Ingeborg and Jester - comparisions between sail area and cambered or flat panels.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
  • 06 Apr 2022 20:10
    Reply # 12697069 on 12694073
    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.


  • 04 Apr 2022 23:42
    Reply # 12694073 on 12692950
    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!

    Last modified: 04 Apr 2022 23:45 | Anonymous member
  • 04 Apr 2022 11:49
    Reply # 12693097 on 4175442
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    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


    Last modified: 04 Apr 2022 11:50 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 04 Apr 2022 09:09
    Reply # 12692950 on 4175442
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

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

    Remember, I have not super-sized the rig of Jester. The mast is exactly the same as on the original. Moreover, since my suggested sail has seven panels, each of them is only marginally bigger than those in Jester’s original sail; 4.2sqm versus 3.9sqm in Jester’s top panel.
    The SA/ disp. with my suggested rig is definitely not in the ‘fjord flyer’ league, at around 16-18. It could well be a sensible thing to shorten the mast and make the sail a bit broader, but then the mast balance would have to be increased to retain a useful sail area (without altering the mast position).

    Arne


    Last modified: 04 Apr 2022 09:41 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 04 Apr 2022 00:04
    Reply # 12692548 on 12688335
    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.   

    Last modified: 04 Apr 2022 00:28 | Anonymous member
  • 03 Apr 2022 13:17
    Reply # 12692129 on 4175442

    The Galion 22 has one too. However, mine doesn’t anymore.

  • 02 Apr 2022 08:37
    Reply # 12691087 on 12691022
    Anonymous member (Administrator)
    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

  • 02 Apr 2022 05:34
    Reply # 12691022 on 12689499
    Anonymous wrote:

    Well that solves it then!  I was afraid of “a over-canvassing”, but I wanted lots of area, figuring I could reef.  I guess I was being too conservative & will up it to the 350sf you suggest.

    Doghouse idea started with Ming-Ming’s & Wave Rover, but I thought a Ferrari like the Contessa needed curves, and I wanted to retain the signature arch.


    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.  

    1 file
  • 02 Apr 2022 01:26
    Reply # 12690886 on 4175442

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

    Mark

  • 01 Apr 2022 06:22
    Reply # 12689638 on 4175442

    Sorry for hijacking this thread with off-topic enthusiasm, but please send more pics of the doghouse and it's construction.

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   4   5   ...   Next >  Last >> 
       " ...there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in junk-rigged boats" 
                                                               - the Chinese Water Rat

                                                              Site contents © the Junk Rig Association and/or individual authors

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software