....

your experience with deep reefing is perfectly opposite of mine. I find that my sails stand better and better the more I reef, at least down to two panels.

...

As for the ability to sail to windward in gale-force winds, something I only do when forced to, I think the JR is very good at this.

...
Arne

Hmm, interesting. From an aspect ratio perspective this makes sense - with the higher yard angle sail having superior lift, and thereby windward performance (for the same sail area), and this relative superiority increasing progressively as both sails are reefed. 

Poppy’s SJR on top of the BR

Yesterday Slieve sent me the complete sailplan of Poppy with the SJR. Since the Bermudan rig was not on it, I imported the drawing into my QCAD program and traced the SJR and its mast. Then I could superimpose  the SJR on the original sailplan of the Longbow with its Bermudan rig.
This makes it easier to compare the rigs.

Arne

David D: Isn't there a point at which it isn't productive to be trying to sail to windward?

Yes, I think that's correct. I agree with all your points.  Its not something we would choose to do (going to windward in a gale) but for the purpose of discussion, clawing off a lee shore mght be a case, if one is unlucky or imprudent enough to be caught in that situation.

Arne: your experience with deep reefing is perfectly opposite of mine. I find that my sails stand better and better the more I reef, at least down to two panels.

I wondered if that would be the case. My statement is based only on my little trailer boat with the Amiina Mk2 rig, which is rather over-canvassed and develops a lot of weather helm, when heeled over - and based on the only one time when I tried to go to windward in a strong wind. There was also an adverse tide running. I could probably have struggled on if I had been in danger, but I gave up because the boat really wasn't making much progress and there seemed no point. I don't know if it was the boat or if it was me. I am hoping someone else with a low yard-angle rig will chime in. Perhaps the high yard-angle rig has an advantage here.

(No attempt at matching scale)

Given the need (as I see it) to cloth the naked mast when heavily reefed, I wonder if it is worth taking this to an even greater extent by making a storm sail with high aspect ratio, a yard angle of 90 degrees and giving the sail zero balance. A kind of gunter rig with a couple of battens? The top of the yard would be a bit lower than the mast head, and the yard hoist point could be at the very top.

For a dedicated heavy weather/strorm sail with windward ability, would something like this work?

Happy New Year

Isn't there a point at which it isn't productive to be trying to sail to windward?

Because you need a sail with sufficient power to drive to windward into big waves, but at the same time, small enough not cause the boat to heel too much?

Isn't that why MING MING deploys a drogue to reduce leeway while waiting out a storm?

Because trying to sail to windward may put too much strain on the boat and crew.

Unless you are off a leeshore and have no choice.

I suppose maybe that's where Arnes reefed sail offers a better sail shape with a long cambered luff relative to the remaining sail area because of the high angle yard than the shorter luff on offer from a reefed SJR?

I suppose your success to windward is very dependent on your hull shape as well as your storm sail area.

Graeme,

your experience with deep reefing is perfectly opposite of mine. I find that my sails stand better and better the more I reef, at least down to two panels. The 3-panel top section on Ingeborg has proved to perform very well in F6 plus gusts (inshore), and with no flapping or flogging anywhere. Even the reefed bundle behaves. This, I think, has much to do with me making my sails with seven smaller instead of five bigger panels. My infamous write-up from 2018 describes Ingeborg’s handling under two, three and four panels.

As for the ability to sail to windward in gale-force winds, something I only do when forced to, I think the JR is very good at this. The limiting factor is the boat. Generally, big is beautiful in this respect, but if one has to choose a vessel between two and four tons, then what? To me, the now-out-of-fashion heavy, long keel is the winner.
My three-ton fin-keeled Johanna, had an easily driven hull, low superstructure and high ballast ratio. On flat, protected waters, she coped well. However, when facing the steep chop of long fjords, she struggled badly. Each time she was stopped, the keel stalled, and it took time to get started again.
My present Ingeborg is less prone to being stopped in the first place, and when she does, she starts up again right away without losing much ground.

I can Imagine that the SCOD is marvellous in such conditions (although wet).
Trim lines, plenty of ballast and a big keel area is a good combination for such conditions. What about a Nicholson 32  -  any better?

Cheers, and Happy New Year(s),
Arne