the deck on my Pearson Ensign

You win, I give up.

 

Hey guys,

Not to change the subject, but I have another question. The Pearson Electras that were to be donated to our sailing program haven't materialized. I don't know if the owner is unavailable, but my e-mails go unanswered. I have an opportunity to pick up a Columbia Contender 24 for a modest sum (a few hundred dollars). These boats, from what I understand were reasonbly well made (not bullet proof, but have solid fiberglass decks, no core materials) and have been offshore. The boat has a full keel with attached rudder, a lovely sheer, and a counter stern. It has a sloop rig, but no sails.

Now the bombshell. I'm considering re-rigging it as a gaff schooner. Before everyone assigns me to the loony bin, please let me explain. I have always loved schooners, big and small, and knowing I'll probably never have the time or resources to build one from scratch (unless it's one of Phil Bolger's plywood daysailer versions), I'm considering retrofitting a schooner rig to an existing hull. The C 24 has a displacement of 3600 lbs, 1600 lbs ballast, 7'-10" beam, 3'-4" draft, 24' LOA. The deck/cabin layout and sail plan are from a similar sized v-bottom schooner, which allows an for an 8' cockpit and a sail area that matches the original C 24 sail plan. The rig is fairly modest, as schooners go, and I could omit the main topmast. The plans are available, so I could get detailed construction plans for the rig, if needed.

Below would be the original C 24 layout: a v-berth with private head, a starboard setee/quarter berth and a small galley, and a port side retractable table with setees. Is this proposed idea remotely feasible, assuming the hull and deck are reinforced at the mast steps, partners, and the chainplate locations? Please look the sketches over and let me know if the sail plan is balanced for the hull. This of course, will have to wait until the Ensign I'm working on is finished, but I always like to have something waiting in the wings for my next project. I think a small fiberglass schooner would be a nice addition to a sail training program, (lots of sails to handle, strings to pull, and so nice to look at!) complexity notwithstanding. I have attached some prospective drawings, so fire away, and I'll start ducking!

 

Ah, the American Junior sail plan on a Columbia Contender. Yep, you can do it, though it's a lot of work. The companionway needs to be offset and substantial reinforcements in the obvious locations. Placing the CE with about a 10% lead will balance out the hull form. Use 50% of the rudder's area in the CLP calculation. The overlapping fore is a rig I have some experience with and it's a powerful one with the sheets eased, but can become a difficult sail to handle as wind strength increase and/or you head up.

If I remember correctly, the CLP on the Columbia Contender is about where you have the main mast heel, maybe slightly aft of this location, meaning as shown the sail plan is probably too far aft, though I'm going by eye here and this isn't especially accurate as screen distortion and other things all conspire against this. American Junior has it's CLP aft of the main mast heel.

In short, yes this is possible and I've done similar with production boats (the last was a yawl from a sloop), but it's a lot of work. Of course the spars as drawn are too skinny and the fiddled top on the main isn't something the rig needs either. If you kept the spars light, it'll be a fun boat to putter around in and certainly attractive, especially when everyone tries to figure out which production boat was a gaff schooner, with an overlapping fore.

 

I was wondering about the overlapping foresail, having seen it on pictures of Tancook Whalers, and of course the AMERICA. I considered shortening the foot and using a boom, but not having the experience that you have, I wasn't sure if that would be a plus or minus here. What happens when the wind strength increases and/or you head up? I certainly like the looks of it, maybe just because it's not that common. Of course, with a boomed foresail, and the club footed jib, tacking would just mean pushing the tiller over, or turning the wheel. (I have a 20" diameter spoked iron ship's wheel that came off an old wooden boat and it would certainly be in character with a schooner this size) But I rather like the feel of a tiller, and knowing instantly what the rudder is doing.

You mentioned that the rig could be too far aft, which is just the kind of feedback I was looking for, having taken a blind stab at using one sail plan on a totally different boat. Would you move it all forward slightly, or shorten the main boom, or lengthen the bow sprit, (thus moving the jib forward), or maybe increase the size of the rudder (thus lenghtening the extension of the keel)? If I reduced the foot of the foresail as mentioned, would that make it better or worse?

 

I would place the CE 10% forward of the CLP. This is the staring point for a schooner to get good balance. The Columbia has fairly well balanced lines, if not too heavily laden, so 10% should work well. Finding the geometric centers of both the lateral area and sail area are simple geometry problems.

Without the boom, the sail lacks control as the sheeting angle becomes "less advantaged" and the sail is prone to shaking in higher wind strengths, again because it' lacks the control of a boom. For most sailing, it's fine, given an understanding of it's limitations.

I've sailed with a double sheet arrangement on a short boom equipped overlapping foresail like this, which offers the control you need, but having to handle double sheets on a single sail, is a pain in the butt. What most do is let the boom's fixed sheet act as a self tender, by letting the loose sheet fly. When the boom swings over, the new loose sheet is hauled and then the fixed sheet tuned. It's harder to describe then do in real life. The west coast lumber hauling schooners favored this rig because it left the working area of the deck clear of a boom. The foresail was scandalized, yet the boat still well balanced under jib(s) and main. If you look at my gallery, you'll see this very rig, which is currently under construction in Finland.

 

Aha, you found me out! I would have credited Atkin with the sail plan, but wasn't sure how his heirs would take to my "borrowing" part of his design, and putting it on a Contender. I've always liked Atkin's small schooners. FLORENCE OAKLAND and LITTLE MAID OF KENT come to mind. I think that sometimes v-bottom sailboats are looked down upon, but one of my first reads as a teenager (when I would scour the libraries for any book relating to sailboats) was Harry Pigeon's book about cruising the globe on his self-built v-bottom ISLANDER.

By the way, the study plans on the Atkin website show a sail area of 340 sq. ft., but when I scaled it out from the drawing, I got 287 sq. ft. I'm sure Atkin knew his business, so I obviously got it wrong. In any case, 340 sq. ft. seems to be too much sail area for a Contender hull, which is 8" narrower and 3' shorter at the waterline, although I've also read that when you split a rig up, the sail area on the two sticks instead of one has to justify the extra weight and windage. That loose footed double sheeted foresail sounds like a real hassle.

I certainly agree that it would be fun to putter around in and would draw some attention. I don't know many people who don't feel the charm of a schooner. Even non-sailors seem to identify with a schooner, though most couldn't tell you the difference between a sloop and a yawl. I'll move the rig forward (on paper) about 10%, and see what it looks like. Well, meanwhile, it's time to quit dreaming and get back to work on the Ensign. Thanks again for the feedback.

 

I think the schooner looks great, but then I like schooners. One small discrepancy with the SA may be that Atkins likely counted the entire foretriangle area rather than the actual sail area.
Personally, I think you could easily go slightly taller with the rig, leaving the fore mast where it is, to get the CE forward a bit, along with a few other adjustments. Also, reducing the rake shouldn't destroy the looks.

 

Hello Alan,

I was hoping you'd chime in since you're obviously a gaff rig buff like me. I wasn't quite sure what happened as far as the sail area measurements, but the sail area as shown looked about right to me for a boat of this size and displacement, although Atkin's schooners seem to have more displacement. (Wider beam, heavier scantlings and more ballast inside?) How much taller would you go? I show 24' from the step to the top of the mainmast, and 21' for the foremast. Schooner rig is something I've sketched and toyed around with for years, and even done schooner paintings, but it always seems to be difficult to get the proportions just right. I have Chapelle's "American Fishing Schooners", and there are lots of sail plans, but a most of these schooners are narrow, deep, long boomed types. Thanks for the feedback

 

Any sailboat is going to carry more sail per unit of displacement when scaled down, due to the greater surface area to volume ratio of a reduced submerged volume. This is probably why you see smaller relative sail areas on larger boats. My Carter 33 carried 400 sq ft and displaced 8000 lbs, and my current 15 ft gaffer, at maybe 1200 lbs, carries a full 185 sq ft not counting unused foretriangle area, as an example, though my gaffer's sailplan is definitely considered huge, but even at 150 sq ft, you can see how the smaller boat carries more relative sail. Not knowing without looking it up, the Ensign would carry about 230 sq ft (bermudan). A gaffer might another 20% on a lower rig.
I don't think you need to go much higher with the rig, but you should move the rig forward by a lot of subtle changes, and slightly raising the rig (maybe 2 ft, say), is one option to consider. The hull has been designed to carry a higher CE in any case.

 

So, in theory, 340 sq.ft. of sail on a 3600 lb. displacement boat with 1600 lbs. ballast set in the bottom of the 3'-4" keel should be OK, considering that the rig is now lower (the Contender's 283 sq. ft. sloop rig at 34' from the waterline vs. the schooner's rig at 22' from the waterline) and spread fore and aft. I noticed that Atkin put in some pretty deep reef points in the sails, so reducing shouldn't be a problem. I could always drop the foresail, single reef the main, etc. and carry on. Besides, I find that for inshore sailing, too little wind is often more of a problem than too much. Probably wouldn't hurt to have a fisherman's staysail and a gaff topsail, just for fun! I don't mind burying the lee rail, and in fact enjoy sailing boats "on their ears". Too much time flying hulls on a Hobie 16, I suppose.

 

There are a lot of assumptions going on that on the face don't seem reasonable, without the calculations to support them. The Columbia CE isn't going to be substantially higher then the schooner's. In fact, I suspect they'll be within inches of each other when the schooner rig is balanced over the CLP. It's a common fallacy that most have, thinking that a gaff rig's CE will be much lower then a Bermudian. The reason this isn't the case is the gaff carries a much higher percentage of area, well up in the rig, where the Bermudian doesn't. This is why the CE's tend to not move nearly as much as you'd think. Preform the area centers drawing and compare it to the other and you'll see this is the case.

In short, I think a 20% increase in the Columbia's area isn't a reasonable thing to do. The boat could probably tolerate a 10% increase, with some light air options, such as a big drifter, but topsails and fishermans aren't likely on a boat this size, just from the number of crew necessary to hoist, douse and control these sails.

The American Junior is a much more initially stable design then the Columbia, so it can stand up to this rig. The Columbia could wear a similar rig, but it would need to be designed for the old gal, likely with considerably less area too.

 

Hmmmm! Very concise and informative discourse there. The CE isn't necessarily lower then, in spite of being spread out fore and aft. The reference to the fisherman and gaff topsail were in jest. I've heard they're way out of proportion more trouble compared to any useful gain in sail area. I have, however heard that mizzen staysails on a ketch are very useful sails, especially on long passages with steady winds. I certainly concur that the Atkin schooner would stand up to it's rig, being wider, heavier, and having the relatively flat panels of the v-bottom instead of a round hull. What would you envision a sensible sail area for the C24 with the schooner rig?

 

The Columbia has a fairly high SA/D (19.6), though this is slightly higher then reality for most 19 would be more accurate, though still fairly high. I think 300 sq. ft. is doable on this hull form, though the righting leverage needs to be examined to be sure of reasonable stability. By eye, the CE for the sloop rig appears to be about 12' over the LWL, which is indicative of it's moderate aspect ratio. I'd guess a gaff 300 sq. ft., loose footed schooner rig, would not place the CE lower the 11' over the LWL, probably closer to 11' 6".

 

Okay, maybe I should choose another hull to start with, but the C24 has the full keel, pretty sheer, overhangs, interior and cockpit arrangements, size, availability, and other things going for it. What's the best way to reduce the SA? Lower the whole rig by shortening the luffs, shorten the main boom and foot of the foresail, (thereby moving the CE forward and taking care of the balance problem at the same time), shorten the bowsprit and make the jib smaller, (moving the CE aft, which could aggravate the balance problem) all of the above, or is this over simplistic? I've seen plans for small schooners in which the rig was so reduced in order for the boat to be able to carry sail that they almost looked like caricatures of a fishing schooner. I'm very intrigued by this discussion, because I have always understood that one of the reasons gaff rigged boats can carry such large sail areas is the shorter masts and luffs. I read an article in RUDDER magazine about H-28 ketches (bermudian rigged) that stated "the rig is vintage '40's, short masts and long booms".

If there is no advantage to the shorter masts and lower aspect ratio of the gaff rig, then why bother with extra spars, blocks, halyards, etc., to say nothing of finding a sailmaker who knows how to make proper gaff sails, unless it's just for looks. I understand that short, stout spars don't need the network of wires, spreaders, and other fittings that a tall bermudian rig does, so maybe this is the advantage. I have a book by a designer who was a gaff rig proponent that includes a statement regarding the reliability of older rig designs. "It's a far cry from a modern rig, where one fitting fails and everything above the deck disintegrates". I've seen some gaff rigs where the gaff was nearly parallel to the boom, and I've seen some that had the gaffs peaked so high that they were almost sliding gunter rigs. Please illuminate, because I'd like to have a better understanding of the rig that I find so fascinating.

On a side note, isn't it interesting that "cutting edge" race boats are now using nearly square headed mainsails with full length carbon fiber battens (gaffs) built into the head of the sail. I have a boat buliding magazine that shows this concept on a cat ketch rig designed nearly 50 years ago.

 

The gaff rig is a novelty now. It has many things going for it, but also many things against it. With the racing world dominating the evolution of reg development, you have to expect a smirk when you mention a rig that hasn't been "in favor" for a century. The C-24 ca carry a gaff schooner rig, it just needs to be sized and positioned properly, which isn't a deed for the novice, though I've known a few that have tried. The last I met was a guy that changed his gaff sloop to a gaff schooner and 100 yards from the launch ramp, it capsized in a gust. Oops. He said it didn't round up when he tried to ease pressure as the gust came on.

Gaff rigs are a much lower tension arrangement then other choices, though this usually comes at the cost of heavier and more numerous spars and running rigging. The decreased windward ability to the gaff rig, means the guy with the over loaded Catalina 22 is going to claw away from you, which is embarrassing, but you'll probably look better as he disappears over the horizon. Against the same boat, you crush him on a reach or run, so you can recover your ego to some degree.

http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/18407/ppuser/36616

This is my RYD-16.10 a stretched version of Discrete (RYD-14.11). Nope, a Catalina 22 will spank it on pretty much every point of sail, but this isn't the intent of the design and honestly, which would you prefer to been lounging on? This is the crux of the issue here. We don't choose a gaffer because it can point high or can run down the local Clorox bottles as they putter around the anchorages you frequent, but because we desire them. There's a lot less "fuss" to sailing a gaffer because we know 95 degree tacks are the best we can expect. One of my favorite things to do is catch a Clorox bottle on abeam reach, shadow it's sails and roll over it as if it was dragging something. They get all pissy about being overhauled by a gaffer and no body gets a fresh beer until they claw back on top. That's we we like 'em.