Chris, you wrote – "I cannot place the mast precisely where Slieve has recommended as I'm not willing to rearrange the whole forward accommodation, but I've got it fairly close on this sketch."

I realise you are still experimenting with your drawings, Chris, and hope I haven’t recommended a specific position at this point. At the moment you are using an old drawing of the sail on Poppy, with the balance increased, and that is not something I am recommending as the ratio of height to chord of the ‘jibs’ is not ideal. On Edward’s Splinter we modified the sail for inshore use and reduced the number of panels to give a better jib height/ chord ratio, and I would recommend that you consider doing that as well.

How many stages of reefing do you really need for the sailing conditions you are likely to meet? What do you consider to be your requirement for storm canvas? It might be wise to re-draw the rig to the one you might use before you plan any further. Do you have a copy of Edward’s rig, and if not I’ll send you one? I know I call it a ‘brutal’ design, but it is as simple to make as possible with minimum lofting.

I still recommend drawing the rig you want first and offering it up to the boat rather than using an old sketch and working from it. I hope no-one copies your sketches and uses them as they stand as I believe they will not be taking the best route.

Cheers, Slieve.

I have uploaded some photos of the coach roof and interior layout around the mast & fore hatch. these pictures are from a Nomad (22ft) but forward of the cockpit they're the same.

Slieve McGalliard wrote:

Hi Chris

Sorry I'm not free to respond more quickly. I have chosen to use the 50% total chord position instead of the actual centre of lateral area after a lot of examination of the real 3 dimensional situation. I have considered all sails separately in both the split junk and the Bermudan cases and tried to 'guestimate' a realistic equivalent position, and each time I do the exercise I end up about 50% chord. Placing this point on the same position as the Bermudan rig seems to give the same balance to the boat, so I'm happy to continue to use it. It makes it very easy to place the rig and therefore the mast on any drawing.

I fully understand your reluctance to loose the forward hatch, but do you really have to loose it? If you move the mast back to the hatch position could you not move the hatch forward to the existing mast position? Swap them over? A modern hatch could probably be fitted to a wooden frame set on the coach roof quite easily.

Equally, the mast would tend to block the passage way as it would conflict with the door, so why not remove the door and replace it with a curtain or make it a folding door hinged near the centre?

If I were you I'd take Edward up on his offer of a sail. I'm sure you would find the lively performance of interest and want it on you own boat. You want the best possible performance you can get out of your rig to get the best out of your keel configuration. I would offer a trip myself, but it would be quite some time before that could take place.

OK, I know I'm biased towards the split rig.

Cheers,  Slieve

Slieve

Yes, I am aware that a fixed CE position is a convenient fiction. 50% is fine with me, and a lot easier to draw!

Doors are not an issue. If you look at the modified sketch, the bulkhead at the head of the forward berths has the dorway cut into it. There is no door, the heads door doubling as a door to close off the main saloon.

On the accomodation plan I have drawn the position of the mast as it appears in the sailplan above (solid circle) and also the position as it would be if the mast was located in the centre of the hatch (open circle). The largest access space to enter a berth would be the diagonal between the surface of the mast and the edge of the bulkhead - a little less than a foot. Inconvenient, but manageable.

I would have to cut a hole in the coach roof with suitable reinforcement in any case - removing the 20" square hatch and filling the space with mast & reinforcement, plus cutting and reinforcing a similarly-sized hole quite nearby. Doing this, and making the whole thing strong enought is quite a challenging job - and I'd have to do it myself, not having the resources to pay someone else.

I certainly plan to take Edward up on his offer - I would love to see how the rig performs 'in the flesh', and am still keen to find a solution to the problem of getting it on to the Windrush. Are you sure the position as I have drawn it is unworkable? It is clear to everyone including me that it 'looks' too far forward, but you yourself have said that the rig may well be tolerant to variation in mast position, and we're only talking of around 13-14" (on a small waterline, admittedly).

But I must go and measure up accurately before I make any kind of assessment of all this.

BTW, you have said that the gap in your rig (333mm for a 150mm mast) could probably be reduced to 200mm - did you come to any conclusion about that?

Chris

Edward Hooper wrote:

Chris Gallienne wrote:Edward
........................................
Thank you for your very kind offer, and I would be delighted to take you up on it.... when the weather gets a bit less chilly I think. Your generosity is even more laudable given my threat to rob you of your title as the most westerly......

Chris

Hi again Chris.,

I was out sailing for a couple of hours today.  Still tweeking my sail to try and eliminate a diagonal crease in the top main panel.

I can confirm that it was very chilly when the sun (wot sun  you might say!) was hidden behind the clouds.  But it is sure to get warmer soon, isn't it?????

Cheers,

Edward

Hi Edward

Glad to hear you've been making the most of it. Funnily enough, after my remark to you, i was walking in to work this morning thinking what a glorious day for a sail it was. Bright sunshine and a nice breeze on the Hoe in Plymouth. Just been listening to some met type on the BBC saying that cold weather due to continue throughout April......

where's those thermals.....?

How was it sailing, crease and all?

Chris

Yes,

I was at work during this discussion and a little distracted by real life. I thought you were suggesting going taller still. AR of 2.0 - 2.05 is fine.

Of course, the aspect ratio can be higher, and the rig taller whilst the mast is shorter - the Johanna rig scaled to the same area as the split has an aspect ratio of 2.06 compared to 1.62, and a the top of the sail is 0.5m higher from the coach roof, although the mast is a metre shorter. A function of the yard angle.

I am not afraid of the triangle - though I wouldn't want Annie to start referring to me as a 'pointy top'.

I have loaded what I believe to be a better-scaled diagram of adaptation I refer to.

Chris