Annie, one factor that you may have overlooked is that being a schooner, Badger's sails were of highish AR. That makes a big difference to the line loadings.

Are you thinking of the size of Tystie's current mainsail, and forgetting that I cut quite a lot off the luff when I got to NZ and converted her into a ketch again? Under the single sail, she was fully powered under both fantail sail and the later, Mustang one.

Anyway, the takeaway from both of our ocean voyaging experiences is that the flatter the sail, the easier it is to live with - provided that you have the patience of a saint if you sail engine-free. But I would just mention Kehaar, flat sailed and engineless, failing to get through the ITCZ and retreating to Hawai'i. And let's not forget The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Engineless, and had a little difficulty in calm weather, as I recall.

I still want to pursue the idea of hinges + minimal sewn in camber for SibLim, as therein lies one of the keys to stress free sailing with good windward ability, I'm finding. I don't claim that you'd beat Arne in a race around Stavanger Fjord, but I do think that you'd enjoy a passage up the Islands more.

David wrote: A small efficient diesel plus a large tank of fuel is a key component of a stress-free cruising boat.

No, David, I have to disagree.  it's the attitude of the sailor that is the key component of a stress-free cruising boat.  To me, using an engine in the calms, defeats the object of the exercise, which is to travel across the ocean under sail, using the wind and accepting the calms, while treading lightly.  I would get no satisfaction from a fast passage facilitated by use of an engine.  Each to his own, of course, I know I'm in a minority, but people have sailed engineless, in all parts of the world, with flat sails.  

This was due largely to the cyclical diagonal loadings that occur in the throat area of a high peaked sail - not an issue in a lightly used coastal cruising boat, but needs to be taken seriously and guarded against in an ocean cruiser, with plenty of reinforcing patches.

I assume that here you mean with cambered sails?  We never used much reinforcement on Badger's sails and got 80,000 miles out of one suit.  This is why I am still ambivalent about camber.  My idea of stress free sailing includes a rig that isn't stressed.

The second voyage also contains plenty of windward work, but is more of a mixed bag. Some camber is certainly desirable, though. The physical work was very much less demanding, with the low peaked yard. This matters a lot, with an ageing singlehanded crew. I made the voyage quite fast, because I was able to keep up with sail changes without exhausting myself. I had been challenged to get to NZ in time for Annie's 60th birthday party, and only missed by a week, due to strong winds and washing machine seas off Tonga that made me need a rest, not through lack of windward ability.

But the sail was a lot smaller, too!

Would I put Weaverbird's rig on an ocean cruising boat? Yes, absolutely. In two seasons, of four full-time months each and a total of 3300 miles, it's proved sound and reliable in all kinds of conditions. Just as much, and perhaps even more to the point for cruising is that it's as effortless and thought free a manner of sailing as is possible. Arne's postings on his rigs are often about how you need to do "thus" and "thus" to the YHP and THP and LHP and HKP to get them to set well. My YHP is redundant under full sail, and only lightly taken in when deeply reefed. My LHP (no THP necessary) can be easily taken in with one hand whilst steering with the other. The sail sets well, with little tweaking and conscious thought on my part. Why? Mostly because of the yard angle and its shorter length, and the particular shape of the upper panels, and not because of depth of camber, or the way in which camber is added. This is what truly matters when ocean cruising. On a dark moonless squally night, being able to reefing and unreef, and knowing that your sail is well set even though you can't actually see it, is worth more than that last ounce of windward ability.

Let us not forget, that the high-peaked, HAR, classic H/McL sails on Badger were simplicity itself to handle, offshore or for coastal sailing.  There was only any noticeable load on the YHP when the sail was well reefed and no LHP was necessary. We got where we wanted to go, but she was definitely resolute rather than lively to windward.  It seems to me that camber changes all this: if altering the sail plan can restore the peace and simplicity of Badger's rig - something where I could reef both sails, in the dark, from the control station without a problem -  and allow the boat to go well to windward, then I should be happy.  But I am sure that I'm not alone in that I don't want my boat to be a motor sailer or resort to using fossil fuels because I'm bored and frustrated.

We need more reports, more experimentation and more people clocking up the miles.  I'm hoping that Asmat will write for the magazine.  And am prepared to try something new (to me) on Siblim.

Webmaster,
Are you sure this belongs in the General Forum and not in the Technical Forum?

Arne

one thing I think  makes Paul's aero junk appealing is the potential to change camber on the fly. The multitude of moving parts Annie mentioned is the main concern I see with it.

I find the sheer simplicity of Arnes rigs every bit as amazing as the ingenuity David has built into his. 

I suspect that if Junkies weren't rugged individualists by nature they'd be motoring in a bermuda rig instead.

Bill

Arne wrote:

Moderation in all things,
or...

..small changes can make a big difference.

David,
I can see your point in wanting a sail which is as balanced (weight-wise) as possible. Slieve McGalliard also has a focus on this. His Split Junk sails are both balanced for hoisting and lowering, but also come out with very light sheet forces.

I haven’t had the same focus on that. When I looked at many Chinese junks (the real ones), it appeared that this didn’t bother them, so I just followed on.

Arne, I haven't had any focus at all on weight-wise or area-wise balance (Slieve does, I agree). Because my mast is a little further forward than I would have liked, I have to set the sail well back on the mast, so that the tack is only just forward of the mast. Because the yard is short, there is no more balance area at the throat of the sail than with your sail at 13 -15%. My sail is about as unbalanced as it's possible for a JR to get. And yet it requires little thought and effort to set it well. It's all down to the yard angle and the shape of the upper panels.