It would be nice to see a higher resolution photo!

Someone might be able to find the MAIB article from about a year ago
where (I recall) SA wrote about the headstone.

I recognize several and can name AS-29, the AdvanceFisherman70 (twice,
I think), St. Vallery, William D. Jochems,

Others, that are now mere guesses, that might be a Black Skimmer, and
a Birdwatcher and a Micro Navigator across the lower bottom.
Interestingly, behind those, the long boat might be a boat from the
USNavy commission, I recall hearing of a folding cargo carrier.

Top left, could that be a Chebacco?, AS29, Low Power Cruiser?

Middle left, St Vallery, Not sure which box keel hull,  not sure five
panel, AF70...

....

On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Mike Allison <mysloop@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The only one I can tell is HMS Rose at lower left.
>
> Mike Allison...
>
>

one of them looks to be "water van" another looks like something in the "AS"
series

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew L" <owlnmole@...> wrote:
>
> I recently came across this photo of Phil's headstone:
>
> http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=65821075&PIpi=38808580
>
> I wonder if anyone has a better shot?
>
> It would be interesting to identify each of the designs featured and to hear
(perhaps from Susanne?) why those particular designs were chosen.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Matthew
>

Top left center looks like Jesse Cooper to me. The first "Box" hull I
think. Left of the Jochen's schooner I would guess Microtrawler, with
it's planing central ski. I would suggest perhaps the theme might be a
collection of Mr. Bolger's most favorite significant hull shape and
design  innovations. Is that Resolution just above the Microtrawler?
With Watervan to the right of it? Perhaps the Romp hull 2nd row, then a
design with a box keel, then Chebacco and St. Valery?

Micro Navigator bottom right with Birdwatcher (with solent rig) to the
left?

Nels


--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew L" <owlnmole@...> wrote:
>
> I recently came across this photo of Phil's headstone:
>
>
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=65821075&PIpi=3880\
8580
>
> I wonder if anyone has a better shot?
>
> It would be interesting to identify each of the designs featured and
to hear (perhaps from Susanne?) why those particular designs were
chosen.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Matthew
>

The Box Keel - Alaskan Motorsailor?

Nels

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> Top left center looks like Jesse Cooper to me. The first "Box" hull I
> think. Left of the Jochen's schooner I would guess Microtrawler, with
> it's planing central ski. I would suggest perhaps the theme might be a
> collection of Mr. Bolger's most favorite significant hull shape and
> design  innovations. Is that Resolution just above the Microtrawler?
> With Watervan to the right of it? Perhaps the Romp hull 2nd row, then
a
> design with a box keel, then Chebacco and St. Valery?
>
> Micro Navigator bottom right with Birdwatcher (with solent rig) to the
> left?
>
> Nels
>
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew L" owlnmole@ wrote:
> >
> > I recently came across this photo of Phil's headstone:
> >
> >
>
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=65821075&PIpi=3880\
\
> 8580
> >
> > I wonder if anyone has a better shot?
> >
> > It would be interesting to identify each of the designs featured and
> to hear (perhaps from Susanne?) why those particular designs were
> chosen.
> >
> > Regards to all,
> >
> > Matthew
> >
>

In Rhode Island. Moving on to new projects and need to get it out of the
yard..... If anyone is interested, contact me directly at sethmacinko AT gmail
DOT com

The only one I can tell is HMS Rose at lower left.

 

Mike Allison...

Do you have pics of where you are in the build.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "SethM" <smacinko@...> wrote:
>
> In Rhode Island. Moving on to new projects and need to get it out of the
yard..... If anyone is interested, contact me directly at sethmacinko AT gmail
DOT com
>

Should be mentioned that Seth lived aboard for several years. Bruce and I were
his
guests at the memorial.

HJ

  Seth can answer better.  I am 99.9% sure that he is selling his modified
> Tennessee "Anomaly", which was the flagship of the 2009 Bolger memorial in
> Glouchester.  By "modified", he means that it is the standard Tennessee hull
> with a cabin added. Pretty awesome boat actually.
>
> Here is are pictures of Seth's modified Tennessee taken at the Bolger
> memorial event...
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3506/3943139468_a803e663da_b.jpg
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3529/3943138628_703ff6b95c_b.jpg
>
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Dennis <dennisely@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Do you have pics of where you are in the build.
>>
>>
>> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "SethM" <smacinko@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > In Rhode Island. Moving on to new projects and need to get it out of the
>> yard..... If anyone is interested, contact me directly at sethmacinko AT
>> gmail DOT com
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>

I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig for Micro.
Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail plan
and the other after his Houdini sail plan. Masts would be no longer than 17 ft.
As shown, the combined COE on both lug sails is about 1 inch fwd of the original
combined COE of the leg-o-mutton rig. This would require a slight adjustment of
the mast to get them to line up with the original coe. The standing lug combined
coes are approximately 9 inches higher than the original. Mainsail area has been
increased to between 150 and 158 sq ft. I did not draw any roach in as I am not
sure quite how to figure the area (calculus is not quite my bag). Also, I have
heard that roach area is helpful primarily for sailing off wind courses. I am
not sure the expense or trouble would be worth it. If you have any thoughts on
this I could stand to be educated.

I would keep the scantlings for the leg-o-mutton mast, but with much less taper,
and hence thicker at the mast top. Scantlings for yard and sprit boom would be 2
-- 2.5" square. The yard could be hollow box section which would reduce weight
aloft. Weight reduction aloft would be significant given the shorter mast. It
would be more manageable to raise and lower, to be sure. I think they look OK.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1

Dennis

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> I have been researching the possibility of building a Micro for sailing and
cruising the Great Lakes. I have read through many of the posts dealing with
Micro here as well as corresponded with some Micro owners/sailors who have been
very kind to share their experiences of the boat with me. There seem to be 3
primary difficulties about the boat. 1) It is difficult to launch because of the
salient keel; 2) it does not sail to windward well; and 3) the mast can be
troublesome to step because of its length and weight.
>
> Many here say that setting up an appropriate trailer with a drop axle will
resolve difficulty #1. Since shallow launch ramps are not a concern for me, I
don't consider this being a problem. Opinions vary on the Micro's pointing
ability. Some say it is a slug to windward, others say they get her to point
decently. While I do like a good windward slog, and while an awful lot of my
daysailing is windward, the other virtues of the boat seem to me to outweigh
this particular shortcoming. This leaves the question of the main mast. This is
probably the problem most cited and the one that concerns me most. I know that
PB&F changed the sailplan to accommodate a mast tabernacle, but quite frankly, I
think it detracts from the boat's good looks and makes it look rather rhinoceros
like. Rhinos are not the stuff of romance! Neither is the prospect of wrestling
a 23 ft stick into place. So, with that in mind I decided to fiddle with an
alternative main sail plan and I would like you Micronauts to tell me why it
would not work.
>
> John Welsford's Rogue sail plan was the template I used for my sailplan
(http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/rogue/index.htm). It is a standing lug rig
of 118sqft, the foot of which is controlled by a sprit boom. He also has 1 ft of
roach in the leech. The dimensions of my version of this rig are:
>
> Foot 12'8"
> Luff 8'
> Head 11'4"
> Leech 18'3" for a nominal area of 135 sq ft. I did not factor the roach in,
but it would add 15-20 more ft of sail area for a total of 155 sq ft at most
(I'm speaking only of the main here without the mizzen factored in). When I cut
out the pattern and put it on the plan, using the same tack point as the
leg-o-mutton, the coe of the lug matched exactly the coe of the original main,
although it was slightly lower, which I expected. With this rig, one could
eliminate the top 6 to seven feet of the main mast as originally devised,
eliminate the weight of the stick and have a more manageable mast to wrestle in
place. Set up time would be much quicker and the standing lug would be a
powerful sail for the hull not to mention the fact that it is an attractive
shape.
>
> I wish I had pics to show you, but lack the technology for such things.
Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why this would be a bad idea.
>
> Best,
> Dennis
>

Dennis,

From an armchair perspective I doubt that the fore-aft change in CoE will be
noticeable.  The CoE is a bit airy fairy anyway - because the true centre of
effort is not exactly where the centre of the sail area is and it changes
depending on sail cut and shape.  An inch here or there may mean that you sheet
your mizzen in a little bit harder or not to get helm balance but you may never
notice.

Something to consider about halyard tension: Looking at your pictures I see that
the tack is fixed to the mast, and the tension on the foot is tending to pull
down on the clew.  The sprit boom is angled down so it is also pushing the clew
down.  The counterbalancing force is the tension in the leech pulling up.  The
leech tension is provided by the halyard(s) pulling up on the yard. So to set
this sail well requires a considerable halyard tension, possibly a purchase. 
I'm not sure what John Welsford recommends for his boats but you could bet that
he has worked it out.  On my 60sqft balance lug sail I have a 2:1 purchase on
the downhaul and I need it. (which is placing tension in the halyard)

Andrew

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig for Micro.
Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail plan
and the other after his Houdini sail plan. <snip>
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1
>
> Dennis
>

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your thoughts. Your observations are well taken.

I have not drawn in the sprit boom yet and foresee it being much lower on the
mast than what you see in the drawings. Welsford says that this type of rig is
quite adjustable, so experimenting with sprit boom placement and halyard
attachment will be a factor in performance. He also noted that the luff needs to
be well tensioned. So he recommends hauling the yard up until the knot of the
halyard is touching the block or sheeve and then adjusting the tack downhaul,
which he thinks should have a 3 or 4 part purchase to dial in the required
tension on the luff.

Dennis

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" <a.c.l.yen@...> wrote:
>
> Dennis,
>
> From an armchair perspective I doubt that the fore-aft change in CoE will be
noticeable.  The CoE is a bit airy fairy anyway - because the true centre of
effort is not exactly where the centre of the sail area is and it changes
depending on sail cut and shape.  An inch here or there may mean that you sheet
your mizzen in a little bit harder or not to get helm balance but you may never
notice.
>
> Something to consider about halyard tension: Looking at your pictures I see
that the tack is fixed to the mast, and the tension on the foot is tending to
pull down on the clew.  The sprit boom is angled down so it is also pushing the
clew down.  The counterbalancing force is the tension in the leech pulling up. 
The leech tension is provided by the halyard(s) pulling up on the yard. So to
set this sail well requires a considerable halyard tension, possibly a purchase.
I'm not sure what John Welsford recommends for his boats but you could bet that
he has worked it out.  On my 60sqft balance lug sail I have a 2:1 purchase on
the downhaul and I need it. (which is placing tension in the halyard)
>
> Andrew
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@> wrote:
> >
> > I have been fiddling once again with the idea of a standing lug rig for
Micro. Here are two examples. One is patterned after John Welsford's Rogue sail
plan and the other after his Houdini sail plan. <snip>
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/fattylumpkin/?saved=1
> >
> > Dennis
> >
>

Dennis,

John Welsford has a smart solution.  A tack downhaul with a 3 or 4 part purchase
will provide the luff tension which will lift the peak - much better than trying
to do that with the halyard.

When setting up my balanced lug I played with the location of the halyard
attachment on the yard.  The location of this attachment affects the luff
tension/peak lift balance but also affects the tilt of the sail back and forward
- this is another variable for adjustment of your helm balance when the time
comes.

Regards,

Andrew

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "thedumbox2" <thedumbox@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. Your observations are well taken.
>
> I have not drawn in the sprit boom yet and foresee it being much lower on the
mast than what you see in the drawings. Welsford says that this type of rig is
quite adjustable, so experimenting with sprit boom placement and halyard
attachment will be a factor in performance. He also noted that the luff needs to
be well tensioned. So he recommends hauling the yard up until the knot of the
halyard is touching the block or sheeve and then adjusting the tack downhaul,
which he thinks should have a 3 or 4 part purchase to dial in the required
tension on the luff.
>
> Dennis
>
>

My name is Kim Campbell -- I'm using a friend's account here. I bought Doc
Musekamp's Bolger Sapphire about a year and a half ago. I haven't been able to
move it from where he had it stored (I don't have a truck), and finally have
decided, because my life has taken another turn, with a move to Canada, that I
am going to put Sapphire back on the market. She was for sale before for $9000,
which is much less than her replacement value, so I would ask the same, or best
(reasonable) offer. Alas, I cannot show her to you, since I am a long distance
away, but she has not been moved and has been stored inside since Doc Musekamp
had her for sale. If any interest, I will have my friend Anne forward replies to
me, or I can be reached directly at kimberlee$$.anne$$.campbell@.... 
Please take the dollar signs OUT of the email -- these are to fool the
email-harvesting bots! Thanks!

Dear all,

The posting removed the rest of my email: it is gmail.com

Hi John,

I will put traditional reef points in. The method of reefing you mention refers
to a quadrilateral spritsail. I've used that method on a Dobler skiff I built.
It kills windward work and is only good for reaching and running, but it
certainly reduces heeling moment and in a jiffy! I tied the peak to a cleat on
the mast to hold it down. I do not see anyway that a lug could be reefed this
way except by removing the yard altogether.

I think it is easier to increase snotter line length and allow the boom to stick
farther out before the mast when reefing. It looks neater to my eye and avoids
the worry of the boom knocking me on the noggin as it would sit significantly
lower in the cockpit if you reattach the clew on a more forward position on the
boom.

Regarding reefed centers of sail area. I think, although I have yet to work it
out on paper, that once you get the main and mizzen aligned, then the reefing
should maintain a fairly close symmetry to the original sail plan. Square sails,
however, do not move their CoEs as far forward as triangular sails do. I do not
see this as a problem with respect to the lug main.

While I am not a big fan of modifying hull designs, I think sailplans are fair
game. I've enjoyed turning my Dobler from a cat rigged boat into a Spritsail
Sloop. I've modified my Core Sound 15 to sail as a spritsail sloop, and I've
modified my balanced lug dinghy to sail with the mizzen of the Core Sound 15 and
all with very good results and with little to no change in mast stepping
arrangements as originally designed for these boats. I think I can achieve the
same with Micro. Recall this thread about the alternative rig started with my
taking seriously Micro sailers complaints about stepping the rig and my dislike
of the looks of the tabernacle on the Micro II. This is one solution that I
think would work without either spoiling what I think are Micro's good looks or
her sailing characteristics. Besides, I am getting longer in the tooth and would
like to sail this boat well into my decrepitude. This is one way I think I can
achieve that without having concerns about stepping the mast get in the way of
my enjoyment of sailing.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell" <jtrussell2@...> wrote:
>
> Note: PCB says (and my experience confirms) that your sprit needs to be
> longer than you think would be necessary.
>
>
>
> A second consideration is how you plan to reef the main. One way is
> traditional reef points which will require either longer snotters (allowing
> the sprit and the boom to extend forward of the mast). Alternatively, you
> can drop the sprit and fold the peak down to form a smaller 'leg of mutton'
> sail. PCB advocated this, but I'm not sure how you fasten the peak down.
>
>
>
> To refer to PCB again, He likes the Micro rig because when the main is
> reefed, the mizzen balances the rig and the overall center of effort doesn't
> change significantly. From this, I infer that there is some flexibility in
> changing the main sail.
>
>
>
> JohnT
>
>
>
>   _____
>

Doc Musekampe's 'Sapphire' is the "William D. Jochems" schooner design
#639.  My guess is that the $9,000 price is probably less that the
cost of the materials to build a WDJ.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:50 AM, anneservant <anneservant@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> My name is Kim Campbell -- I'm using a friend's account here. I bought Doc
Musekamp's Bolger Sapphire about a year and a half ago. I haven't been able to
move it from where he had it stored (I don't have a truck), and finally have
decided, because my life has taken another turn, with a move to Canada, that I
am going to put Sapphire back on the market. She was for sale before for $9000,
which is much less than her replacement value, so I would ask the same, or best
(reasonable) offer. Alas, I cannot show her to you, since I am a long distance
away, but she has not been moved and has been stored inside since Doc Musekamp
had her for sale. If any interest, I will have my friend Anne forward replies to
me, or I can be reached directly at kimberlee$$.anne$$.campbell@....
Please take the dollar signs OUT of the email -- these are to fool the
email-harvesting bots! Thanks!
>

I added a photo in the files section with the above sub-title. The
actual photo has a really long file number which I did not know how to
change.

Have no idea where the boat is located nor any details how it worked
out. Looks like maybe a Long Micro  hull modified immensely with
leeboards, self-draining cockpit with no visible tiller, OB on a
exterior bracket and a balance lug rig on a tabernacle attached to the
forward bulkhead. No free-flooding wells either end and no flotation
visible either.

Not really sure what it is. The tabernacle caught my attention as it
looks rather well done if not on the flimsy side?

Nels

I added a photo in the files section with the above sub-title. The
actual photo has a really long file number which I did not know how to
change.
Have no idea where the boat is located nor any details how it worked
out. Looks like maybe a Long Micro hull modified immensely with
leeboards, self-draining cockpit with no visible tiller, OB on a
exterior bracket and a balance lug rig on a tabernacle attached to the
forward bulkhead. No free-flooding wells either end and no flotation
visible either.
Not really sure what it is. The tabernacle caught my attention as it
looks rather well done if not on the flimsy side?
Nels

I added a photo in the files section with the above sub-title. The
actual photo has a really long file number which I did not know how to
change.
Have no idea where the boat is located nor any details how it worked
out. Looks like maybe a Long Micro hull modified immensely with
leeboards, self-draining cockpit with no visible tiller, OB on a
exterior bracket and a balance lug rig on a tabernacle attached to the
forward bulkhead. No free-flooding wells either end and no flotation
visible either.
Not really sure what it is. The tabernacle caught my attention as it
looks rather well done if not on the flimsy side?
Nels

Hello all,
Am a longtime user of Gregg's Hulls program and need some help.
I finally had to migrate to Windows 7 :(  and so far have not been able to get
HULLS to run.
Have tried all of the various Windows 7 'Compatablilty Mode' choices but still
no joy in Mudville.
If there's anyone here who has succeeded at this... pleeease speak up and give a
hand.
Many thanks,
TomH

This was an unlabeled random photo in with a group of photos from the
2010 TX200. I never heard of any Micros in that event though so it may
have been a photo taken of a local boat in the marina or something. It
was posted on Facebook.

Nels

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> Where'djagethat, Nels? In plan view that boat would be much like LM,
> yes. As pictured, at first I thought the bottom profile may not be
> quite as snubbed, but comparing LM's chine rather than keel profile
> gives an almost perfect match too.
>
> >
> >
>

Doh! What was I thinking? It's a Martha Jane of course.

I guess viewed from that angle it fooled me. And yes there was one in
the 2010 TX200 and it did really well.

Nels (Will delete the file and add the photo to MJ info.)


--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> This was an unlabeled random photo in with a group of photos from the
> 2010 TX200. I never heard of any Micros in that event though so it may
> have been a photo taken of a local boat in the marina or something. It
> was posted on Facebook.
>
> Nels
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese marka97203@ wrote:
> >
> > Where'djagethat, Nels? In plan view that boat would be much like LM,
> > yes. As pictured, at first I thought the bottom profile may not be
> > quite as snubbed, but comparing LM's chine rather than keel profile
> > gives an almost perfect match too.
> >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Martha Jane's are deceptively fast. No wake, don't look like they are
doing any thing-------except getting smaller in front of you.

HJ

On 6/29/2011 6:20 PM, prairiedog2332 wrote:
> Doh! What was I thinking? It's a Martha Jane of course.
>
> I guess viewed from that angle it fooled me. And yes there was one in
> the 2010 TX200 and it did really well.
>
> Nels (Will delete the file and add the photo to MJ info.)
>
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332"<arvent@...>  wrote:
>> This was an unlabeled random photo in with a group of photos from the
>> 2010 TX200. I never heard of any Micros in that event though so it may
>> have been a photo taken of a local boat in the marina or something. It
>> was posted on Facebook.
>>
>> Nels
>>
>> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese marka97203@ wrote:
>>> Where'djagethat, Nels? In plan view that boat would be much like LM,
>>> yes. As pictured, at first I thought the bottom profile may not be
>>> quite as snubbed, but comparing LM's chine rather than keel profile
>>> gives an almost perfect match too.
>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!!  Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>

Are you running 64 bit? You might be out of luck because Hulls is a 16 bit
program. I haven't found a solution to this issue yet.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "cruising.sailor" <tom@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> Am a longtime user of Gregg's Hulls program and need some help.
> I finally had to migrate to Windows 7 :(  and so far have not been able to get
HULLS to run.
> Have tried all of the various Windows 7 'Compatablilty Mode' choices but still
no joy in Mudville.
> If there's anyone here who has succeeded at this... pleeease speak up and give
a hand.
> Many thanks,
> TomH
>

Hi Myles,

I would be very interested  in more details in what you wrote here:

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@...> wrote:
> After a couple of seasons of reefing by moving the boom to the upper
clew
> and lots of banging I changed to bottom up reefing. No lines get
moved.
> Slack the downhaul, drop the main enough, pull the reefing line (like
slab
> type jiffy reefing except bottom up instead of along the mast) tie the
upper
> clew to the boom, retension the halyard and downhaul, two or three
minutes
> and you are done, at old guy speeds.

Reefing line? Downhaul? Are you still talking about the original sail
plan on Micro or another variation?

> Maybe a solution is to make or have someone make a lightweight mast.
Someone
> said they built a 22 pound coopered mast.

That was me suggested that and it was made birdsmouth technique. I am
still considering that option which was made from clear fir or maybe
trying carbon fiber instead. Even if going with a tabernacle as one gets
really old:-)

One can increase sail area a bit by using battens as Bolger did on the
Birdwatcher solent rig option.  However I just don't "get" the advantage
of adding a relatively long yard in order to get a somewhat shorter
mast.

Nels