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

Re: Martha Jane on Ebay

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Nov 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 18 , Nov 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 18 , Nov 7, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 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 6 of 18 , Nov 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 18 , Jan 31, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.