Anonymous wrote:

Arne wrote:

Annie, I can’t help feeling that you are arguing against yourself here.

Actually, Arne, I was agreeing with you, but really responding to Zane's implication that the boat could probably handle a lot more sail!  :-) 

I should have probably used a full stop at the first comma in the second paragraph!

I have very much enjoyed this thread, and when Annie speaks about trans Atlantic sailing rigs, one should definitely take notice.

OK, now I had another go.
The shown sail with 60° yard and AR = 1.93 can be set on a mast which is 76cm shorter than the original Jester mast, but still in the same position.
This should be just as easy to steer downwind with the CE in the same distance to the mast. Btw, the CE of this sail sits 0.5m lower than that of the original sail.

The only un-tried parameter (to me) is the increased mast balance of 25%. However, since Paul Thompson did so well with 22% balance in his La Chica, I think it is not too bold to try 25%. It remains to see if a boat points well with this much balance in the sail, but it will anyway be much better than the flat, original Jester sail.

Arne

(See Arne's sketches, section 7)

David wrote:

I've always thought that Jester (1960) was woefully under-canvassed, and wondered why none of her owners or guardians ever got around to making her a new sail along the lines of what we now know as the H-M planform, that had been developed fully by  the time that Galway Blazer II was rigged (1968). I think you've got the area and AR about right, Arne, for the kind of Atlantic crossings that she was designed to make.

I agree, David.  And I also remember being shot down in flames for suggesting that the second Jester would not be used as a testing bed for alternative rigs!  Sadly, I was correct.  What a lost opportunity.

Arne's rig would give better light-airs performance, but I feel that you don't really want too large a rig for crossing the North Atlantic in the mid latitudes.  I'm thinking about this relatively narrow boat and the weight of a tall spar.  I dare say other would feel it was worth having even more sail area for calms.   

Zane wrote:

The Arch: Mine looks ok without it, but nice that you have retained that signature look of the Contessa....mind you I "think" it first was adopted by E.G Van De Stadt before David Sadler.  

Yes, van de Stadt's Pionier 9 (1959!) had this sort of companionway without a sliding hatch. Later designs had a normal hatch. A friend of mine owns a Pionier 9. Great boat.

Arne

Jami, see private message so we don't hijack this thread.

Mark