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

Re: [bolger] Re: Old Shoe-type MICRO ?

Expand Messages
  • John Boy
    Now I know this is the Bolger group but I was lucky to be able to crew with Mike Monies on the Red Scamp this past FL120.  I haven t been able to sail an Old
    Message 1 of 54 , Sep 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Now I know this is the Bolger group but I was lucky to be able to crew with Mike Monies on the Red Scamp this past FL120.  I haven't been able to sail an Old Shoe yet so I can't really compare the two.  But I can tell you about the Scamp.  At 11'11" LOA you know it's not a rocket ship but it'll surprise you, it's a little faster than you think it should be.  In a moderate breeze, it'll make 4.5 to 5 knots.  It has a centerboard and with board up it drafts 8".  It has water ballast but Mike replaced it with two series 31 batteries for a 60# trolling motor.  He widened the seats over the stock design and the benches are long enough for my 6'2" frame to sleep comfortably (by the third night I was tired of pitching my tent).  The winds varied between bob-n-bake and a fresh breeze so we never reefed.  I think we loosed the sheet once to spill a gust over four days.  I tacked past the Pensacola Pass on a falling tide with a 15-20 knot head wind.  It created a pretty steep 5 foot chop that I tacked right through without any problem.  In that situation we were tacking around 100 degrees.  The Scamp has a safe feel to it.  
      Tell me how an Old Shoe compares,
      John Boy
       



      “Seaward ho! Hang the treasure! It's the glory of the sea that has turned my head.” 
      Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island


      From: John Trussell <jtrussell2@...>
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:20 AM
      Subject: RE: [bolger] Re: Old Shoe-type MICRO ?

       
      I think that Scamp is more analogous to Old Shoe. Both are short, wide boats with considerable ballast/displacement. My guess is that Old Shoe has more initial stability and less ultimate stability than Scamp. Both offer comfortable places for the crew to sit in large cockpits. Arguably, Scamp is a little prettier than Old Shoe (though neither will ever qualify as a beauty) and Old Shoe is probably quicker to build (though the lead keel adds challenge). I’m an old man and I need a comfortable cockpit and an easily managed daysailor that will take care of me without requiring agility or strength. I purchased and studied both sets of plans and I am currently building a Scamp. But it was a close, close call.
       
      JohnT
       

      From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto: bolger@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of c.ruzer
      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 8:27 PM
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [bolger] Re: Old Shoe-type MICRO ?
       
       


      I don't see how 12ft x 5ft Scamp covers Micro/open-Micro. It covers the 14ft x 7ft Seaboots which goes closer to the 15ft x 6ft Micro. ..You can also place an influential amount of ballast inside 12ft x 5ft Japanese Beach Cruiser, maybe water even.

      Compare Seaboots by Tom Dunderdale, known here for his Light Dory Type V builds and Archaeopterix inspired Moth scows.
      http://www.campionboats.co.uk/design_proposal.html
      http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jw/scamp/index.htm

      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Brian" <brianincorv@...> wrote:
      > Yes, I know that there's a tabernacle option on the Micro. It's a question
      of whether it's worth it to me to make major mods on my old Micro, or go in another direction. SCAMP is a very interesting design that I have been following for some time. At the moment, we're going to sail the Micro a few more times and then see if we'd prefer to change to a smaller, lighter sail and oar type of craft.

      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com,
      "MylesJ. Swift" <mswift@> wrote:
      > > Have you seen the updates for Micro? Converts to a mast in tabernacle
      No virus found in this message.
      Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5242 - Release Date: 09/02/12


    • philbolger@comcast.net
      Thanks for your interest. The work was done in 2004, then covered in MAIB Sept. 1, 2004 Vol. 22, No 8 p.28-29. We referred to it as MICRO-2 . To the plans
      Message 54 of 54 , Sep 7, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for your interest.

        The work was done in 2004, then covered in MAIB Sept. 1, 2004 Vol. 22, No 8 p.28-29.  We referred to it as 'MICRO-2'. 
        To the plans for Design #422 MICRO across three additional sheets were added modifications doable on any existing MICRO hull:
        - shorter mainmast - 18'4" versus 23' -
        - battened gaff main-sail for an overall sail-area of 210 versus 176, plus 65 sq. foot reaching spinnaker
        - all set in a bow-tabernacle, bringing her hull-length to just over 16 feet,
        - gaff mizzen on 2-foot shorter mizzen-mast 
        - moderate-angle fillets under her bow.
        As stated in the MAIB piece in 2004, these three upgrade sheets are $75.
        The complete plans-package has grown over the decades from 6 to 11 sheets and is available for $250 to build one boat.

        Susanne Altenburger, PB&F   
          
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 12:59 PM
        Subject: [bolger] Re: Old Shoe-type MICRO ?

         



        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
        >
        > I don't believe that is well-known. Is it possible to purchase just
        > this sheet?
        > Mark
        > >
        > > Myles,
        > > in case your experience amongst waves would be alleviated by
        > > this, MICRO has had a set of (addable) Vee-Nose fillets forward for
        > > a good number of years now.
        > >
        >
        Yes, first I've heard of it, as well. Perhaps it's on the navigator plans . . . I haven't really studied them.
        Anyway, they sound like a worthy addition. If I still had the Micro I built, I'd likely want them.
        Dave

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.