Need help identifying rigging type

<< First  < Prev   1   2   Next >  Last >> 
  • 28 Oct 2020 00:53
    Reply # 9330021 on 9306172

    Hi Arne,

    Ive just stumbled on your Tube Tabernacle post. Im in the final stages of just such a build, which I thought was an original, curses. Raising the original mast 100mm ally tube was a bit of a drama and the mast was too short as the halliard blocked out when fully raised leaving the yard nowhere to go. AS I was happy with the step and partners I have cut the mast 500 above the deck and bought a 6000 X 80mm tube which will pivot in the top of the tabernacle and slip though a slot in the forward side then fastened with bolts and strong pipe clamps the 14mm gap will be shimmed with high density rubber. When travelling the tabernacle will support the middle of the mast. This has been done with my seat of the pants approach so fingers crossed. I will post some pics when complete which may be a while as I am in the middle of shifting 700 kms down the coast


  • 26 Oct 2020 11:09
    Reply # 9325812 on 9306172
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Annie, don’t worry,
    our disagreement is moderate, indeed. Fanshi ’s mast appears have only 2° forward rake, which moves the mast top about 25cm forward. If that helps to stabilize the sail, then fine, no problem.

    I guess the need for this cure varies with the boat type and the weight of the mast. My Johanna, with her moderate beam and round bottom, plus a heavy wooden mast, didn’t react much to power boat or ferry wakes; she just bobbed up and down. My Ingeborg has a much lighter mast, but with only 2.2m beam, and with 58% ballast she too doesn’t take much notice of wakes. Most lightweight and wide-beam boats will probably be more lively  -  as my Frøken Sørensen surely was. This summer she ended bottom-up...


    Last modified: 27 Oct 2020 23:21 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 25 Oct 2020 19:33
    Reply # 9324830 on 9306172

    The Bolger boat looks to me to be pretty much a standard knockabout catboat rig.  Gaff rig can be very annoying with headsails flapping around uselessly much of the time and with a mainsail that only has a few choices as to sail area: lots, some, a little.  I would (of course) convert to junk.

    Arne and I must agree to disagree about a forward raking mast.  Traditional junks are heavy boats and I doubt that they were thrown about much by an onshore swell bouncing back from the cliffs in light winds.  In truth, looking at Worcester, their masts seem to be raked at all sorts of angles.    However, our small, light-weight boats are a different kettle of fish and are much affected by wave motion.  Even a power boat wake, in light winds can fling the sail all over the place.  I found on Fantail that her sail would stay asleep when we were running, almost regardless of sea state.  I can't remember having more than a couple of invluntary gybes in the time that I sailed her and they were caused by dramatic wind shifts (those high shorelines again!)

    If you sail in an area subject to tidal popple, backwash from cliffs or power boat wakes and enjoy light airs sailing, then in my opinion it is worth raking the mast forward.  I didn't find it made any difference at all to hauling the sail up - the yard slinging point is still a long way abaft the masthead and I generally was hauling the sail up from the cockpit, while sailing out of an anchorage.  The only real drawback of raking the mast forward is that it makes climbing it via the halyard more of a challenge, as your body wants to go forward of the mast.  Once you get between the lazyjacks, that problem is much reduced.

  • 17 Oct 2020 10:29
    Reply # 9309022 on 9306172
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Funny that, Paul.
    I surely see the point in raking the foremast of a JR schooner forward.  I guess this is partly to move the sail as far forward as possible, and partly to avoid that the sail gybes back and forth in the turbulence of the main. However, for the main mast and for a sloop mast, I have seen very little of this. Below is a 14.5m sea-going junk, showing what I mean.

    Now I have looked over photos of your La Chica. I notice that the foremast has a moderate forward rake while the mainmast appears to stand pretty upright.
    What problems did that mainsail give you, which you did not have with the foresail?
    I remember Annie Hill once told that in her area, one could have an annoying old swell from the sea, combined with light winds, and that was her main argument for raking the mast forward. I can see that point. I just wonder why the Chinese didn’t think that way.

    Sheet gearing:
    I notice that many use as much as 5- and 6-part sheets, even on small boats.  This must cause a lot of friction and make sails reluctant to swing out in light winds. I tried 5-part sheet on Johanna, the first couple of weeks, but soon changed to 3-part. With this setup, and with an upright mast, the sails swing out in so light winds that the panels have not inflated properly yet. Pretty flat waters, though, mostly...


    Last modified: 17 Oct 2020 17:24 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 17 Oct 2020 01:01
    Reply # 9308588 on 9307252

    If I could choose, I would avoid forward-raking masts on junkrigs. Forward rake soon moves the mast top a foot or two forward of the partners, and this tends to give a halyard angle which constantly pulls the sail forward. This may lead to added friction when hoisting and lowering the sail, unless one does ‘clever things’ (read: add complications). I have studied a number of traditional 2-3-masted Chinese junkrigs (diagrams and photos), and the big mainsail always sits on a vertical mast.

    Sorry Arne, I totally disagree with you on this one. I always advocate forward rake if it can be done. It goes a long way to stabilising the sail once you ease the sheets. I've found none of the issues or complications that you mention.

  • 16 Oct 2020 17:36
    Reply # 9307861 on 9306172
    Anonymous member (Administrator)

    The Tube Tabernacle, or... to make a mast taller without lengthening it.

    I read somewhere below that the original mast for that unstayed gaffrig was a little short for a JR. Actually, I have recently been pondering on how to make a mast ‘one panel taller’ without making a taller mast. The answer is to install a tube tabernacle, and then plonk the mast into that, but with the mast step now raised as much as needed. If one does the sums right, this will produce a taller mast without having to raise the boom, unlike with ordinary tabernacles.

    This solution has some advantages, and only one drawback:

    • ·         The T-tabernacle can be firmly installed ‘forever’ in the boat without problems with leaks or movement.
    • ·         The mast (shimmed out to make a tight fit) just slides down the tube until it is stopped by a stout bolt or whatever, well above the original mast step.
    • ·         As said, the boom of the sail does not need to be raised to clear a tall tabernacle.
    • ·         Any wires from the masthead can just drop out of the bottom end of the mast, and then be fished out through an oval slot near the bottom of the t-tabernacle.

    The downside is of course that the mast needs a crane or derrick when installing it, so is not for everyone.

    On the diagram below, I have tested the idea on that Kelt 8.50. Here I imagine that the owner one day comes to his senses and decides to add a seventh panel on his sail. That tube tabernacle lets him raise the mast enough for that panel without ending up with too little bury of the mast in the t-tabernacle.

    Just an idea.


    Last modified: 17 Oct 2020 17:39 | Anonymous member (Administrator)
  • 16 Oct 2020 16:57
    Reply # 9307773 on 9306172
    Anonymous member (Administrator)


    I haven’t given the correct position of the CE for this boat a thought. My comment was just about mast rake and sail-to-mast balance.
    I am pretty sure I could make a junk sail work with a forward-raking mast, possibly by adding downhauls.
    However, I am humble enough to regard the old Chinese junkies to be the pros, with me just scratching the surface of their knowledge. Since they go (went) for vertical masts for the biggest sails, so do I.


  • 16 Oct 2020 14:12
    Reply # 9307422 on 9306172

    Hi Arne, I wasn’t advocating forward rake (though I have come to rather like the look of it - and some people do say it has advantages. I have not had the experience of it.)

    I was just looking for a way to get a junk sail to look about in the right position in relation to the underwater profile, without having to shift the position of the mast partners.

    Just eyeballing it, it actually looked to me as though vertical mast and a Johanna rig with the minimum of balance would be close to about right on that boat with that mast position. But not sure, and I was interested in what you would think about that. I don’t think a SJR or any high balance single mast rig would work on that boat, unless the mast were shifted aft a bit.

    Correct me if I am wrong. The purpose of the conversation, for me, was hopefully to learn something.

    Also, I didn’t read the specs very carefully – at 5.7 tonne it’s a bit more substantial than just a little sharpie.

    I think I see what you mean about "halyard angle", though I would have thought the ability to rake the mast forward a little, if that is necessary to get the sail in the right place, would have been an advantage of the Johanna rig. I don't know if it would be the right thing to do in this case, though.

    PS on second look,  "halyard angle" seems not to depend simply on mast rake. Within limits, it looks to me as if you could rake the mast forward a little, and increase the balance a little - and thereby move the centre of the sail forward quite a lot -  without actually changing the angle of the halyard to the vertical. To my uneducated way of thinking. Within limits. If you wanted to.

    Last modified: 16 Oct 2020 14:33 | Anonymous member
  • 16 Oct 2020 12:16
    Reply # 9307252 on 9306605
    Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Graeme wrote:

    . (I would be interested to know what Arne thinks of the Johanna sail - with vertically raked mast and minimum balance through to a good forward rake and more balance - there seems to be enough scope for adjustment to get things just about right?)


    If I could choose, I would avoid forward-raking masts on junkrigs. Forward rake soon moves the mast top a foot or two forward of the partners, and this tends to give a halyard angle which constantly pulls the sail forward. This may lead to added friction when hoisting and lowering the sail, unless one does ‘clever things’ (read: add complications). I have studied a number of traditional 2-3-masted Chinese junkrigs (diagrams and photos), and the big mainsail always sits on a vertical mast.

    Maximum balance for a low AR Johanna-style sail is about 17%. If I need more balance, say up to 22-24%, I would rather design the sail with only 60° yard, as on the diagram below. This results in a nice halyard angle. If even more balance is needed, I would rather go for the SJR.


  • 16 Oct 2020 03:53
    Reply # 9306833 on 9306172

    Wow! JRA is such a wonderful resource of great minds. Thank you all.

<< 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