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

Re: Cartoon 40?

Expand Messages
  • gbship
    Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-week vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which was written before
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-week
      vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which was
      written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in the article are
      complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went to an
      aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).

      I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco might
      be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck with
      it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the builder. I
      had built 4 or five boats at the time, so had a good idea of what was
      needed. Under the influence then of Alan Vaitses "Covering Wood Boats
      with Fiberglass," I planned a 1/4 inch (AC fir)ply hull, covered with
      a lot of glass set in polyester. I think the minimum was a layer of
      cloth, a layer of heavy matt, and a final layer of cloth. All this was
      overlapped and doubled at the bottom and stem. In fact, there was so
      much glass at the stem that the forward part of the inside wooden stem
      was probably redundant. I also installed a longitudinal 2" piece of
      1/4 inch ply, set on edge, on the forward part of the bottom between
      the chine and bottom as extra reinforcement. It was tack and taped in
      place. This construction seemed plenty strong, but in retrospect, it
      was a somewhat expensive mistake. If I were doing it again, the hull
      bottom would be 3/8 ply covered by a layer or two of cloth set in
      epoxy, and doubled at the bottom and stem. It would be lighter,
      stronger, and cheaper than how mine came out. The topside part of the
      hull was 1/4 inch ply, and I think that would be sufficient, because
      the panel is not wide. The decks were exterior luaun, which is a bit
      less than 1/4 inch. The deck frames were 3/4 by 1 1/2 fir, set on
      edge. If I were doing it again, that would be increased to 3/4 by 2
      1/2 as the deck was flexible and made cracking noises, although
      nothing ever broke or failed. There was also a layer of glass set in
      polyester covering the deck. BTW, I made a couple of the frames on the
      stern deck 5 or 6 inches deep, so that they projected below the access
      cutout in the bulkhead at the aft end of the cockpit. Stringers were
      attached to the bottom of the frames, which held a plywood table that
      could be pulled out into the cockpit. The extra depth of the frames
      meant the stern deck did not flex.

      Finally, I don't think there has ever been any particular formal name
      for this. I've always referred to it to others as the v-bottom
      catboat. . . .

      Gary



      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
      wrote:
      >
      > first a protest.
      >
      > Such a lovely design has to have a better name than 'Cartoon 40'
      > (perhaps though, if one understands the meaning it may be taken as a
      > substitute for the secret handshake, denoting one is on the inside
      of
      > Bolgerdom, or at least an acolyte), or 'Casual Day Sailor'. Gary did
      > you ever correspond with the Designer on this?
      >
      > Gary, in the article Bruce posted is mentioned that the scantlings
      > specs can remain the same for the stretched version you built. What
      > are they please?
      > Regards
      > graeme
    • graeme19121984
      G day Gary, thanks for your reply. Very interesting. Did you go for the complete single-luff spinnaker rig? If so, how did it perform on a reach? How did it
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        G'day Gary, thanks for your reply. Very interesting. Did you go for
        the complete single-luff spinnaker rig? If so, how did it perform on
        a
        reach? How did it perform when tacking or gybing?

        Best regards
        graeme



        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@c...> wrote:
        >
        > Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-
        week
        > vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which was
        > written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in the article
        are
        > complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went to
        an
        > aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).
        >
        > I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco
        might
        > be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck
        with
        > it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the
        builder....
      • gbship
        Graeme: Alas, I never did get or use a single luff spinnaker. Always wanted to, but never got it done. I think if I were, I would get a polytarp one to try out
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 5, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Graeme: Alas, I never did get or use a single luff spinnaker. Always
          wanted to, but never got it done. I think if I were, I would get a
          polytarp one to try out and see how it worked. So I can't speak to
          performance and ease of handling with one. Without the single luff
          sail, it handled well, steady on the helm but turning on a dime and
          keeping its momentum well in a tack. A paragon.

          Gary

          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > G'day Gary, thanks for your reply. Very interesting. Did you go for
          > the complete single-luff spinnaker rig? If so, how did it perform on
          > a
          > reach? How did it perform when tacking or gybing?
          >
          > Best regards
          > graeme
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@c...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Graeme: Sorry for the delay in replying; just got back from a two-
          > week
          > > vacation. First let me correct a mistake in my last post, which
          was
          > > written before rereading the SBJ article. The plans in the
          article
          > are
          > > complete, including mast scantlings (although I eventually went
          to
          > an
          > > aluminum tube mast when I installed a tabernacle).
          > >
          > > I did talk to Phil about the design and he suggested a Chebacco
          > might
          > > be better, but I was stuck on the catboat, and I'm glad I stuck
          > with
          > > it. He did not specify scantlings, those are left up to the
          > builder....
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.