was-
>
>WallaceA@...
>
> You could also search the membership of this Group
> to which he
> belongs. Also search the messages here, because
> there were posts
> about the boat.
> DonB
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed,
> thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts,
> and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:
>bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Donald E. Johnson" <don@f...> wrote:
>
> I have no doubt it's possible to install a centerboard in a Black
Skimmer but I can't
> understand why you would want to. I love my leeboards. They open
up the cabin,
> they perform as well or better than a centerboard, they are
effective in shallow water
> when a centerboard isn't, they are easily cleared of seaweed and
other debris, they
> don't require a leaky trunk, they don't jam in that same leaky
trunk, you can put
> them both down when beaching the boat (parking brakes), if you
damage one, they
> are much easier to repair and I think they give the boat a lot of
character.
>
>
> > ate: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:34:42 -0000
> > From: "mannthree" <johnmann@i...>
> > Subject: Re: Rondo II
> >
>
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the reply. I have the plans for Black Skimmer and
> > > admire
> > > > the design immensely. It would be interesting to see if a
> > > > centreboard could be incorporated into Black Skimmer as per
Rondo and
> > > > also a lower aspect sailplan. For example eliminate the yard
> > > on
> > > > the Solent Lug rig and hang a Junk rig of the smaller mast.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > John
> >
>
>
> -- Don

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Donald E. Johnson" <don@f...>

> Peter and Donald,

> > they perform as well or better than a centerboard, they are
> effective in shallow water
> > when a centerboard isn't, they are easily cleared of seaweed and
> other debris, they
> > don't require a leaky trunk, they don't jam in that same leaky
> trunk, you can put
> > them both down when beaching the boat (parking brakes), if you
> damage one, they
> > are much easier to repair and I think they give the boat a lot

> character.
>
>
>
>
> Well stated Mr.Johnson.It would be difficult to make a winning

> for a centerboard after that. Bolger would be proud!
>
>
> Peter Lenihan

> Don,

> doubt there are any plans, because the boat was built in the

> and has probably had a couple of owners since. But I think she

> is in the same location, which is not too hard for me to get
> to.....just depends on the tide. I will get a close look from the
> outside and report back to you soon.
> By the way, I think you were considering a swinging mast. One

> that struck me was, how tall and slippery the original mast is! A
> beautiful bit of work in this case, but the folder would be a joy.
> DonB
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mannthree" <johnmann@i...> wrote:
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> > > Don,
> >
> > On examining the Back Skimmer plans and useing pieces of paper

> to
> > size, it looks like a centreboard could be placed underneath the
> > forward raised cockpit area and into the cabin to the edge of

> > forward double bunk. Unfortunately I am not a naval architect

> > cannot work out he size of the board required nor its position

> > that it would be under the correct effort for the sail plan.

> > chance of some diagrams, pictures or email address of person who
> has
> > designed the centreboard option for Black Skimmer,
> >
> > Regards
> > John
> > I have been inside a Black Skimmer built with a centreboard

> > > here in NZ. Leeboards are virtually unknown here, and he did

> > he
> > > did know......centreboard. Part of the board was under the
> cockpit,
> > > with a winch mounted on the front of the cockpit.
> > > Access was not too bad, in a cabin which is pretty constricted
> > > anyway, and I believe she sailed well. Also it is a neater
> looking
> > > boat without the leeboards.
> > > DonB
> > >
> > > > Thanks for the reply. I have the plans for Black Skimmer

> > > admire
> > > > the design immensely. It would be interesting to see if a
> > > > centreboard could be incorporated into Black Skimmer as per
> Rondo
> > > > and also a lower aspect sailplan. For example eliminate the
> yard
> > > on
> > > > the Solent Lug rig and hang a Junk rig of the smaller mast.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > John

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Donald E. Johnson" <don@f...> wrote:
I love my leeboards. They open up the cabin,
> they perform as well or better than a centerboard, they are
effective in shallow water
> when a centerboard isn't, they are easily cleared of seaweed and
other debris, they
> don't require a leaky trunk, they don't jam in that same leaky
trunk, you can put
> them both down when beaching the boat (parking brakes), if you
damage one, they
> are much easier to repair and I think they give the boat a lot of
character.




Well stated Mr.Johnson.It would be difficult to make a winning case
for a centerboard after that. Bolger would be proud!


Peter Lenihan

> ate: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:34:42 -0000
> From: "mannthree" <johnmann@...>
> Subject: Re: Rondo II
>

> >
> > > Thanks for the reply. I have the plans for Black Skimmer and
> > admire
> > > the design immensely. It would be interesting to see if a
> > > centreboard could be incorporated into Black Skimmer as per Rondo and
> > > also a lower aspect sailplan. For example eliminate the yard
> > on
> > > the Solent Lug rig and hang a Junk rig of the smaller mast.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > John
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mannthree" <johnmann@i...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> > Don,
>
> On examining the Back Skimmer plans and useing pieces of paper cut
to
> size, it looks like a centreboard could be placed underneath the
> forward raised cockpit area and into the cabin to the edge of the
> forward double bunk. Unfortunately I am not a naval architect and
> cannot work out he size of the board required nor its position such
> that it would be under the correct effort for the sail plan. Any
> chance of some diagrams, pictures or email address of person who
has
> designed the centreboard option for Black Skimmer,
>
> Regards
> John
> I have been inside a Black Skimmer built with a centreboard John,
> > here in NZ. Leeboards are virtually unknown here, and he did what
> he
> > did know......centreboard. Part of the board was under the
cockpit,
> > with a winch mounted on the front of the cockpit.
> > Access was not too bad, in a cabin which is pretty constricted
> > anyway, and I believe she sailed well. Also it is a neater
looking
> > boat without the leeboards.
> > DonB
> >
> > > Thanks for the reply. I have the plans for Black Skimmer and
> > admire
> > > the design immensely. It would be interesting to see if a
> > > centreboard could be incorporated into Black Skimmer as per
Rondo
> > > and also a lower aspect sailplan. For example eliminate the
yard
> > on
> > > the Solent Lug rig and hang a Junk rig of the smaller mast.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > John

> Don,

> here in NZ. Leeboards are virtually unknown here, and he did what

> did know......centreboard. Part of the board was under the cockpit,
> with a winch mounted on the front of the cockpit.
> Access was not too bad, in a cabin which is pretty constricted
> anyway, and I believe she sailed well. Also it is a neater looking
> boat without the leeboards.
> DonB
>
> > Thanks for the reply. I have the plans for Black Skimmer and
> admire
> > the design immensely. It would be interesting to see if a
> > centreboard could be incorporated into Black Skimmer as per Rondo
> > and also a lower aspect sailplan. For example eliminate the yard
> on
> > the Solent Lug rig and hang a Junk rig of the smaller mast.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John

> Thanks for the reply. I have the plans for Black Skimmer and

> the design immensely. It would be interesting to see if a
> centreboard could be incorporated into Black Skimmer as per Rondo
> and also a lower aspect sailplan. For example eliminate the yard

> the Solent Lug rig and hang a Junk rig of the smaller mast.
>
> Regards,
>
> John

>For reasons unrelated to any thread on this group, I put a couple of
>scans of PCB's Rondo II design on my GeoCities page. Take a look, if
>interested.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/pvanderwaart/Rondo2a.jpg
>http://www.geocities.com/pvanderwaart/Rondo2b.jpg
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
>- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
>- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
>- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
>Fax: (978) 282-1349
>- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>> Black Skimmer was design 294 and
>> Rondo was 295.

> > Did this design pre or post date the Black Skimmer?
>
> An amazingly perceptive question, apparently. According to this
> groups database, Black Skimmer was design 294 and Rondo was 295.

> they were in PCB'x mind at the same time.
>
> Peter

> Black Skimmer was design 294 and
> Rondo was 295.

> Did this design pre or post date the Black Skimmer?

> For reasons unrelated to any thread on this group, I put a couple

> scans of PCB's Rondo II design on my GeoCities page. Take a look,

> interested.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/pvanderwaart/Rondo2a.jpg
>http://www.geocities.com/pvanderwaart/Rondo2b.jpg
>
> Peter

> For reasons unrelated to any thread on this group, I put a couple

> scans of PCB's Rondo II design on my GeoCities page. Take a look,

> interested.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/pvanderwaart/Rondo2a.jpg
>http://www.geocities.com/pvanderwaart/Rondo2b.jpg
>
> Peter

> I think Im going to stop this before I go nuts
> Jeff
>

----- Original Message -----
From: David Ryan <david@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited


Chuck --

I'm more than happy with the LSME as is. Once I get the midships and
forward locker closed off I think she'll have floatation galore. I
don't want to make the cockpits any smaller than they are. I *like*
all that room.

However, if you want to see my next wild-eyed scheme, take a look at:

http://www.egroups.com/files/bolger/LSME+Photos/LSx2%2Egif


The current iteration doesn't have enough headroom in the
galley/lounge, so I've just raised the main boom till the jaws are at
the same height as the end of the foreboom (makes a nice line) and
jacked up the deckhouse. If you're curious, I'll post a gif.

YIBB,

David

>David:
>
>Have you thought about just decking her with a couple of small, self
>draining cockpits for the crew. That would seem to preserve the asthetics,
>and make her more seaworthy.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>> FBBB --
>>
>> I spent my youth racing around in lasers and thistles and accepted
>> capsizing as part of a day on the water. In a laser especially,
>> capsizing is of little consequence other than the time lost. A
>> thistle will float high enough to get underway and self bail. Racing
>> or just messing about, we drove our boats hard, never reefed, and
>> accept the consequences (which were minimal.)
>>
>> Sailing and fishing my teal in open water has changed my perspective
>> considerably. She goes from water kissing the gunwale to swamped
>> frighteningly quickly. With wind, swell and chop even a couple of
>> inches of water in the boat makes thing very "interesting." Add to
>> that that lil'winnie has no floatation and putting the rail under
>> means not only losing the boat, but likely my tackle box, my rod and
>> reel, and an embarrassing swim to the beach.
>>
>> Now I'm not making an argument for boats that sink if they're
>> mishandled. I fully intend to add floatation to lil'winnie (one of
>> these days.) But when I do, I'll lose the space fore and aft that it
>> takes up. Right now, my rod and reel stow in forward area while I row
>> out through the surf. If I hadn't been able to get ALL the way into
>> the back of the boat going round the point, I've had lost her for
>> sure. My point is this: my boat will be safer, but that safety will
>> come at a price in functionality. I'll have to spend money to keep
>> the rod out of my way, and running in front of seas (like when I run
>> back onto the beach,) will actually be trickier.
>>
>> My point? There are two factors that make a boat safe. One is design,
>> and the other is understanding what your boat can and cannot do. I
>> have thought that under bare poles the LSME could ride out about
>> anything that Lake Montauk could through at her. This weekends
>> misadventure is proof-positive that just isn't so -- she filled up
>> and sank in minutes. For a shoal-draft inland cruiser, a rig that is
>> quick to reef/douse and the sense to do before the shit hits the fan
>> might be a better solution than blocks, tackles, and a 1000 pound
>> daggerboard.
>>
>> So.
>>
>> I'm drawing deckhouses on xerox copies of the light scooner plans,
>> and I've got some proportions I'm starting to like. The lateral plane
>> is still a puzzler, but based on my short time wrestling with the
>> daggerboard on the LSME, any solution is NOT going to involve making
>> it heavier. I had proposed just such a thing for the LSME to PCB (ala
>> the Single-handed Schooner), and now I better understand his cautions
>> again it.
>>
>> It seems much of Bolger's work has been designed to circumvent the
>> troubles associated with centerboards (leaks, intrusions into the
>> cabin,) but I'm finding the idea of a centerboard more and more
>> attractive, annoyances be damned. Speed costs, safety costs, and so
>> does nostalgia.
>>
>> YIBB,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> >David --
>> >
>> >One item I'd been imagining for the Light Schooner, which might help
>> >stability on a doubled version of it, too, is: basically making a
>> >big, heavy, poor-man's wing keel.
>> > Get some 3/4" or 1" plate steel the width of your daggerboard
>> >and make a big T out of it -- the long blade, say, 2/3 the length of
>> >the specified dagger board, then weld a cross piece flat at the
>> >bottom, running two or three feet athwartships. (If possible, getting
>> >it faired into efficient foil shape.) Then rig this so it can be
>> >cranked vertically up and down the daggerboard case, maybe with holes
>> >drilled to pin it at various heights.
>> > It would be heavy, so it'd need a pulley system of some sort --
>> >you would have to install it from below, then bolt on a handle to
>> >keep it from sliding out, etc. But ultimately it would provide a
>> >great lever arm for righting the boat, while maintaining the ability
>> >to sail right up onto a beach -- just crank the wing-keel-board up
>> >and the crosspiece would rest more or less flat against the bottom of
>> >the boat.
>> > My questions are: how much tracking ability is lost if you
>> >shorten the blade, but add a bottom plate? and: how much righting arm
>> >do you gain? And, what new problems are caused that I'm not
>> >foreseeing?
>> > Having once capsized my Windsprint and bailed her (endlessly) I
>> >realize that these open boats, once swamped, are nothing but enormous
>> >bathtubs. Doing that with the LS, or with LSX2, on the water, would
>> >be a nightmare. Beyond possibly minimizing capsize risk, it might
>> >just make the boat easier to sail in a fresh breeze.
>> > Also, if the blade can be made short enough, it might address the
>> >problem you mention of the dagegrboard interfering with the sail when
>> >it's drawn up. (The daggerboard on my Gypsy does just that, and it's
>> >trouble when you're pulling up the board as you sail onto a beach --
>> >the sail then swings over and pins itself against the board, catching
>> >wind it's supposed to be spilling.)
>> >
>> >Anyone know of such a device being tried on a small (or large) boat?
>> >
>> >All best,
>> >Garth
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>>
>> CRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
>> 134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
>> New York, NY 10001
>> (212) 243-1636
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>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.


CRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 243-1636


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.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cyber Rebel <secesh@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


I'm thinking more along the lines of an already built boat on which one were
to add layer upon layer of wood to the bottom, and measure it's effects
progressively. Hmmmm.... as I write this.... if one added weight to the
bottom of the boat, one is effectively increasing the weight of the boat
itself the same as adding ballast to the inside, therefore, it is the same
as adding the wood inside the boat. It would still just add weight to the
structure, thereby ballasting the boat.
____________________________________________________________________________
__

----- Original Message -----
From: Cyber Rebel <secesh@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


Lemme see if I got this right... Since wood is lighter than water, then
technically, the more wood you add to the bottom of the boat, the higher the
boat will sit in the water and the less ballasted it will be? I realize that
under normal circumstances, the difference is minute, but is this the case?

Steve Lane
Lansdowne, Maryland
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Human beings can always be counted upon to assert, with vigor, their
God-given right to be stupid.
-Dean Koontz
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Gilbert <jgilbert@...>
To: Bolger eGroup <bolger@egroups.com>
Cc: Boatdesign eGroup <boatdesign@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


> The bottom line is that wood is lighter than water in most cases.
> Unless you are using one of the very rare and expensive timbers
> that dont float, thickening the bottom strengthens your boat without
> ballasting it.
> However it may lower the boats center of gravity which i suppose could
> be cited as a "ballasting' effect.
> I have a dory hulled catamaran design with a 25mm ply bottom...the
> reason for it is it is a main structural element, it is both sole and
> bottom,
> and I want it to be capable of taking a bit of a gouge if beached
> where a rock shouldnt be but often is.
> This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> Any opinions.
> Jeff Gilbert.
>
>
> > > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small
> sailing
> > > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
> >
> > I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is on
> > land. And cost more, of course.
> >
> > PHV
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>



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.

----- Original Message -----
From: <freedem@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 10:21 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


> Steve
> I do belive that you have it right in your post 8175. as to this one
> if the wood is added on the out side the size of the boat is increaces
> more than its total weight and so it will float higher in the water.
> Two examples. there was the story in wooden boat about a tired plank
> on frame boat that was saved by double diagnal cold molding two layers
> of 3/8s veneer on the outside. it did float about two inches higher.
> another story concerned a man who built a trimarane from steel culvert
> pipe. finding it "floated" almost awash be thought if he added
> neoprene foam, two inches thick it would act like the blubber on
> whales and dolphens. it did float better was still rather deep in the
> water. determined to sail off to paradice it is said he cast off one
> day in foggy sanfrancisco harbor with a nice bonvoyage party. when the
> fog cleared three days latter he was found under the goldengate
> bridge, going in and out with the tide. but he pushed on arriving in
> hawaii after 6 months at an average speed of 1.5 miles per hour.
> after finding and marrying a lady there, the pair set off in the
> culvert trimarane for the looong voyage to tahiti
> jeffery
>
> --- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Cyber Rebel" <secesh@h...> wrote:
> > Lemme see if I got this right... Since wood is lighter than water,
> then
> > technically, the more wood you add to the bottom of the boat, the
> higher the
> > boat will sit in the water and the less ballasted it will be? I
> realize that
> > under normal circumstances, the difference is minute, but is this
> the case?
> >
> > Steve Lane
> > Lansdowne, Maryland
> >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______
> > __
> > Human beings can always be counted upon to assert, with vigor, their
> > God-given right to be stupid.
> > -Dean
> Koontz
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Jeff Gilbert <jgilbert@d...>
> > To: Bolger eGroup <bolger@egroups.com>
> > Cc: Boatdesign eGroup <boatdesign@egroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 9:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure
> >
> >
> > > The bottom line is that wood is lighter than water in most cases.
> > > Unless you are using one of the very rare and expensive timbers
> > > that dont float, thickening the bottom strengthens your boat
> without
> > > ballasting it.
> > > However it may lower the boats center of gravity which i suppose
> could
> > > be cited as a "ballasting' effect.
> > > I have a dory hulled catamaran design with a 25mm ply bottom...the
> > > reason for it is it is a main structural element, it is both sole
> and
> > > bottom,
> > > and I want it to be capable of taking a bit of a gouge if beached
> > > where a rock shouldnt be but often is.
> > > This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> > > I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> > > and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> > > Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> > > Any opinions.
> > > Jeff Gilbert.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > > > > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small
> > > sailing
> > > > > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
> > > >
> > > > I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is
> on
> > > > land. And cost more, of course.
> > > >
> > > > PHV
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 "
>
>
>
> 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.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Leinweber <chuck@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


> Steve:
>
> Almost right: Since wood is lighter than water, then the more wood you
add
> to the bottom of the boat, the higher the FLOOR will sit in relation to
the
> water level, and the MORE ballasted it will be. Imagine a two foot thick
> flat plywood raft; the floor would actually be above water level.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> > Lemme see if I got this right... Since wood is lighter than water, then
> > technically, the more wood you add to the bottom of the boat, the higher
> the
> > boat will sit in the water and the less ballasted it will be? I realize
> that
> > under normal circumstances, the difference is minute, but is this the
> case?
> >
> > Steve Lane
> > Lansdowne, Maryland
> >
>
>
>
> 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.
>

> Lemme see if I got this right... Since wood is lighter than water, then
> technically, the more wood you add to the bottom of the boat, the higher

> boat will sit in the water and the less ballasted it will be? I realize

> under normal circumstances, the difference is minute, but is this the

>
> Steve Lane
> Lansdowne, Maryland
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Gilbert <jgilbert@...>
To: Bolger eGroup <bolger@egroups.com>
Cc: Boatdesign eGroup <boatdesign@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


> The bottom line is that wood is lighter than water in most cases.
> Unless you are using one of the very rare and expensive timbers
> that dont float, thickening the bottom strengthens your boat without
> ballasting it.
> However it may lower the boats center of gravity which i suppose could
> be cited as a "ballasting' effect.
> I have a dory hulled catamaran design with a 25mm ply bottom...the
> reason for it is it is a main structural element, it is both sole and
> bottom,
> and I want it to be capable of taking a bit of a gouge if beached
> where a rock shouldnt be but often is.
> This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> Any opinions.
> Jeff Gilbert.
>
>
> > > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small
> sailing
> > > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
> >
> > I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is on
> > land. And cost more, of course.
> >
> > PHV
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Leinweber <chuck@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


Jeff:

You don't mention it, but can we assume that these chines are taped inside
and out in typical "stitch and tape" fashion? If so, is the careful
beveling really necessary?

Chuck, who must have got up on the wrong side of the bed, as he is attacking
everything in sight, but hoping he will be forgiven

> This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> Any opinions.
> Jeff Gilbert.
>




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.

--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Cyber Rebel" <secesh@h...> wrote:
> Lemme see if I got this right... Since wood is lighter than water,
then
> technically, the more wood you add to the bottom of the boat, the
higher the
> boat will sit in the water and the less ballasted it will be? I
realize that
> under normal circumstances, the difference is minute, but is this
the case?
>
> Steve Lane
> Lansdowne, Maryland
>
______________________________________________________________________
______
> __
> Human beings can always be counted upon to assert, with vigor, their
> God-given right to be stupid.
> -Dean
Koontz
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Gilbert <jgilbert@d...>
> To: Bolger eGroup <bolger@egroups.com>
> Cc: Boatdesign eGroup <boatdesign@egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 9:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure
>
>
> > The bottom line is that wood is lighter than water in most cases.
> > Unless you are using one of the very rare and expensive timbers
> > that dont float, thickening the bottom strengthens your boat
without
> > ballasting it.
> > However it may lower the boats center of gravity which i suppose
could
> > be cited as a "ballasting' effect.
> > I have a dory hulled catamaran design with a 25mm ply bottom...the
> > reason for it is it is a main structural element, it is both sole
and
> > bottom,
> > and I want it to be capable of taking a bit of a gouge if beached
> > where a rock shouldnt be but often is.
> > This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> > I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> > and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> > Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> > Any opinions.
> > Jeff Gilbert.
> >
> >
> > > > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > > > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small
> > sailing
> > > > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
> > >
> > > I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is
on
> > > land. And cost more, of course.
> > >
> > > PHV
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 "

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Gilbert <jgilbert@...>
To: Bolger eGroup <bolger@egroups.com>
Cc: Boatdesign eGroup <boatdesign@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited - structure


> The bottom line is that wood is lighter than water in most cases.
> Unless you are using one of the very rare and expensive timbers
> that dont float, thickening the bottom strengthens your boat without
> ballasting it.
> However it may lower the boats center of gravity which i suppose could
> be cited as a "ballasting' effect.
> I have a dory hulled catamaran design with a 25mm ply bottom...the
> reason for it is it is a main structural element, it is both sole and
> bottom,
> and I want it to be capable of taking a bit of a gouge if beached
> where a rock shouldnt be but often is.
> This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> Any opinions.
> Jeff Gilbert.
>
>
> > > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small
> sailing
> > > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
> >
> > I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is on
> > land. And cost more, of course.
> >
> > PHV
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>

> This bottom is carefully bevelled to take the sloping sides.
> I reckon this sort of thick bottom, with 9mm ply sides
> and 12mm bulkheads can do without chine logs.
> Just an epoxy fillet inside after glueing.
> Any opinions.
> Jeff Gilbert.
>

>
> On the subject of sharpie schooners in the 40 foot range (was that
> the subject?), here is a James Krogen design. Got to the following
> link, and scroll down.
>
>http://www.sdwi.com/eco-yacht/boats.html
>

> > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small

> > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
>
> I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is on
> land. And cost more, of course.
>
> PHV

----- Original Message -----
From: David Ryan <david@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Doubling the Scooner Revisited


> $600 for a steering wheel? I wouldn't spent that much on the whole
> steering system for this boat. Methinks you and I are two *very*
> different sort of boat builders.
>
> YIBB,
>
> David
>
>
> >Methinks you might need wheel steering to achieve your inside station,
and
> >just because that will be a helluva tiller steering job. Better add
$600
> >or so... Anybody keeping score?
> >
> >Don Hodges
> >
> >
> >
> >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.
>
>
> CRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
> 134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
> New York, NY 10001
> (212) 243-1636
>
>
> 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.
>

--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Peter Vanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> > <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> > Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small
sailing
> > skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?
>
> I think the reason is that it makes the boat heavier when it is on
> land. And cost more, of course.
>
> PHV

> <<She is ballasted by a very thick (1 1/2")wood bottom.>>
> Is there any reason the same idea shouldn't apply to a small sailing
> skiff---to use heavy ply for the bottom?

>Sometimes ideas take a while to trickle out of the deep recesses of
>the mind.
>
>More similar than Lion's Paw to your idea for the 2xLS is Rondo II.
>She is in The Folding Schooner, and is derived from the Folding
>Schooner.
>
>She is 39'6" x 6'8", flush deck, plywood construction. Three masted
>schooner rig, either boomed sprit or gaff. She is ballasted by a very
>thick (1 1/2")wood bottom. Bilge boards. Being flush-decked, she is
>very low inside. The text suggests displacement is about 4000 lbs.
>
>As near as I can tell, there are 8 plywood web frames. Planking is
>1/2" ply. Chines are 1 1/2" x 2 1/2". According to the book, the
>material cost was $2,032, not counting sails and engine, prices circa
>1976.
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>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.

>Methinks you might need wheel steering to achieve your inside station, and
>just because that will be a helluva tiller steering job. Better add $600
>or so... Anybody keeping score?
>
>Don Hodges
>
>
>
>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.

> Chuck --
>
> I'm more than happy with the LSME as is. Once I get the midships and
> forward locker closed off I think she'll have floatation galore. I
> don't want to make the cockpits any smaller than they are. I *like*
> all that room.
>
> However, if you want to see my next wild-eyed scheme, take a look at:
>
>http://www.egroups.com/files/bolger/LSME+Photos/LSx2%2Egif
>
>
> The current iteration doesn't have enough headroom in the
> galley/lounge, so I've just raised the main boom till the jaws are at
> the same height as the end of the foreboom (makes a nice line) and
> jacked up the deckhouse. If you're curious, I'll post a gif.
>
> YIBB,
>
> David
>

> FBBB --
>
> I spent my youth racing around in lasers and thistles and accepted
> capsizing as part of a day on the water. In a laser especially,
> capsizing is of little consequence other than the time lost. A
> thistle will float high enough to get underway and self bail. Racing
> or just messing about, we drove our boats hard, never reefed, and
> accept the consequences (which were minimal.)
>
> Sailing and fishing my teal in open water has changed my perspective
> considerably. She goes from water kissing the gunwale to swamped
> frighteningly quickly. With wind, swell and chop even a couple of
> inches of water in the boat makes thing very "interesting." Add to
> that that lil'winnie has no floatation and putting the rail under
> means not only losing the boat, but likely my tackle box, my rod and
> reel, and an embarrassing swim to the beach.
>
> Now I'm not making an argument for boats that sink if they're
> mishandled. I fully intend to add floatation to lil'winnie (one of
> these days.) But when I do, I'll lose the space fore and aft that it
> takes up. Right now, my rod and reel stow in forward area while I row
> out through the surf. If I hadn't been able to get ALL the way into
> the back of the boat going round the point, I've had lost her for
> sure. My point is this: my boat will be safer, but that safety will
> come at a price in functionality. I'll have to spend money to keep
> the rod out of my way, and running in front of seas (like when I run
> back onto the beach,) will actually be trickier.
>
> My point? There are two factors that make a boat safe. One is design,
> and the other is understanding what your boat can and cannot do. I
> have thought that under bare poles the LSME could ride out about
> anything that Lake Montauk could through at her. This weekends
> misadventure is proof-positive that just isn't so -- she filled up
> and sank in minutes. For a shoal-draft inland cruiser, a rig that is
> quick to reef/douse and the sense to do before the shit hits the fan
> might be a better solution than blocks, tackles, and a 1000 pound
> daggerboard.
>
> So.
>
> I'm drawing deckhouses on xerox copies of the light scooner plans,
> and I've got some proportions I'm starting to like. The lateral plane
> is still a puzzler, but based on my short time wrestling with the
> daggerboard on the LSME, any solution is NOT going to involve making
> it heavier. I had proposed just such a thing for the LSME to PCB (ala
> the Single-handed Schooner), and now I better understand his cautions
> again it.
>
> It seems much of Bolger's work has been designed to circumvent the
> troubles associated with centerboards (leaks, intrusions into the
> cabin,) but I'm finding the idea of a centerboard more and more
> attractive, annoyances be damned. Speed costs, safety costs, and so
> does nostalgia.
>
> YIBB,
>
> David
>
>
> >David --
> >
> >One item I'd been imagining for the Light Schooner, which might help
> >stability on a doubled version of it, too, is: basically making a
> >big, heavy, poor-man's wing keel.
> > Get some 3/4" or 1" plate steel the width of your daggerboard
> >and make a big T out of it -- the long blade, say, 2/3 the length of
> >the specified dagger board, then weld a cross piece flat at the
> >bottom, running two or three feet athwartships. (If possible, getting
> >it faired into efficient foil shape.) Then rig this so it can be
> >cranked vertically up and down the daggerboard case, maybe with holes
> >drilled to pin it at various heights.
> > It would be heavy, so it'd need a pulley system of some sort --
> >you would have to install it from below, then bolt on a handle to
> >keep it from sliding out, etc. But ultimately it would provide a
> >great lever arm for righting the boat, while maintaining the ability
> >to sail right up onto a beach -- just crank the wing-keel-board up
> >and the crosspiece would rest more or less flat against the bottom of
> >the boat.
> > My questions are: how much tracking ability is lost if you
> >shorten the blade, but add a bottom plate? and: how much righting arm
> >do you gain? And, what new problems are caused that I'm not
> >foreseeing?
> > Having once capsized my Windsprint and bailed her (endlessly) I
> >realize that these open boats, once swamped, are nothing but enormous
> >bathtubs. Doing that with the LS, or with LSX2, on the water, would
> >be a nightmare. Beyond possibly minimizing capsize risk, it might
> >just make the boat easier to sail in a fresh breeze.
> > Also, if the blade can be made short enough, it might address the
> >problem you mention of the dagegrboard interfering with the sail when
> >it's drawn up. (The daggerboard on my Gypsy does just that, and it's
> >trouble when you're pulling up the board as you sail onto a beach --
> >the sail then swings over and pins itself against the board, catching
> >wind it's supposed to be spilling.)
> >
> >Anyone know of such a device being tried on a small (or large) boat?
> >
> >All best,
> >Garth
> >
> >
> >
> >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.
>
>
> CRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
> 134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
> New York, NY 10001
> (212) 243-1636
>
>
> 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.
>
>

>It looks really nice! That fine arts degree really shows. The only thing I
>see that could be a small problem is interference between the main mast and
>the centerboard trunk. Or did you say there would be twin boards?
>
>Chuck
>
>
>> Chuck --
>>
>> I'm more than happy with the LSME as is. Once I get the midships and
>> forward locker closed off I think she'll have floatation galore. I
>> don't want to make the cockpits any smaller than they are. I *like*
>> all that room.
>>
>> However, if you want to see my next wild-eyed scheme, take a look at:
>>
>>http://www.egroups.com/files/bolger/LSME+Photos/LSx2%2Egif
>>
>>
>> The current iteration doesn't have enough headroom in the
>> galley/lounge, so I've just raised the main boom till the jaws are at
>> the same height as the end of the foreboom (makes a nice line) and
>> jacked up the deckhouse. If you're curious, I'll post a gif.
>>
>> YIBB,
>>
>> David
>>
>
>
>
>
>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.

>> I had proposed just such a thing for the LSME to PCB (ala
>> the Single-handed Schooner), and now I better understand his
>> cautions again it.
>
>David --
>
>Just curious -- what were Bolger's reservations about a weighted
>daggerboard? And how did it work (or not work) in the Singlehanded
>Schooner? I seem to remember that boat had a straight 100-150 lb.
>steel plate (?).
>
>In general, I wonder what it would take to make a sharpie self-
>righting -- probably way more weight than that, and not worth the
>effort.
>
>All best,
>Garth
>
>
>
>
>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.

>David:
>
>Have you thought about just decking her with a couple of small, self
>draining cockpits for the crew. That would seem to preserve the asthetics,
>and make her more seaworthy.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>> FBBB --
>>
>> I spent my youth racing around in lasers and thistles and accepted
>> capsizing as part of a day on the water. In a laser especially,
>> capsizing is of little consequence other than the time lost. A
>> thistle will float high enough to get underway and self bail. Racing
>> or just messing about, we drove our boats hard, never reefed, and
>> accept the consequences (which were minimal.)
>>
>> Sailing and fishing my teal in open water has changed my perspective
>> considerably. She goes from water kissing the gunwale to swamped
>> frighteningly quickly. With wind, swell and chop even a couple of
>> inches of water in the boat makes thing very "interesting." Add to
>> that that lil'winnie has no floatation and putting the rail under
>> means not only losing the boat, but likely my tackle box, my rod and
>> reel, and an embarrassing swim to the beach.
>>
>> Now I'm not making an argument for boats that sink if they're
>> mishandled. I fully intend to add floatation to lil'winnie (one of
>> these days.) But when I do, I'll lose the space fore and aft that it
>> takes up. Right now, my rod and reel stow in forward area while I row
>> out through the surf. If I hadn't been able to get ALL the way into
>> the back of the boat going round the point, I've had lost her for
>> sure. My point is this: my boat will be safer, but that safety will
>> come at a price in functionality. I'll have to spend money to keep
>> the rod out of my way, and running in front of seas (like when I run
>> back onto the beach,) will actually be trickier.
>>
>> My point? There are two factors that make a boat safe. One is design,
>> and the other is understanding what your boat can and cannot do. I
>> have thought that under bare poles the LSME could ride out about
>> anything that Lake Montauk could through at her. This weekends
>> misadventure is proof-positive that just isn't so -- she filled up
>> and sank in minutes. For a shoal-draft inland cruiser, a rig that is
>> quick to reef/douse and the sense to do before the shit hits the fan
>> might be a better solution than blocks, tackles, and a 1000 pound
>> daggerboard.
>>
>> So.
>>
>> I'm drawing deckhouses on xerox copies of the light scooner plans,
>> and I've got some proportions I'm starting to like. The lateral plane
>> is still a puzzler, but based on my short time wrestling with the
>> daggerboard on the LSME, any solution is NOT going to involve making
>> it heavier. I had proposed just such a thing for the LSME to PCB (ala
>> the Single-handed Schooner), and now I better understand his cautions
>> again it.
>>
>> It seems much of Bolger's work has been designed to circumvent the
>> troubles associated with centerboards (leaks, intrusions into the
>> cabin,) but I'm finding the idea of a centerboard more and more
>> attractive, annoyances be damned. Speed costs, safety costs, and so
>> does nostalgia.
>>
>> YIBB,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> >David --
>> >
>> >One item I'd been imagining for the Light Schooner, which might help
>> >stability on a doubled version of it, too, is: basically making a
>> >big, heavy, poor-man's wing keel.
>> > Get some 3/4" or 1" plate steel the width of your daggerboard
>> >and make a big T out of it -- the long blade, say, 2/3 the length of
>> >the specified dagger board, then weld a cross piece flat at the
>> >bottom, running two or three feet athwartships. (If possible, getting
>> >it faired into efficient foil shape.) Then rig this so it can be
>> >cranked vertically up and down the daggerboard case, maybe with holes
>> >drilled to pin it at various heights.
>> > It would be heavy, so it'd need a pulley system of some sort --
>> >you would have to install it from below, then bolt on a handle to
>> >keep it from sliding out, etc. But ultimately it would provide a
>> >great lever arm for righting the boat, while maintaining the ability
>> >to sail right up onto a beach -- just crank the wing-keel-board up
>> >and the crosspiece would rest more or less flat against the bottom of
>> >the boat.
>> > My questions are: how much tracking ability is lost if you
>> >shorten the blade, but add a bottom plate? and: how much righting arm
>> >do you gain? And, what new problems are caused that I'm not
>> >foreseeing?
>> > Having once capsized my Windsprint and bailed her (endlessly) I
>> >realize that these open boats, once swamped, are nothing but enormous
>> >bathtubs. Doing that with the LS, or with LSX2, on the water, would
>> >be a nightmare. Beyond possibly minimizing capsize risk, it might
>> >just make the boat easier to sail in a fresh breeze.
>> > Also, if the blade can be made short enough, it might address the
>> >problem you mention of the dagegrboard interfering with the sail when
>> >it's drawn up. (The daggerboard on my Gypsy does just that, and it's
>> >trouble when you're pulling up the board as you sail onto a beach --
>> >the sail then swings over and pins itself against the board, catching
>> >wind it's supposed to be spilling.)
>> >
>> >Anyone know of such a device being tried on a small (or large) boat?
>> >
>> >All best,
>> >Garth
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>>
>> CRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
>> 134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
>> New York, NY 10001
>> (212) 243-1636
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>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.

> I had proposed just such a thing for the LSME to PCB (ala
> the Single-handed Schooner), and now I better understand his
> cautions again it.

>David --
>
>One item I'd been imagining for the Light Schooner, which might help
>stability on a doubled version of it, too, is: basically making a
>big, heavy, poor-man's wing keel.
> Get some 3/4" or 1" plate steel the width of your daggerboard
>and make a big T out of it -- the long blade, say, 2/3 the length of
>the specified dagger board, then weld a cross piece flat at the
>bottom, running two or three feet athwartships. (If possible, getting
>it faired into efficient foil shape.) Then rig this so it can be
>cranked vertically up and down the daggerboard case, maybe with holes
>drilled to pin it at various heights.
> It would be heavy, so it'd need a pulley system of some sort --
>you would have to install it from below, then bolt on a handle to
>keep it from sliding out, etc. But ultimately it would provide a
>great lever arm for righting the boat, while maintaining the ability
>to sail right up onto a beach -- just crank the wing-keel-board up
>and the crosspiece would rest more or less flat against the bottom of
>the boat.
> My questions are: how much tracking ability is lost if you
>shorten the blade, but add a bottom plate? and: how much righting arm
>do you gain? And, what new problems are caused that I'm not
>foreseeing?
> Having once capsized my Windsprint and bailed her (endlessly) I
>realize that these open boats, once swamped, are nothing but enormous
>bathtubs. Doing that with the LS, or with LSX2, on the water, would
>be a nightmare. Beyond possibly minimizing capsize risk, it might
>just make the boat easier to sail in a fresh breeze.
> Also, if the blade can be made short enough, it might address the
>problem you mention of the dagegrboard interfering with the sail when
>it's drawn up. (The daggerboard on my Gypsy does just that, and it's
>trouble when you're pulling up the board as you sail onto a beach --
>the sail then swings over and pins itself against the board, catching
>wind it's supposed to be spilling.)
>
>Anyone know of such a device being tried on a small (or large) boat?
>
>All best,
>Garth
>
>
>
>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.