The Model Yacht: Volume 4, Number 2 – Fall 2000

LINCOLN MEMORIAL POOL, WASHINGTON, D.C. NEWSLETTER OF THE U.S. VINTAGE MODEL YACHT GROUP VOLUME FOUR, NUMBER TWO FALL 2000 NEWSLETTER OF THE U.S. VINTAGE MODEL YACHT GROUP VOLUME FOUR, NUMBER TWO FALL 2000 Editor’s Welcome In this issue we report on no less than six sailing events held over three weekends, and two of them were free sail; a sign indeed that the vintage movement is alive and well. In this issue also Steve Crewes of Australia has opened up to us a whole new world of model yachting, with their tiny hulled and hugely canvassed free sailing boats. They are truly wonderful things, and Steve has kindly provided photographs and plans. We hope to provide photos and other technical documentation on these fascinating boats in future issues. As always, the subscription reminder: the number after your name is the volume and number of the last issue our records show for your subscription; if the number is 42 (for Volume 4, Number 2) then we think that your subscription has run out. Again, as always, if you think we are wrong, please let us know and we’ll fix it. Over the past three years we were able to hold our dues down to $15.00 largely because of the expert and economical service we got from our printers. Sadly, the firm has closed, and our printing costs have risen significantly. Accordingly, we must begin asking $20.00 for a year’s subscription, beginning with Volume 5 Number 1. Renewals before that issue, no matter for how many years, will be at the $15.00 rate. Earl Boebert Ebbs and Flows The President’s Message Vintage Membership – Our annual $20 fee covers three issues of the VMYG newsletter “The Model Yacht”, and access to technical assistance and vintage model plans. A VMYG lifetime membership is $100. Our “how to” book/video package on plank-on-frame model construction is available to members but not included with the fee. To subscribe to our newsletter/services or for renewals, send a check (payable to US VMYG) or cash for $20 (or $100) to: John Snow, c/o US VMYG, 78 East Orchard St., Marblehead, MA 01945. For inquiries on our activities, either call me @ 781-631-4203 or visit the VMYG Web Page at http://www.swcp.com/usvmyg R/C “Vintage M” (VM) Group There are two VM categories: 1945 and prior designs, “Traditional M”, and post-1945 through 1970 designs, “High Flyer M”. For rating rules and VM registration, contact Charlie Roden, VM Coordinator, at 19 Oak Glen Ln., Colts Neck, NJ 07722 and 732-4627483. Email: cer@monmouth.com This year’s National Vintage Regatta at Marblehead involved free-sail and R/C VM models and is reported elsewhere in this issue. The 2001 national VM event is planned for Tampa, FL Traditional Sailing Craft/Scale Models Group The 2000 national racing/display regatta for R/C traditional sailing models was September 23-24 at Spring Lake, NJ. It included Page 1 scratch-built schooner models within design rules, schooners having fin & bulb keels and those built from kits, plus other traditional sailing designs. Schooner rules are available from Harry Mote our Traditional Sailing Craft/Scale Coordinator at 18 Woodmansee Blvd, Barnegat, NJ 08005 and 609-660-0100. Email: stryker@cybercomm.net Next year’s traditional model event is scheduled for the Mystic Seaport Museum August 3-5. Proposed R/C American Classic “50/800” (C50) Group The VMYG is a supporter of activities for “M 50/800” model yachts from early AMYA designs: 1971 to 1991 M boats having conventional sail rigs and non-kevlar hull material. The C50 Group Coordinator is Dennis Lindsey at 515 N. Lyall Ave, West Covina, CA 91790 and 626-966-9538. Email: lindseyd@flash.net Dennis has list of older M designs and draft C50 rating rules. Vintage Etcetera The 2000 “J” Class Challenge Cup Regatta at Mystic Seaport was a success. It was the largest national J gathering since 1984, attracting 13 J models and a total of 35 models for exhibit. With these favorable results, the Seaport decided to make a model yacht regatta an annual summer activity. The 2001 Mystic regatta will be August 3-5 and will feature the VMYG national traditional sailing craft/ scale model regatta, a regional J Class model championship and a supporting model exhibit. John Snow is the contact for the J racing and regatta exhibit; Harry Mote for the traditional sailing craft model racing/display contest. Information on this and other Seaport special events will be on the Mystic Web Page at http://www.mysticseaport.org Discounted Mystic ticket prices for this regatta and other Museum attractions will again be available, with skippers, exhibitors and volunteers getting free three-day passes to Mystic Seaport. Our participation in the 2000 WoodenBoat Show was also a success, counting the number of VMYG members involved and new members gained. My personal thanks to Fred and Sue Abbe, Earl and Judy Boebert, Jim Dolan, Ben Martin, Charlie and Dot Roden, and Dale Wenninger for helping with our exhibit booth, plus members of The Marbleheaders of Spring Lake for displaying/sailing their VM models – Pete Peterson, Howard Royce and Charlie Mayer. In addition, my gratitude to Jack Garbarino for his Enterprise J model, and to Jack Gregory and Peter Latournes for manning the AMYA table at our booth. John Selmer-Larson’s “Broom V.” The sail plan, not reproduced here because of size problems, clearly marks this as a Brainesteered boat, because the backstay is shown attached to the transom. This would make this 1946 design one of the last, if not the last, M boats designed for Braine gear. She would make a good boat for the shifty airs of Marblehead or San Francisco. Page 2 Finally, I believe we came close to a 1.000 batting average this summer, with the National VM Regatta at Redd’s Pond very well attended by members and visitors alike. We staged 49 races over three days and had our largest turnout of VM models (22), with skippers coming from as far away as Australia and the UK. Regatta details are elsewhere in this issue. Without the great support provided by Marblehead MYC, this event could not have been staged. A special thanks to Cheryl Emmons, Ruth Kuykendall and Dot Roden for their assistance at pond side, and to my wife, Mila, for the post-regatta cookout. Also my appreciation to Earl and Judy Boebert for the 1916 Redd’s Pond race trophy, and to Steve Crewes for his many vintage photographs of early Aussie model yachting for the VMYG archives. SFMYC Coordinator – Jeff Stobbe 831-4756233; cjstobbe@pacbell.net 2nd Annual Mystic Model Yacht Regatta – August 3-5 Mystic Seaport, CT; VMYG national regatta for R/C traditional sailing/schooner models; AMYA J model regional championship; and traditional sailing craft models exhibit. Volunteers and traditional models welcomed. VMYG Contacts – John Snow 781-631-4203; Harry Mote 609-660-0100 Traditional Models WoodenBoat School Model Course – August Brooklin, ME; Course on building wooden M Class racing model yacht. Projected 2001 Vintage Events VMYG Contact – Thom McLaughlin 813-2516919 3rd Woods Hole Small Boat Museum Model Boat Show – April 14-15 Woods Hole, MA; VMYG International Yacht Restoration School “Family Day” – August 26 IYRS, Newport, RI; VMYG exhibit, plus activities, displays and demos for model sail/power/scale boats by hobbyists and trades people. Volunteers and vintage models welcomed. model display; IYRS exhibits/open house, harbor excursions, children’s activities. Show Contact – Paul Smith 508-548-4442; VMYG Contact – John Snow 781-631-4203 19th Annual Antique & Classic Boat Festival – September 1& 2 Boston Harbor, MA; VMYG 3rd SFMYC VM Free Sail Invitational Regatta – June 23-24 Spreckles Lake, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA; Free-sail racing with VM models; tune-up for July F/S races in UK. SFMYC Contact – Jeff Stobbe 831-475-6233; cjstobbe@pacbell.net. WoodenBoat Show – June 22-24 Michigan Maritime Museum in South Haven, Michigan; Vintage racing class/sailing craft displays and demos; extensive exhibits of full-size wooden sail/ power/rowing boats and accessories/maritime interest items by trades people. Volunteers and vintage models welcomed. VMYG Contact – John Snow 781-631-4203 exhibit booth and R/C vintage model sailing demos. VMYG Contact – John Snow 781-631-4203 Annual Free Sail Model Regatta – October 7 Red Beach, Menemsha Pond, Martha’s Vineyard, MA; Children and adults races for scratchbuilt, free-sailed wooden models one meter and under. Regatta Contact – Spa Tharpe 508-645-3688; VMYG Contact – John Snow 781-631-4203 Seventh National Vintage Regatta – Early November Tampa, FL; R/C and free-sail (F/S) VM model racing and display contest. VMYG Contacts – John Snow 781-631-4203; Alan Suydam 248-476-3017 VMYG Contacts – Thom McLaughlin 813251-6919; Charlie Roden 732-462-7462 VM Models International VM Free Sail Invitational Regattas – July 22 & July 28 Round Pond & Fleetwood John Snow Pond, UK; Free-sail racing with VM models, with many US skippers expected. Page 3 The Second Annual San Francisco Marblehead Invitational Regatta This wonderful regatta is becoming the focal point of free sailing in the United States. This year fifteen M Class free-sailers gathered at Spreckles Lake in Golden Gate Park for the regatta. Steve Crewes, free sail champion in 1972, competed–making the regatta an international event. Strong interest from England and Australia may continue this trend. Tuning up began on Wednesday before the regatta. Earl Boebert of New Mexico arrived with yet another Houk designed “Rip Tide” with a beautiful cedar planked hull, sliding rig, vane gear and spinnaker. The regatta saw several new boats. Tony Marshall and Rod Tossetti had new fiberglass “Rip Tides” with wooden decks and Braine steering built by Mike Kelly of Pond Boats in Ventura. Both Jim Harvey and Ed Shoenstein finished Stobbe U-boat hulls rigged with new Carr sails and vane gear. I completed three of my U-boats in fiberglass with wooden decks and loaned these boats to Steve Crewes, Mike Stobbe and Mike Kelly. And, with just a few hours of instruction, they were charging up and down the lake like our more experienced skippers. Why is this man looking worried? George Ferrari and “Little Joe,” who together beat just about everything in sight. This year saw the resurgence of spinnakers with Earl Boebert and myself flying them. We enjoyed or were frustrated (take your pick) by strong winds on Thursday while tuning up. Tragedy struck when Earl’s yacht, planing with spinnaker straining, attempted to leave the lake without permission. A loosened keel and leaking boat resulted along with a rechristening of her as Miss BandAid after fiberglass patches were hastily applied. The racing was extraordinarily keen and congenial. During the regatta, the wind lightened a little, but still blew harder than San Francisco’s usual zephyrs. Occasionally, I managed a heart beating condition as I ran to keep up with my boat planing furiously while flying a huge blue spinnaker on the runs. My brother, Mike, christened the end of the lake Cardiac Cove, after running several times around it to catch his yacht. The spotlight fell on George Ferrari after the first day’s racing as he amassed a near perWhat free sailing skippers do instead of yelling “Star- fect score with “Little Joe”, an older Braine board” at each other: Jeff Stobbe (foreground) to Tony steered boat from the late thirties. It was a Marshall: “Looks like my boat is running into your boat. sight to behold as this boat tacked up the Tony: “Looks like.” Page 4 The author of the best caption for this picture will receive a free one-year extension of their subscription. Entries to the Editorial address on the masthead. lake without ever luffing. What have you got, George?– Starch in the sails?! After half the boats sailed Saturday, we retired to the clubhouse for the traditional San Francisco champagne and post race chit chat (could have, would have, should have, etc.) Some quick repairs, adjustments and many humorous and pithy observations by Steve Crewes on “Yank” yachting got us ready for the Saturday night banquet at the Gold Mirror. This was arranged by George Ferrari. Serenaded by Italian music and occasionally by George himself, we enjoyed a wonderful Italian dinner. This year we created a new event for the regatta, the Craftsman Award. Earl Boebert made the trophy and the Vintage Group donated it. Earl mounted a small Stanley plane on a pedestal. This is in keeping with the tradition of giving tools as prizes in the freesail events of the forties and fifties. The winner, determined by all the entrants voting, was Tony Marshall’s boat built by Mike Kelly and rigged with Braine gear by Tony. Sunday the wind remained strong at the leeward end of the lake with lighter and variable breezes at the windward end. We all raced to catch up with George Ferrari. Gains were made by Bill Davis, sailing a Paul Colette design built in 1945, and by myself and Tony Marshall; but to no avail, as George remained a clear winner. The final results were: 1. George Ferrari 2. Bill Davis 3. Jeff Stobbe 4. Tony Marshall 5. Paul Staiger 6. Mike Stobbe 7. Mike Kelly 8. Rod Tossetti 9. Jim Harvey 10. Steve Crewes 11. Rolfe Fast 12. Earl Boebert 13. Ed Shoenstein 14. Mel Harvey 15. Ron Thornhill 59 points 48 points 42 points 39 points 33 points 32 points 30 points 28 points 26 points 22 points 20 points 19 points 9 points DNF DNF Some Post Regatta Reflections This year I really attempted to reintroduce the spinnaker and used one on every leeward leg, learning more every time I set it. Some observations: My spinnaker was the largest permissible from the jibstay to the deck. If the pole was set 20 degrees forward, as on a broad reach, it worked fine. If the pole was set at 90 degrees, the spinnaker overpowered the ability of the vane and the main sail to keep a steady course. If the exposed area of the spinnaker roughly equalled the main, the boat managed itself very well in all wind strengths. My boat Page 5 Vintage Marblehead (VM) Coordinator’s Report speed was significantly higher than boats without a spinnaker. What about boat speed? George Ferrari’s 1930’s yacht (with a full keel, long overhangs and Braine steering) while not quite as fast as our newer boats both up and down wind, won with superior control. Bill Davis has a more modern 1940’s yacht (with a fin keel and Braine gear) that finished second and myself, using a modern fin keel with vane gear, finished third. I usually have superior boat speed, but while the vane hunts for control between puffs of wind, the Braine boats plod on relentlessly, carrying on through the puffs. Control vs. speed is a Spreckles Lake quandary. How are we doing as a group? The recent rule changes (wooden decks required, 75″ max sail hoist, 15″ draft, 15 lb. minimum, no garboard radius required, wood or aluminum spars, glass or wood hulls only) are a resounding success. The new yachts, seven this year, preserve the “look” of the old and are not running away from the old. Steve Crewes believes that Australia will adopt the San Francisco M class rules for Australian free-sailers and vow to return with his own boat and other “mates” to give us a go. Traditional Division Rules shall be based on the modification of the 1939 M Rules. (The High Flyer Division Rules will continue to be based on the 1954 M Rules.) Proposed changes from registered VM owners (there are now about forty of you) for the 2001 sailing season may now be sent to me and will be published in the next newsletter for your consideration. August 19 & 20 ships X Champion- October 1 M Class Race 1 October 7 M Class Race 2 October 14 & 15 ships M Class Champion- England 2001 Free Sail M Class Events July 22 Round Pond, London July 29 Fleetwood Sail luff measurement shall be made to a point at the head of the sail where the width of the sail perpendicular to the luff measures 3/4 inch. Multi-paneled sails may be used in both the Traditional and High Flyer Divisions. SFMYC Free Sail Calendar Class I apologize for missing the deadline for the last issue to report on the outcome of the vote on proposed VM rules changes. The proposed changes were presented and discussed in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of this newsletter. Three of the proposed changes were accepted by VM owners and took effect on 11-2000. The new rules are: Jeff Stobbe The present USVMYG VM rules were developed to apply only to VM R/C racing. There has been a fairly recent revival of interest in VM free sailing. The San Francisco MYC has an active and growing fleet of free sailing VM’s. With their support, the USVMYG has held a free sailing regatta at Spreckles Lake, Golden State Park, San Francisco for the past two years. As reported elsewhere in this newsletter, a very successful free sailing event was held in Marblehead this year as part of our National Regatta. The San Francisco MYC group is now planning to a visit to the UK in 2001 for free sailing racing with their British counterparts. For your information, the San Francisco MYC has just finalized a set of VM free sailing rules for new boats being built at their club. If interest in free sailing continues to grow, the USVMYG will consider adopting a national set of VM free sailing rules. Page 6 Charlie Roden 2000 National Vintage M (VM) Regatta theme hosted by the Marblehead Historical Society and a cookout at the home of Mila and John Snow. Marblehead MYC (MMYC) hosted the sixth National Vintage Regatta August 11 – 13 at Redd’s Pond, Marblehead, MA. US VMYG was the sponsor under the AMYA, with this event recognizing the 75th birthday of the MMYC. Twenty-two Vintage M (VM) skippers from around the US and Australia and UK helped celebrate this occasion with free sail (vane) and R/C VM racing. Race directors were Stan Goodwin, MMYC Commodore, for vane and John Snow, VMYG President, for R/C, assisted by club scorers JR LeBlanc, John Collins and Steve Denis. Weather was pleasant and sunny Friday and Saturday; Sunday had rain threaten but held off. With a stalled storm front to the south, a favorable Northeast wind held for three days giving skippers a steady sea breeze. This resulted in a total of 49 VM heats: 16 free sail (vane) and 33 R/C. Top two racers in each VM category (vane and three R/C) received trophies. The racing was complemented by two regatta social activities: a formal garden party with a model yachting Our international visitors were Steve and Marcia Crewes from Australia, and Graham and Wendy Reeves and friends from the UK. Steve is an accomplished Aussie vane and R/C skipper who has just started a vintage model group in Sydney – “The Ancient Mariners”. Graham is a noted vane sailor, having won the UK M Class championship in the early 1960s, and a long-time member of the British VMYG. Graham even shipped a reconditioned 1950s British VM model “across the pond” to race in the vane competition. He came in fourth place without practice and local sailing knowledge. Steve was thoughtful enough to bring a scrapbook full of photos of early Aussie model yachting showing two-foot models racing with 3000 square inches of sail. These were copied with the help of Jim Dolan for our archives, causing Steve to miss half the races. As a primary VMYG goal, research into the history of our sport (Steve’s photos) had equal priority with racing during the vintage weekend. A typical Marblehead “fleet start,” with Stan Goodwin officiating. (J.R. LeBlanc Photo) Page 7 Vane boats underway. Ben Martin and Thom McLaughlin are waiting to see which way their boats will head; the rest of the skippers have already sprinted off to the right. (J.R.. LeBlanc Photo) Free-Sail Racing Eight contestants entered the vane racing; seven had prior free-sailing experience. Two came from foreign countries: Graham Reeves from the UK with his 1950s vane boat and Steve Crewes from Australia who borrowed a 1931 MMYC VM model. Redd’s Pond has always been a difficult place to free-sail and decades of tree growth and the addition of a boat yard have not improved it. Thankfully, the sea breeze provided a decent sailing wind after clearing a barrier of trees. Free-sail racing was performed fleet-style: up and down the pond with turning poles used by skippers to tack and fend off their boats. Mates were also stationed on the opposite shoreline to aid the skippers. Skippers started their boats from the leeward shore and beat to the upper (tree) end of the pond. They then reset their VM’s, sailing to a downwind finish back at the lower end of the pond. With upper end wind conditions unreliable due to the tree line, luck was to play a major role in the vane racing. As it turned out, four of the VM vane boats were reasonably matched and skippered, each winning at least three races. At the end of the first day, Ben Martin started pulling away from the pack and never looked back. His top placing was well deserved with seven firsts overall, while John Collins sailed to a solid second. Third place remained in doubt until the end, with Dominic Meo and Graham Reeves tied. Graham reached the upper end first in the last free-sail race and reset for downwind with a lead. Unfortunately, an errant wind puff resulted in a collision with Martin, who was still sailing upwind. When their boats parted, Graham’s VM was headed into the wind providing Dominic time to slip by for third. Scoring used the old high-point system, with ten for first, nine for second, etc. R/C Racing Sixteen competitors started the R/C VM racing, with 13 completing all 22 heats. A total of 33 R/C races were conducted using the red, white and blue heat schedule where a skipper is in two races and out one. The three R/ C VM design categories were Traditional models (1930 to 1945), High Flyer models (1946 to 1959) and Transition models (1960 to 1969). 1999 AMYA M champion, Stan Goodwin, continued his winning ways with top honors in the R/C VM competition and Transition design category. He raced his 1969 wooden Warrior II model which he had designed as well. With this boat, Stan had previously won another AMYA R/C M championship in the early 1970s. JR LeBlanc was VM regatta runner-up with a new fiberglass R/C model of the Riptide II originally designed by Ted Houk in 1949. JR placed first in the High Flyer VM category. Ned Lakeman won in the Traditional VM with his own scratch-built model based on a combination Page 8 Stan Goodwin and “Warrior” resting between heats. of 1930s M design concepts. Tim Sullivan, Ben Martin and Harry Mote were secondplace finishers in the Transition, High Flyer and Traditional VM’s respectively. Five of the trophy skippers won at least three races, with Goodwin again at the head of the list with 13 firsts overall. Chris Cafiero is to also be commended for finishing seventh after driving non-stop from Texas and arriving just before the start of the R/C racing. Steve Crewes, Steve Denis and John Storrow had incomplete scores for not competing the second day. Sportsmanship & Craftsman Awards Sportsmanship and fair play remained key objectives throughout the regatta, with racing protests handled by skippers on the water. Befitting its prominence, the first VMYG perpetual award for sportsmanship, the “Marshall Croft” Cup, was presented by Thom McLaughlin to event organizers Earl Boebert, Jim Dolan, Ben Martin and John Snow. Their dilemma now will be to find a way to share this trophy until next year’s national vintage event in Tampa, FL. Special recognition is extended to Thom and Harry Mote for developing this concept to honor the heritage of the more gentlemanly way of racing. A wooden, plank-on-frame model constructed for vane racing in 1995 by master builder Al Hubbard and refurbished for R/ C by Worth Marine in 1998 won the bestcrafted VM award – a restored 1920s Stanley wood plane courtesy of Earl Boebert. Making this a tradition at VM gatherings, Earl presented a similar award at the SFMYC Action at the windward mark. Page 9 invitational VM regatta. This winning display VM was a 1947 Gamecock design (Broom IV) and had a hull crafted from Western red cedar wood with a distinctive grain pattern. The model is regularly R/C raced by its owner John Snow. Regatta Observations Two 1940s-designed VM’s carried modified sail plans for R/C racing. Lesson-learned was that early VM models with non-original (tall) rigs need to be scored with the Transition R/ C VM category for performance/awards purposes. Two models were also expertly configured for vane and R/C racing by their owners Earl Boebert and Thom McLaughlin. Finally, US skippers will have to brush up on their pond sailing rules and etiquette for next year’s VM racing in the UK. They need to understand and adhere to the way that the British conduct free-sail racing. John Snow Traditional Sailing Craft Scale Models Regatta 2000 The annual USVMYG Traditional Sailing Craft Scale Models Regatta, this year hosted by the Marbleheaders of Spring Lake, NJ MYC, September 23-24, attracted 16 boats, with skippers from as far away as Maryland, Michigan and New Hampshire. There were four skipjacks, six 50-in. schooners and six open class boats that included a Robbe Atlantis schooner, a Chesapeake Bay bugeye, a sharpie schooner that will plane off the wind in a breeze and a beautiful, varnished Chinese junk of about five feet in length, complete with beautifully carved dragons on the transom. Remnants of hurricane Helene dropped a sprinkle now and then and kept the sky cloudy; but we had some good sailing and a great time. The event included dinner at a local restaurant Saturday evening. 2000 National VM Regatta Results VM Vane (Free-Sail) Racing Aug 11 & 12 – 16 Heats 1 Skipper VM Model Points Ben Martin 1947 Arrow III 141 (7 firsts) John Collins 1959 Arrow V 134 (3 firsts) Dominic Meo III 1947 Arrow III 130 (3 firsts) Graham Reeves (UK) 1954 British Windsong 128 (3 firsts) Ned Lakeman 1930s Broom Mod 92 Earl Boebert 1949 Riptide II 72 Thom McLaughlin 1947 Arrow III 60 Steve Crewes (AUS) 1931 Broom II INC (one day) VM R/C Racing Aug 12 & 13 – 33 Heats (22 per skipper)2 Place Skipper VM Model Points 1 Stan Goodwin 1969 Warrior II 38 (13 firsts); 1st Place Transition VM 2 JR LeBlan 1949 Riptide II Mod 47 (7 firsts); 1st Place High Flyer VM 3 Ben Martin 1942 Broom IV Mod 62 (5 firsts) 4 Tim Sullivan 1969 Warrior II 68 (4 firsts) 5 Ned Lakeman 1930s Lakeman 90 (1 first); 1st Place Traditional VM 6 Harry Mote 1936 Peterson 50 92 (3 firsts) 7 Chris Cafiero 1936 Cheerio I 113 8 Thom McLaughlin 1947 Arrow III 18 9 Rick Laird 936 Cheerio I 122 10 Graham Reeves 1947 Gamecock 151; Craftmanship Award 11 Charlie Roden 1936 Cheerio I 164 12 Joe Frasier 1949 Riptide II 185 13 Dominic Meo III 1962 Arrow VII 189 Steve Crewes 1960s British INC (one day) Steve Denis 1942 Broom II INC (one day) John Storrow 1949 Riptide II INC (one day) Place 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Free-sail racing used old time high-point scoring. UK – United Kingdom; AUS – Australia; INC – Incomplete 2. R/C racing used standard AMYA low-point scoring. Page 10 Skipjacks at the start. Although a bit ungainly-looking a pondside, they are quick and agile on the water. (Harry Mote Photo.) Skipjacks Schooners Skipjacks started sailing at 10:00 AM on Saturday, while the 50-in. schooners were set up and static judged. They sailed five races on Saturday and two more Sunday morning. The skipjacks are a 48-in on deck model designed by J.L.Langley and sailed as a onedesign class in the Chesapeake. The USVMYG schooner class requires a “replica” plank on frame scale model of a full-size schooner designed or built before 1940; maximum length on deck 50 in. Half the score is for static judging, based on five criteria that include workmanship, completeness of detail and faithfulness to the original design in hull and rig. The other half of the score is for ‘round the buoys racing. Place 1 2 3 4 Skipper Tom Younger Buck McClellan Don Miller Marty Hayes Points 11 12 22 25 The fleet included a new boat by Alan Suydam — a beautifully executed Fenwick Williams design called Gloucesterman, complete with a tacking overlapping jib. It is up to or exceeds the high standard Alan set with his Al Suydam’s new schooner. (Harry Mote Photo) Page 11 Vintage M’s at Spring Lake, with a vintage 36/500 in the foreground. (Harry Mote Photo) Stevens Brilliant, which he says he retired in favor of the new boat. This was its first outing. The fleet also included Ned Lakeman’s Plieone, a superb performer, and Walt Watkins’ Alden Grenadier, complete in every detail, including tacking overlapping jib, dinghy, anchor and anchor chain, etc. The schooners sailed five races on Saturday and four more on Sunday morning. Don Miller and Walt Watkins did not start several races because of technical difficulties. Place Skipper 1 Ned Lakeman 2 Joe M. Cieri 3 Alan Suydam 4 Herb Jones 5 Don Miller 6 Walt Watkins Design Designer NY 50/schooner Herreshoffs Sachem Alden Gloucesterman Fenwick Williams Whitehaven Rufus O. Jones Patricia S. Davis Grenadier Alden some laps on Saturday and a few more Sunday morning. Place Skipper 1 Rich Lamsfuss 2 Marty Hayes 3 Herb Jones 4 George Surgent 5 Frank Pittelli DNF Don Miller DNF Ralph Maresco Boat Robbe Atlantis schooner large schooner Bugeye sharpie schooner Chinese junk Small schooner Small sloop Prizes were awarded and the regatta concluded by about noon. Sincerest thanks to all of those who participated and to all of the Marbleheaders of Spring Lake, NJ MYC who worked to help make the regatta fun for all. Harry Mote Open Class The open class included anything that did not muster three or more of the same class. To even out the diverse competition, each boat sailed against its own elapsed time, each time around the course. All were instructed by the race committee to put their watches in their pockets. All boats started together and their elapsed time recorded as each crossed the “finish line” on each lap. The fleet sailed Spring Lake Open Attracts 11 Vintage Ms The Spring Lake Open, sponsored and hosted by the Marbleheaders of Spring Lake, NJ MYC for Traditional Vintage Ms (1945 and before), attracted 11 Ms, four of them from Page 12 outside the Marbleheaders club. The event was held in conjunction with the USVMYG Traditional Sailing Craft Scale Models regatta on Sunday afternoon, September 24. Two of the schooner sailors, Alan Suydam and Ned Lakeman, also brought their Ms to sail in the Spring Lake Open. The field included a beautiful new, planked Cheerio I, built by Alan Suydam as designed, without modification. The field also included a Broom V (circa, late 40s-early 50s) with a 12-1/2-in. draft, which the Marbleheaders race committee magnanimously permitted to sail. Most of the Ms were the 1930s double-ender designed by Harold Peterson Sr. and Jr. (Pete Peterson) that the Marbleheaders sail as the Peterson OneDesign. With remnants of hurricane Helene still lurking, we were able to sail seven races in a moderate breeze. After the seven races, Alan and Ned were tie for first place. Alan was able to come from behind in the sail-off race to break the tie and win the regatta. Place Skipper Boat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Cheerio I Red Top Peterson O-D Peterson O-D Peterson O-D modified Alden schooner hull Broom V Peterson O-D Peterson O-D Peterson O-D Peterson O-D Alan Suydam Ned Lakeman Harry Mote Charlie Roden Carl Olbrich Bill Pfotzer Joe V. Cieri Pete Peterson Howard Royce Bob Sturges Bill Dowd Harry Mote Scaling Laws Editor’s Note I was reminded by several readers that in the last issue I rather uncritically published Franklyn Bassford’s 1885 remarks on using models to analyze the sailing characteristics of full-scale yachts. George Steele wrote this thoughtful and informative note, which I decided to excerpt and share with our readers. The Letter ….After a great day of “full scale model sailing” we got home to discover the mailman had delivered this issue We devoured it before bed and awoke at 1 AM thinking about using model yachts to predict the operation of full sized vessels. This idea has tantalized folks for centuries. Despite the attractiveness of the idea that a scale model will predict the actions of its full sized “prototype,” experimenters quickly realized that the model will have substantially less stability relative to its sail area than will the full scale vessel. Bassford recognized this by adding extra keels. So do Bowen and Davey (at pages 107 et seq.) in Scale Model Sailing Ships from Mayflower books, 1987. Probably the best known historical figure who studied the relationship between a vessel and its scale models is Professor Froude. His is, perhaps, the first to try and determine experimentally the relationships between a vessel and scale models of the vessel and became the “father” of “the scaling laws.” Cyrus Hamlin explained these in the November/December 1991 Seaways Journal of Maritime History and Research. First you take the ratio of the model’s length on deck to the same measurement on the full scale ship. Say you want a five foot model of a 100 foot schooner. The ratio will be 5/100 or 0.05. Now Hamlin says that areas (for instance sail areas) will vary by the ratio squared. Thus the sail area of the model will be 0.05 times 0.05 or 0.0025 times the sail area of the full sized vessel. He continues saying that volumes will vary by the ratio cubed, resulting in 0.000125; multiply the displacement in cubic feet of the full sized ship by this number to get the displacement of the model. Heeling moment of the model is the heeling moment of the full size ship multiplied by the same cube of the ratio. Finally, and importantly, the righting moment of the model will be the righting moment of the full size ship multiplied by the ratio to the fourth power, or 0.0000062. Thus the relative stability of the model decreases as the scale becomes smaller. But this is not the whole story. Page 13 About 27 years ago, two naval architects discovered that the scale models less than one third the length of the full size vessel show increasingly serious errors in recorded water resistance.1 This error cannot be predicted plus or minus. Thus if you are “into” serious design work for racing boats you will have to use large and expensive models. Finally, a few years ago I was unknowingly affected with something similar to the “Froude Syndrome” or “scaleitis” and through that the study of full scale design texts2 would allow me to write a paper on design concepts for pond sailboats. Three tries later I struck out. The lack may well have been personal, but I suspect that scientists do not have the data on wind forces under ten feet above the waterline of model sailboats nor software to assist computer aided design of such small sailboats. Thus designers of models are left to more traditional methods of calculating volumes, estimating weights, determining centers of gravity and testing sail plans in various wind speeds; and trying again and again until resources are exhausted or a satisfactory model is achieved. (If I recall correctly, the designer of the “Westwind 36” went through 60 models before deciding on the current model.) Thus my current thinking is to design the above-the-water hull and sail plan for esthetics, and then design the underwater hull, keel, and rudder iteratively until you get a design that looks well and sails well. George Steele 1. See pp 192-200 in Yacht Design Explained, A Sailor’s Guide to the Principles and Practices of Design, by Steve Killing and Douglas Hunter, W.W. Norton, 1998. 2. E.g., Principles of Yacht Design by L.Larsson and R.E.Eliasson, International Marine, 1994 The Masthead Fly I am a big fan of the masthead fly as a valuable indicator of major wind shifts. The wind can be rather fickle at times with random and unpredictable changes in direction due to thermal heating effects and obstacles in the flow path. In light air the changes can be most bedeviling and hard to detect. It is not unusual to be running with the wind in light air and have the wind shift 180 degrees to bring the fleet to halt. A good masthead fly will indicate this change and allow you to bear off and sheet in order to leave he rest of the fleet behind. I have been making masthead flies for a number of years and have now settled on a design that does the job and is simple and inexpensive to make. Here is how you too can say sayonara to your competition. A masthead fly must have a large vane to catch the wind and must be light and balanced with low friction and a low moment of inertia to enable it to respond to changes in wind direction in the presence of boat motion. I have found that bird feathers make excellent flies. Feathers sold in craft stores, however, are not sufficiently straight to make good flies. I make mine from feathers donated free of charge by local birds. To get these feathers, I go to places where ducks and geese hangout. This can be the messiest part of the job. Many years of ballet lessons, however, have helped me to be able to gingerly tiptoe through these bird wastelands, pirouetting frequently for 360 degree scans, to gather perfect feathers. It is best to do this at dawn before people get out for fear that this may be seen as the second coming of Tiny Tim (Tiny was a frequent guest on the Johnny Carson show some years ago, and gained notoriety for his rendition of “Tiptoe Through the Tulips”). After gathering the feathers, I hold the tip of each feather between my thumb and forefinger of one hand and flick the quill of the feather sharply three times with the forefinger of my other hand to dislodge any fleas, lice or ticks. I then vault these feathers for future construction and also as a hedge against inflation. Now to the serious part of constructing the fly and believe me it is as easy as making duck soup. The attached sketch of my fly will Page 14 help you follow the discussion. I have also indicated some dimensions on the sketch that might be helpful. Materials can be obtained in hobby or craft shops or more economically from your friends. The first step is to trim back some of the vane of the feather to achieve about two inches of bare quill. The next step is to spray paint the feather with a highly visible color. In addition to neon fluorescent pink, I like flaming red, orange glow, hot magenta, and turquoise metallic. The reason for spraying now is that the paint will add some weight to the feather which must be balanced in a later step and also you don’t want to get paint in the jewel bearings of the fly. The axle of the fly is a l/16 inch diameter brass rod two inches long which is inserted in a hole in the quill made just forward of the remaining vane with a sail needle. The rod is cemented to the feather with gapfilling cyanoacrylate glue, which for obvious reasons will be subsequently referred to as CA+. The jewel bearings consist of tiny beads with holes in the center that fit on the axle. They look like micro bagels and come in different colors. It is important that these beads match the color of your sail numbers. Two bearings are installed, one above a one inch long, 3/l 6 inch OD piece of plastic tubing and one below. They are glued in place with a small drop of CA+ applied at the top of the upper bead and to the bottom of the lower bead so as not to contaminate the bearing surface. The diameter of the plastic tubing is chosen to be slightly greater than the diameter of the beads so that it serves as the mounting surface for the fly in either a force fit hole in the top of the mast or in a tube cemented to the side of the mast. You next fit a piece of prepainted 5/32 inch OD aluminum tubing over the tip of the quill which contains a short solid brass 1/8 inch diameter nose piece. I fiddle with the position of the tube until the fly is balanced as I hold it horizontally on its side. It is then fixed in place with, you guessed it, another touch of CA+. Viola!, there it is, your first masthead fly. Development on this fly has been halted at Mark l Mod l5. I am now busy on a new fly This fly will be constructed from a bifurcated feather, one with a “V” shaped end to it. A fine gentleman and great sailor from San Diego by the name of Pete Jefferson showed me that if I paint the inside of the “V” with a different bright color, I can tell over which quarter of the boat the wind is blowing on a down wind leg. If the wind is on the quarter nearest me, I won’t be able to see the inside of the “V”. If on the far quarter, I will be able to see the bright color inside the “V”. This will help me to identify the proper downwind jibe and avoid sailing by the lee. So what I need essentially is a forked feather. There are lots of forked tongues around but not many forked feathers. Earl Boebert has recently told me that they do exist on the outer tail feathers of a rare neon-fluorescent-pink split-tail Forkatu. The Forkatu is of the family Accipitridae, and are frequently spotted perched on ginger beer bottles in far off Cochiti Pueblo. I wonder if William Earl Boebert, denizen of the desert, bard of this rag, Merlin1 of the self-steering vane, is pulling my leg just a bit? Ah! — that is the question. Page 15 Charlie Roden 1. More like Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice in Fantasia. — Ed. In Search of the Sydney Model Yacht The club that I belong to wanted a two page short article on the start of old Sydney Model Yacht Club. We’re really modern now — we don’t call ourselves the SMYC anymore but the Sydney Remote Control Yacht Club, to keep up with the modern terminology. I was a founding member of this club since it started in the mid sixties. This club was the only one in a city of 3 million people, or so we thought. Sure, I told them, no trouble, just a couple of pages, no big deal. I only needed a few old photos to complement the story and it would be done. Then someone gave me some very old photographs of model yachts in Sydney circa 1900. All those expletives came out like, ”WOW, what’s this? This is fantastic, where, how, when?” all came at a rush. Here was a treasure trove in front of me, of a past that we weren’t aware of. All of the photographs were post card size; about 13 in all, showing various locations around our city where model yachts had sailed. The photos were in good condition with letters and information on the back, little cameos of what life was about in those days. One particular photo was shot in Sydney’s Centennial Park, I believe. It shows 14 boats racing down a lake to a finish line. Across the top of the finish line from shore to shore was a long rope stretched with flags on them, including the British flag but no Australian flag. This picture is showing a regatta on Federation Day, 1st January 1901. This is the day when Australia became independent1 from Britain. King Edward VII approved the present Australian flag in 1903. And 1. There was an Australian flag at the time of federation, but it was a all white flag with a red cross on it to make quarters and a union jack in the top left corner at the hoist. This was an interim flag till the present one was approved in 1903. another unique photo showing model sailors in surgical masks with a caption reading “sailing during the bubonic plague”. Now the last bubonic plague happened in Sydney between the years 1900 and 1 908, so we have another very old one. All the boats at this time were classified by measured hull length. Classes 8”, 10”, 12”, the smaller classes, were considered pond boats. The larger ones, 18”, two-footer and the 32” were open water classes. All these classes were very similar in looks, bluff bow at deck level, at the bottom, and a knife edged, fore and aft slide on bottom of hull, and a long slender keel with a (side) flattened bulb. The keel weighed about 221bs for the big two footer. These were considered the open water championship boats. (The 32” were a later class.) Sail area was said to be “double bed size.” The beam was said to be 2/3 the length of the hull. Hull depth was 8 To 9 inches, masts were five to seven feet tall, bowsprit two feet long and raced using a skiff with not less than two rowers aboard one rowing forward. The emblems on their sails were colour patches instead of numbers and were registered with the clubs. They appeared on the sails and the transoms, making it easy to tell who was in front. There were five clubs sailing open water at that time. Without these discoveries my short article would have told the Club about our vane steered Marbleheads, our initial troubles in getting sails and fittings and boats together, and getting the club “workshop” going to produce vane gears. How that almost everything, information wise, came from England. We in Australia never knew the extent the USA played in world Model yachting. The two page article for the club’s newsletter went quite well but for me the research has only just begun. We have formed a group called the “Ancient Mariners (Sydney)” to discover our model yachting past. We’ve had some spectacular results; so Page 16 Start Point for Beat Start Points for Run Clean Air Turbulent Air Finish Line for Beat Finish Line for Run far, we are now on a lead to trace our model heritage back to the First Fleet time in 1788. Anyone who’s interested in copies of our photos should contact John Snow of the USVMYG. Anything we unearth, we’ll make available. Anyone interested can contact me by Email: funcrewes@one.net.au Braine boats are still competitive in the club. The West shore, where the runs start, has slack and variable wind, and getting out into the clean air is a challenge. Since the North shore is a lee shore on the run, you are allowed three “push offs” before you must stop and trim your boat. Earl Boebert Steve Crewes Sailing Spreckles Lake For those of you that we hope will join us in June of 2001 for the 3rd M Class Invitational Regatta, here is a diagram showing what it takes to sail this lovely but quite tricky venue. The map shows the manner in which the courses are laid out. The prevailing wind is out of the West, so races start with the run. The area marked “Turbulent Air” is full of swirls and eddies and any free sail boat that strays out there is lost. You must be able to guy, or self-tack, on the beat in order to look competent, much less competitive. No mates are allowed, so your boat cannot be tacked off the opposite shore by anybody else; it is impossible to do this yourself and get back in position on the North shore. This is why The Model Yacht is published three times a year by the U.S. Vintage Model Yacht Group. Copyright 1998,1999, 2000, U.S.V.M.Y.G. Reproduction for noncommercial purposes permitted; all other rights reserved. Editorial Address: 9219 Flushing Meadows NE Albuquerque NM 87111 Email: boebert@swcp.com Phone: 505 823 1046 Officers of the U.S. Vintage Model Yacht Group: President: John Snow Eastern Vice-President: Ben Martin Midwest Vice-President: Al Suydam Western Vice-President: Dominic Meo, III Southeastern Vice-President: Thom Mclaughlin Traditional/Scale Coordinator: Harry Mote Vintage M Class Coordinator: Charles Roden Classic “50” Coordinator: Dennis Lindsey Historian: Earl Boebert Archivist: Jim Dolan Page 17 The Lateral Plane of Model Yachts have as close to this shape as possible, and gradually merge into a curve that will blend with the hull1. Editor’s Note This article, by Paul A. Fiske of Boston, appeared in the April, 1946 issue of Model Yachting Monthly and gives some indication of how carefully thought out free sailing designs were. Having played around with a sliding rig, I certainly recognize his comments about the forward movement of the Center of Lateral Resistance as the speed of the wind increases. Some of what he says has been obsoleted by later research, but it all provides food for thought. Earl Boebert The Lateral Plane of Model Yachts The lateral plane of a sailing yacht is its entire vertical underwater plane, consisting of the submerged part of the canoe body, the fin, the skeg, and the rudder. Now that we have in mind a figure that will offer least resistance to forward motion, we must now think in terms of leeway resistance. It is easy to see that a flat surface offers the most resistance to leeway. One way of obtaining a fairly flat surface is to make the section lines of the keel straight or nearly so, as shown in Fig. 2. The keel-appendage or fin is regarded by most model skippers as a necessary evil. Designers are cutting down its area whenever possible, yet it must perform two important functions: to promote stability and prevent leeway. When designing a fin the main objective is to have it present a minimum of forward resistance and a maximum of resistance sideways. It is quite true that the less amount of lateral surface used, the less wetted surface resistance; but the skin resistance of a model yacht is a great deal less than one would imagine. The amount of resistance depends more upon the condition of the surface than the amount of surface. At low speeds the wetted surface resistance is perhaps 50% of the total resistance, and at higher speeds as much as 75%. Therefore the underwater surface should be as smooth as possible. Even though the wetted surface of a hydroplane is only about 25% of the total resistance, their skippers insist on a mirror-like finish on the bottom. A submerged body that offers the least resistance to forward motion should have a bulbous fore-part, tapering to a point aft. This is based on the theory of streamlines. The crosssection of the keel shown in Fig. 1 outlines a similar form. The distance from the forward ending to the widest part is 1/3 of its total length. The lower waterlines of a keel should The leading edge is another factor that influence the performance of a yacht. There are two things to keep in mind when drawing the leading edge; first, it must be drawn so the center of gravity of the lead ballast is placed low enough to promote stability, and second, that it will not cause a violent shift of the center of lateral resistance (CLR). The best procedure is to design the fin, skeg, and rudder separately, and fit them to the canoe body after they meet your approval. It is a complicated problem to incorporate all the features that seem necessary into one fin, but after a little study we can accomplish a happy medium. A long, sloping leading edge is desirable on larger yachts, as the CLR may be placed as far aft as necessary, the correct amount of lateral area is easily adjusted and Page 18 1.Gus Lassel and Ted Thorsen developed the “seal flipper” based on tow tests of heeled models. The design is intended to reduce turbulence at the juncture of fin and hull. — Ed. the long sloping forefoot distributes the drag the full length of the keel. See Fig. 3. This distributes the drag over a longer edge and further aft, preventing a violent shift in the CLR. An angle of about 45 degrees is considered normal for model yachts. There is another condition which causes the CLR to move aft rather than forward. See Fig. 6. These sailing yachts are also large and heavy enough to carry ample ballast for stability. No matter how desirable a long sloping forefoot may be, we cannot get enough weight low enough to provide enough stability in models. Going to the other extreme and making our leading edge vertical, we find it is easy to control lateral area, the fin can also be placed under the canoe body to satisfy all conditions, but the vertical leading edge will cause a violent shift in the CLR as the yacht heels. The movement of the CLR should be gradual. In Fig. 4 we have a yacht whose canoe body and keel-appendage are equal in area. One can see that the combined CLR will be half way between the center of the canoe body and the center of the fin while the yacht is upright, and not in motion. Now it is known that as the yacht moves forward through the water the parts entering the solid water become more efficient than the parts after parts that are passing through the water already in motion, and the faster the boat moves, the more efficient the comparatively flat surface of the fin becomes. Therefore the CLR moves forward faster with the fin than with the canoe body. The leading edge being vertical pulls the CLR forward still faster. In Fig. 5 we have the same area, but the leading edge is drawn at an angle of 45 degrees. In this case we have a yacht with much more lateral fin area than the canoe body, and although the CLR of the canoe body and the fin move forward, the center of the fin is so far aft of the center of the canoe body, that the faster the yacht travels the more efficient the fin becomes, pulling the combined CLR aft, causing the boat to run off the wind. Therefore it will be understood that in order to obtain the best performance, the size and shape of the fin and the center of the fin arranged just far enough aft of the center of the canoe body to compensate for the forward movement of the CLR. This brings up the question of “How much lateral area?” The amount of lateral plane to use for models, as with large yachts, depends upon the type of boat. However, it is convenient to use a ratio to the sail area, or to the midship section, and you can calculate the area closely by using the following ratios. For classes in which the sail area is variable, as in the A, 6meter, 10-rater and 36-inch Restricted, it is more accurate to use the ratio to the sail area. For classes where the sail area is constant, such as the M and X, it is advisable to use the ratio to the mid-section. The mid-section is understood to be the submerged part of the master section of the canoe body. Ratio of Lateral Plane to Sail Area 1 to between 5 and 6 Ratio of Midship Section to Lateral Area 1 to between 10.5 and 11 Suppose we wish to know how much lateral area to use on an M. We find the midsection to be 18 sq. in., and the lateral area of the Page 19 canoe body to be 96 sq. in. Now, by using the formula1, we have: 10.5 × 18 – 96 = 93 or by the other ratio figure we have: 11 × 18 – 96 = 102 If our fin, skeg and rudder add up to between 93 sq. in and 102 sq. in. we have about the amount of lateral plane that is being used today on the M-Class. After this computation you will notice that if your boat were more chunky or bulky she would require more lateral plane. Whereas if the ratio to the sail area were used, the only variable would be the amount of area in the canoe body. It would be well to consider here several features of a yacht that are associated together. For instance, a high sail plan goes with a long narrow boat with a short deep keel, and somewhat less lateral plane. A shorter and wider boat would have a lower sail plan and a longer keel. The reason for this is, that when a long narrow boat heels, her heeled centerline curves to leeward, but the high sail plan offsets the tendency to run off the wind because the center of effort (CE) is thrown to leeward, forcing the boat into the wind. The opposite action takes place in a wide-sterned, shallow boat, hence a lower sail plan. The position of the CLR and the CB (center of buoyancy) is generally referred to as being situated a certain percentage aft on the LWL. For instance, if the LWL is 50 inches and we say that the CLR is 55% of the LWL, we know that it is 27.5 inches aft of the forward ending of the LWL. In sailing craft fifty years ago, the CLR was located at about 40% of the LWL. In recent years it has been placed further aft until at the present it is considered that 60% of the LWL is best. Experiments with certain types of keels on models have shown that 80% is still better. However, using the keels allowed by the MYRAA2 it is difficult to get the CLR even as far back as 60% without unnecessary lateral area. The reason for placing the CLR aft is for better balance and less surface resis- tance. There is less resistance on the after part of a boat, as the water is in motion. This you can prove by towing a 50-foot rope and weighing the pull compared to the pull of a 100 foot rope. You would find that the pull of the 100 foot rope was nowhere twice that of the 50-foot rope. Hence, the further aft the bulk of the surface area, the better. To locate the CLR of the fin, cut out a cardboard pattern and balance it on a pin-point. The distance that the combined CLR moves forward is a matter for speculation, and has much to do with the form of the hull, shape and position of the keel, also the type of sail plan. It is convenient when shipping the mast to have some idea of the proper lead between the calculated CLR and the Center of Effort (CE). In models as they are being designed today, the lead is from 5% to 15% of the LWL. Under mild wind conditions the lead is about 5%, while in strong winds you would need a lead of from 15% to 20% to balance. When using a seven-inch mast step, or slide, ship the mast so that the CE of the sail plan has a lead of about 5% of the LWL on the aftermost stop. In an M-Class yacht this will give you leads of from 5 to 20%. It is possible through experimentation with a design, to arrange the CLR of the fin under the canoe body in such a way that it restricts the forward movement of the combined CLR to within a much smaller scope. If might be necessary only to change the size of the fin or perhaps the skeg to arrive at this point of balance, but it is very seldom achieved on the first drawing. In most yachts of the A and 6-Meter classes the movement of the CLR is not as much as in the M, X, or 10-Rater classes, due to the form of the hull and progress made in designing to these formulae. Nevertheless, the one-inch scope of travel of the sail allowed in the A and 6-Meter is not enough, so further balance is obtained by trim of the sails alone. In Fig. 7 is shown the different types of appendages. The full-keel yacht design is less 1.As the numbers make clear, Fiske is calculating the fin, skeg and rudder and not the entire lateral plane. — Ed. Page 20 2.Model Yacht Racing Association of America, the sanctioning organization in place in the U.S. in 1946. The experiments Fiske described were undoubtedly those of Gus Lassel and his “Fin-Keelers.” The M Class version of the rule referred to forbids keels which have any part forward of any part above it. This rule applies to the VM Class as well. — Ed. popular than the fin-and-skeg types, due, it is said, to the difficulty of tuning up the full-keelers, as unless a design is perfectly balanced and the model carefully tuned up, the results are uncertain. Also, as we mentioned before, there is the problem of stability. The conventional type of keel with continuous skeg was used until about 1938 on models, when the fin and isolated skeg type was found to be more efficient, especially with vane steering. The next step in advancement, at least in the smaller classes, was the seal-flipper. It will be noticed that in these succeeding types the area of the keel or fin is decreasing, yet with an apparent increase in speed and weatherliness. The seal-flipper is highly streamlined; its decreased wetted surface made steering with the vane easier and still prevented excessive leeway, and the additional area held the CLR aft. The prognathous type of fin is the ultimate result of a constant struggle to place the CLR at the desired point aft, and at the same time place the CG of the lead ballast under the center of buoyancy. There is little doubt that this type of keel and perhaps the succeeding ones are superior to previous types as far as speed and weatherliness are concerned, but they are impractical for sailing in water where weeds, floating debris, or shallow or rocky bottoms exist. They might succeed when sailed from skiffs in deep water or where debris could be readily removed. At the present writing these keels are prohibited by the MYRAA. Locating the CLR of the fin has already been explained. The location of the CLR of the canoe body may be found in the same way. The pattern of the canoe body may be made on a small scale, and the CLR found and location measured. The combined CLR of the total lateral plane area may be found by balancing a pattern of the whole underwater portion of the yacht on a pin, or by taking moments as follows: the area of the canoe body portion can be calculated by the formula of the elastic line. Any area enclosed by an elastic line and a straight line is equal to the length of the straight line times the greatest width times.64. If our LWL is 50 inches, greatest depth of canoe body 3 inches, we have 50 × 3 × 0.64 = 96 The area of the fin and skeg may be found by counting squares or cross-section paper when a planimeter1 is not available. When locating the combined CLR it is customary to figure from the forward point of Page 21 1.A nifty device for reading areas directly off a drawing. — Ed. the LWL. Suppose, for example, we make the following calculation: Element Area in Sq. In. Arm Moment Canoe body 92 25 2300 Fin 78 26 2008 Skeg 10 44 440 Total 180 4748 CLR equals 4748 divided by 180, giving 26.48 in. or 52.76%. In spite of what has been said by some writers, the rudder should not be used in the calculation of the CLR, especially if a vane is used to steer. The reason for this is that the yacht should be tuned up without locking the rudder amidships. Thus the boat is balanced without rudder pressure, and the vane is free to act quickly, with less force. When tuning up a boat for vane steering, place a light rubber band over the vane spindle and attach the other end to the tiller in such a way that there will be just enough tension to center the rudder. When the boat is tuned up with the rudder locked hard, the rudder then acts as additional lateral plane, and the vane gear must then constantly exert weather helm, causing unnecessary eddies retarding forward motion1. The area of the rudder is another questionable subject among model yachtsmen, especially more so since vane steering has become so popular. Experiments are still going on to find the correct amount of area, and the shape of both skeg and rudder. Inasmuch as no definite figures can be given, it has become apparent that for use with Braine steering, the width of the rudder should be slightly more than its depth, while with vane steering the rudder should be twice as deep as it is wide. At the present time the average size of the rudder is about 4 to 4.5% of the lateral plane. carefully, becoming a continuation of the skeg. The after or trailing edge of the rudder should taper to a feather edge. Whether the rudder-post should be vertical or at an angle is another controversial subject, but in either case the action can be analyzed. If a yacht is sailing in an upright position with a vertical rudder-post the pressure on the rudder only acts to turn the boat. Suppose the boat is heeled, then the pressure not only acts as a turning force, but also as a lifting or depressing force, as the case may be. As is generally the case with models sailing on the wind, the force exerted is for a weather helm. In this case the rudder is not only holding the boat on its course, but is also lifting the stern out of the water, which in turn forces the bow down, causing the boat to head into the wind, the exact force it is trying to overcome. This of course causes unnecessary eddies that retard forward motion. On the other hand, if the model is sailed under conditions where it remains in a nearly upright position most of the time, a vertical rudder-post should be used. A rudder-post that rakes aft, as those used on full keelers, neutralizes the lifting effect that results from a vertical post when the yacht is heeled. The size and shape of the skeg will also vary with the type of steering. A long shallow skeg is best for use with the Braine gear and a deep skeg to match the rudder for vane steering. The leading edge should slope at an angle of not more than 45 degrees. Incidentally, the more lateral area placed in the skeg, the less needed in the fin. As you may have noted when we were calculating the CLR, one square inch in the skeg is worth about nineteen in the fin in holding the CLR aft. From recent experiments the skeg has proved a very important stabilizer. The skeg should be made of laminated wood about one-quarter of an inch thick, or some material such as Bakelite, even thinner, that will not warp or twist. The best position for the rudder is as far aft as the rules permit, or construction allows. The rudder should be fastened to the skeg very 1.Current belief is that slight weather helm actually decreases drag. — Ed. Page 22 Paul A. Fiske (1946)