A Modified Meadowlark

[tomfindlay]

LFH's modified sharpie, the arc bottom Meadowlark, was a self build shoal draft design recommended to me ages ago by a senior member. At the time I was planning on building Griffiths Waterwitch.

My only interest in Herreshoffs Meadowlark is the hull. He drew this hull with such clever lines in order that self-builders would not have complex curves and bevels to worry about. But I think he probably went a wee bit too far in his quest for economy and ease of build, when he dispensed with the main shelf, the sheer clamp, the chine log, and the floors... The planking was one and three quarters on the bottom frames, and one inch on the side frames. The frame spacing was two feet.

LFH says in the construction plans, - don't bother to loft it, just draw the frames on a large board. Well I have to say some of his offsets are well out... Which isn't unusual to find in a NA's offsets on a linesplan...


I really think I can build this hull, and I'm having an interesting time modifying it back, by straightening the bottom frames.
Of course this will reduce surface area, and change the displacement and make it lighter. I also intend to build in ply. Which should make her ultra light compared to LFH's heavy planking. His scantlings were well over the top, and the bottom frames were 3 by 2.

I just want to open a dialogue about this and hear what other folks might think. I've been using David Gerr's book to calculate the scantlings. But I'm not sure about the minimum number of frames I should use. She looks ideal and very simple to skin with ply.

The fact is she will be very very light compared to the original. The original sails beautifully and is quite fast, but she has ugly big leeboards that ruin the hull line. I much prefer to give her a drop keel. I imagine she will sail even better. The other issue was that she was not self righting, although LFH said she could weather anything, and if she went over she would float on her side... mmmm...

He designed a traditional two mast new haven rig. But by making her self righting, I also have the opportunity of changing her rig to sloop or cutter, which to my Scottish eyes is so much more pleasing

Obviously there will be issues and considerations that I haven't thought out, so I hope the forum can raise these.

I'm using Delftship to help me work it all out, and at the end of this exercise, I'll get a NA to check my work and calculations, before I saw one frame...

[Lincoln C]

Dozens of other ply sharpie/ modified sharpie/ presto plans out there that are ready to go- but maybe you don't want a sharpie?

"It should be remembered that most boat types are developed by means of trail and error, over a period of years, hence modification must be made only after considerable study of the type. In the sharpie this is markedly true; seventy years of continuous evolution cannot be disregarded with impunity." H.I. Chapelle

I think you mean LFH.

[seo]

By taking a Herreshof-designed leeboard ketch and modifying it with vee-bottom, sloop rig, drop keel, you are taking one thing and turning it into...another. The first is the work of genuine genius, a guy who could balance many conflicting requirements of construction, draft, stability, handling, ability to windward, and combine them in a vessel that was almost maddeningly...perfect.
It may be that what you'll come up with will also be perfect, and might even serve your purposes and sailing conditions much better. If so, why be limited with starting with a Herreshof design? Just take a blank sheet, and have at it.

[George Ray]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ODS_xL2q7J8/SYcJfybQhwI/AAAAAAAADMg/Pehs_KpyRAE/s800/IMG_0395.JPG
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_ODS_xL2q7J8/SBN7jQEVzuI/AAAAAAAABhM/UPe0EFCI3s4/s800/april%2025%202008%20039.jpg

Meadow Lark pics:
http://picasaweb.google.com/georgelewisray/MilesAndRenaSHerreshoffMeadowlark#5298213928341374 722

There is a large meadow lark thread in the archives somewhere..

Pretty sure this is a Allan Vaites enlarged version:
http://geoffdevine.com/vaitses.html

[tomfindlay]

Thanks for the pics George very interesting to see this build.

[tomfindlay]

she really is quite lovely.

[tomfindlay]

Yeah, LFH said he designed it with leeboards, to save the intrusion of a big casing in the saloon. And by arcing the bottom frames he suggested it would sail much better.

Its easier to build with straight bottom frames and the difference in hull shape isn't much...

[Steve Paskey]

I just want to open a dialogue about this and hear what other folks might think.

I may be a bit of a curmudgeon about this, but you asked. You want to take an arc-bottomed ketch with leeboards designed by a master and turn it into a flat-bottomed sloop or cutter with a drop keel, and make it self-righting to boot?

I think it would be crazy to try to do that with a design the size of Meadowlark. At one point, you said that there isn't "much difference" in hull shape if you straighten out the arc in the bottom. That's true on paper, but it could make a huge difference on the water, and having an NA "check" your "work and calculations" before you build isn't going to tell you what will happen.

If I were you, I'd look for a proven design that's much closer to what you want and requires little or no modification.

But hey, it's your time and money. If you want to go down that road, good luck to you.

[Paul Pless]

best herreshoff troll ever

[Steve Paskey]

Incidentally, what do you propose to do to make it self-righting? The only self-righting shallow draft boats I've seen were designed by Phil Bolger ... his Wm. Jochems Schooner, for instance.

[tomfindlay]

Yeah Steve thanks for all that. I think Herreshoff would have preferred a lifting keel, and he only designed the leeboards to keep the build very simple. Some folks on here have suggested he got the area of the leeboard a tad short for comfort.

I'm teaching myself the principles of yacht design using Larsson & Eliassons standard textbook written to be accessible to yachtsmen. Also Skene and Chapelle and Gerr's great book on boat strength. And I'm also using Delftship which is a wonder on its own.

The Meadowlarks draft is 15 inches and the beam at 8ft is ideal for me to sail in the canal and river systems of Europe. And she is also a fit seaworthy boat to sail along the coastline of Europe. In Scotland we have lots of long inland sea lochs or kyles that are very shallow, and also many dangerous exposed coastlines with amazing sandy beaches like Florida.

Her lines are excellent and the ease of build makes me think she is a good choice. My modifications are mainly concerned with changing the keel configuration and rig.

As for hydrostatics and stability, well the box sharpie, as you know will possibly sink if they capsize, but the Meadowlark isn't exactly a sharpie. Griffiths in England designed a similar yacht with leeboards called the Waterwitch. He made a bilge keel version and a leeboard version, I think they were both self righting... He increased the beam by half a foot at the midsection. Its not a patch on the Meadowlark, and the chine is completely different at the stem. Herreshoff buried his at the bottom, and Griffiths brought his out of the water quite high, which ruins the lines completely and turns it into a box...

I'm not in a hurry, I'm happy to sail my own small sloop for the time being, while I learn some of the secrets of yacht design.
I listened to Chapelle closely, he said - lofting and construction plans must be drawn extremely accurately, and if you do that, you should have a great chance of success on building a good hull.

Chapelle is very inspiring, although very dated like Skene, and Parkers sharpie book is excellent too. I think I've spent about £500 with Amazon on books over the past three years.

The secret is to take the best/nearest hull design that fits yr requirements, start with that, and adapt and improve on it...

The local waters I sail in are regarded by many as the most dangerous and treacherous in Europe. One minute yr in a 100 fathoms and the next yr in 1... We have tidal races that can push you along at 20 knots, or just drag you into a vortex and spin you around like a saucer. if yr not too careful. One of our most scary places is a permanent wall of water, you see it on the horizon like a giant static wave, its called the Merry Men of Mey, at the top of Scotland.

So I really do want a modified Meadowlark that has the righting stability that will allow me to sail, if required, across the Bay of Biscay, (The Ushant is very dangerous too) without having an identity crisis...

[Nicholas Scheuer]

I always thought it significant that the only two designs I've seen much of having arched bottoms were the Herreshoff Meadowlark and the Stevens Lightening, both fast sailers.

I have a Shearwater Yawl built by Edey & Duff which I've always considered to be a "trailerabe Meadowlark". TRUE NORTH has an utterly flat bottom for absolute minimum draft, like Dovekie. I'd give a lot, maybe even the left testicle for the arched bottom like Meadowlark.

I once saw a Meadowlark in Vineyard Sound while cruising in my Dovekie. We tried in vain to sail an intercepting course.

Leeboards? Hey, Love'em!

Moby Nick

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Something to consider about leeboards; they are the only lateral planes, save for bilge boards like in a Scow, that can incorporate assymetric foil sections for making less leeway on a beat.

Of the 13 Shearwaters extant, only mine and one other have lifting foil leeboards, and we both sail better Vectors Made Good than do the others.

My foild are laminar flow, the other Shearwater has the more traditional NACA-00 foils.

Think about it.

Moby Nick

[tomfindlay]

Incidentally, what do you propose to do to make it self-righting? The only self-righting shallow draft boats I've seen were designed by Phil Bolger ... his Wm. Jochems Schooner, for instance.

That's a good question...

Two things I should say. I want to provide her with full foam flotation, and watertight bulkheads and make her unsinkable
(she might flip upside down... but she won't sink... lol)

Firstly - Single chine hulls lend themselves to this notion, and foam can be cut and shaped and placed between the side frames, and it will also provide insulation in the winter
(Herreshoff incidentally incorporated a wood burning stove in his design)

Secondly - I like the idea of watertight bulkheads, which is also easy to incorporate into the intial design.

Giving her a righting moment is a challenge.

Parker in his Sharpie Book says - some sharpies are self-righting particularly the Clapham Nonpareil with their slight V bottoms and outside ballast... he also says some raised deck sharpie designs (like Hog Fish Lips) are also self righting even with minimal ballast...

So I think there is a way for me to make Herreshoffs hull a self righter. By straightening the bottom frames she becomes a slight V bottom...

I need to look at Bolger, as you advised, and see how he configured it...

[Paul Pless]

I need to look at Bolger, as you advised, and see how he configured it...high sides, no flare, inside ballast

AS39 (Bolger Advanced Sharpie 39)

http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/AS39ba5.jpg

AS29 (Bolger Advanced Sharpie 29)

http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/LKSAIL6a.jpg

[tomfindlay]

The more I look at these pics the more I like her. She is bonnie, but a very high freeboard and transom though...

[Paul Pless]

here's another pick showing the AS29's bottom rocker

http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/as29df1.jpg

[Lincoln C]

Non pareil sharpie by Reuel B. Parker, after Thomas Clapham, based on the 1936 Howard I. Chapelle tracings:
http://parker-marine.com/sh38mpage.html
http://parker-marine.com/sh38m1.jpghttp://parker-marine.com/sh38m2.jpg

[JimD]

There is a beauty of a leeboard ketch tied up at the marina down the road. I'll see if I can get some picks. Looks to be vee bottomed.

[SeaB]

Have a look at p. 57 in "Boatbuilding by Chapelle, this is a hauntingly beautiful design to me. I have convinced myself that it is the "Minocqua". The rig as shown for Minocqua ll is not one I would care to deal with in rough going.

[Lincoln C]

The pg 57 Sharpie is indeed beautiful. There is a discussion about it in this thread:
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51643
where it was tentatively thought to have be a schooner rig based on plans acquired from Mystic. Certaiinly influenced by the Clapham modified sharpies. The original Minocqua was what Clapham called a Roslyn Yawl. This is from an article by Clapham in "The Tribune Book of Open-Air Sports," by Henry Hall (which you can look at on Google Books) in which he says, "no reefing is ever necessary, even in the stormiest weather." So, no worries there.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Kiys7DNkjIM/S1jcoIq9eaI/AAAAAAAAAIU/yNo8dldsnuk/s720/Roslyn%20Yawl.JPG

Parker says of his Minocqua II,
"Even by modern standards, this is an ultralight high-performance sailboat. This vessel may incorporate a more modern rig... it is however, the designer's opinion that the original rig should be employed, utilizing modern materials such as "Oceanus" sail cloth and stainless steel standing rigging, Dacron running rigging, etc. No winches are required."

[Steve Clark]

Well I have liked the Meadowlark design for years, and wouldn't build one the way you want to or the way LFH told us to either.
Arc bottom sharpies can be very nice boats, a list of successful designs includes,the Star , the Lightning , the Penguin and Rhodes Bantam, the 110 and 210, and a host of others. Putting some arc in the bottom buys a lot of displacement at next to no increase in wetted area, and so is a generally good idea. Also, by putting a slight compound in the bottom panels makes them stiffer.
So I wouldn't take the compound out of the bottom.
I think that much of the structure can be lighter, given modern adhesives and techniques. LFH didn't think much of laminated timber, but he isn't going to be sailing the boat, you are. So while I would look to save weight, I would keep the bottom pretty heavy. Displacement has it's advantages, and if you don't want a squirrelly boat, you probably don't want to get too light. If you got her so the forefoot as just a bit below the waterline, she would probably sail better and still be quiet at anchor. If the bottom is heavy, you keep the VCG low and that helps everything.
Herreshoff made the bottom planking massive as an alternative to internal ballast, this makes quite a bit of sense, (particularly for a shoal draft boat that will tempt you to go places where the water occasionally vanishes.) So I would keep as much weight there as was reasonable. I believe the original plans called for strip planking parallel to centerline. This is easy and a pretty sensible way to build a shape like this, if you glued the planks together, it would be tough to beat.
I'm not sure I think the drop keel has loads of merit. It is kind of nice to have a boat that won't sink, so avoiding lead seems like a good idea. I would ditch the lee boards however. Lee boards are ugly in almost every way, they should only be tolerated when history dictates, in the modern age of epoxy, if building a centerboard trunk that is going to last 50 years is beyond you, then you should give up.
There is nothing you could do that would make this boat sail better than to put some decent foils under it. One of the things we have learned in the last 50 years is that really good centerboards and rudders pay for themselves in spades, and that they can be smaller than what was traditionally thought necessary. So if you put a good dagger board in the boat, it might be quite a bit smaller and less intrusive than previously deemed necessary. You could also consider bilge boards, the trunks could be built into the bunk faces, and thus maintain a very open interior and still get you an upgrade in performance. Best of both worlds.
I think the Meadowlark would thank you for taking the barn doors off her otherwise very pretty outboard profile.
I don't think much of changing the rig, The short gaff ketch is very cute and gives the boat such a lot of character. I would, however make sure the masts, booms, and gaffs were as light as they could possibly be. I might even spring for carbon parts... and I would spend money on really well cut sails and have vangs and all of the things to set up the rig properly. Meadowlarks enjoyed a reputation of gunning down larger and more "advanced" racers of their day. This was because they were longer and lighter than they appeared, and the split rig gave them a lot of reaching oomph with a low center of effort. They didn't go upwind that well, and what I propose address some of those deficiencies. It would be fun to see if it could still be done by using some tasteful and intelligent upgrades to the design.
I expect the Captain Francis sycophants have a different opinion.
SHC

[Steve Clark]

And furthermore....
Just reviewed "How to build..." in Sensible Cruising Designs.
I forgot about the lead shoe, but LFH was all over keeping the VCG low.
I would just be more aggressive about it than he was because I can be.
I would also blow away the skeg, they don't do anything except slow the boat down.
Rumor has it that Lightnings are a whole lot faster if you sail them without the skeg.
I'm pretty sure you could sneak asymmetrical bilge boards under the aft bunks....

Don't go adding extra inches to the sheer and camber to the coach roof. Too many have "improved" the wrong things.

[tomfindlay]

Steve, thanks for all that...

and the rest above for pics etc...

Yeah Steve, I don't need a 15 inch draft I can go to 2ft and also increase the beam a litttle to help the righting moment.

I saw a sharpie in Scotland last summer, it's rotting on a mud berth, in a place called Golspie. It has a steel dagger board worked with a strange Heath Robinson lifting system, flush decks, one mast, and a massive bowsprit.

The other problematic with Meadoweark is headroom. Herreshoff had no choice and had to make the headroom 4ft 8 inches. So I need to have a bit of the cabin nearer 5ft 6 inches, so that's something else that has to go into the hydrostatics pot...

To be honest, Herreshoffs coachroof could be radically improved. He stuck a bog standard Noah's Ark on it, to keep it very easy to build, but its waiting to be improved.

The idea of planking her fills me with horror, not to mention fastening her with half a ton of screwnails...

I'm still tormenting myself how I should skin her. I like double diagonal and then a final skin of straight ply running fore and aft,
and also thinking about what the Americans call herringbone (cross-planking - running aft) There are so many good options with ply. The scantlings for ply construction suggest a half inch or five eighths hull thickness. If I sheath her with FG or Kevlar I could even reduce the hull thickness.

I want to get the hull geometry right and try and keep the Herreshoff original intention - to create a design very accessible to amateur builders.

I need to chew over what you have suggested and I thank you for that contribution.

[tomfindlay]

Griffiths mid-section on the Waterwitch is almost identical to the mid-section when I straightened the Meadowlarks frames...

Griffiths designed a bilge keel version drawing just over 2ft. I originally thought that would be the solution...

Having some internal (movable) ballast is a good idea if you find yourself high and dry on the wrong side of spring tides...

[Steve Paskey]

Yeah Steve thanks for all that.

The local waters I sail in are regarded by many as the most dangerous and treacherous in Europe. One minute yr in a 100 fathoms and the next yr in 1... We have tidal races that can push you along at 20 knots, or just drag you into a vortex and spin you around like a saucer. if yr not too careful. One of our most scary places is a permanent wall of water, you see it on the horizon like a giant static wave, its called the Merry Men of Mey, at the top of Scotland.

So I really do want a modified Meadowlark that has the righting stability that will allow me to sail, if required, across the Bay of Biscay, (The Ushant is very dangerous too) without having an identity crisis...

Hi Tom: I apologize for suggesting that you might be crazy. We get a fair number of people in this section of the forum who have wild schemes for modifying this design or that, and no idea what they're getting into. It's clear that you're not one of them.

Those sound like extraordinarily challenging (and interesting) waters. And I do hope you come up with something that will work for you... I'd just hate to see you build something the size of Meadowlark and not be satisfied with the results when you're done.

[tomfindlay]

I'm not really all that concerned, as Herreshoff said that he would be very happy riding out a storm onboard Meadowlark, and she has good stability without me touching anything...

Of course Herreshoff never sailed in Scotland, my part of the world. Having 10 or 20 foot waves flying past you with nowhere to run is a bit of a worry. Our North and NorthWest coast is not for wee boats or beginners... The seas are really big around here when it gets blowy... and with strong tides and overfalls you can find yr seamanship and confidence tested to the limit...

But yr right... I'm learning/teaching myself the principles of yacht design so I am a bit crazy to try and master that at 60... and also have the cheek to think I can improve on LFH's linesplan...

[tomfindlay]

Putting some arc in the bottom buys a lot of displacement at next to no increase in wetted area
SHC

LFH calculated the full displacement curve at 8000lbs which is 3.628 tonnes. When I straightened the bottom frames it reduced to 3.070 which is over half a ton less...

The wetted surface area is 18.974m"2

[Steve Clark]

After thinking about it. I believe you should really consider this an original design instead of a modification of and existing design. Certainly a study of the various critical parameters of successful boats provides the context for making prudent compromises, but I believe you are looking for something that hasn't really been done yet. So be bold and design to your own understanding.
SHC

[tomfindlay]

Other design considerations

Air-conditioning:
Herreshoff did specify a wood burning stove which is perfect for Scotland. But sailing her in the Med and only as far south as the Canaries, will require a cool saloon. It gets very hot down there so I need to think about incorporating a unit that can keep a space 14ft by 8ft by 5ft nice and cool...

Electric propulsion:
I think this is an important consideration. I've never seen an electric outboard or an inboard, except in pictures, but it is possible to get two electric outboards weighing 20k each that can push her along... Should I put them in wells? they are very slim. Or is it better to consider one direct drive type...

[Paul Pless]

Mr. Findlay,

Here's a individual designer that you may be interested in, if you haven't already run across him: Thomas Colvin. He's kinda famous for shoal draft sailing liveaboard cruisers.

http://www.thomasecolvin.com/index.html

Enjoy!

Cheers,

Paul

[tomfindlay]

There is nothing you could do that would make this boat sail better than to put some decent foils under it. One of the things we have learned in the last 50 years is that really good centerboards and rudders pay for themselves in spades, and that they can be smaller than what was traditionally thought necessary. So if you put a good dagger board in the boat, it might be quite a bit smaller and less intrusive than previously deemed necessary. You could also consider bilge boards, the trunks could be built into the bunk faces, and thus maintain a very open interior and still get you an upgrade in performance. Best of both worlds.
SHC

What you say above is what I'm kinda thinking. And keeping the two masts is fun, (you can stick a mizzen staysail up...)
also easier to build small masts... You rarely see a two masted yacht in Scotland.

When I saw the dagger on the abandoned Sharpie I was impressed that they were doing this 80 decades ago, it wasn't wide but quite deep... and doing away with the skeg and instead have a modern deep rudder, and foils...

For ease of build and cost I'd like to leave her with straight bottom frames that can be bevelled on a tilt table easily. arc frames means buying lumber at least a foot wide, actually more than a foot, and a tricky art to bevel them...

So I'm tempted just to leave it like that and build her...
Hopefully with a cute low coachroof and a 5ft 6inch doghouse with minimal curve in both...

[htom]

You've made so many changes I'd hesitate to even call her "inspired by LFH's Meadowlark". For motoring, there's the Minnkota engine mount salt water (http://www.minnkotamotors.com/products/trolling_motors/engine_mount/saltwater.aspx) but the FAQ says not to use it on a sailboat rudder because of the drag. You'd think they'd put a 3-1 or 5-1 planetary in a hub with a better prop for low-speed use.

[KAIROS]

Did anyone mention Bruce Kirby's Norwalk Islands Sharpees?

The 31 is his version of a Meadowlark. I think he has larger similar plans available now.

[tomfindlay]

I'm so glad I had the confidence to put my crazy thoughts into the forum. The responses have been very helpful and thoughtful, and as always, you go on a steep learning curve almost immediately...

The images of a Meadowlark that George Ray posted are fantastic, and kinda made me realise how much I actually like this hull. Those images show a different rig of course, with no upper yards or gaffs on the masts, which I much prefer the look of, and the transom is straight rather than raked which probably subtracts.

Making her single chine construction, without a skeg, does alter a few things, including making her half a tonne lighter. But it makes self build an awful lot easier...

Keeping, more or less everything else above the waterline, including the rig, as Herreshoff designed, but exchanging her big leeboards for a dagger board isn't that much of a radical change... Is it?

I think I could make and shape and bevel the fifteen (straight) frames required for single chine construction, and fit the main shelf, sheer clamp, chine log, and keel, and fasten on several skins of ply. Its not a Meadowlark, but it will be a bonnie boat...

[seo]

I guess I'm a "Captain Francis sycophant," but oh well. I've also sailed a lot of boats with centerboards and daggerboards, ranging from a Sunfish to a 90' LOD schooner. I've also sailed inland scows with bilge boards, and currently own a 40' yawl with a centerboard, a Laser (daggerboard), and a Hobie 18 (two daggerboards).
I think daggerboards are great for racing, but if you whack a rock with one, something is going to give, and it's not likely to be the rock...Some modern multi-hulls incorporate a "crush zone" in the back of the daggerboard trunk so that a hard strike doesn't split the hull or necessarily break the board.
A pivoting centerboard is nice because it can ride up over an obstruction. The problem comes when it's weighted, like the 900 Lbs. cast bronze board on my yawl. If (Big if, but still...) she's ever rolled over, if the board is down it will come slamming down into the trunk like a half-ton drop hammer.
This would seem entirely theoretical and paranoid if a near-sister of my boat, named "Doubloon," wasn't sunk after being rolled over the in Gulfstream. Did the board damage the hull? dunno?
A "swing keel" that can be locked down seems to offer a choice in this matter, and might be a good solution.
All the recent experimentation with swinging and steering fin keels suggests that the ability to vary the angle of attack of your underbody will make a boat faster to windward, as mentioned in a post above. The simplest way to accomplish this seems to be to have leeboards.
Having sailed a little bit in a Meadowlark, and having fairly recently sailed across the Bay of Biscay in October, I'm not sure I'd try that trip. I like shallow draft and light weight, but at sea or in bad weather/big wind coastwise, I'd prefer a boat that has more weight and can lug sail to windward.
I think that maybe the old CCA type keel/centerboard hull might be the ideal compromise of shallow draft, windward ability, sea-kindliness, and pretty good seaworthiness.
The S&S "Finisterre" type is well known, and the Alden "Challenger" 36 is very similar. There are smaller versions, including the Pearson 35, and K/CB versions of lots of smaller production boats.
This certainly doesn't respond to your desire to design and build your own unique boat, does it?

[George Ray]

Second vote on Tom Colvin .....

[JimConlin]

...The S&S "Finisterre" type is well known, and the Alden "Challenger" 36 is very similar. There are smaller versions, including the Pearson 35, and K/CB versions of lots of smaller production boats. ...

The Allied Seabreeze is a particularly fine design. The Pearson 35 was a bit later ('67) than the first-generation CCA centerboarders.

Regarding the alteration of an LFH design, his admonition was "If her design is only slightly changed, the whole balance may be thrown out. If you equip her with deadeyes or fill her virgin bilge with ballast, the birds will no longer carol over her, nor will the odors arising from the cabin make poetry, and your soul will no longer be fortified against a world of politicians and fakers.".

Can't risk the lack of caroling.

[Steve Clark]

Kirby's Norwalk Island Sharpies are good boats.
So is Roger Martin's recently finished Presto Sharpie http://www.rodgermartindesign.com/portfolio.php?item=82

I don't know, I would risk some caroling for the ability to clear a lee shore...
I see LRF's point, but take the admonishment slightly differently.
Many of his designs were pretty delicate compromises, and if you start messing with them, they can easily turn into abominations that don't deliver half of what they promise. The usual compromises I see are things that detract from the designs sailing ability in the name of creature comforts or simplicity of construction. They inevitably add weight and drag and thus detract from the design's ultimate functionality. So I will defend performance under sail and will ask to incorporate the significant advances in the art. This isn't a fashion thing because we really do know some things now that Herreshoff didn't.

So back to this design. Meadowlark and her siblings don't have gobs of performance to fritter away. They have relatively little stability and so have to finesse their way upwind it this troubled world. When sailing upwind, drag is expressed by tacking angle. So for my Euro that says, put a really good daggerboard under the boat because you need it. Don't accept the drag of a long open centerboard slot.
If you have a propeller, make sure it is one of the folding types.
Stress the need to keep the VCG of the hull as low as possible. This boat needs all the stability she can muster if she if she is going to be weatherly.
Keep the rig as light as you possibly can, but for chrissake have good jibs and enough rig tension to make the luff stand straight is a real breeze.
Clearing the headland, well buttoned up under jib and jigger, while enjoying a hot beverage and intelligent conversation is all the "caroling" many of us need.
SHC

[JimConlin]

Maybe caroling is overrated.

[Peter Belenky]

The images of a Meadowlark that George Ray posted are fantastic, and kinda made me realise how much I actually like this hull.

De gustibus non est disputandum, but apart from every other consideration, those images are of a boat that so distorts LFH's original design that it would seriously depress the selling price. The original aesthetics are absolutely vital.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/willsj/Woodenboat%20Festival%202008/Meadow-Lark.jpg?

[Ian McColgin]

I don't know if the 30' Waterwitch is fully self-righting but the Meadowlark is not. And cannot be made such. In addition, Waterwitch appears to be of considerably greater displacement.

From my limited experience in a Meadowlark and slightly broader experience in the type, I believe Meadowlark as designed a wonderfully seaworthy boat for 'long shore purposes. To wit, she can handle appropriate sail safely in more conditions than most dare anyway. I saw one looking good beating into a Gale (Force 8, wind about 35 knots) with Cape Cod Bay's nasty 6' chop giving pain to most boats. Not a boat that can do that without a lot of attention at the helm, but she'll do it so long as you can stay alert.

She would, however, be a terribly unsafe boat in really high seas due to her obvious stability if inverted. In real life, a sea that rolled her might be followed sometime by a sea that rolls her back up, but I'm not into waiting that long.

So would I chose her for use around Scotland. Well, maybe, assuming I planned on being very sensitive to weather and did not plan to cross to Ireland or Denmark. Especially if I had big inflatable rollers so I could get an anchor and tackle ashore to draw her clear on the shingle I could beach before the surf built.

As to the proposed modifications: These are so ill-advised that I'm not sure where to begin. A person experienced in sailing diverse boats with even a modicum of design awareness would not be proposing them. I recommend buying, restoring if needed, a suitable enough boat. Maybe do like a number of the UK's founding yachties have done and buy a new boat every year or so, selling the old. And crewing a lot so's to learn rather than simply repeat the same mistakes.

Either the boat with her strange modifications will be build or not. Either she'll sail adequately or not. If something like her gets wet, I just hope her sailor picks his weather.

G'luck

[Ian McColgin]

Added thought for tomfindlay, inspired by the Sunfish building thread:

The hull of the Sunfish is significantly faster than the hull of the Sailfish. A close study of the two ubiquitous hulls will reveal how subtle changes in deadrise and rocker and distribution of displacement can make huge changes in the hull's power under sail.

That plus the structural integrity of an arc over a flat span should be enough to move you back to Meadowlark's bottom as drawn.

G'luck

[Dave Hadfield]

My 2 cents, which you aren't paying even that much for, would be to leave the hull alone. Build as designed.

But the roof, well, there I differ. I'd give it a lifting-top of some kind. I sailed a trailer-sailer for 10 years, and there's nothing wrong with being able to stand up, and get more light in.

It's an easy modification, and as long as it adds little weight, looks original under way, and can still take a green wave over it, there's no downside.

Dave

[tomfindlay]

Yeah, This has been a very fruitful time larking about on the meadow...
I actually live in The Meadows (a large parkland in the centre of Edinburgh)

I think my inspiration (read perspiration) is to build the hull shape as per FJH's offsets...

When I saw those pics that George Ray posted, I can see how easy it is to balance her and sail her in a 6 or 7. With two masts and two mainsails both can be slabbed reefed, from the cockpit, and which can normally be done in an instant, and a wee jib. Yeah I'd feel secure in FJH's design... I bet I'd be dry and comfortable in the cockpit...

The solution to stability, to making her self righting... isn't very difficult. All you do is make a bigger coachroof, or superstructure, but it must be absolutely watertight, so if she did ever go over, water would not get in, and because of such a big cabin, and the reverse change in buoyancy, well she would have to come back up...

So yeah it is possible to make her a self-righter, so there!

I will put all the arc hull offsets into Dellftship and this will eventually enable me to get the fine detail regarding stability. I can't do that by longhand... and I'm just learning Delftship. The Centre of Gravity can be lowered I guess... But the problematic is the position of the centre of buoyancy, and the righting arm, which FJH calculated and found at a certain heel it would flip... I just need to work out when in the heel that flip occurs, and see if I can lengthen the righting arm. One way to do that is to reduce beam, but at 8ft, that's not an option, although one guy, the amazing Don Brubaker, in America has actually built a Meadowlark with a 7ft beam, and full headroom... OK its for rivers and canals, and also so he can ship it to Europe in a container... some guy... he's here :- http://dbru.smugmug.com/Boats/Building-a-Canal-Boat/3787995_qiDPz/1

Remembering of course the hull above the waterline can be so much lighter using ply and epoxy, the hull need only be a half inch thick and the side frames can mostly be as little as an inch square...

To build it in ply is because the hull lines and curves lend themselves to such a simple construction, and it is easier and much cheaper to build, and there is no difference in the strength and structural elements it might even be a more solid hull...

And as many have said above, loads of new tec to optimise, these past six decades since FJH first drew out the lines...

[tomfindlay]

Maybe one of the senior members can help me solve a silly upload problem...

I can't upload a pic because my tiny tiny limit was exceeded about three years ago...

It halts me from enhancing this conversation. As I can't upload a linesplan, or an image, or anything...

It's set at something total insane like 100kb.... I mean...
I need to speak to the guy who sets such madness...

I do know how to save an image for the web and reduce it from 5mb to 5kb and all I can assume is that folks without a limit or knowledge upload tons of megs because they don't know any better... Well I do, and I like to be able to upload sensible images that help the debate...

Can anybody in the forum please help me with this?

Of course it is sensible to have control mechanisms but this isn't sensible its reducing rather than adding...

Give us a bit of realistic upload space for goodness sakes...

[Ian McColgin]

Now I'm lost. Did someone with the initials FJH also design a Meadowlark. Brubaker does not call his very nice motor canal cruiser a Meadowlark that I could see, and he's right. The hull has a certain superficial resemblence, but then so would a narrow flattie skiff.

I've not run into any boats with two mainsails. It's possible for a boat with two exactly identical boomed aft of the mast sails to be either a ketch - with a main and a mizzen - or a schooner - with fore and main. Examples of each exist.

I'm not convinced that the design brief has been adequately resolved in terms of total displacement, the need for self-righting, speed under power, etc. If a boat as now outlined is built and is a success, I'll be delighted to have been so wrong.

I disagree with Andrew that one could make the Meadowlark self-righting by a lifting keel. Such a massive item would mean a spectacular change in displacement. The hull could be sailed that low - like the MarcoPolo and some others she does not have so much flare that the hull form gets much changed once the ends are immersed - but I'd rather put the tonnage into dunnage.

[Lincoln C]

It halts me from enhancing this conversation. As I can't upload a linesplan, or an image, or anything...

It's set at something total insane like 100kb.... I mean...
I need to speak to the guy who sets such madness...


It's the ghost of LFH messing with you.

[tomfindlay]

De gustibus non est disputandum, but apart from every other consideration, those images are of a boat that so distorts LFH's original design that it would seriously depress the selling price. The original aesthetics are absolutely vital.

Hi Peter, Sorry I don't errmm speak Polish, (lol) Dogma is always dangerous though... (yr vital argument means we'd all still be canoeing...)

But what on earth do you mean?

OK The coachroofs a bit like a gypsy caravan top, the transom is straight rather than raked, and the upper yards have gone...

Is that all yr aesthetics complaint is about? Or has the hull got a bigger boxy freeboard (it looks a bit big)

[tomfindlay]

It's the ghost of LFH messing with you.


Yeah lol.......

Its probably cause I keep gettin' his initials wrong...

[tomfindlay]

ok a main and a mizzen, although there's not much in it...
i see it more like two mains...

[Ian McColgin]

De gustibus . . . is the Latin motto that there is no disputing taste.

Were it a matter of only taste - always worth disputing in the sense of discussing, evolving and growing - that would be a lesser matter. But one worries about the sailing experience of one who dares imagine that straightening the bottom of a design will somehow in and of itself lower displacement and who does not regard correctly identifying the boat's parts as mattering. After all, we'd not expect the windshield wipers to clear the side vents on an automobile.

There are at least four sorts on this forum.

There are those like myself who are mostly sailors and the extent to which we do our own repairs or building reflects our poverty and nothing else.

There are some really super boatbuilders here. Their passion for building at least equals they passion of use, may even exceed.

There are some with distinctly limited experience who find a suitable boat to build and grow with it, perhaps even building or buying something more.

And there are some who without much experience or knowledge have a dream and bend reality, or attempt to bend reality, to fit.

Many people of the latter two categories have a better experience if they find ways to gain experience into what they really want by buying, trading, crewing and so on, rather like how an apprentice would embark on a journey, gaining thus diverse experience.

I have known one person who with no real understanding of boats managed to modify a 35' ketch which he still could not sail but after I helped him get the rig right and he spent a summer learning to sail from me and from others I talked into going out with him, embarked with his family of a life of adventure. So it's not impossible. It's just that warning flags go up when someone appears to defy reasonable remarks.

G'luck

[seo]

I think the idea that you're going to improve on a Herreshof design because you have a computer makes about as much sense as thinking that using a computer will allow you to write better than Joseph Conrad, because he, after all, only had a pen and paper.

[Peter Belenky]

Dogma is always dangerous though... (yr vital argument means we'd all still be canoeing...)

But what on earth do you mean?

OK The coachroofs a bit like a gypsy caravan top, the transom is straight rather than raked, and the upper yards have gone...

Is that all yr aesthetics complaint is about? Or has the hull got a bigger boxy freeboard (it looks a bit big)

My argument certainly doesn't mean that no innovation in design is acceptable. If you study yacht design and the work of individual designers, however, you learn that the aesthetic characteristics of boats are very specific and identify their creators as much as artists' brushwork or composers' harmonies. Anyone who looks at the picture I posted will immediately recognize a Meadowlark. The boat George Ray posted has clearly adopted LFH's leeboards, lifting rudder, and arc bottom. Beyond that, you identified several points of difference yourself, but have you noted the altered curve of the stem? The stub bowsprit? The booms horizontal, rather than cocked upward? I (and I think most experienced reviewers) would call the boat ugly in comparison with Meadowlark. Sacrificing looks for headroom is a common mistake, but it leads one to ask what else is different. The weight and stability may be altered by the high freeboard. Do we know whether the lines diverge more destructively from those LFH drew?

A competent designer may derive a new boat from an older model, altering properties in subtle or dramatic ways. Joel White created very slightly beamier and shoaler versions of Nathanael Herreshoff's 12-1/2 footer and Fish class (the Haven 12-1/2 and Flatfish) with virtually no change in appearance. Pete Culler's Old Glory and Phil Bolger's Blackgauntlet II are more radical reimaginations of Meadowlark, leeboard sharpies of about the same size but different from each other and from the original. Two things you can say are that each was the work of a very experienced designer who knew exactly what he was doing and that each was a striking aesthetic whole that stamped the creator's signature on every detail.

People who read WoodenBoat and frequent this forum tend to value wooden boats as works of art by recognizable artists. It is possible to design a boat that functions very well and lacks all individual character. Many fiberglass boats can be so described. It does not disparage their architects' abilities to say that they must be sold in a market that values them by other rules, one where you are unlikely to see a leeboard sharpie ketch. On the market where people do buy or sell such things, value (and possibly performance) will depend on whether it is a Meadowlark, an Old Glory, a Blackgauntlet II, or some mal-assorted concoction.

[Steve Clark]

Francis Herreshoff and his designs are very touchy things. They are iconic and so when people start talking about changes, "heretic" is the least bad name you are likely to be called.
For my two bits, I think you can do obvious things that make "traditional" designs "better." This usually means incorporating modern engineering into the structure such that it is lighter, stiffer, and more durable. This presents opportunity to either increase the ballast/ displacement ratio, reduce the displacement slightly or to increase the cargo capacity. All of these things have advantages and are things you can and should consider when building a boat. They also open the door to additional capacities which were not technically possible when the design was first drawn.
For example is it possible, by saving enough weight in the topsides superstructure and rig of Meadowlark to add ballast and thus lower her VCG enough to make her self righting? If changes have to be made, how significant are they and what are their consequences?
The fact that you have this discussion doesn't mean you are a fool, a neophyte, or some other form of wanker that needs to be corrected. It more likely evidence of an active mind which wants to explore the capabilities of a particular design. Given the hydrostatic analysis tools available to the desk top computer user, such study is inexpensive and more informative than a designer's narrative. Personally I think this is half the fun of considering a build.
SHC

[tomfindlay]

Yeah Peter yr right the original hull is an elegant piece of crafting...
The wee gypsy version is cute too, but doesn't cut the same dash...

Let me move this on a bit now if I may...

More Planning ahead...

JFH specified 15 frames for the hull. He designed the bottom frames to be butted to the side frames and bolted. As I've said above, there was no chine log, or sheer clamp, or main shelf, so I'd like to discuss this part of the hull construction design a wee bit.

My plan is to mitre the frames at the chine and secure them together with gussets, and fit a chine log notch. I'd prefer to butt the side and bottom ply skin, flush at the chine, and completely cover the log, I think that's the best design option, and then finish it with tape and expoxy.

I feel confident I can do that and the finished hull shape will be as per the offsets.

But it will be very light compared to JFH's original weight. He calculated the hull, spars, engines, tanks would weigh 4500lbs. I won't be installing an inboard auxillary, so the engine box which is cramped in the cockpit will disappear, along with the fuel tanks.

So what needs to be considered at that stage? Is she still a Meadowlark I wonder. The hull will be differently constructed... And I'll also need to make floors, JFH never needed them...

I've lofted her on paper a quarter scale (8ft 3inches) I did that to see things in much better detail, like the bevels for the frames and the curves for the sheer clamp notch and chine log notches and the keel shape etc.

JFH said he would build it upside down, so that's perfect for ply. His construction plan was to extend all the side frames to the height of the stem, then mark the stations and faces on a level wooden floor, and wedge the side frame ends to the floor, without a strongback or any other bracing, except at the midsection, to square it vertically... He says the lines are so simple and straight, with very little bend, curve, or twist, that there would be little need for any building frame...

Another bit of advice I ask is concerning attaching the ply to the hull frame. I'd like to skin her with half inch ply, but secure it to the longitudinals with dowels, and then finish it off with an eighths of ply maybe strip, to finish and cover it all.
Is that dumb? I don't like screws in ply, bronze or otherwise... I can buy 8X4 ply pre-scarfed in the factory in over 30 foot lengths...
In theory I could skin the hull with a few of these large sheets? Or would they be impossible to handle well enough? I can make templates and cut it all flat beforehand...

My humble art if I had one, is making this hull a doddle to build... That was the original design concept of Meadowlark...

[tomfindlay]

Francis Herreshoff and his designs are very touchy things.
SHC

Yeah I'm a Clydeside Red so I suppose I agitate by default...

Yacht design and build in my humble wee village on the river Clyde was such an art form that it became a world centre for sailing and yachting excellence. We produced designer folks like the Fife's and George Lennox Watson, we had that many yacht building yards and demand, that folks built small boats on the shore in the open... Kings, Prince's, Millionaires all came to the Clyde when the wanted the best... Clyde Built meant world class... now we make nothing, except state of the art warships...

I wonder if this will be the first Meadowlark hull built outside the Americas?

[Ian McColgin]

As I read LFH's remarks and recall the construction of Meadowlark's I have seen, he calls the lower sections of the frames, what's arced across the bottom chine to chine, floor timbers.

I absolutely do not see 1/2” ply as a suitable replacement for the 1-3/4” planking bottom or the mostly 1” hull planking with the hefty 1-3/4” sheer strake that also supports the leeboards.

The topsides can possibly be made from plywood at considerable wasted wood - maybe less if you scarf the pieces together at angles to make a more efficient cut-out - but hanging such a plank is a real horror. If you use dimensional wood you are most likely to spend less for greater strength, especially as then you can dispense with longitudinals, shelf, clamp and chine logs.

The bottom will not shape as drawn without more torturing of the ply. Even if you build it up with 7 layers of 1/4”. Also the bottom takes abuse and with ply any piercing of the surface, whether painted or glassed an painted it will be pierced, will cause water intrusion that’s a huge problem in ply. You’re engineering for irreparable failure if you make this bottom in ply. Frankly if you make it flat bottomed rather than arced, it will be so weak and flexy that it probably won’t last long enough for that to matter too much.

There is no evidence that LFH would have preferred a lifting keel. He drew some centerboarders, no real lifting keel boats I can think of. In this case, putting in either a board or a lifting keel would call for truly massive reengineering. This is a boat designed to take the ground in comfort. A slot in the keel (remember all that lead under there) is a place the boat flexes around. It’s also a fantastic place to catch bits of sand and such that keep the board from going back down. I have spent more time than I want under my schooner Goblin prying loose a stone because I could not simply use the iron pole f#&k stick and a 12# sledge to pound it down from above to wish this on anyone. Lee boards don’t jam up, ruin the cabin, or weaken the hull.

The cabin profile looks worse on paper than in life, especially if well detailed, but it sure can be executed as ugly. If you’re short or don’t mind sitting (Bulger drew lots of sitting headroom boats) this might be a good place.

But the abundant cabin and lots of windows will mean that the utterly silly idea of air conditioning will go away. Make intelligent insulation in the overhead and for harbour life add a nice high awning, as sailors have done for a few thousand years.

I don’t know that I’d put an outboard on this boat. A hundred or so pounds off the stern will squat the stern and you need to heed LFH’s remarks about blade area needed to push the boat - harder to get in one OB of suitable HP. There are some nifty small even air-cooled diesels that coupled with controllable pitch props would give you a much nicer ride.

G’luck

[seo]

I owned an H-28 for twelve years, and became accustomed to people coming up and telling me that they had "a modified H-28" almost exactly like mine. I got pretty good at picking out the boat that he was talking about, often a hard-chined 30' sloop with a counter stern. In other words, it was a modified H-28 in about the same way that a Datsun 240Z was a modified Jag E-type.
I did once sail on a pretty nice "modified H-28," a 30' ketch with an extra plank of freeboard. It had more room below, and sailed as well as the original. It cost a lot more to build, and for the purposes that Herreshoff designed the H-28 I'm not sure the advantages were worth the price.
The fact that the esteemed Mr. Findlay doesn't seem to know what Herreshoff's initials were might indicate how much time he's spent studying the plans. Or perhaps it's just a way of twitting the yanks. If that's the case, he might want to look into how much luck Watson and Fife, that he prates about in #59, had when it came to racing against Herreshoff boats. Thorneycroft had about the same luck competing against Herreshoff torpedo boats.
But that shouldn't dissuade him in the least from cranking up his PC and spewing out the latest Herreshoff-copy abortion. Hard chine and ballast keel? Why not? Bay of Biscay in winter? Absolutely!

[Tim Mooney]

"I'd like to skin her with half inch ply, but secure it to the longitudinals with dowels, and then finish it off with an eighths of ply maybe strip, to finish and cover it all.
Is that dumb?"

L. Francis Herreshoff on people without experience: "Some of them remind me of the young lad who came to call on me one day all out of breath to inquire why I didn't use aluminum instead of lead on the keels of yachts."

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but I have too great a respect for the body of current knowledge to tolerate someone with little experience reinventing the wheel when it comes to boatbuilding. I suggest you try a design by someone accomplished. And build it according to their scantlings. Have you read much about boatbuilding?

[Tim Mooney]

http://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/DelftPlan.htm

This has your headroom, single mast, offshore capability, daggerboard; and it is designed using the best current practices for easy amateur construction by a very smart Naval Architect, who is a professional engineer and sells stock plans for a very reasonable price.

[tomfindlay]

To all those who were kind enough to respond in a polite positive way to my questions, I thank them most sincerely.

I have nothing to say to those poor sad reactive creatures who adopted such a negative tone and discourse, and did their best to insult me, and make me out a fool.

All you do is belittle youself and this forum.
Let this be an end to it...

[Dave Hadfield]

Ah, easy there, Tom.

The important thing is that you are willing to build a boat, and that you have creative and interesting ideas about it all. Good for you.

Any discourse in a public forum will have a certain percentage of viewpoints that will tick you off. It's a given.

Good luck.

Dave

PS -- again, my tuppence-worth -- build it with as heavy a bottom as you can manage, as light a topside, and a lifting or sliding-top for when at anchor. All the rest you can fiddle-with later.

[Steve Clark]

Roland Barth, in his excellent book "Cruising Rules" states that "He that holds the paintbrush determines the color."
I'm not sure which rule that is, but the intent is clear. It's your boat, you can build it anyway you want to. Tongues may wag and heads may shake and it's up to you how much you pay attention to them.
So it isn't up to me, but if it WAS, I would first do a complete light ship weight study to figure out where the weight is. I would spend money to get it out of the air and down to the waterline and below.
There is a trade off between thickness of skin and the number of frames and stringers for a given weight and stiffness. You will not find the optimum if you don't make the spread sheets and spend time making your best estimates of areas and weights and moments.
For my 2 euro I prefer fewer frames inside a cruising boat. It is easier to keep clean and on a small cruiser, where you will be intimate with the surfaces, it is nice to have them clean and smooth. Frames take up a remarkable amount of space, So I would probably opt for thicker skins and less framing.
I am predisposed to the heavy bottom planking plan. Displacement has its privileges so I wouldn't try reduce the displacement by much, and I think that having that part of the boat be heavy has many advantages. I would probably build the boat right side up inside a female jig. and would probably try to have only minimum floor timbers or frames. I would glue the thing together and probably even glass the inside to assure I had a tidy smooth bilge.....
Not that you are asking me, but that's what I think.
SHC

[Rigadog]

Tad Roberts has an interesting design that might be a good fit:

http://www.tadroberts.ca/services/new-design/tilikum.php

design specifications, sail plan, extended comments

Sail Plan, Specifications, and Comments



slide show »»

http://www.tadroberts.ca/services/new-design/images/Tilikum-S.jpg Tilikum

[gilberj]

Herreshoff Meadowlark

Unlike many of the other posters here, I have sailed quite a bit, on my original Meadowlark and am in a position to 'know of what I talks'.

Firstly....I would not recommend making substantial changes to any LFH design. He tended to dance on the edge of all the elements that need to be balanced in a yacht design and get it pretty much perfect. I have sailed extensively on three of his , boats (Rozinante, 'Phalarope' the 21 foot cat Yawl, 'Descant' and the Meadowlark 'Whimbrel' and a bit on a few others. He was a rare genius. Why don't you try to fix a Mozart Opera or a Beethoven Sonata while you are at it.
You do what you want though.....
Whimbrel is pretty close to the original design. She is a little more heavily constructed, more frames of smaller dimensions. The cabin has good sitting and crawling headroom which I find completely adequate. The entire bow is for storage as is all the room under the cockpit and seats. Like having lots of space for stowing gear and less actual people space....I have all the sails, fenders, fuel, tarps, rope, extra clothes, bins of books. Buckets, water, rope, bungies and a lot more completely out of my way. I like this format.
Whimbrel's rig is very close to the original design though the mizzen and foresail I don't call anything the main as the mizzen is larger than the main so I split between a ketch and a schooner. The forward mast is clearly taller though so I am just being silly and pedantic. The main and mizzen or is it fore and mizzen are fully battened. This definitely helps the sailing but will probably slightly shorten the sail life. I have 2 jibs and a genoa to go foreward.
Whimbrel is powered by a 9.9 hp honda 4 stroke. This is good. I never thought I'd like an outboard on the back, but it is good..... Manoeuvring under power I generally lower both lee-boards at least a bit else she will crab at slow speeds. Whimbrel is ponderous in turning, as the displacement is spread out along the whole length. This takes a little mental adjustment, and is not a problem once you are aware of the difference.
The heavy bottom is for taking the ground, and fortunately adds weight down low where you want it. I would not substitute the lee-boards for a centreboard, or drop keel or whatever. I have sailed with both and like the open cabin more.
To me the looks are too delicate to mess with. Ie higher cabin, raised sheer. I get a lot of compliments.....it all fits. I have seen other Meadowlarks where the delicate balance has been messed with and the result was not pretty. Whimbrel has a pop-top which I will remove. It makes the boat ultimately less seaworthy, and encourages deck leaks.
Whimbrel is stiff. I tend to sail more upright than keel boats around me. In light winds she is a little sluggish. If I ever decide I need to replace the lee-boards I will build them a little bigger. LFH designed the less than 6 feet long...a mistake...yes he made mistakes....mine are almost 9 feet long and almost right. I'd make them a little wider......Whimbrel is stiff....sometimes at anchor the movement is almost too much...jerky....you must realize almost 45% of the weight is ballast.
Whimbrel will sail herself on most courses, from close hauled to a broad reach,. Once you find the sweet spot for the foresail and mizzen. There is a small loss of efficiency on some courses so if I were trying to show off the speed I would hand steer.......do not get rid of the skeg.....this boat has a lot of buoyancy in the big transom and running in a large sea could be a problem without the skeg.
Meadowlark as designed is self righting to about 140 degrees, or pretty much the same as most cruising boats her size. I do not intend to find out how much stability she has inverted.
Whimbrel is fast...when the wind is more than 10 knots there are few boats which will stay with her without special sails. With 15 knots of wind she will average 6 to 8 knots an most courses. She is well balanced....adjusting the sails fore and aft can easily reduce or eliminate a weather helm. In really light winds there is a lee helm, not at all uncommon for older designs.
I once had Whimbrel sailing hard to windward in 30 knots of wind....under full plain sail......when a gust hit she would heal over a little...dip the rail...briefly and accelerate noticeably and straighten up a little....9 knots or better in 1 to 1.5 metre seas. I have sailed a lot in a many different boats and have never seen another behave like that. I would feel more comfortable beating off a lee shore in this boat than any other small boat I have sailed ever.
This is a small 33 footer, or perhaps better to say a 27 footer stretched out to 33 feet. Cruising is a bit like camping. Its good for me but others often want more amenities.
I'd not recommend building much lighter. To some extent weight is longevity, weight is seaworthiness, weight is strength. This boat is stiffer and more able than one first thinks. The rig works ,the lee-boards work, the flat arched bottom works and seldom pounds and never badly. There is a subtlety to the slight curve of the side frames which will be difficult to achieve with plywood.
What you do with this or another design is your affair. Good luck.
Herreshoff was, at least to some extent breaking new ground with this design and he got it pretty darn close. Phil Bolger and others have take the shoal draft cruising boat and done a great deal of development but none I have seen replaces this design.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Here we go:

Round bottom sharpie hull, daggerboard (sort of), modern rig, self righting.

http://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/BagatellePlan.htm

[gilberj]

I like that.......pretty small for 44 feet but it would be very fast and exciting to sail.

[donald branscom]

The pg 57 Sharpie is indeed beautiful. There is a discussion about it in this thread:
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51643
where it was tentatively thought to have be a schooner rig based on plans acquired from Mystic. Certaiinly influenced by the Clapham modified sharpies. The original Minocqua was what Clapham called a Roslyn Yawl. This is from an article by Clapham in "The Tribune Book of Open-Air Sports," by Henry Hall (which you can look at on Google Books) in which he says, "no reefing is ever necessary, even in the stormiest weather." So, no worries there.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Kiys7DNkjIM/S1jcoIq9eaI/AAAAAAAAAIU/yNo8dldsnuk/s720/Roslyn%20Yawl.JPG

Parker says of his Minocqua II,
"Even by modern standards, this is an ultralight high-performance sailboat. This vessel may incorporate a more modern rig... it is however, the designer's opinion that the original rig should be employed, utilizing modern materials such as "Oceanus" sail cloth and stainless steel standing rigging, Dacron running rigging, etc. No winches are required."


I built a model of that boat and I had a lot of trouble getting a drawing of the rig. Then a few years after i built the model someone on this forum posted a proper and correct drawing of the rig. I built my masts in e right place but they are a little higher than shown in the drawing. I am going to leave it alone.
http://i35.tinypic.com/2qm3kn8.jpg
Below is the drawing of the correct rig.
http://i33.tinypic.com/2hpo9bo.jpg

One thing i noticed is that in the book "BOATBUILDING" it shows the hull and says 36 foot modified sharpie and on this drawing of the rig in the upper left corner it says 38 feet. On the drawing of the rig it does not show the front hatch either.
But it does show a hatch on the bow, on the drawing in the book.

[gilberj]

does anyone here have experience with those shallow balanced or semi-balanced rudders shown on these sorts of boats??

[rbgarr]

"I once had Whimbrel sailing hard to windward in 30 knots of wind....under full plain sail......when a gust hit she would heal over a little...dip the rail...briefly and accelerate noticeably and straighten up a little....9 knots or better in 1 to 1.5 metre seas."

Nine plus knots, to windward, in 3-5 foot waves (above the stemhead!)?

Really?? Twenty percent more than theoretical hull speed in flat water??

It's statements like this that pretty much throw doubt on someone's real experience.

[Lance F. Gunderson]

I sailed quite a lot on Mait Edey's Meadowlark Shoal Waters, and in my Bolger Black Skimmer I've been soundly trounced by a Meadowlark sailing off Scituate one blustery NW summer day. I suspect Whimbrel might well be as fast as the owner suggests. Meadowlark, if well handled, will literally sail circles around a Black Skimmer on all points, and there are some who think a Black Skimmer is fast. I see nothing in Gilberj's remarks to disagree with.

[gilberj]

I was towing a dinghy at the time. I have towed this same dinghy for hundreds of miles at between 6.5 and 8 knots behind an old power boat. The power boat towed from higher above the surface of the water. I saw more of the bottom that day with the dinghy planing behind than I have ever seen behind the power boat, with the painter if anything pulling the bow down. I did not have a GPS to confirm the speed, so perhaps there might be some lingering doubts. I was close hauled, the wind was force 7, the boat was flying and behaving unlike any boat I have sailed. I would add that I did not plan to test the boat in those conditions. The forecast was for 20 knots. I did not have the reefing lines rigged that day. We were in those winds for 15 or at most 20 minutes. I would not plan to do it or to repeat it but she took it very well, was completely manageable and way, way fast. We could feel the acceleration as the gusts hit. 9 knots, I do not really know, I am convinced we were well over 8 knots at times. The bow rose easily and threw little spray. There was a little pounding but not often and not alarmingly.
I'll stand by my post....
Whimbrel has proved a fast and well balanced boat. She is not perfect. She can be annoying at anchor when there is wakes or waves from the side. she rocks quickly and can be uncomfortable. At 33 feet she costs a lot more in a marina than other boats of her real size....she is small for a 33 footer.
She does meet my needs and desires very well.

[gilberj]

Meadowlark is quite a bit longer than Black Skimmer....I'd expect to be faster......In light winds say less than 10 knots, there are lots of racer/cruisers that will be faster. These are not the best conditions for a Meadowlark, she does alright but is not fast. Over about 10 knots of wind she will more or less hold her own with other boats on all courses. By the time the wind is over 15 knots, most boats will need special sails and racing strings. A few weeks ago on a broad reach I overtook my friends 10 metre modern cruiser...sorry I do not remember the manufacturer, in about 12-15 knots.....all the while hands off the helm.

[Thorne]

Maybe one of the senior members can help me solve a silly upload problem...

I can't upload a pic because my tiny tiny limit was exceeded about three years ago...

It halts me from enhancing this conversation. As I can't upload a linesplan, or an image, or anything...

It's set at something total insane like 100kb.... I mean...
I need to speak to the guy who sets such madness...

I do know how to save an image for the web and reduce it from 5mb to 5kb and all I can assume is that folks without a limit or knowledge upload tons of megs because they don't know any better... Well I do, and I like to be able to upload sensible images that help the debate...

Can anybody in the forum please help me with this?

Of course it is sensible to have control mechanisms but this isn't sensible its reducing rather than adding...

Give us a bit of realistic upload space for goodness sakes...

Here's how to post photos on this forum:

First - don't attach photos. Only a tiny version will display.

Second - Post the photos on the web. Use your own website, or a free image hosting service like www.flickr.com, picturetrail, photobucket, etc.

Once posted on the web, right-click the photo to copy the URL (web address). Always test first by pasting the photo URL into the location field (http:// ) of a web browser and see if the photo displays.

(Flickr only - You usually have to first click the photo to bring up the black-framed viewer, then click the VIEW ALL SIZES link near the top right. Then you can get the URL by right-clicking the image. If you don't want the largest size (displayed) you can then click another option in the 'Available sizes" links above the image.)

Third - once posted on the web, try this procedure while logged in to this Forum:

1. Click the "Private Messages" link in the browser window in the top left of the menu bar.

2. Click the "General Settings" link about 2/3 down the left column under "My Account".

3. At the bottom of the next page in "Misc Options", select "Enhanced Interface" from the pulldown list. Click the SAVE CHANGES button.

4. Once this interface has been selected, in any "Reply" window you can click the "insert photo" icon --> a little yellow square icon with a dot at each corner, a tiny tree icon in the center.

5. Once the window titled "Add an Image" comes up, click the "From URL" tab, paste the URL of the photo in the field, deselect the box for "Retrieve remote file and reference locally", then click the "INSERT IMAGE" button.

TROUBLESHOOTING:
If unsure of the procedure, test first by pasting the photo URL into the location field (http:// ) of a web browser.

Remember, the PHOTO URL will end in .jpg, not .htm or html. URLs ending in .htm are the page that the image is on, not the photo location itself. If the photo URL ends in other code, try deleting everything after the "xxxxxx.jpg" part of the URL to get it to display on web forums.

[Ian McColgin]

I know rbgarr is enough of a sailor to know that wave height is trough to crest, not above the stem. [#71] Having sailed along side a Meadow Lark, I'd not doubt the claimed speed at all with the following proviso - some modern sloop sailors might call it a tight reach, not a beat. At 50 degrees off the wind and well heeled, the Meadow Lark presents a very fine entry and taking the seas that obliquely means they'd not slow her much. She's a better boat in steep chop than most other boats of any design.

[rbgarr]

Correct Ian, I meant AT the stemhead, but my doubts still stand. That much above theoretical hull speed? I was sailing a 32 foot waterline J boat in 30 knots not two weeks ago surfing on a broad reach in waves that height and didn't get above 8.5 for more than a few boatlengths..

[gilberj]

Slender boats with flat lines can exceed the theoretical hull speed more easily than boats with more belly. The hull speed is a very simple calculation based on length alone and does not consider other elements of the design, such as beam, run of the buttocks or the diagonals, prismatic coefficient, and of course what happens with the hull while healing. I have seen 18 foot kayaks sprint up to almost 9 knots, close to twice the theoretical speed. I have also seen fat old traditional cruisers that struggled to get to the theoretical hull speed. The hull speed is not finite, or those Grady White sport fishing boats would be limited to about 5 knots instead of 30 odd. The Meadowlark is quite narrow, has a fine bow, and a very flat run, and good bearing in that fairly large transom. Given the right conditions she might plane. I will not be trying that, but the hull looks as if it might given enough horse power either with sails or an engine. We get almost 6 knots with a 9.9 Honda 4 stroke outboard.
On Good Friday the serious racers in this area competed in the Southern Straits race. most or perhaps all the boats retired without finishing as the wind exceeded 50 knots. At least two boats posted videos on you-tube, one running at 17 knots and another (36 feet long) running at 23 knots on the GPS. If I was out there I'd be under very much reduced sail, but I'd really try to not be there. I do not think Whimbrel would have any difficulty under double reefed mizzen and jib.

[gilberj]

Thought you fellows might like a photo...I hope I have followed the instructions properly......

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5037486240_e5113867f1_b.jpg

[Jay Greer]

Even with that out board on the stern, she is very pleasing to look upon! As LFH has stated, "Every man has his own Dulcinea"!
And if you are happy with her that is what counts most!
Jay

[WALRUS]

I love the meadowlark. You have a beautiful sailboat and I think Hershoff would approve (I know I do). When my wife gets through with grad school I am planning to go to boat building school and then I am going to build a Meadowlark. Good sailing and keep the pictures coming, they inspire the rest of us.

[cdragon]

Thought you fellows might like a photo...I hope I have followed the instructions properly......

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/5037486240_e5113867f1_b.jpg

great shot thanks - they are neat boats-never sailed one but have sailed Rozinantes alot-originals and modified. Are you saying that the Meadowlark performs better than a Rozinante? I have never heard that claim before-rather that the Meadowlark is terrific in certain conditions, less so in others (upwind), but better all around than a Rozinante, would love to hear more of your thoughts on that

[gilberj]

Rozinante vs Meadowlark...well there's a thought. I have sailed about the same amount of time on each, and the LFH 21 foot Cat Yawl as well.
Rozinante is a better all round boat. She is better in light airs, much faster going to windward (in light airs), tacks easily and with complete confidence. She is fast for her size in all wind speeds and is easily controlled and fast and remarkably safe (despite the open cockpit and the lead mine below). The sails are easily controlled and well balanced. Rozinante is stiff with 51% ballast. If there is a sea and no wind she rolls deeply and tirelessly, with very little form stability. She is a large daysailer with very small cruising accommodations. That deep cockpit is an absolute delight with ample room and safe comfortable seating, well out of the worst of the coolness of the breeze.
Meadowlark (Whimbrel) is slow to windward in light airs. the leeboard is just too small (I have the longer version, almost 10 feet) and it stalls below about 3 knots. In very light winds most boats can pass us to windward. Like many sharpies she is a little slow and unsure with manoeuvring and tacking. You need to plan your tacks a little head of time, particularly in light airs, Also like many sharpies, pushing the mizzen one way or the other makes a huge difference, in swinging the boat when she seems reluctant.
Once there is between 3 and 4 knots of boat speed the leeboard begins to lift properly. We don't give up much to many boats then. with 10 knots of wind we will tack through a little more than 90 degrees. These problems are all in very light winds and going to windward, off the wind she works just fine.
In a breeze Whimbrel is faster than Rozinante. In a breeze Whimbrel's leeboard is completely efficient and we can tack through 90 degrees or less. The short gaffs do not sag off like longer more traditional gaffs. I spoke in an earlier post of beating to windward in 30 knots of wind, under full sail. This is not an exaggeration. The behavior was as I described. She would dip the rail in a gust and accelerate and straighten up. We were towing a dinghy which I have towed for years behind an 8 knot power boat faster than it has ever gone. We were exceeding 8 knots I think for minutes at a time.
I have sailed a Rozinante in gale force winds and she handled it easily, usually under jib and mizzen. Whimbrel absolutely revelled in those conditions, completely under control, fast and faster.
Whimbrel is stiff too. About 45 % ballast. In a sea with no wind she rolls quickly and without relief, as a boat with lots of form stability and ballast stability.
One thing Whimbrel does very much better than Rozinante is sail herself, on pretty much any point of sailing. A few moments fiddling with sheets and the leeboard and she will go for miles. I have tacked downwind, broad-reaching on each tack for over 30 miles, without touching the helm except to gibe. Perhaps 15 minutes total sum time with hand on the tiller.
Whimbrel is a cruising boat, that can daysail well. We have a lot more space for the crew and all the cargo necessary for a successful cruise. The whole bow forward of the main mast is storage space for spare sails, anchor and rode, spare ropes, dry bags for cloths, several bins for charts and books. Under the cockpit seats is more space for fenders, spare fuel, spare water, wet suits, and diving gear, spare tarps and more. The people space is the cockpit and the area of the trunk cabin. This scenario works well for us as we do not have stuff always in the way.
Whimbrel does not pound often or hard, really not more than most conventional boats. She also does not pound at anchor.
For my purposes I think Meadowlark is a better boat, but for straight all round sailing I still think Rozinante is hard to beat.

[johngsandusky]

What a great thread.

[gilberj]

I was hoping to put in a photo or two but I seem to be having trouble. I'll have to work it out later.
sorry, I have the destructions up in Thorns post and it all worked last time.....
JG

[gilberj]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5205/5272135940_9e3e134305.jpg

photo shows a free helm while broad reaching about 4 knots down the Salish Sea (Strait of Georgia)

[cdragon]

Rozinante vs Meadowlark...well there's a thought. I have sailed about the same amount of time on each, and the LFH 21 foot Cat Yawl as well.
Rozinante is a better all round boat. She is better in light airs, much faster going to windward (in light airs), tacks easily and with complete confidence. She is fast for her size in all wind speeds and is easily controlled and fast and remarkably safe (despite the open cockpit and the lead mine below). The sails are easily controlled and well balanced. Rozinante is stiff with 51% ballast. If there is a sea and no wind she rolls deeply and tirelessly, with very little form stability. She is a large daysailer with very small cruising accommodations. That deep cockpit is an absolute delight with ample room and safe comfortable seating, well out of the worst of the coolness of the breeze.
Meadowlark (Whimbrel) is slow to windward in light airs. the leeboard is just too small (I have the longer version, almost 10 feet) and it stalls below about 3 knots. In very light winds most boats can pass us to windward. Like many sharpies she is a little slow and unsure with manoeuvring and tacking. You need to plan your tacks a little head of time, particularly in light airs, Also like many sharpies, pushing the mizzen one way or the other makes a huge difference, in swinging the boat when she seems reluctant.
Once there is between 3 and 4 knots of boat speed the leeboard begins to lift properly. We don't give up much to many boats then. with 10 knots of wind we will tack through a little more than 90 degrees. These problems are all in very light winds and going to windward, off the wind she works just fine.
In a breeze Whimbrel is faster than Rozinante. In a breeze Whimbrel's leeboard is completely efficient and we can tack through 90 degrees or less. The short gaffs do not sag off like longer more traditional gaffs. I spoke in an earlier post of beating to windward in 30 knots of wind, under full sail. This is not an exaggeration. The behavior was as I described. She would dip the rail in a gust and accelerate and straighten up. We were towing a dinghy which I have towed for years behind an 8 knot power boat faster than it has ever gone. We were exceeding 8 knots I think for minutes at a time.
I have sailed a Rozinante in gale force winds and she handled it easily, usually under jib and mizzen. Whimbrel absolutely revelled in those conditions, completely under control, fast and faster.
Whimbrel is stiff too. About 45 % ballast. In a sea with no wind she rolls quickly and without relief, as a boat with lots of form stability and ballast stability.
One thing Whimbrel does very much better than Rozinante is sail herself, on pretty much any point of sailing. A few moments fiddling with sheets and the leeboard and she will go for miles. I have tacked downwind, broad-reaching on each tack for over 30 miles, without touching the helm except to gibe. Perhaps 15 minutes total sum time with hand on the tiller.
Whimbrel is a cruising boat, that can daysail well. We have a lot more space for the crew and all the cargo necessary for a successful cruise. The whole bow forward of the main mast is storage space for spare sails, anchor and rode, spare ropes, dry bags for cloths, several bins for charts and books. Under the cockpit seats is more space for fenders, spare fuel, spare water, wet suits, and diving gear, spare tarps and more. The people space is the cockpit and the area of the trunk cabin. This scenario works well for us as we do not have stuff always in the way.
Whimbrel does not pound often or hard, really not more than most conventional boats. She also does not pound at anchor.
For my purposes I think Meadowlark is a better boat, but for straight all round sailing I still think Rozinante is hard to beat.

Thank you for your well considered response that comes from experience. Good stuff indeed. I must say I am pleasantly surprised to hear how well the Meadowlark actually sails-I had always figured her for a reaching/downwind flyer and more of a motorsailor upwind. Just sailed a Rozinante upwind in 15-25 knots for an afternoon and had a fine time-as you well know, she is a pleasure in all conditions and revels in a breeze. As an aside, learned something new in that we had pretty fresh winds at the end of our sail, sailing onto the dock in very strong puffy breeze (20-25+) and very narrow and constrained harbor. We had been sailing with reefed main, jib and mizzen and the boat was happy, just dipping the rail in the big puffs-struck the mizzen when we got in the tight areas so we could easily bear away and bail out if we got in trouble. I then had the idea to drop the jib and see if she would sail under reefed main alone - worked a charm, sailed slowly but under complete control and tacked fine-put her on the dock without fuss and at least a few inches to spare...I wasn't sure that she would respond to the helm properly and/or be able to tack with only a reefed main-once again, the Rozinante showed her impeccable manners in challenging conditions.
Sorry to sidetrack, but interesting stuff all around-would love to do some sailing on a Meadowlark and experience what you have-thanks again.

[johngsandusky]

That's pleasant thread drift. I sailed a 26' yawl on and off her mooring (summer) and into a basin to dock (winter). At first I did it under mainsail alone for low speed approach with one sheet to tend. Later I preferred keeping the mizzen and staysail set in case I overshot or fell short. backing one or the other would stop her or spin her off. Sailing between finger piers I used mizzen and staysail only. That way she would make a U turn by careful sheet handling.

[gilberj]

LFH wrote about sailing a Rozinante under reefed main alone in the "Comlpeat Cruiser" with the principal charactar weathering a squall. I remember trying it once, but we tended to find jib and mizzen a very convenient. I think main alone is probably the better choice for approaching a slip in a marina though.
I have tried Whimbrel under main alone and it did not work that well. The geometry is different on the Meadowlark and she could not point up at all. I actually think it might work ok, if not well in a fresher breeze. I think with a little boat speed I'll get better lift with the leeboard.
Whimbrel does well with the jib and mizzen combination. I have also used a reefed mizzen with the jib once, on a particularly blustery day, and it was fine (though unnecessary). J&M is my favourite way to enter or leave confined harbour/anchorages. I still have very good control including getting to windward, in anything that vaguely resembles a breeze. in really light conditions we just carry on with full sail. When leaving the anchorage we always start off with J&M and hoist the main after we have dropped the mooring and are sailing. When?? depending on the concentration of moving ahd anchored boats, and proximity of rocky bits nearby.

[cdragon]

Alot of boats won't go very well under mainsail alone-little steerage and unable to tack. One of the amazing things about the Rozinante (sorry to pirate the Meadowlark thread but this is worthwhile and interesting discussion) is how handy she can be with sail alone (no engine in this one at all)-back up straight downwind with mizzen only sheeted flat off the mooring, set the jib, back it, slack the mizzen sheet and away you go on the tack of your choice. It goes on and on, full sail in light air ghosting along, various setups for wind and sea conditions. Once sailed dead downwind for about 25 miles in a fresh breeze, jib and jigger with the jib wung out-absolutely flying and tracking straight down the wind and waves-we averaged about 7 knots as I recall, just amazing.
I guess the truth is alot of good boats can be gotten in and out of some tight situations with sail alone if one is willing to work at it-a bit of a dying art I'd say...

[JamesCaird]

HI Guys- Great thread, indeed. My personal experiences includes quite a bit of both Rozinante and Meadowlark time. I was fortunate to work at a boat yard which had a stable of Meadowlarks (4 at once), all in differing modifications. I didn't get to sail them all but was interested enough to try to get a good look and feel for them and , working for the yard, had opportunity several years in a row to rig, unrig, winterize, etc, these various boats. I was also lucky enough (like Lance) to have spent a lot of time with Shoal Waters, Mait Edey's Meadowlark. She was, like most Meadowlards, modified, but modified in what turned out to be the best ways.
I might add that the yard was Barlow's Boatyard in Pocasset and for the record, this is the birthplace of ML. ML #1 (Loon) was built by Bucky for Robert Gibbs. She was "as designed"(although with fixed rudder) Locally she caused quite a stir and was soon followed by others built by Alan Vaitses across the Bay for John Hart and (name I cannot remember). I can show you the letter from LFH to Alan Vaitses wherein he says that the design could use larger leeboards (leaboards?) and the stem could be leaned forward a bit, the foremast a bit taller and thereby making a larger foretriangle and get a little more flare in the bow!!!!! Somewhere along the line the hull was actually drawn out a bit in the middle to make one finally (like Shoal Waters) 36 ft. OAL. Anyway-other modifications have followed , of course, some OK, some not so good. Shoal Waters, to the extent that she was "modified" seemed to be about the perfect blend for size, balance, speed, and accomodations. In that extra length she had a bridge deck. Accomodation-wise- in my 30's, I did not mind scooting around below on a stool between hatch, bunks and stove as all are pretty close together anyway. She would steer herself so it was possible to stir the stew, tend the stove and stick one's head out the hatch on a fine winter's sail to Menemsha! I have to concur with most of the other comments about construction......I found the details LFH supplied to be adequate and long lasting if maintained and kept clean.
Rozinante? - I built one for myself after I was loaned Quiet Tune for a summer....but that's another story. Merry Christmas, Guys/JC

[gilberj]

I have forgotten to mention the Meadowlark sails backwards very easily, under control. Either using the jib to pull the bow around or pushing the mizzen boom to one side works for getting her off again on one tack or the other. Putting the rudder to one side is not really as effective as sails.

[cdragon]

Thanks very much for this great thread-very nice to think of on these shortest of the year-winter days! Ah, Quiet Tune-a boat worthy of her own thread for sure, I have sailed her only a bit, but she is absolutely lovely. Thanks again and Merry Christmas to all!