Allegro 27, Lian

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • 23 Jan 2017 11:38
    Reply # 4563248 on 4446721

    Here's a factor that may influence your decision, Hard. One thing I've noticed with Weaverbird's sail is that it seems to be showing less tendency towards a fan-up than a lower, fanned planform does, though admittedly, I haven't done enough sea miles to be absolutely sure. I'm wondering whether it's the higher AR, or the lower yard angle, that's the reason for this, but I suspect that it's a bit of both, and I'm glad of it. I know Arne has a fix for a sail that is inclined to fan-ups, but it's another running line that, at the moment, I don't seem to have a need for.

  • 23 Jan 2017 09:32
    Reply # 4563096 on 4446721
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Hard,

    I have found that the three-panel top section with full-length 70° yard, and with a bit camber in even the top panels, works very well. On my last boat before Ingeborg; the 6.5m Frøken Sørensen, I had to reef a lot, and she sailed like a witch with only that top section set. Frøken Sørensen’s sail has the same shape as the last one I drew up for your Allegro, Lian, with AR=1.95.

    Arne


    Last modified: 23 Jan 2017 09:43 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 22 Jan 2017 23:40
    Reply # 4562575 on 4446721

    If the sail is cambered, both version will work well when all or most of the sail is hoisted.  I do not have any experience of a version A sail, but I like the shape the version B sail gives when deeply reefed, with its high-angled yard and three fanned panels, as seen in the photo of Arion below.  Click on the image to see it full sized.  I think this sail will be perfectly suited to offshore sailing.  PS:  My sail is flat-cut, except for 20mm of rounding along the battens in these top three fanned panels.  The boat sails to windward quite nicely, possibly because the shorter yard allows the upper, unsheeted batten to fall out, which, combined with the slight camber, creates a sweet curve in the top panels that are always working, whether under full sail or reefed.

    Last modified: 22 Jan 2017 23:45 | Anonymous member
  • 22 Jan 2017 20:55
    Reply # 4562402 on 4562173
    Scott Dufour wrote:

    My first thought,  only because it's the solution I used,  is that if you went with a split junk,  your mast would fall aft of the hatch and you'd be able to keep it.   

    I would prefer to keep it all as simple as possible. I guess split junk doesn't make it simpler at all.
    I'm pretty happy with what I have now, some certainty is maybe needed to keep going one or the other way. Maybe someone will also notice something we should pay extra   attention to. Or if something will need double-checking. 
  • 22 Jan 2017 17:23
    Reply # 4562173 on 4446721

    My first thought,  only because it's the solution I used,  is that if you went with a split junk,  your mast would fall aft of the hatch and you'd be able to keep it.   

  • 22 Jan 2017 13:49
    Reply # 4561810 on 4446721
    Some progress done with great help by Robin Fröberg and Arne Kverneland. Several conversations have been held with some sailplans drawn... As my personal experience and knowledge with JR are very limited I feel it's an artwork that should be shared. Especially as there may be others having similar dilemmas.

    There are versions A and B currently on the table. Both having their pros and cons. I'd be happy to hear your opinions before I will finally start purchasing materials and cutting any holes.
    Please keep in mind I have off-shore intentions in mind, practicing in the Baltic Sea for the time being. Out of what I've read and heard I assume version A should be more appropriate for high seas? Other than that I don't like that extra work that needs to be done fitting the mast to the current fore-hatch area. It'd be much easier if it were through the deck some 30cm fore.  

    Any comments or suggestions?

    link to version A

    link to version B

    Last modified: 13 Feb 2017 08:50 | Anonymous member
  • 08 Dec 2016 22:05
    Reply # 4447568 on 4446721

    Great looking boat! Best wishes with the conversion. I'll be looking forward to hearing more.

    Phil

  • 08 Dec 2016 13:14
    Message # 4446721

    After dropping the idea of the bigger, more expensive and more complex Bruce Roberts 345 I eventually found an Allegro 27 being a better fit for me. So it's not too drastic transition from the Nordic Folkboat I came from...

    Bought her from Malmö (Sweden) and after some attempts with no favourable winds managed to land her at my backyard in Tallinn (Estonia). The way she behaved in stormy conditions crossing the Baltic Sea at the end of October sure proved she is one sturdy boat. Photos done by previous owner(s).

    Converting her to JR has kinda began already. Big thanks to JRA member Robin Fröberg here for helping me out making progress there.

    Hope to share some results with you some time soon!


    Some dimensions for Allegro 27:

    LOA 8,03m
    LWL 7,32m
    Beam 2,76m

    draft 1,21m
    ballast (iron) 1300kg
    displacement 2950kg

    sail area (Bm) 14,41m2 (main) + 15,56m2 (fore) = 29,97m2


<< First  < Prev   1   2   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