http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail


your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC.

PDW

Peter Wiley wrote:

http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail


your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC.


That's a cool boat, except for the junk rig.

DSK

That's a lot of boat for 50K.

SBV


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail


your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC.

PDW

Peter Wiley wrote:
Built in 1971. Rust in the bottom plates, been repaired by welding new
plate over the old rather than trashing the interior and cutting out
the old plate. This isn't a good technique IMO as it doesn't address
*why* the plate rusted in the first place, which was probably from
trapped water inside the hull.


And it gives more space to trap water in. But it does add weight down
low, and it's relatively cheap... if it gives the boat enough life span
to last out your likely tenure of ownership, why not?


Doug, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig on that hull and I don't
understand why you think there is. It was designed for the rig.


I just don't like junks. They have a lot of windage, proportionately
more weight aloft, they're usually underpowered (this one less so than
others), they don't point very well. As a matter of personal taste, I
don't like the way they look.

But other than that, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig

In fact, I think it'd make a great rig for low-budget passagemaking.
Effective & easy to control, easily reefable (a big big plus). But it's
dependent on the cutting edge of 17th century technology. With just a
teensy bit more budget, you could have a full batten Marconi rig with
lazyjacks & a solid vang... easier to control & would sail rings around
any junk. This type equipment has been off-the-shelf for twenty years
now and is quite scroungable.

One of Colvin's junk-rigged schooners entered the Chesapeake Bay Great
Schooner Race some years ago, and dropped out because she fell far far
behind the fleet.

DSK

Built in 1971. Rust in the bottom plates, been repaired by welding new
plate over the old rather than trashing the interior and cutting out
the old plate. This isn't a good technique IMO as it doesn't address
*why* the plate rusted in the first place, which was probably from
trapped water inside the hull.

Doug, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig on that hull and I don't
understand why you think there is. It was designed for the rig.

PDW

In article , Scotty
wrote:

That's a lot of boat for 50K.

SBV


"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.pippenmarine.com/ed.php?de=10108&range=sail


your old slip neighbour's boat, IIRC.

PDW

But it does add weight down
low, and it's relatively cheap... if it gives the boat enough life span
to last out your likely tenure of ownership, why not?

Peter Wiley wrote:
Yeah, if you want to look at it like that, fair enough. It makes me
uncomfortable tho.


It would me, too. But as a practical matter of boat-keeping, you cannot
make everything perfect.



Doug, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig on that hull and I don't
understand why you think there is. It was designed for the rig.


I just don't like junks. They have a lot of windage,


True.


proportionately
more weight aloft,


But why is this bad? Taken to a logical conclusion, you're saying the
less weight aloft the better.

From a standpoint of stability & speed, that's true. But I agree with
you that there are other factors.

... In practice this has been shown to be a
bad assumption. Weight aloft damps out roll, extends roll period and
provides more inertia to resist rolling over. I agree that too much
weight aloft isn't going to be good either, but the implication that
more is bad doesn't hold up.


Depends on what you want the boat to do. Roll damping is good, but
weight aloft also hurts LPOS.


I don't really have any feelings pro/con about the looks. They're
different is all. As to pointing, true but so what? It's not designed
as any sort of racing vessel. That hull form won't point as high as a
fin keeled sloop no matter what rig it has. It's not designed for it.


Dunno about pointing, it's true that it's not going to climb to windward
like a 12-Meter no matter what rig you put on that hull. But I'm
uncomfortable with a boat, no matter how "cruisy," that does not go to
windward pretty well, or (as many cruising boats) will only make ground
to weather at all in ideal conditions. Too easy to get trapped, and too
dependent on the engine (odd as it may sound for a tug boat owner to say
that).

What's worse, many boats that have difficulty getting to windward are
ulso unhandy on the helm & reluctant in stays. It's a vicious circle.

But it's
dependent on the cutting edge of 17th century technology. With just a
teensy bit more budget,


Like somewhere in the vicinity of 10X, I'd venture to say......


Not at all. Part of what I'm trying to say is that all the stuff to
build a rig like that can be picked up 2nd hand or free, if you don't
mind spending the time hunting around. Around any recreational sailing
area, it's easier to find parts for than a junk rig.


you could have a full batten Marconi rig with
lazyjacks & a solid vang... easier to control


Pardon? I think your experience with junk rigs is about the same as
mine ie zero.

I have never sailed one myself, I have sailed in company with a fair
number, and in a variety of conditions.

... So where do you get this from? Everything I've read
indicates that there is no rig easier to control than the junk rig, on
a vessel of this size.

Well, the solid vang & lazy jack full batten marconi may not be easier
than the junk rig, but it's simpler. And it's the easiest rig I have
experience with, it's almost no work at all.

I think the people who extol the junk rig are very full of descriptives
like "no rig easier to control" when that's not really quantifiable...
and the rig they are extolling is also "easier to control" because
there's less of it. I also wonder how many of them have much experience
with modern rigs... the same crowd seems very down on roller furling &
self tailing winches.

Another point is that "easy to control" and "inexpensive" are the junk
rigs *only* two virtues.


.... I remember reading Annie Hill's account of
sailing around the Falklands in a junk rig schooner, in pretty dirty
conditions, on a 34' Benford dory.

Yep, 'Badger' IIRC, cool boat & a good story too.

... She also said that they used to own
a 6 metre sloop that went to windward like a witch, and hated it for
passagemaking. It either sailed at 2 knots to windward sans jib, or 6+
with even a small jib, with spray and a nasty motion making life
unpleasant. That's fine if you're racing I suppose but not cruising.
Their dory apparently jogs along to windward at 4 knots with a
comfortable ride and not much spray flying.


heh heh as a former owner of a 6-Meter, I can see where she's coming
from. OTOH I don't think they invested much time & effort in optimizing
their 6's rig, or learning how to get the most out of it. A fractional
Marconi rig is pretty easy to depower, and given a solid vang &
lazyjacks, simplicity itself to reef down.

But the 6-Meter is a wet & cramped boat, uncomfortable for any sort of
cruising. And it would be, regardless of what sort of rig one had on it.
I did some brief cruises on mine (owned in partnership, really) and just
anchoring the damn thing was a total PITA.

But it was a *gorgeous* boat, and lots of fun to sail.


On what point(s) of sailing? Upwind, maybe - if you care. IIRC Colvin
said the rig points as high as a Marconi rig but made more leeway.

That may have been true, given less effective underwater foils, back in
the 1960s.


... OTOH
it tended to run away downwind as the sails could be set wing & wing
easily, without the main blanketing the fore.

Sorry, I don't think that a heavy junk-rigged schooner is going to "run
away" from any but the pokiest marconi rigged boat, and that without any
flying sails set.

... You could also sail by
the lee without any dramas

A matter of skill on the part of the helmsman

... and a gybe was also pretty drama free as the
balanced lug damped out the motion when the sails swung across.

Now that much is true. Add that to the list of virtues... "easy to
control", cheap, and easy to gybe.


... Short
tacking up a channel was effortless.


So is a gaff cat, or cat ketch, or sloop with no jib or self-tacking
jib... and a sloop with a small jib is not difficult.

I think this assumes that the only possible comparison is to one of
those 1960s masthead rigs that need a huge genoa.


This type equipment has been off-the-shelf for twenty years
now and is quite scroungable.


I simply do not believe that you can build a fully battened Marconi rig
for anything like the price of a junk rig.

Why not? Go scrounge around a boat yard nowadays, you'll find lots of
2nd hand parts & components for such a rig... and darn few junk rig
parts. Of course, if you're shopping at the farm & truck supply place,
then maybe you can cobble together something, and it won't cost much...
but then neither will the boatyard cast-offs.


... Nothing I've ever read
indicates that you can even get close. Are you going to have the same
height mast(s)? If so, where's the gain in sail area?

In staysails & flying sails, and the Marconi sails are more efficient.
But with less weight and less windage aloft, there's no reason to not go
higher. In fact a higher rig of the same weight provides more
damping.... so there you go!



... If not, how much
higher are you going to go and how do you propose to brace the mast(s)?
Adding spreaders and more rigging wire costs money, increases the rig
loadings and requires either higher tensile strength materials or
thicker materials to gain the needed strength.

True enough, and those materials are very common & easy to find.

As I said, if one is determined to use 17th century technology, then the
junk rig makes a great choice.



....The batten cars cost a
hell of a lot more than the junk sail lacing. The sailcloth for a
battened Marconi sail needs to be of a lot higher standard than for a
junk sail. Etc.

In other words, you want to stitch burlap bags together and hang it on a
rig assembled from odds & ends out of a discount plumber's supply? Be my
guest... I won't even fuss when you brag about how easy it is to control!


... I point out that if you increase the rig height then
you're most likely going to have to start reefing in lighter air due to
the extra leverage aloft, unless you also increase ballast/draft as
well. There goes the shoal draft gunkholing ability.....


If the boat *sails* well in relatively light air, thent what's the issue
of having to reef? As long as the boat sails well when reefed, and the
reef can be taken in or shaken out without too much labor ...and with
the solid vang & lazy jacks, it's a matter of easing one line and
pulling another, while the sailing characterisitics remain pretty much
the same...

The funny thing is, a fully battened Marconi rig starts resembling a
junk rig sans the bit in front of the mast......


Yes it does.


One of Colvin's junk-rigged schooners entered the Chesapeake Bay Great
Schooner Race some years ago, and dropped out because she fell far far
behind the fleet.


Shrug. Bob in his dream Bendy would trail any field, too. Does it say
something about the vessel, the sailor, or maybe both?


Prob'ly a little of both. I bet the skipper was not very experienced
with his boat, and uncomfortable driving hard.


This particular vessel (Migrant) has been recorded as doing consistent
140+ mile days cruising over many passages & many years.

That's pretty good. OTOH it's also a big boat. 140 mile days on a 40' +
LWL is comparable to 90 mile days with a 32' LWL.



The junk rig doesn't do much for me, personally, and I wouldn't put one
on a boat myself, but they do work very well for short handed cruising
boats. There's been some 700+ Gazelle design boats built so far (not
all junk rigged). How many production boats have got to that number of
hulls in the water?


Only the ones that have been very successfully marketed... as have the
junk rigs!

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

In article , DSK
wrote:

Peter Wiley wrote:
Built in 1971. Rust in the bottom plates, been repaired by welding new
plate over the old rather than trashing the interior and cutting out
the old plate. This isn't a good technique IMO as it doesn't address
*why* the plate rusted in the first place, which was probably from
trapped water inside the hull.


And it gives more space to trap water in.

Agreed. And if rust starts between plates, it's going to force the
plates further apart. That's why I really don't think much of doing it.
It's fast & cheap compared with the alternatives but....

But it does add weight down
low, and it's relatively cheap... if it gives the boat enough life span
to last out your likely tenure of ownership, why not?

Yeah, if you want to look at it like that, fair enough. It makes me
uncomfortable tho.


Doug, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig on that hull and I don't
understand why you think there is. It was designed for the rig.


I just don't like junks. They have a lot of windage,

True.

proportionately
more weight aloft,

But why is this bad? Taken to a logical conclusion, you're saying the
less weight aloft the better. In practice this has been shown to be a
bad assumption. Weight aloft damps out roll, extends roll period and
provides more inertia to resist rolling over. I agree that too much
weight aloft isn't going to be good either, but the implication that
more is bad doesn't hold up.

they're usually underpowered (this one less so than
others), they don't point very well. As a matter of personal taste, I
don't like the way they look.

But other than that, there's nothing wrong with the junk rig

I don't really have any feelings pro/con about the looks. They're
different is all. As to pointing, true but so what? It's not designed
as any sort of racing vessel. That hull form won't point as high as a
fin keeled sloop no matter what rig it has. It's not designed for it.

In fact, I think it'd make a great rig for low-budget passagemaking.
Effective & easy to control, easily reefable (a big big plus).

Which is what it was designed for.

But it's
dependent on the cutting edge of 17th century technology. With just a
teensy bit more budget,

Like somewhere in the vicinity of 10X, I'd venture to say......

you could have a full batten Marconi rig with
lazyjacks & a solid vang... easier to control

Pardon? I think your experience with junk rigs is about the same as
mine ie zero. So where do you get this from? Everything I've read
indicates that there is no rig easier to control than the junk rig, on
a vessel of this size. I remember reading Annie Hill's account of
sailing around the Falklands in a junk rig schooner, in pretty dirty
conditions, on a 34' Benford dory. She also said that they used to own
a 6 metre sloop that went to windward like a witch, and hated it for
passagemaking. It either sailed at 2 knots to windward sans jib, or 6+
with even a small jib, with spray and a nasty motion making life
unpleasant. That's fine if you're racing I suppose but not cruising.
Their dory apparently jogs along to windward at 4 knots with a
comfortable ride and not much spray flying.

& would sail rings around
any junk.

On what point(s) of sailing? Upwind, maybe - if you care. IIRC Colvin
said the rig points as high as a Marconi rig but made more leeway. OTOH
it tended to run away downwind as the sails could be set wing & wing
easily, without the main blanketing the fore. You could also sail by
the lee without any dramas and a gybe was also pretty drama free as the
balanced lug damped out the motion when the sails swung across. Short
tacking up a channel was effortless.

This type equipment has been off-the-shelf for twenty years
now and is quite scroungable.

I simply do not believe that you can build a fully battened Marconi rig
for anything like the price of a junk rig. Nothing I've ever read
indicates that you can even get close. Are you going to have the same
height mast(s)? If so, where's the gain in sail area? If not, how much
higher are you going to go and how do you propose to brace the mast(s)?
Adding spreaders and more rigging wire costs money, increases the rig
loadings and requires either higher tensile strength materials or
thicker materials to gain the needed strength. The batten cars cost a
hell of a lot more than the junk sail lacing. The sailcloth for a
battened Marconi sail needs to be of a lot higher standard than for a
junk sail. Etc. I point out that if you increase the rig height then
you're most likely going to have to start reefing in lighter air due to
the extra leverage aloft, unless you also increase ballast/draft as
well. There goes the shoal draft gunkholing ability.....

The funny thing is, a fully battened Marconi rig starts resembling a
junk rig sans the bit in front of the mast......


One of Colvin's junk-rigged schooners entered the Chesapeake Bay Great
Schooner Race some years ago, and dropped out because she fell far far
behind the fleet.

Shrug. Bob in his dream Bendy would trail any field, too. Does it say
something about the vessel, the sailor, or maybe both?

This particular vessel (Migrant) has been recorded as doing consistent
140+ mile days cruising over many passages & many years. IIRC Thom said
Dick Johnson used to just sail her off pretty much regardless of the
weather, short handed.

The junk rig doesn't do much for me, personally, and I wouldn't put one
on a boat myself, but they do work very well for short handed cruising
boats. There's been some 700+ Gazelle design boats built so far (not
all junk rigged). How many production boats have got to that number of
hulls in the water?

PDW

Pete,

Thanks for the report on "Migrant" Nice to see an old face once more.

You're right about D. Johnson. You wouldn't even see him unless there
were Small Craft Warnings. That was if he wanted to go sailing.

Doug; Those Junk Sails on "Migrant" were What made me go to fully
battened main in Lazy Jacks. When you watched Dick sail her, you never
even thought of weight aloft. I still don't. A Junk rig has a shorter
mast, without spreaders or a lot of standing rigging. When both go "Bare
Headed the Junk rig will have less weight aloft and with a Schooner Rig
Junk set-up, you do have so much more choices to balance out for
conditions. By the way, "Migrant" isn't what you would call slow for a
Blue Water Yacht.

Pete, I guess the double hull plate does put a finish on her life span
but so be it. Maybe to much electronics? Dick didn't use a lot. I
remember him putting meat in a portable ice box strapped the the Fore
Mast.

It was just about the worst boat I've ever seen for backing under power.
That is how I met Dick. I took a line and pulled him into his slip
stern first. He thanked me and said he'd probably never made it without
me.

Pete, would you know who the present owner is. Dick sold her to a local
Dentist. He was the one who started updating her to a modern Yacht. Was
just wondering. I think he was considering cruising her and bringing
Dental Health to that part of the world

Thanks again,
Ole Thom

Thom Stewart wrote:
Doug; Those Junk Sails on "Migrant" were What made me go to fully
battened main in Lazy Jacks. When you watched Dick sail her, you never
even thought of weight aloft. I still don't. A Junk rig has a shorter
mast, without spreaders or a lot of standing rigging. When both go "Bare
Headed the Junk rig will have less weight aloft

than what?

... and with a Schooner Rig
Junk set-up, you do have so much more choices to balance out for
conditions.

True of the schooner rig in general IMHO.

... By the way, "Migrant" isn't what you would call slow for a
Blue Water Yacht.


Well, I guess that would be like me saying that as a sprinter, I'm among
the fastest 45 year old guys with bad knees

I would like to sail properly rigged junk schooner. I suspect that most
of the ones I've seen were being handled by people who both cut some
corners, and who usually motored anyway. And all the variations of
sailboat rigs that I have tried handle differently, and respond best to
different techniques.


It was just about the worst boat I've ever seen for backing under power.
That is how I met Dick. I took a line and pulled him into his slip
stern first. He thanked me and said he'd probably never made it without
me.


heh heh that's why there's bow thrusters. BTW the tugboat simply does
not steer in reverse. If you have a wide open river and can let her back
up for 200 yards or so, and get up to 3+ knots in reverse, then she
starts to answer her rudder. When backing in confined quarters, you have
to aim her first with a burst of forward against the rudder, set hard
over to whichever way you want to swing the stern. It takes a bit of
practice, and a lot of faith in your transmission.


Pete, would you know who the present owner is. Dick sold her to a local
Dentist. He was the one who started updating her to a modern Yacht. Was
just wondering. I think he was considering cruising her and bringing
Dental Health to that part of the world


Sounds like a great idea.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Doug,

A junk sail will out last a marconi by years and years and not loss
efficiency as does a marconi. Both great for real cruising sails and a
patched junk sail will sail as well as a new sail. The material isn't
nearly as critical or expensive as a marconi. Another nice feature for a
cruiser located somewhere in the far corner of the world.

I agree with you Doug, I like the Marconi better for knocking about or
Racing. I don't, however put down the Junk Sail. It has stood up for
centuries in its present form. I also don't over look the many
modification to the Marconi that seem to be already present in the Junk.
Full battens, longer roaches, making necessary removing back stays; as
with Hunters or Lightnings, removing standing rigging and using a
balanced Sail to prevent weather helm.

I envied Dick Johnson and "Migrant" on their ability to take off and
cruise for extended times without fuss; due largely to that Junk Rig and
Colvin Hull. About that upwind ability; remember the old say;"Cruising
Gentlemen don't sail against the wind." I might even add they buy
"Trawlers" often to go to Windward.

Ole Thom