I dug out the scan of that old SBJ article by Dan Segal (may stick it in Files later - lifted from other Files somewhere). You know, the piece where at the end he describes Dynamite on the shore watching, never having seen a sailboat plane before, and so excitedly jumping up and down and being "pleased as a well fed dog" (lovely turn of phrase) at how Gypsy handled the 25kt gusts and chop that day. But more to the point when Dan got back in, and said it was a fine sailboat, Dynamite responded "Not bad for a multipurpose boat" - a fact Dan had forgotten owing to his exhilarating try out under sail. At the start of the article Dan tells how Gypsy was to be a more commonly acceptable looking boat than Thomaston Galley, but to have the TG capabilities. The new drawings PCB showed him had the boat named Galley II - row, sail, power, like TG! I don't recall seeing a pic of any Gypsy with an outboard, and only Jon's recent stretched version with any provision for one if desired. Dynamite barely mentions motoring. Well, if she was meant to do what TG did, I wonder, surely cruising and sleeping aboard were part of it. I wonder if any of those Gypsy II drawings showed an offset board, or even a leeboard?
Nels, the Gypsy daggerboard is markedly inclined. I don't think that's to necessarily delay stalling ;) but think it mostly to shed all the stuff that would catch on it in those down east local shallow waters, and one way to have a tall daggerboard case clear the spot where a rower must sit. The mast is already raked aft to place the sail CSA above the hull CoB. The board is shaped so that its effective CLR is under the CoB at about a third the way in from the tip when the boat is heeled as it is meant to under press of sail. (Who knows when moving where the actual sail CoE or board CLR might actually be?) Depending on which part of the inclined daggerboard or case you measure from you could have a verticle board still align on the centres and be up to 2.5ft further aft! The centres mentioned are only about 0.5ft forward of the widest hull dimension at station 9. Slightly tapered spacers could align a board there. A signature rope-slung Bolger leeboard would need spacer/guards projecting further forward and outwards, which may not look so good but which could still function. A foot wide verticle board centred right on station 9 might require another 5 degrees or so of mast rake, or perhaps just rake the board forward slightly when on the wind?
There's room to play, however I'm inclined towards just moving the designed board off to one side. Oars would have to be stored differently in a cruiser anyway wouldn't they? The steep bilge panels, and possibly side decks/flotation don't allow much more width than the bottom provides to sleep on. Side decks are probably required to make up for the strength of the removed frame at station 9. Or leave the frame and put a cockpit floor in between stations 6 and 12 at the height of the designed benches and thwart - a footwell with a removable cover would take care of a rower's legs and allow anyone taller than 6ft the ability to straighten theirs when asleep diagonally across the cockpit.
Unlike the CSA you don't always see centre of bouyancy marked on PCB's plans, yet you can bet it was calculated. Likewise for CLR - perhaps because of dynamic lead in the keel CLR, but the profile seems to always look as though the hull CLR is aligned with the sail CSA. I recall reading an edition of Slocum's Spray that had a number of appendices. One of those was a detailed NA analysis of multidudinous forces at work in Spray under way, and how those all amazingly passed through the same point - which is why she was such a sweet hands-off sailer. Lately I've been struck with how on even the most basic of boats PCB gets the obvious forces, and no doubt the more academic, to all align. It's quite remarkable. And, I bet fiddling with cheapness and minimal material consumption didn't make it any easier! Such deceptive simplicity. Wonderful.
--- In email@example.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
> Dan Segal from SBJ put the Gypsy prototype through it's sailing paces
> and was really impressed.I think if you tried leeboards instead of the
> daggerboard, performance would suffer because they would have to be
> installed further aft to be located parallel to the water flow of the
> hull which seems to be a prerequisite. Then of course you would have to
> relocate the sail rig further aft as well and everything goes out of
> whack balance-wise.
> Would be easy to try Bruce's suggestion and compare results as this is a
> common practice in canoe and kayak sailing adaptations.
> I would expect that if leeboards worked then Mr. Bolger would have gone
> with them.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@>
> > I wonder if without any such arbitrary exclusion perhaps there is an
> acceptable Gypsy leeboard option?
> > Is the Gypsy upper strake wide enough... would the force couple
> resulting from the leeboard bearing on it be too great (it's about 7"
> wide in way of any leeboard - the Thomaston Galley topside strake is
> about 8")? Side decking to help here? But then what about the clip?
> Would the force be too much for a rope slung or a pinned, pivoting board
> > G
> > --- In email@example.com, "Peter" pvanderwaart@ wrote:
> > >
> > > > Has he moved the daggerboard sideways any to clear out a sleep
> > >
> > > I believe that in the original Gypsy, the daggerboard is off-center.
> If it was on the centerline, you would not be able to raise/remove the
> board with the mast in place.
> > >
- It's only that I'm obsessed with that boat!On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:16 AM, graeme19121984 <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
who00Owee, Mark your eyes are good! I'm a bit uncertain, could be... How's your nose?