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

Re: [bolger] Re: Martha Jane on Ebay

Expand Messages
  • Andres Espino
    I joined this group hoping to learn more about the cruiser and other of bolger s longer sailing craft.. there are so many different and irregular aspects to
    Message 1 of 18 , Nov 4, 2007
      I joined this group hoping to learn more about the cruiser and other of bolger's longer sailing craft.. there are so many different and irregular aspects to the design like the Cat rig and leeboards. the Bolger page is mostly plans not much detains about how the boats look or the designs and other pros and cons.. everyone just says "buy the book" LOL

      Andrew

      martha2001au <cmoone11@...> wrote:

      If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have snapped
      it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
      and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
      great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...

      Col





      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • graeme19121984
      Hey Col, How did you find those aft sponson upgrades looked in the actual built boat? In the pics of boats such as Shirley Valentine they seem to me not to
      Message 2 of 18 , Nov 5, 2007
        Hey Col,

        How did you find those aft sponson upgrades looked in the actual built
        boat?

        In the pics of boats such as "Shirley Valentine" they seem to me not to
        detract from the looks when in profile view (can hardly be seen), but
        can seem ungainly in other views. I was wondering if that may be just
        an artifact of the photography...

        Graeme


        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > If she'd been for sale in Australia at that price I would have
        snapped
        > it up in second! I sailed once on Graham Cheers MJ Shirley Valentine
        > and my lasting impression was its power and speed, not to mention the
        > great cockit configuration, trailerability, etc etc...
        >
        > Col
        >
      • Greg Flemming
        Yes Graeme, interesting about the mods, however, he also mentioned that he changed the masts to aluminium tube which must have a significant impact on the
        Message 3 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
          Yes Graeme, interesting about the mods, however, he also mentioned
          that he changed the masts to aluminium tube which must have a
          significant impact on the balance
          Greg F

          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > US$4051.00 & just 12 hours to go.
          >
          > I think I much prefer the looks of the original, as shown here, to
          > the upgraded versions. The all white paint scheme suits too - like
          > the one in Alaska.
          >
          > It's very,very interesting to read the seller's comments that it
          > doesn't need those Bolger reserve bouyancy mods at all. I wonder if
          > he tested?
          >
          > Looks a good boat.
          >
          > Graeme
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "proto957" <helio6@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I've been watching it, too: Ebay Item number: 250180856975
          > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
          > ViewItem&ih=015&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%
          > 3AIT&viewitem=&item=250180856975&rd=1
          > >
          > > It started at $3,500, and has no bids as of today,> --- In
          > bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > It looks like the Martha Jane built by William D Jochems
          >
        • graeme19121984
          Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1, 2000
          Message 4 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
            Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I
            again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1, 2000
            http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/

            I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it struck
            me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may not
            apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
            acquired Martha Jane.

            Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
            WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
            occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the factor
            that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much further
            than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast tank
            has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses a
            volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.

            Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
            there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and waving
            about, and that there would be a significant amount of the large
            cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
            beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
            wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly be
            that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up in
            the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
            line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
            the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
            and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
            concerned many.

            If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
            would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
            course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
            volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
            the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage access
            because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether it
            may be advantageous if they actually flood?

            The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends. The
            addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottom
            would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
            Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for a
            better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
            steel ballast is there any advantage?

            Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
            with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
            plate ballast option is installed?

            Graeme
          • martha2001au
            Hi Graeme, Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I m still pining after a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work, family,bills,
            Message 5 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
              Hi Graeme,
              Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining after
              a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,
              family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters on
              building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.

              From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition to
              the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water ballast -
              do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your mods?
              Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for the
              cockpit seats.

              I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first, but
              I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,If I
              ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
              ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
              without an extra 500lb of dead weight.

              Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as theres
              enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.

              All the best,

              Col


              ups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
              >
              > Searching around the net for any newer info on Martha Jane(s) I
              > again came across the Jim Michalak Newsletter page November 1,
              2000
              > http://members.fortunecity.com/duckworks/2000/1101/
              >
              > I don't lightly differ with an opinion of Mr Michalak, but it
              struck
              > me that a particular warning he gives for boats generally may not
              > apply for the example he gives of Bob Archibald's then recently
              > acquired Martha Jane.
              >
              > Take a look at the third sketch above the caption "KEEP SEATS
              > WATERTIGHT!" Looking at JM's styleized sketch of Martha Jane it
              > occurs to me that water tight cockpit seats just might be the
              factor
              > that resulted in some early Martha Janes rolling over much further
              > than 90degrees after a knockdown. Consider that a waterballast
              tank
              > has a volume of about 4 cubic feet and a cockpit seat encloses a
              > volume of what, say, 5 to 6 cubic feet.
              >
              > Consider that once the Martha Jane was knocked to its beam ends
              > there would be 250lbs of water ballast now up in the air and
              waving
              > about, and that there would be a significant amount of the large
              > cockpit seat watertight volume pushed below the waterline. In the
              > beam ends attitude the cockpit seat volume would be offset to the
              > wrong side of the beam ends centre of bouyancy which would mostly
              be
              > that of the cabin volume. This unwholsome coupling of weight up in
              > the air and more or less counteracting seat bouyancy linearly in
              > line with it (if not actually directly below it) could easily tip
              > the boat at least so far that water would gain entry via the hatch
              > and lead to the early reported flooding incidents that greatly
              > concerned many.
              >
              > If the cockpit seats were not water tight the Martha Jane perhaps
              > would just sit on her beam ends when knocked down... but then of
              > course the motor etc. would not be supported by their flotation
              > volume... Does anyone know if in the upgrade for the aft sponsons
              > the seats are able to have hinged lids for under seat storage
              access
              > because the flotation there is no longer necessary, and whether it
              > may be advantageous if they actually flood?
              >
              > The added sponsons act against the boat tipping past beam ends.
              The
              > addition of a 500lb steel plate design upgrade below the bottom
              > would also serve to act in this way. The trouble there is that
              > Martha Jane was designed to do away with fixed ballast to make for
              a
              > better trailer sailer than Black Skimmer - with the added 500lbs
              > steel ballast is there any advantage?
              >
              > Does anyone know if the original water ballast tanks are done away
              > with and their space is freed up for storage etc. when the steel
              > plate ballast option is installed?
              >
              > Graeme
              >
            • graeme19121984
              ... after ... on ... Hi Col, good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone else, surely, but if you start I ll be very interested in following
              Message 6 of 18 , Nov 7, 2007
                --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@...> wrote:
                >
                > Hi Graeme,
                > Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining
                after
                > a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then work,
                > family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters
                on
                > building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
                >

                Hi Col,

                good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone else,
                surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following your
                progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
                river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
                that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.


                > From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition to
                > the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water
                ballast -
                > do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your
                mods?
                > Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for the
                > cockpit seats.

                I'm not sure that was my idea, but now you mention it, why not add
                extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
                could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
                motor?

                Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after Martha
                Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of his
                water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
                higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
                waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
                helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
                insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event. It
                may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotation
                high, ballast low.



                >
                > I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first,
                but
                > I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the moment,If
                I
                > ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
                > ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
                > without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
                >

                I guess it will weigh-in somewhere near the Black Skimmer, but it
                does have a much more trailer friendly rig!

                > Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as
                theres
                > enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.

                Yeah, it's just a theory though. I'm not sure about the entire
                volume being free flooding???

                Cheers
                Graeme
              • Col
                Sorry Graeme, Thought you were Graham Cheers, owner of Shirley Valentine. (doh!) He wrote to Bolger and had approved his suggestion to build in extra water
                Message 7 of 18 , Nov 8, 2007
                  Sorry Graeme,
                  Thought you were Graham Cheers, owner of Shirley Valentine. (doh!)
                  He wrote to Bolger and had approved his suggestion to build in extra
                  water ballast when this stability question came up - by all reports
                  it has been very successful. His boats up for sale at the moment on
                  the Duck Flat website - I have a lottery ticket in my wallet......

                  Col


                  In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "martha2001au" <cmoone11@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Hi Graeme,
                  > > Good to hear from you again! As you can tell I'm still pining
                  > after
                  > > a Martha Jane, got distracted though and built a Surf, then
                  work,
                  > > family,bills, you know the drill. I still have all your letters
                  > on
                  > > building and rigging advice on hand ready to go.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Hi Col,
                  >
                  > good to hear from you too. Those letters would be from someone
                  else,
                  > surely, but if you start I'll be very interested in following your
                  > progress. It wouldn't take much at all to get me down there in big
                  > river country to help with turning the hull either. Good luck with
                  > that, and do give a shout if extra muscle is required at any stage.
                  >
                  >
                  > > From my reading of the upgrades, the 500lb shoe is in addition
                  to
                  > > the water ballast. I liked your idea of adding extra water
                  > ballast -
                  > > do you know how much extra weight in water was added by your
                  > mods?
                  > > Also my original uprades don't mention and storage ability for
                  the
                  > > cockpit seats.
                  >
                  > I'm not sure that was my idea, but now you mention it, why not add
                  > extra water ballast? Maybe the forward half of the cockpit seats
                  > could be flooding too, and the aft half watertight to float the
                  > motor?
                  >
                  > Looking at the BWAOM chapter on WhaleWatcher, designed after
                  Martha
                  > Jane, where PCB mentions an earlier incident involving one of his
                  > water ballasted designs capsising and flooding, I note how much
                  > higher the watertight cockpit seat volumes are relative to the
                  > waterballast volumes. The seats are high it is said so that the
                  > helmsman may see over the cabin, but this also serves as extra
                  > insurance for the WW birdwatcher hull type in a knockdown event.
                  It
                  > may arise from a lesson learned again in Martha Jane - flotation
                  > high, ballast low.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > > I must admit I wasn't fond of the look of the sponsons at first,
                  > but
                  > > I am getting used to them. The way I'm thinking at the
                  moment,If
                  > I
                  > > ever get to build I'd go with the aluminium mast, extra water
                  > > ballast, and sponsons. I think she's heavy enough to trailer
                  > > without an extra 500lb of dead weight.
                  > >
                  >
                  > I guess it will weigh-in somewhere near the Black Skimmer, but it
                  > does have a much more trailer friendly rig!
                  >
                  > > Interesting theory on having free flooding seats - as long as
                  > theres
                  > > enough reserve bouyancy in the sponsons.
                  >
                  > Yeah, it's just a theory though. I'm not sure about the entire
                  > volume being free flooding???
                  >
                  > Cheers
                  > Graeme
                  >
                • Bruce Hallman
                  For those who haven t noticed, Mike Stockstill is presently selling his Martha Jane on eBay, basically for the cost of the trailer! If I didn t already own
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jan 31, 2009
                    For those who haven't noticed, Mike Stockstill is presently selling
                    his Martha Jane on eBay, basically for the cost of the trailer! If I
                    didn't already own ten boats, I am seriously tempted to bid.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.