the deck on my Pearson Ensign

Touche". I feel the same way. It's not about first around the buoy or back to the marina. It's about sailing a classic design that is somewhat unique and performs within its limitations. Believe me, if I was expecting to romp on the racing set at the local yacht club, I sure wouldn't be rebuilding a 45 year old Ensign. As to schooners, I understand that Bolger's 23'6" Light Schooner really screams on a reach (260 sq. ft. of sail on what, 500 lbs. of boat?) but it probably doesn't point well with just a daggerboard. It's give and take.

By the way, I went back and remeasured the schooner rig on the C24 hull, and evidently I was using the wrong scale. The rig as drawn (resized from the America Junior) has +/- 288 sq. ft., the same as the masthead sloop C24. I would envision using hollow spruce birdsmouth spars and the painted aluminum tubing gaffs you suggested to keep things light. I shortened the main boom slightly to get the clew closer to the rear deck, and help with the balance. I have attached a revised sketch.

That schooner is one beautiful boat. What size is it and what's the construction method? I see you've chosen the alluring and complex round front cabin. Nice touch, I love those things.

 

"That" schooner is RYD-16.10 and is 20' on deck. She's the big sister to Discrete (RYD-14.11 which is 18' on deck) and a stretch of this boat. The build methods vary as do the options. Current build methods are a mutli-chine tape seam, a strip planked, cold mold, and glue lapstrake round bilge methods. RYD-16.10 is only available in glued lap at the moment, but this will likely change.

Discrete also has two bow options, spoon or clipper (spoon shown in the gallery), two cabin options, a short cuddy or a conventional length (cuddy shown in the gallery), a transom hung rudder or the inboard style (as shown in the gallery) and a few different rigging choices (schooner shown in the gallery). The boat can also have three different draft options (deep shown in the gallery). This design has had a lot of development over the years.

You ideas about the schooner rig on the C-24 will work and hollow spars are a good idea and my usual recommendation. Without doing the CLP and CE geometry, I can't say for sure how the boat will balance, but it certainly could with the right manipulation.

You'd be well advised to perform the CLP and CE "centers" calculations, just to satisfy the need to make it right and to see how much the American Junior rig needs to change. If it was me, I'd just draw up a rig that fit, instead of attempting to "graft" one on. Partly because you can have things that you don't on the AJ, such as dramatic mast rake. I've got about 5% in RYD-16.10, which is comfortable for me. Most boats are half this if not 1/3 or 1/4 this.

 

The CLP ought to be on a spec sheet for the C24 somewhere on the net. I'll look for it. As far as the CE of the sails, I've never done it and often wondered how it's done. Do you just draw lines from the corners, intersect them and there you have it, or does the draft of the sail or some other factor have anything to do with it? By the way, I looked at a gallery of Columbia 24 Contenders today, and most of them seem to sit 6" deeper in the water than shown on the plan drawing. I guess the drawing is that of an empty boat. At any rate, I'll tweak the rig, try some different mast rakes to see what looks best and balanced.

Was the converted gaff sloop/schooner that capsized a keel boat or a light centerboarder? The reason I'm asking is because years ago the same thing happened to me. I had just picked a brand new Flying Junior, was sailing it for the first time, and was unfamiliar with its handling characteristics. I caught a gust and eased the main as usual, but the cleated jib rolled it over in 50 degree water. Not fun!

Re: RYD-16.10. It has the look of a much bigger boat, (which is why I asked what size it was) and a lot of options as far as construction and cabin arrangements. It ought to be a very popular design, and I like it very much. Very salty and classy! You had me at the round front cabin. How does it sail?

 

I'd be surprised if you found the CLP listed somewhere online for the C-24. You might find a sail plan with it marked, but don't hold your breath.

Figuring out the CE for both sail plans is straight geometry. It's described an old issue of the DuckWorks magazine and probably worth a look. The CLP is similar, though the balance on a pin method is about as effective. Both are documented with a few different methods of recording them on line, though a little more then what can be provided here.

The converted sloop to schooner was a keel boat, but the skipper/builder was "winging it" with the sail and mast placement, plus the area used and several other "if it looks right it must be right" mentality. This methodology works good, when deciding what color to paint the living room, not so much with yacht balance. Other attempts to sail his "contrivance" forced him to convert back to a sloop.

It's a low aspect, fat bellied gaffer, it's a pig by some standards, but with it's high D/L a comfortable one, particularly in a rough blow.

Okay, I looked it up in my data base and the C-24's CE is about 10' aft of the bow perpendicular and about 13' above the LWL. This places the vertical of the CE on a line through the top forward edge of the cabin bump or in different terms about 6" aft of the back of the mast. The sloop CLP is about 13' 4" aft of the bow perpendicular.

Now, if the American Junior sail plan was scaled properly, and placed on the C-24, you have a little too much area, but it still illustrates the issues. The sloop has a lot of lead, more then I expected, but we'll still place the schooner CE at 10%, and as you can see it looks like it's too far forward, but in fact will probably balance the boat pretty well. I took some liberties with the cabin profile, etc., but the two sail plans will work and balance.

In reality, the underwater configuration isn't as desirable for a schooner sail plan. To move the sail plan aft, we'd also have to add lateral area aft. This present s whole new set of issues. To solve this, I propose to use a completely different sail plan, still a schooner, but different proportions. The Atkins sail plan is a typical lapping schooner. What would happen if we made the foresail nearly as big as the main, still over lapping? This is how I handled Discrete and her big sister. This would force the main down in physical dimension, while the fore increases a bit. This moves the CE forward and then the sail plan can shift aft for looks and to decrease the length of that sprit.

These balancing acts are preformed constantly as you introduce rigs to a hull and it's appendages. Most designers have a fair idea of the general proportions that will work, given the variables and compromises made in the hull and appendages, but a retro fit can make things much more interesting.

After playing with this a bit, you'll need a custom rig drawn up, likely of different proportions to suit the underwater configuration of the C-24.

 

Okay,

The schooner option for the C24 doesn't sound like it would be worth all the trouble, although the sketch looks promising. As mentioned, the underwater configuration isn't as desirable for a schooner sailplan. It doesn't seem to match what I've seen on most schooners, big and small, which is a long full keel with cutaway forefoot and lots of lateral plane area aft. I've also read that "any thing a schooner can do, a double headsail sloop or cutter can do cheaper and more efficiently".

How about a yawl rig? Would it be feasible to move the mast forward, reduce the foretriangle by going to a fractional rig with a smaller jib, then balancing it with a small mizzen. I realize that once again, I'd be adding complexity to a boat that probably does fine with the original rig, but I guess I'm bit of a hopeless two stick fanatic. I just can't seem to get excited by acres of plain vanilla sloops, practical as they may be. I've always liked the look of a yawl, as opposed to a ketch with a bigger (and probably more useful) mizzen, although I read somewhere that "the yawl was popular as long as the rating rules favored it, but it was never a true cruising man's two sticker". Would this just be opening different can of worms?

 

The yawl rig was a rule beating rig, but it has advantages over other two stickers. It's the most close winded of them all, which is a huge advantage. It can still fly a mizzen mule, which improves it's off wind preformance in light air and it usually places the mizzen in a better position then a ketch. A ketch has a nasty habit, that most ketch lovers don't like talking about, which is the mizzen has a down draft that goes right on the crew and skipper in the cockpit. Having cold air blasted at your head can get tiring and fatiguing in cool weather. A yawl's mizzen is usually far enough aft that this isn't an issue.

On the negative side, the diminutive mizzen on the yawl doesn't have the hoist for a very large staysail and the mizzen itself doesn't offer much drive either. This is true of all older yawls. Because most yawls are sloops or cutters with the foot of the main cut down and mizzen stuck on the aft deck, the main lacks power. On a boat designed to be a yawl from the start, this is much less an issue.

In the end, if you have a sloop and convert it to a yawl, without moving the mast, then you'll probably not be pleased with the results. On the other hand if you have a opportunity to draw up a yawl from scratch, then most of the issues go away. You can make the mizzen taller and place it as far away from the main as possible, so it'll have some drive to windward and sufficient hoist for the mule. You can carry a full sized main and move part of the fore triangle out on a sprit to balance the well aft mizzen. Now you'd have a boat that has a mizzen aft enough to not live in the main's back wash, tall enough to carry a healthy staysail and with some effort, the proportions of a yawl. Getting a sufficient staying base is the usual problem with this arrangement.

 

Hmmmm.

Then moving the mast and mainsail forward, using a bowsprit to keep the fore triangle appropriately large, and adding a reasonably sized mizzen mght work. Would it be feasible to keep the main and jib nearly the same size or would this, coupled with a mizzen, be too much sail area? And yes, I did wonder about the mounting and staying issues on a mast so far astern, and whether it would introduce some "twist" in the rear of the hull, although I've seen some yawls that were very shallow and narrow in the aft hull sections. I did read on the Pearson Electra brochure that the Electra was also offered as a yawl, although I've never seen or heard of one, so it must not have been a popular option.

 

On the C-24, you could have slightly more area, though a slight reduction in the main/fore triangle area will permit a bigger mizzen, which is the key to it's usefulness. The Electra was designed under the CCA influences, so a yawl was a viable option if attempting to get a "favorable rate". On the Electra, I'd use the stock sloop rig, moved forward with a new mizzen as it was under powered. A 35-40 sq. ft. mizzen would easily offer substantial power off wind. The Ensign carries more area then the Electra, so resizing the main would probably be necessary. On the C-24, I'd move the main forward a foot or two, reduce the main to the 135 sq. ft. range and then add 70 sq. ft. to a mizzen.

 

Sounds great, or rather less intimidating than the schooner retrofit, and better suited to the C24. I'm still a sucker for a schooner and haven't given up on one (just need to find the right hull, and do the math, or maybe build a Light Schooner from scratch). By the way, your commentary on why we like schooners is one of the best I've ever read! Is your RYD-14.11 also a schooner?

I took a measurement on the Ensign yesterday just to see how a yawl rig could have been installed on an Electra. Not much room back there, as the mizzen would have to step behind the rear cockpit bulkhead to clear the rudder post. I wouldn't attempt it with the Ensign rig because, as mentioned, the Ensign main is larger and the boom significantly longer than the Electra's. I think a yawl rig would call for a longer hull, although I've seen quite a few small yawl designs lately that have the mizzen stepped almost at the transom. Most of these mizzens however, are small and free-standing.

The Ensign will remain a sloop, despite my earlier comment about acres of plain vanilla sloops. As envisioned, it should stand out from the average 22 footer crowd due to the keel/rudder configuration, the overhangs, and the small transom, if nothing else. With a raised crowned deck, updated rigging, and varnished wood trim, it shouldn't look half bad at the dock, and hopefully will not disgrace itself under sail.

 

Parts

Hi:

Sorry to jump in so late but I only recently discovered this forum.

I don't have any advice for you. But I do have some parts that you may be interested in buying from me.

I have:

1) a 1964 Ensign 23 deck. The deck has a soft spot under the foredeck cleat that should be repaired. Since the deck is disconnected from the hull, access for the repair will be easy and the repair straight forward.

2) the deck hardware (all functional).

3) seats, in very good condition, they can be left as is for the salty look or revarnished.

4) floor, in very good condition, they can be left as is for the salty look or revarnished.

Replacement of these parts with new materials would, I believe, cost over $8,000. I'd sell all of the materials for $3,000.

I also have a mast, boom and standing rigging that I'd sell for $750.

If you bought everything, I'd throw in a usable main and jib for free.

The materials are in Maryland.

Let me know if you are interested.

 

captain tom,

Do you have the hull and rudder?

 

The hull is not for sale. I do have an old rudder that needs work. I'd throw it in.

 

captain tom,

Thanks for the response. Please let me explain a few things. You may have gathered, if you read the whole 13 pages of the thread, that I was seeking a deck for a derelict 1963 Ensign that was donated to our non-profit youth sail training program. Since I could not locate one after months of searching, (hoping to find a wrecked or unwanted donor Ensign) I began to investigate and solicit on this forum, methods for replacing the deck with laminated wood and epoxy covered with fiberglass, and have received such incredible feedback and advice regarding this project, that I've decided to pursue this route. I certainly apppreciate your offer but, for the money, (in addition to a round trip to Maryland with truck and trailer) I would probably be better off buying a used Ensign or some other used boat two hours away in Houston, TX. that already had everything. Are you planning on a project for the hull?

 

If your group is a fully documented not-for profit (that is to say: the IRS recognizes that donations to it are tax deductible) I will consider donating the deck, sails and rudder to your group.

 

captain tom

It is a fully documented 501c3 non-profit organization. Donations to our group are tax deductible.