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

Re: Martha Jane on Ebay

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.