Thanks for the questions which I’ll do my best to answer. As a prelude could I say that just because I have done something in a particular way does not mean that I advocate that anybody else ought necessarily to be doing it that way. I do things the way that suits me personally and take total responsibility for their success or failure. There are no right or wrong ways, just ways that may or may not work in given circumstances. So much depends on the individual boat and where and how it is sailed. Success or failure of a given rig is largely down to seamanship.
I am not particularly technically minded, and have in any event come to distrust too much proof by formula of the pure engineering kind. I build things as I go along, using instinct, experience and a healthy tendency to over-build. Sometimes I can’t remember how or why I did something in a particular way; I was totally absorbed in the task, in the white heat of creation, and when I’d finished that’s how it was. I sometimes take notes but tend to lose them. I can’t find the back-of the-envelope notes I made regarding the cambering of the panels, so some of my answers will be approximations from memory. Anyway, that is good, because I would hate people to think that there is some definitive science at work here. There ain’t. This is all just one man’s take on an infinitude of possibilities.
Here are my answers in chronological order:
- 1. So far delighted with the mast; no untoward flexing. Time will tell.
- 2. Maximum camber is fairly well forward (30 – 35% from luff). Maximum hinge widths are something like 8” for the lowest panel (giving c.5% draft on a batten length of 13’ 10”), then decreasing by c 1” for each panel as we go up. This allows for the fact that although each panel is flat it will still take up some curvature, thereby increasing draft. As an offshore sailor I didn’t want too much draft, just enough to be effective.
- 3. Cof E of the new rig has about 9 -10% (of LWL) lead over the CLR.
- 4. Very happy with the power of the sail and no intentions to alter anything yet.
- 5. Rather underestimate than overestimate likely offshore tacking angles. Probably 100 – 110 degrees. I prefer to sail slightly free anyway.
- 6. Yes, just the LHP.
- 7. Possibly, but I haven’t seen any indication of the hinges distorting in this way (there is only 1” between alternate hinges, so not that much room to move).
- 8. No HK parrels. No experience of them, but they seem to set up tensions that I would rather do without.
- 9. So far so good with Odyssey 3. I have been careful to make a good sail cover, though.
- 10. It was the best way of minimising any waste. 2.5 widths gave me exactly the panel length I wanted.
- 11. No problems with reefing (so far).
- 12. B = 13’ 10” P = 3’
- 13. No
- 14. I don’t yet have enough experience of pelagic conditions to be able to comment on weather helm off the wind. I have no mechanism to drastically alter the balance of the sail downwind, but neither did Mingming 1.
- 15. No throat parrel (just normal YHP).
- 16. Batten parrels are probably longish. No parrels on yard or boom.
- 17. Leech end of the battens slot into pockets. Luff ends secured by a system of webbing tabs and line.
- 18. Main halyard is 4-part.
- 19. Mainsheet is fine. May need a little encouragement to overhaul in very light airs.
- 20. I have sewn webbing tabs at the batten pockets, to which long pendants will be attached, which in heavy weather are secured right round the sail bundle to prevent fan-ups.
- 21. As yet no sweeps but I have made provision for sculling and will use one of Mingming 1’s sculling oars.
- 22. I will carry appropriate lumber for confecting a jury rig if necessary.
Hope that does it.
Roger
PS The mast was sourced from the Aluminium Lighting Company, Port Talbot, Wales. Very helpful. The mast was actually made in Holland (Nedal).
[Webmaster edit: the link to the above can be found in Members' Area > Junk Info > Useful links > Sails, Masts and Gear.]