Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting??

Expand Messages
  • jeff
    ... From: daithiw2002 To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:04 PM Subject: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting?? ... I
    Message 1 of 9 , Jul 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "daithiw2002" <dhw@...>
      To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:04 PM
      Subject: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting??


      > Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
      >
      > As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a very
      > early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P. Bolger's
      > designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me to
      > have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into the
      > sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of the "Instant
      > Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from the
      > assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.

      I have to agree here. Self righting, self bailing, and easy to build, are
      not usually used to describe a plywood boat designed for the backyard
      builder.

      Yes, some like the Micro are, but most ply boats are safe but that doesn't
      mean you won't have to bail. I just assumed on my Frolic2 that someday I'd
      swamp it and bail. Life jackets where the normal dress code especially when
      the wind kicked up.

      I've been in sailboat that almost rolled and then sank in 12 feet of water.
      We where racing when a micro burst hit with an open main hatch while putting
      away the spinaker, no one was seriously hurt. Yes it was self righting and
      self bailing, but it wasn't as safe as my Frolic2 in the long run. It was a
      extremely violent lesson in the forces involved in laying a self righting
      boat over.

      For inland waters, I rather float around in a swamped boat than go through
      that again. They refloated the "bleach bottle" with air bags but it's
      sailing days where over for the summer. A MJ for example would be going the
      same day.

      Jeff
    • proaconstrictor
      ... very ... Bolger s ... to ... the ... the Instant ... the ... build, are ... backyard ... As may or may not be. But is it not a fact that this boat did not
      Message 2 of 9 , Jul 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In bolger@y..., "jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "daithiw2002" <dhw@g...>
        > To: <bolger@y...>
        > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:04 PM
        > Subject: [bolger] Re: MJ Self righting??
        >
        >
        > > Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
        > >
        > > As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a
        very
        > > early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P.
        Bolger's
        > > designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me
        to
        > > have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into
        the
        > > sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of
        the "Instant
        > > Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from
        the
        > > assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.
        >
        > I have to agree here. Self righting, self bailing, and easy to
        build, are
        > not usually used to describe a plywood boat designed for the
        backyard
        > builder.
        >

        As may or may not be.

        But is it not a fact that this boat did not meet the claims made for
        her (Some of the claims appeared second hand in WB, so it gets
        cloudy). Don't we know this because there are amendments to the
        design. The designer did not run stability calculations by his own
        admission, which is a little embarassing given the prominense of
        advocacy regarding the certification issue. What is also now clear
        is that we have to do some pretty weird things to get where we
        thought we were going. Things that lead down the
        Birdwatcher,Jochems, or Thomas the Tugboat redraw of MJ path.
      • proaconstrictor
        Is the problem that ... We ran calculations for Martha Jane, on pesimistic assumptions of weight location, and found that her point of no return was about 60
        Message 3 of 9 , Jul 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Is the problem that
          > a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
          > Leo
          >

          "We ran calculations for Martha Jane, on pesimistic assumptions of
          weight location, and found that her point of no return was about 60
          degrees, with a substantial negative range until the sealed and
          bouyant masts and yards immersed. Their volume stabilizes her and
          she should float on her side with masts under water. But if some
          force rolled her down to 138 degrees she would go on to bottom up."

          MAIB 6/15/2000

          In Bolger's view 60 degrees is pushing pretty hard, and probably
          accounts for the few reported capsises. But self-righting she isn't.
        • Leoandsandy@Juno.com
          Thanks for this important info. Leo ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or
          Message 4 of 9 , Jul 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for this important info. Leo

            ________________________________________________________________
            GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
            Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
            Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
            http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
          • seap21
            Let me respond to a couple of things here - including, first, a question not copied below - 500 lbs of ballast is not adequate for the martha jane. Mr. Bolger
            Message 5 of 9 , Jul 5, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Let me respond to a couple of things here - including, first, a
              question not copied below - 500 lbs of ballast is not adequate for
              the martha jane. Mr. Bolger is now calling for 1000 lbs - but even
              that is not adequate without at least the addition of the sponsons.

              I/m sorry to say that I think the response from Ireland was poorly
              considered. Even the best of sailors get knocked down. A good number
              of martha janes have been knocked down. Plain and simple - the boat
              with 500 lbs is underballasted. It's also not reasonable for a design
              to go belly up when pushed slightly beyond 90 degees. There are
              plywood sharpies ( the redesigned mj is now one of them ) which are
              self-righting. This is a pretty important feature in a large boat and
              since designers now understand what's required to make sharpies self
              righting ... what reason is there not to do so. Bruce kirby has
              written extensively about this - heavy ballast - crowned decks - high
              sides. It's not rocket science any more. Yes, any boat can get
              knocked down - a good boat has a reasonable self-rescuing
              capablities. The redesigned mj is a good boat. The original version
              had problems. Steve Anderson (martha jane landroval)

              --- In bolger@y..., "daithiw2002" <dhw@g...> wrote:
              > Here we go again in relation to the MJ!
              >
              > As someone who was privileged to have been taught sailing from a
              very
              > early age and who also appreciates the philosophy of Mr. P.
              Bolger's
              > designs I find it quite unreasonable for people who appear to me to
              > have no sailing experience and who have perhaps been enticed into
              the
              > sailing world by, what is in my opinion, the misnomer of
              the "Instant
              > Boat", to expect an instant solution to sailing and safety from the
              > assembly of a stack of plywood according to a set of plans.
              >
              > I am nearing completion of an MJ (original hull shape but with some
              > more ballast.) It has always been my opinion that this boat could
              > capsize, lie hull awash and not self right. So what?
              >
              > If all the anti-this and anti-that pundits would learn how to sail
              > first, then understand the limitations of the craft that they are
              > sailing and then accept their own responsibilty for their safety in
              > the conditions in which they are sailing, then perhaps we could
              have
              > a more objective analysis of the indidual designs under
              > consideration, whether it is an MJ or a 140' Ron Holland!!!
              >
              > David on the South Coast of Ireland
              >
              > --- In bolger@y..., Leoandsandy@J... wrote:
              > > Steve- thanks for the comments.
              > > "But my
              > > martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
              > > righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take
              nothing
              > > for granted."
              > > Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones
              > I've
              > > found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
              > > experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a
              problem
              > with
              > > the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in
              > rough
              > > weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is
              > reefing?
              > > Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the
              problem
              > that
              > > a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
              > > Leo
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • seap21
              Leo - I suppose you have gathered that the original mj didn t recover from the knockdown - but I noticed that I didn t answer your question about reefing.
              Message 6 of 9 , Jul 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Leo - I suppose you have gathered that the original mj didn't recover
                from the knockdown - but I noticed that I didn't answer your question
                about reefing. Reefing is pretty simple on Landroval because I have
                two jiffy reefing lines. I have to go back and tie in the center
                reefing points - but one pull of the line and the reefing point on
                the leech comes down to the boom and it's simple to tie off the tack.
                Reefed at tack and clew is sufficient - but I usually go back and tie
                in the rest as well. Having a boom gallows helps some too. Of course
                the yard needs to be lowered accordingly - which necessitates a
                parrell line of some kind to keep the yard close to the mast when
                lowered into the reefing position.

                The only "problem" for me is that windward performance on one tack
                isn't really very good. Windward performance on the opposite tack
                however is excellent. It will surprise you that when sailing to the
                wind - this big lug sail performs the best when the yard and boom are
                on the windward side of the mast - NOT on the leeward side of the
                mast. I expected just the opposite. I'm not sure why this is - (It is
                an excellently sewn sail - from Hunter and Gamble in Maine). I think
                the boom and the yard fall off some from the mast on the leeward
                side - and I think the mast interfers with the airflow more when
                it's "upwind" from the sail. There is a marked difference in the two
                tacks. Of course - off the wind few boats keep up with us. Steve
                Anderson (MJ Landroval)


                --- In bolger@y..., Leoandsandy@J... wrote:
                > Steve- thanks for the comments.
                > "But my
                > martha jane experiences make me skeptical of the as 29 as a self-
                > righting boat. I'm not saying that she isn't - but I'd take nothing
                > for granted."
                > Steve- Sure enjoyed finding the pictures of Landroval. The ones
                I've
                > found I keep stored in "My Pictures" I'd like to profit from your
                > experiences building and sailing a Martha Jane. Is there a problem
                with
                > the adequacy of 500# waterbalast if the boat is always sailed in
                rough
                > weather with the cabin closed tightly? Also, how effective is
                reefing?
                > Most of my experience has been cruising a Dovekie. Is the problem
                that
                > a MJ recovers from a knockdown, but not from being rolled over?
                > Leo
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Leoandsandy@Juno.com
                Steve- I guess I ll get the latest design updates from Bolger, and study some more. How does the boom gallows help you to reef? Do you lower all the sail,
                Message 7 of 9 , Jul 8, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Steve- I guess I'll get the latest design updates from Bolger, and study
                  some more.
                  How does the boom gallows help you to reef? Do you lower all the sail,
                  and reef with the sail lowered on to the gallows?
                  I'm not surprised about one tack being better than the other. On our
                  Dovekie, the tack that has the sail pressed against the sprit boom seem
                  favored, too.
                  My "collection" has3 pictures of Landroval: one at the launch, and one
                  dried out. I think the third is of a blue-shirted sailor in the cockpit
                  showing the wild tiller arrangement. Are any other photos on the web?
                  I can see the sponsons, the twin rudders, the gallows (looks a lot like
                  the one on my Dovekie), and a bimini. What about added ballast or any
                  other modifications? I'm surprised that parrall lines are not on the
                  plans.
                  And about that (those?) capsize(s): Do you happen to know if the
                  hatches were closed and the slides all in? Leo

                  ________________________________________________________________
                  GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
                  Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
                  Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
                  http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.