Now I guess ‘Buddy’ is approaching the final layout. With the increased length, and with the bulkheads in place, each end will have great storage capacity and flotation volume.
Unlike in my Oslo-dinghy, the shown cb. will not steal so much room in the cockpit. Two-three people should be able to change side quite easily.

Arne

PS: Hopefully the chilly winds  we have had here since Easter will make room for a real spring, so that some 3-D, analogue boat work can be started.

Hi Len, there may be some differences, we don't know yet.

Yes, the extended Halibut rig began with an inspiration from Arne to not scale down a larger rig, but instead to take the top three panels of his Johanna rig . He conceived the idea of brailing it to the mast (via a pair of topping lifts) and the idea is a simplified system of sheeting and setting up, suitable for a 8' dinghy. David thought it could be reefed upwards - but later extended it with an extra panel for his larger SIBLIM dinghy design, and a different sheeting system. You can follow that development on the "dinghy design competition" thread.

The "big eye chicken" mainsail is just taken directly from an old photograph and you will see that it has a shorter yard, longer luff and almost no balance - and may need different control lines, I don't  know. Something like this style has been tried on a smaller boat: Freebie, the latest rig designed by Marcus and built by Paul T.

Will there be any difference in how they work? I don't know but we may be able to find out. If Marcus gets the time to make a sail for his Golden Bay, I am fairly sure he will follow the same Hong Kong style as we see on Freebie above. That being the case, I am rather tempted to make an extended Halibut sail for my Golden Bay. By performance, I mean setting up and dismantling as well as performing on the water.

Maybe we can have a race some time.

Thanks David. Never had standing batten parrels before, I'm going to be back on a learning curve here.

Rollers

This, from the SIMBLIM 3.5 thread:

"One thing, which is essential in my view, is the ability to drag the boat and/or pull it up and run it along rollers. For this it is better to have any appendage start with a gentle entry and run through clear to the stern.."

David T: This is for hauling the boat up a beach for camping? If the roller were to go under both bilge keels, they would need to be pretty long, more than the beam of the boat.

Yes, I forgot that the SIBLIM bilge keels would be splayed out.

I guess I was thinking of Golden Bay with its shallow, vertical, elongated skegs.

You see the "nose" John always puts on his skegs?

You see that sometimes on stub keels too. Complete pain in the neck when pulling on to a trailer over a roller. Mine are going to be changed into a taper to nothing at the front. Closely spaced and running clear to the stern, these appendages then will be ideal for rollers, particularly if they happen to be small diameter as you might have on a trailer.

I have nearly competed the structural changes to the Golden Bay and thinking now about appendages, rudders, rigs, ballast – I would like to bounce some ideas as the Sibim 3.5 evolves, but it would be better to leave that thread clear for development of the Siblim 3.5.

I’ll use this “Junket Boat” thread, and hope for some critical response

Rigs

Although the idea might not scale, I had hoped to put a Amiina ll  split junk rig on my Golden Bay as it is the only junk rig type I am familiar with, and I believe it can be made easily to fold up alongside a lowered mast. To keep the spars within reasonable limits, it has to be a low-aspect-ratio version and as my Serendipity performs well with one reef, it makes sense to eliminate one panel and fit a 4-panel version to the original sail plan, using the designer's mast length and sail area as a bench mark. The result is unacceptable, for two reasons. One: the mast is still necessarily too tall for a cruising dinghy of this length (its about 16' from heel to truck) and two: because of the high balance of the SJR, the mast has to be stepped further back in the hull. This interferes with the plan to be able to deploy a simple boom tent (without having to lower the mast.)

The only way to use a SJR is to set it well forward and carry a jigger sail sheeted to a boomkin. (Similar to a configuration Marcus plans for his Golden Bay: a two-masted rig of ketch proportions, like Freebie's current rig. It has its advantages, including perfection for a boom tent, but I think I prefer a single mast for a boat this size.)

A glance at the diagram below shows the unsuitability of SJR for this project, by comparison with the designed lug rig. We need a low-aspect ratio rig with minimum of balance (to get the mast as far forward as possible) and with a mast not too much longer than the original.

The extended Halibut rig fits rather nicely (David's siblim 3.5 rig scaled up by a linear fact or 1.1). Another rig (perhaps the most beautiful) is the fanned "Hong Kong"-style which Marcus always seems to favour (see Freebie's latest). I took this one directly from the main sail of a "big eye chicken" in one of the lovely photographs Kevin refers us to in his thread "Old Junks". Almost zero balance. A 4-panel version might be possible?

David: “Yes, I was thinking about wrangling the anchor on a dark and stormy night, and wondering how I'd get on with the SCAMP's cuddy”

Good point. Though in a boat the size of SCAMP on a dark and windy night I think I would rather be on a beach or up a creek and tied to a mangrove, than “wrangling” an anchor . I rather like SCAMP’s cuddy – you’d be able to kneel before it and reach over the top, wouldn’t you? It really is a good point to raise. On my Serendipity, which is too small for a forward hatch, attending to the anchor is seriously unpleasant, teetering on its narrow foredeck and hampered (threatened) by the sail bundle, narrow side decks and tender hull, and no standing rigging to grab hold of. (That’s the one-and-only advantage of standing rigging, in my opinion, and not to be entirely despised). On a dark and windy night it is a bit dangerous, so I carry my main anchor and chain in the aft cockpit locker and anchor over the stern, if I have to. Its an untidy compromise and not very satisfactory.

I like Arne’s Halibut tender (without the bow board), and I like the 12' mini-siblim very much as a potential junket boat. I think it is a far better model than the Bay Cruiser with its wide, shallow-vee bottom. The Bay Cruiser would have massive initial form stability, a little bit like a scow – and with its flat sections aft it would plane readily and probably beat a siblim-type off the wind. Not so to windward, however – and imagine trying to row it? It beats me how well water ballast seems to work on those almost flat-bottomed Bay Cruisers. I learned something. But, you wouldn’t want those ballast tanks to be un-baffled and only half full!

Once again, it is horses for courses and they all have their positive and negative features.

The Bay cruiser type of hull, as far as I can see from the video clip, reminds me somewhat of the racing boat style which was popular here in the 1940s.

That was before my time and that style was on the decline by the late 50s. Idle-alongs, zeddies - 

- and the notorious “flying 18s” in which Kiwis competed with Aussies to see who could carry the most sail, I think.

Big, wide, heavy, powerful, shallow vees. Some of them took half a rugby team to hold upright, with the sail they carried. Much sweeter models evolved later. But not for long. Look at what the flying 18s have morphed into now! (apologies for the commentary, its an Aussie. There's dozens of these videos. )

Anyway. The narrow-flat-bottom 5-plank was never tried in New Zealand dinghies, to the best of my knowledge, and only in a very few keel boats.*  I can imagine it being the best of all worlds, a good performer at displacement speed, good on and off the wind, picking up wetted surface (and form stability) gradually with loading – with enough deadrise to make water ballast quite an efficient proposition when in cruise configuration - when unballasted, an acceptable boat to row - and it can even sit upright on a sand bank.

The more I look the more I like.

 This type of boat is where the competition should have focused.

Could you make it light enough to car-top?

It strikes me (now that I have been educated) that you could probably make the siblim dinghy form self-righting, too - though I still think that to be little more than an unnecessary gimmick in the under-4-m category. A removeable Cuddy? I would love to try leaning back under a little low cuddy, with a cup of tea and a book. How about a cloth collapsible dodger-style?

* Its interesting isn't it. We had a designer here called John Spencer who revolutionised dinghy design in New Zealand in the late 50s by putting forth a sweet and delicate little plywood dinghy (single chine) which just cleaned up all the heavy sail carriers and pretty much put them all out of business. One by one, from the Flying Ant to the Javelin, he changed most of the racing dinghy classes for ever. He progressed on to keel boat design, faltered at first, then began a line of single-chine plywood keelers all the way to the 60' Infidel (later renamed Ragtime) which won TransPac and Sydney Hobart races. After that he made even more wholesome hard-chine designs with developed sections that had the power and looks of round bilge - and power boats he designed too. Once referred to as "the plywood magician" - yet as far as I know (someone correct me if I am wrong) he never looked at double chine or 5-plank configuration. And oddly enough, it wasn't until John Welsford that New Zealand designers ever bothered much with cruising dinghy designs, though some of the older heavier racing boats could be cruised. Richard Hartley pioneered the cruising trailer boats, double chine, but they are too big to be called dinghies. We have a long history of designing and building in plywood in this country. I wonder why the 5-plank configuration has been overlooked for so long?